Nick Gast

Jour 481

Case Study

October 21, 2010

Photo Manipulation

The National Press Photographers Association’s Code of Ethics states, “Editing should

maintain the integrity of the photographic images' content and context. Do not manipulate

images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.” 1

While this code is the standard by which all photojournalists are judged, it also leaves a lot up to

interpretation. At what point does an image manipulation become misleading? Is this something

that varies from case to case or is there a defined line that photojournalists are never allowed to

cross? The questions that arise from cases of photographic manipulation in journalism will

probably never all be answered, but the discussions they provoke are important to the field of

photojournalism and the ever evolving landscape of media ethics.

Manipulation in photography didn’t just arrive with Photoshop. As early as 1839,

photographers were staging photographs and faking captions. By the time the Civil War rolled

around, at least one prominent photographer was routinely faking photographs. Matthew Brady

and his staff of photographers were discovered to have staged a variety of battlefield

photographs, including some depicting battle and death. Brady also used crafty editing

techniques to manipulate his photos. His famous portraits of President Abraham Lincoln and

General Ulysses S. Grant were both fabricated by placing the men’s heads on different bodies.2 3

As time went on, manipulation in photos became more and more prominent. Mostly used for

1
http://www.nppa.org/professional_development/business_practices/ethics.html
2
http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/lester/writings/chapter6.html
3
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/research/digitaltampering/index1.html
political purposes, photographers exhibited more and more skill with their editing. During the

WWII era, one of the most popular techniques used by photographers was cloning people out of

photographs. From dictators like Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin removing figures that had fallen

out of favor with them from photos to Benito Mussolini removing a horse handler from a photo

to cut a more heroic portrait of himself on a horse, the widespread use of photo manipulation in

this era no doubt helped lead to the current photo editing culture.4

As technology advanced, so too did photographers’ ability to edit their photos. When

personal computers and Photoshop came into the picture, photo manipulation became easier than

ever. One of the first public cases of digital photo manipulation was a 1982 National

Geographic magazine cover featuring the Great Pyramid of Giza. In order to get the pyramid

and the camels in the foreground to fit the magazine’s vertical format, the Great Pyramid of Giza

was digitally moved. 5 A more recent example of high profile photo manipulation involved a

2003 photo by Los Angeles Times photographer Brian Walski. Walski, a 20-year veteran of the

business, was on assignment in Iraq when he turned in an image of an armed British soldier

urging Iraqi civilians to seek cover. The photo was so well received that it ran above the fold on

the front page of the LA Times. It was also a fake. Walski had created the image from two

separate photographs. When his ethical lapse was discovered he was fired.6 One of the most

prolific photo manipulators in journalism was a photographer named Allan Detrich. Discovered

in 2007, it was determined that he had submitted 79 digitally altered photos to the Toledo Blade

since January of that year. Detrich had routinely erased extraneous elements like people, tree

limbs, and wires from his photos and added things like basketballs and shrubbery to others. He

4
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/research/digitaltampering/index2.html
5
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/research/digitaltampering/index2.html
6
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/essays/vanRiper/030409.htm
had been working for the Blade since 1989 and was even a finalist for a Pulitzer Prize in feature

photography in 1998. Detrich initially denied the accusations.7 8

Some of the most controversial cases of photo manipulation involve celebrity photos.

One of the first instances of celebrity photo manipulation was a 1989 TV Guide cover featuring

Oprah Winfrey. The photo, which shows Winfrey lounging on a pile of money in a sparkling

dress, was actually a composite of Ann-Margaret’s body and Winfrey’s head.9 Another

photograph along those same lines involved a Newsweek cover of Martha Stewart. The cover ran

in 2005, just before Stewart was released from Prison. For the photo, her head was superimposed

on the body of a model who was photographed separately. Newsweek said they intended the

photo to clearly be an illustration, but the NPPA still called it a “major ethical breach”, adding

that this type of practice “erodes the credibility of all journalism, not just one publication.” 10 The

idea of a photo illustration wasn’t anything new. In 1994, in the midst of the O.J. Simpson arrest,

Time magazine ran a cover portrait of Simpson that had been substantially darkened. When the

magazine came under fire for running the photo, they too claimed that it was intended as a clear

photo illustration. This was a particularly controversial case, because Time had to deal with the

ethical implications of the photo alteration as well as allegations of racism because of the

darkened image.11

In 1990, photo critic Andy Grundberg predicted, “In the future, readers of newspapers

and magazines will probably view news pictures more as illustrations than as reportage, since

they will be aware that they can no longer distinguish between a genuine image and one that has

been manipulated.”12 While I don’t think the public’s perception has reached this level, at least
7
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070415/NEWS08/704150316&SearchID=73278129833947
8
http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003571795
9
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/research/digitaltampering/index2.html
10
http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2005/03/newsweek.html
11
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/25/us/time-responds-to-criticism-over-simpson-cover.html
12
http://www.ajr.org/article.asp?id=4383
not yet, Grundberg’s prediction isn’t that far off. Photo editing software has reached the level

that makes it nearly impossible to spot skilled manipulations with the naked eye. Some of these

photoshopped images are being discovered. The sad truth about this is that the manipulations are

typically discovered because of the laziness of the photographer. The only reason Brian Walski’s

fake photo was discovered was because he cloned certain individuals and used them multiple

times in the background. If he hadn’t done that, his photo could have realistically been under

Pulitzer consideration. Even Allan Detrich, whose digital alterations likely numbered in the

hundreds if not thousands, was only discovered because one of his images was almost identically

captured by another photographer. The problem with Detrich’s photo was that it was missing a

set of legs that appeared in the other photograph.13 The frightening reality is that any

photographer that is skilled and disciplined enough could conceivably get away with photo

manipulation for a very long time.

To prevent digital manipulation of this kind from becoming commonplace, organizations

like the NPPA have developed codes of ethics and conduct for photographers. Unfortunately,

these guidelines for ethical behavior still leave a lot of grey areas. Most of these codes are aimed

at preventing photographers from misrepresenting the subjects of their photographs. But what

constitutes misrepresentation? In obvious cases, photographers add or subtract elements from

photos, creating a composite photo that they couldn’t capture. In other cases, maybe they just

crop a photo in a way that misrepresents the scene. For instance, if someone was photographing a

theater event that was only attended by 13 people, but they all sit in the front row, is it not

manipulation to crop the photo to show only the stage and that front row? The content of the

photo was not necessarily manipulated, but the meaning of the image could have been totally

changed. Instead of looking like a mostly empty theater, the photo instead insinuates that there’s
13
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070415/NEWS08/704150316&SearchID=73278129833947
a packed theater behind that front row. That’s as misleading as cloning an object into a photo.

Again, where’s the line? In North Carolina, a photographer named Patrick Schneider had three

awards revoked. His offense? Lightening one photo, darkening another, and adding contrast to a

third.14 None of his alterations affected the content of the photos, they merely made them more

aesthetically appealing. That’s where the line should be drawn. Should photographers add some

kind of disclaimer if their aesthetic alterations cause the photograph to misrepresent the way the

scene truly looked? Of course. Should they be punished for adding some contrast to their

images? Absolutely not. The unfortunate truth is that rules and guidelines for photojournalism

ethics can only go so far. In the end, it’s up to photojournalists as individuals to stay honest and

true to their photographs and encourage their colleagues to do the same.

14
http://www.danheller.com/images/FAQ/Story1.jpg
 Works Cited

http://www.ajr.org/article.asp?id=4383

http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/lester/writings/chapter6.html

http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/research/digitaltampering/index1.html

http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/research/digitaltampering/index2.html

http://www.danheller.com/images/FAQ/Story1.jpg

http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2005/03/newsweek.html

http://www.nppa.org/professional_development/business_practices/ethics.html

http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003571795

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?

AID=/20070415/NEWS08/704150316&SearchID=73278129833947