In other words you want to manipulate them into buying something they wouldn’t have if they hadn’t seen your ad. That doesn’t sound like a good thing for the person on the other side of the transaction.
Or, let's say they decided to just do it on their own/have a friend do it...until they see one of my images and go "wow."
The second may be spending money when they wouldn't, but that's pretty rare. If they do it's because they decided it was worth it. The others are just being shown another option that they might not have known existed, meaning they're more informed about where they're going to spend their money.
I don't see who is getting hurt in this scenario. I get work that I need to survive and they're getting photos that they're excited about.
That doesn't get away from the basic fact that all advertising is an attempt at manipulation. The advertiser is trying to encourage a transaction when there wouldn't otherwise have been one. It would be pointless if this wasn't the case.
If you don't want to be manipulated at all (my preference) then it's better not to see targeted adverts.
Maybe it's that some advertisers create the problem they're solving (e.g. body image issues, etc)? Or that it's used for commercial ends? Or that the best product recommendations typically come from friends and family so why bother having ads anyways?
Having bought some products I discovered from ads myself, I can't help but think that I have benefited from the arrangement in a similar way that both parties benefit in economic exchanges. Obviously I'd rather have had my friend tell me but that might have taken... who knows how long.
Yes, assuming 0% force is involved and both agents are 100% rational. Just like spherical cow, the real world is not that simple.