Does this make sense as my response?…
Chapter one – My response reworked
I feel as though the use of photo manipulation boils down to the extent of its use and the context of the situation that it is used in. From the point of view of beauty and cosmetic advertising digital photo manipulation can be perceived as not reflecting reality or of what the product that is being sold can achieve, essentially this is ‘misleading’ to the consumer in some light. However in other contexts where there are no signs of a product or service being sold (e.g. if it has been used in a creative manner) or if the audience/consumer is consciously aware that digital photo manipulation has been used, it can be argued that the use of manipulation is acceptable. In this instance an altered image is a visual exploration of a fantasied world and an exploration of creativity, something that cannot be achieved in reality is being brought to life through technology with conscious awareness from the audience/consumer. In this instance where there are no prior-intentions on manipulating an audience but rather embellishing reality and making something look more beautiful than what it actually is, it is perfectly acceptable to use digital photo manipulation as you are giving the audience what they want which is more than what reality has too offer. For example the image of a food product that is being advertised may have been constructed using a vast amount of prop manipulation along with food styling and retouching. However if the audience if fully aware that there product will not look like this even if it has the same elements in it as the food product being advertised and they are happy to see this image as it creates a warm emotional feeling of wanting that product, then it is okay to use digital photo manipulation to create this feeling to give them what they want.