Photographs essentially serve two purposes: to record information and express artistic creativity. While in many instances these two purposes intertwine, debates arise over whether artistic creative license can go too far in certain circumstances and undermine the credibility of the story behind the image. Some feel there should be set guidelines defining the point at which a photograph becomes more a piece of art than a record of information.

Interpretations of a photograph are based on presumptions viewers bring as they scan the picture. Although viewers surmise the objectivity of what they observe, vision can be highly subjective. Research and reason enable people to perceive photographs diversely, as do personal values and experience. Vision is the most powerful of our senses, and it has also been the most amplified by modern technology.

The marketing of cheaper professional cameras and computer software has seemingly intensified debates over photographic integrity, with some arguing that access to these tools promotes excessive competition to see who can create the technically and compositionally “perfect” photograph. However, photographers have been manipulating images since photography began. Some of the earliest cases involve coaching subjects on how to pose for “real-life” pictures. For example, some Civil War photographers directed soldiers to play dead in order to capture better compositions and “record” casualties. Others involve the manipulation of darkroom techniques to remove unwanted objects in pictures, or highlight specific features, similar to what is done in software like Photoshop.

Many photographers, especially photojournalists, contend that they are given less time to produce pictures, and that the field is becoming obsessively competitive. Newspapers, magazines, and other media contain limited space compared to the number of high-quality pictures released by photographers, and the pressure results in a strong temptation to manipulate photographs for impact, either by directing the subject prior to taking the photo, or by digital manipulation.

The entertainment industry is producing powerful images, which have raised the expectations of readers, editors, and photographers for better pictures. Some believe, as well, that as digital technology has evolved, art directors have forgotten how and when to say “enough.” Tweaking, buffing, and polishing down to the last pixel has frequently had the consequence of changing the photograph into something that, at a minimum, appears plastic or fake, and, at worst, is inaccurate. Many tend to appreciate the natural imperfections that real photography brings and the authenticity it gives.

Some argue that if the photographer adds a caption to the photograph, saying that it has been altered, that that solves any problems, and makes creating boundaries around manipulation techniques unnecessary. Others contend, however, that no amount of captioning can ever cover a visual lie or distortion. If it looks real in an informational context, then it should be real, because chances are, people will not pay attention to the caption. There should be the same respect for visual accuracy that there is for the written word.

Most photo editors have determined that the only appropriate techniques to use when processing photographs primarily used for information in computer software are those analogous to what was acceptable in the traditional darkroom. However, with a new generation of photographers arising who have always processed images on computers, and have never stepped foot in a darkroom, let alone processed a negative in one, editors struggle with explaining how darkroom rules apply to computer software. One rule remains clear, however: removing visual content (beyond cropping the edges of a photograph), or adding it, crosses the divide.

The ideal of truth, especially in modern media, has become the subject of satire and skepticism. The discounted prices on higher-quality digital cameras and software have made professional equipment accessible to amateurs and professionals alike. This has raised concerns about depicting real life in photographs, but photographs have been altered, through controlling the initial composition to post-processing effects, for over 160 years. The photographic implication to the uninitiated is that a photograph is representative of a larger truth. While in photographs viewed more as art than information, the tools used in processing the images are widely accepted and admired, many believe that little to no manipulation ought to be done when the priority of the photograph is to relay facts about real life for one simple reason: It is dishonest to do so.