That's just my personal take on the matter, ethically to me it's not right. I wonder if the papers were to post photos of heads of states and royalty will they showcase inverted images?:think: So I fully agree with the blogger who highlighted the issue.
"The Newsweek cover is the original mugshot, whereas the Time cover is digitally manipulated. O.J.Simpson's face is darker, blurrier and unshaven3. The photographer that manipulated the picture said that he "wanted to make it more artful, more compelling"3. It is here that the ethical issues arise. News photographs should either be authentic or not be published at all. Any manipulation distorts the truth. It is clear that on the cover of Time, O.J.Simpson looks more sinister than he does on the cover of newsweek. The photographers intention to make the cover more compelling failed miserably, since the matter raised so much discussion. This goes to show that best intentions are often not good enough and that ethical principles should be applied when decisions are made."
Wow in that case imagine if a client (corporate or wedding couple) pays for the service of a photographer and gets back the images inverted. Then the photographer replied:"It's perfectly normal" :bsmilie:
i don't see anything wrong with the pictures too. flipping the pictures horizontally is nothing wrong if the intention is to accommodate print layout (aesthetically-wise). flipping the pictures still maintain the pictures integrity. nothing really changes except it's now the other way around. but manipulating the pictures to show different things (to suit tabloid junk)... then it's a :nono:
one fine example of picture manipulation is the recent media released pictures of BP in the recent oil spill crisis. that one really is unacceptable. they are masking the truth by photoshopping the pictures.