I think there's much higher acceptance, perhaps even expectation, of manipulation (in

If you're asking about degree of manipulation, I'd have to say there's no real difference between standards for cover and inside presentation. On the other hand our cover images are very carefully chosen and/or produced, and are subject on any given week to greater scrutiny than a typical image run inside. I would have to guess that's pretty much universally true elsewhere."

other words slickness) on the part of readers. In addition the distribution industry has forced greater competition on the newsstand. However, news magazines have always had to straddle the gulf between commercial and journalistic considerations in ways that other magazines have not. I think we have all -- US News, Time, and Newsweek -- had to wrestle with this question, often on a case-by-case basis.

There are differing standards in the industry as to what steps are permissible to ensure that a photograph remains legible on an already

cluttered cover."

"Magazines are more willing than newspapers to extend the background of an image if it doesn't fit the layout, or to dodge and burn an image to ensure that an overprinted caption will be legible. It comes up often because magazines run type on top of photographs more often than newspapers. That tends to drive these decisions more than anything else -- where to put the type, not only on covers but on inside pages as well. Sometimes the results are more defensible than others."

ROBERT NEWMAN
Art Director
Inside.com

I do think image alteration has become the norm on magazine covers. In my experience the vast majority are altered in some way, from removing visual noise in the background to creating space for headlines and decks by darkening or lightening photo areas, to outright digital manipulation. The general feeling is that the covers of magazines are commerce, they're selling tools, a commodity, and that anything is acceptable. And honestly, I think readers realize that and don't necessarily assume that what they're seeing on a cover

is a true image.

Where this gets tricky is where manipulation is passed off as reality. But in the world of celebrities and models, what is reality? So many actors and actresses have had their features carved by plastic surgeons, enhanced by implants. I think that's one reason magazines feel it's fair game to manipulated those images.

In my experience it's the editors who push hardest for cover image manipulation. I think this goes back to the cover-as-commerce concept. Separate from any ethical issues, there simply is not as much respect for the purity of an image. Images on the cover are considered fair game, to be altered, twisted, manipulated and changed into the most effective, direct graphic image possible. The image has become another graphic element, like type and color, to be altered at will to fit an editorial and graphic concept. You wouldn't think twice about altering and manipulating type, and the same has become true of images. In addition to editorial pressure, I find that younger art directors don't have as many reservations about manipulating images as some of my contemporaries. I think the availability of Photoshop and the way the images are altered in contemporary visual culture, as well as a lack of training and history for

magazine art Directors, on an ethical level ... has led to a general feeling among many that manipulating images is no different than changing type or color.

I think there's a sharp line between magazine covers and newspaper picture representation that has to be drawn. To be honest, editorsí and art directorsí jobs are often dependent on newsstand sales. It's an extremely competitive situation, and there's pressure to get any edge, any advantage. If The New York Times alters a photo on its front page, it's much more of a statement to me because there's no imperative to do it. In a sense, altering a photo on the front page of a newspaper is much more of a content-based consideration, whereas altering images on the covers of magazines is almost always a purely graphic decision.

I've never worked at a magazine where there were spelled-out standards about altering photos. The only time I can remember there being a general discussion about the ethics of altering was around the infamous Time magazine cover of O.J. Simpson.

HILLARY RASKIN
Deputy Photo Editor
Time

The technology available to art directors allows them to do amazing things with images. It gives them more control of the concept, and they can spin out a cover on deadline.

When we use a photo that has been significantly altered, we will caption it as a photo illustration, digitally altered, double exposure or any number of other descriptions to let the reader know it is not as real as it seems. This would be the case both on the cover and if the same altering was done inside the magazine. But the use of digitally altering an image inside the magazine is very infrequent.

We adhere to the principle that a news/documentary-style image is what it

is and should not be altered. It might be cropped, which may or may not give the viewer a different point of view from the intent of the photo."