How Much is Too Much?

When Edward Steichan said: “every photograph is a fake from start to finish, a purely impersonal, unmanipulated photograph being practically impossible,” he was totally right.

Whether we know it or not, photo manipulation is all around us. What it all really comes down to is ethics (what one believes to be right or wrong). This term is very important to news reporting because the news media like photojournalists have a responsibility to report truthful news. The issue comes into when photojournalists manipulate images but still use them to represent reality.


This was the issue surrounding the controversy involving 2 images of O.J. Simpson in 1994. O.J. Had made big news when he was accused of murdering his wife and her partner. In 1 news magazine: Newsweek, O.J. Simpson's original mugshot was displayed while in another new magazine:Time, his mugshot was altered to make him look darker. Many major new organizations as well as black journalists said that Time magazine's manipulation was racist and made O.J. “look more sinister and guilty.”

James, Gaines, the managing director of Time magazine at the time said that changing Simpson's mugshot was “defensible.” “...The cold specificity of the picture had been subtly smoothed and shaped into an icon of tragedy....” But Simpson hadn't even been convicted yet. Gaines also called the image “art.” The only thing is, what's a NEWS magazine doing using “art” to represent a true news story. “Art” is human creativity whereas “news” is straight-down reality.

Knowing what I do about the O.J. Simpson magazine cover controversy, I, personally, don't think that the manipulation was "intended" to be racist. Although it is definitely a possibility, I think the bigger intentiion was to sell copies of the magazine. So if they manipulated the image a little, made it look darker, and slapped the title: An American Tragedy on it, it would really sell becuase it would make the readers pick up the magazine out of curiousity, more so than the Newsweek magazine cover.

What distinguishes ethical photo manipulation from the unethical is the intent of the photographer. Intentionally deceiving the viewer, perhaps by using a manipulated photo to represent reality would be unethical. If a photographer's intent is to report, then his/her photos should accurately show what the photographer saw. Once a photo is altered, it becomes an illustration and “art.” If the photographer wanted to manipulate a photo in order to illustrate a point, it would only be ethical if that intent was made clear to the audience.

With photo manipulation being used everywhere; from billboard advertisements we see everyday to news images, such as this photo of Lebanon,

it's getting harder to know what images are actually real. Right now we turn to the news for true info, but if this photo manipulation continues to grow, photographs might just come to be thought of as things to be retouched. Then the credibility of the news will certainly be in question. If the news media is not credible, then we might just stop turning to them for real “news.”

It's also important to keep in mind why people in the media manipulate photos. It's not because it's fun, but because different media organizations compete against each other for the most sales. As for photojournalists, it's their job to take "the right picture." It's what they live on. So when they can't get that perfect shot, they find it easier to just doctor the image to make it look like an award-worthy picture.

The question is, has computer retouching of images gone too far? Well, in my opinion it has. There are many images out there that are deemed to be great, award-winning images. In many of these cases of has turned out that they'd been retouched. For example, the following image of the train andthe Tibetan antelopes going the other way.

It was said to be a fascinating picture that represented the fact that nature could live side by side with technology. However, bloggers discovered the reality; this was another case of photo manipulation. So, as you can see, it's gottten to the point where we don't know what images to believe and what images not to believe.

How much do you think is too much?



Rose, Trevor. "YOU and YOUR RIGHTS." The Washington Post Newspaper in Education Program. 19 Dec. 2002. Rpt.

Unknown artist. “O.J. Simpson's Mug Shot.” No date. Online image. Falsification of History. 15 June 2008.

Hajj, Adnan. “Altered Lebanon War Photo.” No date. Online image. National Press Photographer's Association. 15 June 2008.

Unknown artist. “Tibetan antelopes.” No date. Online image. PhotoshopNews.com. 15 June 2008.