Image Manipulation

David Mindel’s article, “Approaches and Considerations Regarding Image Manipulation in Digital Collections,” discusses image manipulation within academic and cultural heritage institutions. Mindel first introduces some things that experts look at when viewing an image, such as color management and bit-depth. He then goes through the steps to properly manipulating an image so it can become a “visually appealing and information-rich source of local and cultural identification” (179). First, digital photo manipulation requires equipment that is “properly calibrated,” including the histogram within the image scanner, which can capture and image’s highlights, midtones, and shadows.

Mindel then goes on to discuss the positive applications of image manipulation. For example, he shows an example of an image from 1907 that has physical damage. After digital restoration, the image looks brand new while still honoring the original content. He mentions some tools used in post-processing, such as Adobe Photoshop and  Equalight which allow for the best and most “accurate renderings of historically and culturally significant artifacts” (184). Furthermore, he asserts that “digital cleaning,” when done in moderation, can greatly improve the aesthetics of the artifact depicted.

Finally, he discusses the ethics of image manipulation within cultural heritage institutions. He notes that image manipulation in this field is rarely used as a tool of deception, but he concedes that there is currently no industry standard for image manipulation in this field. He, himself, is not sure of how much manipulation is too much, but he does assert that any changes to an images should be recorded for people to see.

I thought that Mindel made a good argument for the benefits of image manipulation. Usually, the word Photoshop has negative connotations for me because I immediately imagine someone manipulating their face or body in order to deceive the viewer. However, in terms of old images, I think that image manipulation, especially with our advanced technology, is extremely beneficial. I’ve always loved lookin at old images and pictures of artifacts, and image manipulation at its best can simply makes those images more visible and aesthetically pleasing–as they were meant to be viewed when they were first created. My only critique of the article is that he did not provide any counterexamples of poor image manipulation in the cultural heritage field. I think that if he had found a good example of what not to do, he could have better provided a conclusion about what he believes is and isn’t ethical in terms of image manipulation.

Works Cited:

Mindel, David. “Approaches and Considerations Regarding Image Manipulation in Digital Collections.” IFLA Journal, vol. 42, no. 3, SAGE Publications, Oct. 2016, pp. 179–88, doi:10.1177/0340035216659300.