Digital Manipulation

Photographs of deceased soldiers. The head of the one on the left was put on the body of the right.


Times magazine altered the photo of OJ Simpson to make him appear darker and more menacing. 1994

National Geographic altered the picture to make both pyramids appear in the picture. They wanted to create a more compelling picture. 1982

Mussolini had the horse handler removed from the picture to make it look better. 1942


Lincoln head's on John Calhoun's body. Cerca 1860

To see more, visit the original site

The other view point
"It's ridiculous to assume that the public's view of a reporter or newspaper is somehow less credible because computer-aided tools were used to write stories. Spelling and grammatical errors in writing are analogous to the technical errors in photography, where dust, brightness contrast or focus may not be exactly correct. Accordingly, the public knows and expects that reporters will use word processors, and they also expect that the industry has other mechanisms in place (either internally or externally) to catch liars. Similarly, the public should know that photographers use tools (whether chemistry found in the darkroom, or software on a computer) to render images correctly in their newspapers, and that other metrics are used to determine whether an image is appropriate or not. "

What is your stance?

Is photo-alteration acceptable or not? Can the alteration deceive you to believe something that is not true? Would you consider digital alteration a tool just like a word processor?

If you are stuck in the middle explain the circumstances or instances it is ok.