Public Editor

Readers' thoughts about The Star and

What makes photo ‘digitally altered?’

08/30/2013 5:03 PM

08/31/2013 6:31 PM

The centerpiece photo on the Business section cover Thursday showed two planes — one on the runway, one taking off behind it. Below, it was identified as a “file photo digitally altered by Gentry Mullen | The Kansas City Star.”

What about it was digitally altered, asked a caller? Why would it require such a label, as opposed to “photo illustration,” which you see sometimes on images that have been processed heavily?

In this case, the edit was relatively minor. The sky in the original photo was a little too dark for the overlaid text to be read clearly. So Mullen made the existing sky blend up gently to a lighter color, and it looks to me as if he extended the “sky” a bit taller than the existing photo. But the planes appear exactly as they do in the original file.

Photoshop is a powerful tool that can be misused easily by unethical photojournalists. Yes, you could argue the label here was overkill. But I’m all for it. I think anything more than minor adjustments to color, contrast and the like should be labeled. Better to over-inform than to pull the wool over readers’ eyes intentionally.


Join the Discussion

The Kansas City Star is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Terms of Service