""As journalists we believe the guiding principle of our profession is accuracy; therefore, we believe it is wrong to alter the content of a photograph in any way that deceives the public.
As photojournalists, we have the responsibility to document society and to preserve its images as a matter of historical record. It is clear that the emerging electronic technologies provide new challenges to the integrity of photographic images ... in light of this, we the National Press Photographers Association, reaffirm the basis of our ethics: Accurate representation is the benchmark of our profession. We believe photojournalistic guidelines for fair and accurate reporting should be the criteria for judging what may be done electronically to a photograph. Altering the editorial content ... is a breach of the ethical standards recognized by the NPPA.""
Photoshopping, in this case, completely alters the message of the image in an attempt to deceive the public. In the original picture, he's leaning down to communicate with the woman, who happens to be shorter than he. There is no sign of depression, contemplation, or lonliness. In the photoshopped version, he is alone, perhaps saddened or in a contemplative posture. The background indicates the subject material of which he might be concerned.
The unethical alteration of the photo completely changes the meaning of the picture. It is now an editorial cartoon based on SOME of the content of a picture.
The original photographer should sue.
That is why, as a person who knows of photoshop and has used it, that those in the communications industry besides what you have posted, should have some reasonable guidlines about that software program and any other software that works on pictures, do’s and don’ts about its uses.
Thanks!