Misleading images?

Subject recently came up in this thread, and before that, it came up in another one. I think it's time the subject got its own thread.

If an image has been edited so as to be different from its source, people who aren't familiar with the source can get the wrong impression about it, and people who are familiar the source might think that we have the wrong impression about it, or even that we're deliberately giving said wrong impression.

So, it's a potential source of misunderstandings, and should at least be taken into consideration, especially when two images are almost-equally-good otherwise and one happens to be misleadingly edited.

However, if the misleadingly edited one is instead a clear winner otherwise, I still think we should at least acknowledge in the caption that it is edited, preferably with a link to the unedited version.

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

Depends on how misleading it is.

In the I Call It "Vera" IP, the image of the Heavy was edited to include "Sasha!". That's not changing it in any significant way. I remember in the Green-Eyed Redhead IP, I altered Kelly Chamber's mouth to be shut, so as not to distract. Not distracting. I don't think these need to be acknowledged as edited. Even the Zelda heart container need not be, I feel. So long as it doesn't confuse someone familiar with the series as to what the trope is, it's fine.

ETA: Also, the Calvin and Hobbes image doesn't really look edited strongly enough for it to matter. The only time I think something could go to far is when it adds in the trope—like, say, altering hair or skin color to make a character fall under Hair of Gold or something. But that shouldn't be allowed for an IP, at all.

edited 17th Jan '12 12:16:39 PM by helterskelter

"Mislead" means to "cause (someone) to have a wrong idea or impression about someone or something". It is not synonymous with "edited".

Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.

So you're okay with confusing someone as to what was in the work? Or confusing someone as to whether or not we claim something was in the work in question?

At the very least, it doesn't hurt to acknowledge in the caption that something has been edited.

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

"Mislead" means "deceive'". Like making a non-example look like an example. Editing a picture so it shows the trope better is fine.

Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.

I'm fine with edits in basically every case.

Fight smart, not fair.

We aren't trying to say "this actually happens this way". We're trying to say "this is what the trope looks like", and tweaking it is to highlight the relevant parts. We aren't trying to pretend the relevant parts are there when they aren't.

I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.

Said much more succinctly then I did, thanks DQZ. That's pretty much it—so long as you aren't out-and-out adding the trope to the image where it was not, I'm fine with editing. I have yet to see an example of editing that would actually confuse me as a fan of that work. Certainly I understand the Zelda one, despite not being active in that thread and being a huge Zelda fan.

I was just complaining about misleading images on this thread.

I would really like it if we just had a little disclaimer that said something like "this image has been edited in a way besides just cropping" that we could put next to pictures.

I've seen images taken from webcomics and thought to myself "that joke doesn't really work" only to look at the actual comic later and realize that the full thing is much more clear, or that a crucial part was left. It's really misleading to anyone that isn't familiar with how tvtropes makes images, and most (well, some) webcomic authors don't deserve that.

edited 17th Jan '12 5:32:10 PM by abk0100

, Agreed.

I think it depends on how big the edits are. I mean, if we completely modify something (like totally rewriting a speech bubble so it says something entirely different) we should note it, but that very rarely happens. For minor edits (like resizing text to make it more readable) I don't think it needs to be noted. Stuff like chopping out extra panels could go either way; most of the time I don't think it changes the substance of the comic enough to be worth noting. The other thing is that page images pretty much never claim to be showing any comic in its entirety. Whenever I see comics in images I almost always assume that it's just a crop and not the whole thing.

edited 17th Jan '12 5:34:30 PM by JapaneseTeeth

Reaction Image Repository

If it bother much, can't we just include a hottip in the caption explaining the image is photoshoped/edited?

Doing so implies that it matters. If we need to say "this is edited" it is probably a bad image.

This is not the same exactly, but I think it's weird when retailers make their employees wear a band-aid over a nose ring, it's more conspicuous than the jewelry.

Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.

This has been a non-issue for as long as I've been active in this forum, and I see no reason to change how we do things now, at least when it comes to picking and choosing which parts of a comic or other such thing to make a page pic. As far as actually physically changing the contents of a part of a work (say, moving something from one part to another), that I'm less comfortable with, and I think we need to avoid it as much as possible, but not to the point that I'd completely disagree with it.

edited 17th Jan '12 8:11:16 PM by Willbyr

Like I said, it depends on how big the edits are. Cosmetic edits that leave the basic thing unchanged (like resizing text) shouldn't matter. Stuff like adding speech bubbles and whatnot, I'd take it on a case by case basis. Something like the Heavy suggestion for I Call Her "Vera" probably wouldn't need a note.

Basically, on the occasions when it actually comes up (which is pretty rarely, in my experience), we can discuss whether the changes are big enough to warrant a hottip. But yeah, no widespread policy changes are needed.

edited 17th Jan '12 8:54:53 PM by JapaneseTeeth

Reaction Image Repository

I've done some comic and manga pictures where I edited out side clutter, as those don't show the trope, and can be distracting for the image. That shouldn't be misleading, as it's not trying to make our readers think those comics are actually like that.

I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.

Well, in a recent thread one of the suggestions was a webcomic with an extra panel created from scratch and added in as if it were part of the original comic.

I think that's bad form, and disrespectful to the comic's artist.

Removing things (e.g. clutter) and changing fonts around shouldn't be a big deal, but if we have to add something to a picture that wasn't there before, then that means that the picture wasn't an example in the first place, and that we need to find a better one.

edited 18th Jan '12 2:32:55 AM by Spark9

Rhetorical, eh? ... Eight!

Yeah, that could be problematic. Which thread was that in?

edited 18th Jan '12 7:30:01 AM by JapaneseTeeth

Reaction Image Repository

I think it was Story-Breaker Power right?

Fight smart, not fair.