Few things have as much effect on brand as the images a company uses in advertising and marketing. Or for that matter the images used in the corporate annual report, the company newsletter, website, etc.

The advent of digital photography has made it possible to literally move mountains or take 10 years off the CEO with the push of a couple of buttons. As a photographer, I find the new digital tools fantastic. Nothing goes out of our shop without some degree of digital enhancement. But I have watched with alarm as company after company has succumbed to the darkside of Photoshop®.

Just because it’s possible to clean up an oil spill on the factory floor or take out an ex-boardmember via computer, does that make it ethically acceptable? Or is the technology to blame for making it so darn easy? The fallout from getting caught misusing photo manipulation has wrecked long-term havoc on brands previously thought bulletproof.

But just where is the ethical line on photo manipulation where corporate communications is concerned? IMHO the answer lies in the INTENT, not in the amount of alteration. For example, using the same photo - even a slight alteration may be unacceptable if the intended audience is expecting hard news, whereas turning the sky purple and adding UFOs is admissible if the intended viewers know it’s an ad photo.

David Murray’s blog has some interesting comments.

What say you?

Suzanne Salvo