This was a pretty interesting and controversial article to consider, and most of the responses seemed to narrow and inadequate to fully express all the different factors of this subject.
I believe that the transition to digital libraries is a good thing, for many reasons. First of, the value of books has greatly decreased since the introduction of the typewriter. People purchase and dispose of unnecessary numbers of books, because they can. The widespread introduction of e-readers would mean that the value of books would increase, since they would be harder to find, and this would require less being published, yet you would still be able to pick them up at your local library. This would also be a step in reducing humanities impact on the environment, and I believe that in general that would be beneficial. People can work with limited amounts of printed material, using them in tandem with unlimited amounts of e-material.
I believe it will still be a while before e-readers will be fully integrated with out lifestyle. While it is easier to upload it than publishing it, copyrights and other hinderences are common, but i believe the economical benefits of this new technology will convince large companies to utilize this new technology. New technology, especially eink makes this a reality, instead of a conventional display, it consists of tiny black and whits particles hald in capsules that are rearranged to produce the desired image.
The social benefits of books were mentioned, eg striking up conversations with someone about a book, but I believe that in modern society, students are more likely to start a conversation about their brand of laptop rather than the books they are reading. Many people, especially students, are become more familiar with computers than books, and e-readers present an easier and more efficient method of researching than books, with familiar functions like in text searchers, and i believe this is more relateable and easier for the computer generation to handle. I support the comment that said that e-readers may be viewed as the new Model T ford in a few years, a revolutionary item that changed the way people did tasks.
I believe that once e-reader technology becomes widely popular and copyright gaps are bridged, it will easily be integrated as a part of our society, since it reflects the faster, high tech, impatient culture that we hold today.
library
Monday, 7 December 2009
Thursday, 3 December 2009
Response to New York Times article
"In the New York Times article, the author writes: 'Indeed a manipulated image, which is often more powerful than the sum of its parts, can affect not just visual perception, but opinions as well.' Reflect on this statement. What specific power do photos have to tell the truth? Are there specific guidelines that we should follow? What limitations should there be on image manipulations, posed events, and other types of fakey? What counts as manipulation, and what counts as reasonable editing, cropping or enhancement?"
Photos used to be a powerful piece of evidence, because it was a irrefutable piece of material that could display the guilt or innocent of someone much more clearly and plainly than other items of evidence. They could capture a moment in time, and display it at a later date to many more people who were not intended to see the original moment. However, with today's technology, photographs are losing much of the influence they used to have, because it is now not difficult for them to be altered to spliced together to display a false image, and it reaching the point were fake photographs can be produced with no way to detect that they have been tampered with.
It would be hard to create and enforce laws that would put limits of photo manipulation in media, because of its rampant use today, it would be similar to trying to impose prohibition in the 1920's.
The line between manipulating an image to where it is false, and reasonable editing, is hard to distinguish. I believe that the best way to ensure that people receive truth when viewing magazine and newspapers, would be to impose laws that require either a small thumbnail of the original image on the corner, or a larger image on the back of the publishing for every image that has been computer manipulated. Also, a small description of what manipulations have been performed should be mentioned, eg light darkened, cleavage enhanced, ect. While it seems unlikely this will happen, I believe it is a great way to ensure that people receive the truth about images, and don't receive false impressions about the subjects in the pictures.
It would be hard to create limitations for photo manipulation, due to the range of manipulations that can be created,and almost impossible to enforce them
Photos used to be a powerful piece of evidence, because it was a irrefutable piece of material that could display the guilt or innocent of someone much more clearly and plainly than other items of evidence. They could capture a moment in time, and display it at a later date to many more people who were not intended to see the original moment. However, with today's technology, photographs are losing much of the influence they used to have, because it is now not difficult for them to be altered to spliced together to display a false image, and it reaching the point were fake photographs can be produced with no way to detect that they have been tampered with.
It would be hard to create and enforce laws that would put limits of photo manipulation in media, because of its rampant use today, it would be similar to trying to impose prohibition in the 1920's.
The line between manipulating an image to where it is false, and reasonable editing, is hard to distinguish. I believe that the best way to ensure that people receive truth when viewing magazine and newspapers, would be to impose laws that require either a small thumbnail of the original image on the corner, or a larger image on the back of the publishing for every image that has been computer manipulated. Also, a small description of what manipulations have been performed should be mentioned, eg light darkened, cleavage enhanced, ect. While it seems unlikely this will happen, I believe it is a great way to ensure that people receive the truth about images, and don't receive false impressions about the subjects in the pictures.
It would be hard to create limitations for photo manipulation, due to the range of manipulations that can be created,and almost impossible to enforce them
Tuesday, 1 December 2009
Is Digital Truth Important?
Is digital truth important, and in what ways?
I believe digital truth is very important, but the extent to which it is important varies. With harmless examples like the pyramids being photoshoped closer together by National Geographic, there is no harm caused, even though it is misleading, a photographic "white lie".
More serious however, is for example the fashion industry abusing photoshop, and making every model in a photo-shoot appear to have have perfect features, skin, body, ect. This type of digital editing can have negative ramifications, and as we talked about in class, is accountable for many body and self esteem issues in teenagers and pre-teens today. If misleading photoshop creations can lead to endangerment of human health, and even deaths in come cases, I think that something has to be done about it. The standards being portrayed to people who read fashion magazine are often adhered to by the readers, and if the readers are trying to live up to standards set by digital editing, they are trying to live up to standards naturally unobtainable even by profession models.
I think digital truth is important because without it, we can be shown an image and misled into thinking its real, when it is really the fabrication of someone who knows how to use photoshop. This can effect people in small, seeming pointless ways, for example the unusually sexy lady sipping from the coke-cola can. Or it could be used in ways that are a lot more serious, for example people fabricating evidence in courts.
The scenarios that can be portrayed through digital manipulation is almost limitless, and this make digital truth even more important.
I believe digital truth is very important, but the extent to which it is important varies. With harmless examples like the pyramids being photoshoped closer together by National Geographic, there is no harm caused, even though it is misleading, a photographic "white lie".
More serious however, is for example the fashion industry abusing photoshop, and making every model in a photo-shoot appear to have have perfect features, skin, body, ect. This type of digital editing can have negative ramifications, and as we talked about in class, is accountable for many body and self esteem issues in teenagers and pre-teens today. If misleading photoshop creations can lead to endangerment of human health, and even deaths in come cases, I think that something has to be done about it. The standards being portrayed to people who read fashion magazine are often adhered to by the readers, and if the readers are trying to live up to standards set by digital editing, they are trying to live up to standards naturally unobtainable even by profession models.
I think digital truth is important because without it, we can be shown an image and misled into thinking its real, when it is really the fabrication of someone who knows how to use photoshop. This can effect people in small, seeming pointless ways, for example the unusually sexy lady sipping from the coke-cola can. Or it could be used in ways that are a lot more serious, for example people fabricating evidence in courts.
The scenarios that can be portrayed through digital manipulation is almost limitless, and this make digital truth even more important.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)