I think its pretty well covered. If the intention of the alteration is to deceive then its not right. If its to add to the visual appeal from an artistic point of view then it should be ok. And under no circumstances should a journalistic photo ever need visual enhancement. At least without a qualifying statement what was done and why. That Demi Moore situation is just plain silly. Magazine covers etc are for visual impact and are never photos from camera to page without some kind of manipulation. For the ads and DVD covers for the movie Pretty Woman, the glamorous body under Julia Roberts' head wasnt hers but someone elses. Was that for artistic or deceptive reason?
Ordo you squeezed your reply in before I got mine posted. What the hell are you talking about? Photos arent reality? Any photo that is unaltered in any way is the reality of the moment from a particular spot and place in time. Altering that image in any way is for one of two reasons, for artistic merit or to deceive the viewer. I dont think this is rocket science.
Last edited by Bynx; Feb 19, 2010 at 11:50 AM.