Presidential Photoshop Ethics
One of my biggest fears each summer as I lounge on the beaches of the Jersey shore, marine-mammal style after a sixth consecutive meal of boardwalk fries, cheesesteaks, and ice cream, is that I’m going to end up on the cover of some magazine. Never, though, have I worried that some unscrupulous Photoshop user was going to change the color of my bathing suit.
This is exactly what happened to President Obama, whose black bathing suit was digitally altered to appear red on a recent cover of Washingtonian magazine.
In an article on CNN.com, media critic Howard Kurtz said, “While the alterations of this picture might seem to some people to be kind of minor, it is absolutely unethical. It is dishonest. It is not journalism. You cannot present a news photo, particularly of a president, but of anybody, and alter it through digital technology without being honest about it with readers.”
On the other hand, Washingtonian publisher Cathy Merrill Williams said, “When you’re in the magazine business you’re trying to get across a concept or an idea. Changing…the color of his shorts didn’t change the overall image portrayed. It was President Obama in a bathing suit walking.”
In an article in the Mansfield News Journal, the magazine’s lifestyle editor Leslie Milk said, “I know we changed the color of his (bathing) suit to red, and dropped out the background.” (Leslie is all about the facts.)
I think that one of these changes (dropping out the background) is legitimate, while the other (changing the bathing suit) is dishonest.
Years ago, I worked at a really terrible job for a really terrible person who asked me to alter in Photoshop images that ended up printed in magazines. I removed my boss’s double chin from one photo, removed a person whom said boss disliked from another, and made a cloudy day sunny in yet another, to name a few changes. These alterations were largely harmless, but they were dishonest.
I used to bathe for hours after work and still felt dirty.
To be sure, once a photo is taken, it is already an abstraction of reality, interpreted through a camera and presented on paper or screen. Photos that are manipulated in any way become further abstractions (for instance, black-and-white photos are further removed from the reality they represent than color images). So I have no problem with images that have been corrected for quality.
In ethical terms, I have always felt that Photoshop should be used to adjust or correct photos (adjusting lighting, removing dust, etc.), to create original works of art that do not purport to be photographs, or to make obvious changes (like dropping out a background) that are not intended to deceive.
Once an attempt has been made to deliberately deceive a viewer (for instance, by changing the color of an item of clothing or by making a person think that my old boss was not fat by removing her double chin), an ethical line has been crossed. To demonstrate, I have subtly altered this recent photo of Shea. See if you can guess how.
Steve Dimse:
June 8th, 2009 at 7:14 am
This is a very subjective ethical judgement, and my opinion is more lenient than yours. Certainly altering the photo of Shea (though as a Boston fan for 40+ years I find it an improvement) changes a meaning of the photo. It presents an situation that would cause the person in the image considerable distress if presented as reality.
I don’t think changing the color of the bathing suit changes anything about the meanings inherent in the Obama photo. It was done for design reasons, to distinguish the suit from the background. This is the cover of a lifestyle magazine, not a photo in a news magazine.
This is not in the same class as the darkening OJ’s mug shot that Time got ripped over in 1994. In that case the image before and after alteration conveyed two different meanings, and was a very unethical treatment. It also was in a news magazine, which should have a higher ethical standard.
So if you think color shifting on the cover of a lifestyle magazine in unethical, what about interpretive materials? Personally I have no problem with altering photos as long as it serves to convey my message more clearly and does not convey erroneous impressions. Let me ask for opinions of two scenarios.
First, I took a great photo of a manatee lifting his head out of the water, a rare event. Unfortunately a leaf was caught on the top of his head. This made for a very distracting element in what is otherwise a great picture. It was easily removed in photoshop, and I use the picture in several places without mentioning it is altered. Fair or foul?
Second, for a sign interpreting blackbead, a common plant in the Keys, I used a photo of the plant as a background. I wanted to show both the fruit and flowers, and while they do exist on this plant at the same time, I could not get an image that had a photogenic fruit and flower together with a composition that fit my design. So, I made one by photoshopping a couple fruits onto a photo with flowers. What do you think?
Steve
Paul Caputo:
June 8th, 2009 at 9:36 am
Hi Steve, thanks for your comment. Here’s a question for you: What if Barack Obama fundamentally dislikes the color red? I agree that the decision was based on design and composition rather than ulterior motives, but by presenting a photo of the President in shorts he never wore, you’re assigning a decision to him that he did not make.
I try to avoid wearing blue and orange together because of my disdain for the New York Mets. I would be annoyed if I were a public figure and showed up in some publication wearing those colors.
As for the photos you manipulated, I think you have legitimate reasons for the changes and I would likely have done the same thing. The only caveat is that I would alert the audience by crediting the image as a “photo illustration.” It’s a simple distinction and it likely won’t matter much to most people, but I believe it’s important to indicate that a manipulated image does not reflect reality.
Shea Lewis:
June 9th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
I have a few comments.
1. Steve, based on your confession all future postings on IBD will include the following disclaimer.
“The post you are about read may seem perfectly rational and possibly even pertinent to many of the readers of IBD but due to Steve’s connection to the Boston Red Sox the comment should be discounted by 83%.”
2. Paul, the Boston Red Sox hat doesn’t bother me as much as it being placed crooked on my head. I’m old school and it bothers me when people refuse to wear their hats square. For example the Phillies’ Ryan Howard.
3. Paul, there is nothing wrong with a double chin.
4. Paul, by cropping yourself and a huge pile of hot wings out of the original photo you left me looking really lame. By leaving yourself and the hot wings in, the photo would have had some context making it less lame. Who am I fooling. It is lame either way.
5. Paul and Steve, I can’t wait for October.
6. Check out my post on Thursday on the same topic with interesting touched-up photo.
Steve Dimse:
June 10th, 2009 at 11:53 am
Paul, blue and orange stands for the Florida Gators in this neck of the woods, and to a U of Miami fan such as myself is the worst shame one can bring on oneself, so I understand color avoidance.
Shea, the only reason you look lame in that picture is your glass is full. No one ever gets a picture of me with a full beer. No one. Ever.
Finally, if I had pecs instead of man-breasts, I doubt I’d care what color bathing suit I wore.
But to get serious again, if Obama objected to red for some reason, I think the editors might owe him an apology. I still don’t think it was unethical unless it changed the meaning of the photo in some way. Make the suit the recognizable colors of a sports team and you change the meaning. If it is part of a fashion layout, you change the meaning by changing the colors. But when the meaning of the photo is the president is buff, the suit color just doesn’t affect the message.
It highlights the big problem with ethics. There is no black and white, just gray. The editors apparently feel there was nothing wrong with their choice (since they chose to defend it). The Time editors apologized for the OJ photo, that was a lot further from the 50% gray line.
Steve
Shea Lewis:
June 11th, 2009 at 6:28 am
I had wondered how long it would take to have the phrase “man-breasts” used on IBD. Now I know. I thought it would have been related to my physique though.
Steve, thanks for letting me know when the photo should be taken while enjoying a beverage. It would have been lame either way.
I think the issue goes back to the designer and the ability or availability to make changes. Just because you can make changes, that could improve the design, doesn’t mean you should. Just because you can create a PowerPoint presentation with all the bells and whistles that the program offers doesn’t mean you should.
Reine Wonite:
June 11th, 2009 at 10:43 am
I am dismayed to learn that the magazine changed the color of our President’s swim trunks from black to red. Red is a flamboyant color, worn by people trying to draw attention to themselves, while black is sedate and much less conspicuous. Part of my reaction connects to some of the criticism heard when the photo was published, which accused Obama of wanting to flash his bod. BTW, if our new Commander-in-Chief really had wanted to flash his bod, he would have worn a racing thong.
Paul Caputo:
June 11th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
I agree with Reine. Given how careful politicians are with every detail of every public appearance, from their choice of words to the specifics of their wardrobes, it’s irresponsible for a Photoshop user to make this change to President Obama’s bathing suit. Would it have been appropriate to change the color of his tie in a photograph of a presidential debate?
Granted, this level of heightened political sensibility differs from slightly altering the natural scenes Steve describes, but it’s both a fine line and a slippery slope (if one issue can be both of those things at the same time).
Bob Hinkle:
June 11th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
I really don’t think the photo shows him with enough beer !! Shea, that is …..
Steve Dimse:
June 12th, 2009 at 7:35 am
Shea, it is not about when a picture should be taken in relation to the beer, it is about how long a beer should sit in front of you without being (at least partially) consumed. Cameras max out at a shutter speed of about 1/8000 of a second, which is why such picture of me is not possible!
Paul Caputo:
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:45 am
As a follow-up, Photoshop ethics are in the news in Toronto:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/toronto/archive/2009/06/10/city-digitally-adds-black-guy-to-fun-guide-cover-to-make-it-more-inclusive.aspx
Mbounacklie:
June 30th, 2009 at 2:43 am
Changing the bathing suit color is absolutely deception no ifs ands or butts about it. Dropping the background isnt that big a deal because the reader obviously know that Obama was not walking around in his swimsuit in a dark studio however if the swimsuit is changed, what else could have been retouched? Perhaps Obama had an unsightly scar or one of his pex was seemingly out of place because of the way he was moving. Once that line is crossed the gloves are off. Really its the same slippery slope as the one used when comparing infringing on personal freedoms vs. terrorism. Once you go past a certain limit your credibility is gone and you cant regain it when discussing images.
As for the image the hat looks as if its been added to the picture. Under the caps bill theres a dropshadow which doesn’t seem consistent with the exposure of the image.
Interpretation By Design » Blog Archive » A Couple Useful (and Offensive) Photoshop Links:
July 6th, 2009 at 2:03 am
[...] been talking about the ethics of Photoshop recently (see my take here, Shea’s here), with our main point being that as interpreters and designers who create visual [...]
Shawn Hoefer:
February 20th, 2011 at 8:03 pm
As a seventeen-year veteran of the newspaper industry where I worked as a columnist, graphic designer, photographer, webmaster and publisher, I can say, without hesitation, that editing the color of the shorts is a violation of the publisher’s code of ethics. If lifting the President out of the background was really needed, the color of the background should have been changed. Editing and altering photographs when attempting to convey humor or create art can be considered acceptable if it is identified as such.
Shawn Hoefer:
February 20th, 2011 at 8:05 pm
The Toronto piece is jut bad!
Joan:
April 22nd, 2011 at 10:47 am
Pssssh. If we’re talking truth in advertising, Paul, that article was from three years ago. Now the city has bigger things to worry about, like Mayor Rob Ford, who removed copies of a magazine featuring altered photos of himself from City Hall. The controversy inspired Woody Harrelson to pose as Ford in a bizarre loop of Photoshop ethical weirdness.
Plus, that’s nothing. The Alberta government got in hot water for using a photo of a beach in England to promote travel to Alberta. The perils of stock photography!
As for Obama, it would be absolutely wrong if he was being depicted as Presidential. But here, the intent is obviously to treat him as just another celebrity, and it’s an open secret that celebrity photos are altered in far more fundamental and disturbing ways all the time. Should they be altered? Of course not. But to me, it’s far more troubling that they’re treating the leader of the Free World as if he were Matthew McConaughey.