Say, a county magistrate is making a grand tour of a local factory, followed by a coterie of his lieutenants. Suppose you are several steps ahead and therefore occupy the best position for snapping. First of all, the lieutenants have to know their places and stay slightly behind so as not to be disproportionately bigger than whoever is higher on the official echelon. Second, staff and security usually clear the way, and often inadvertently block the best view for the photographer.

No wonder the temptation to modify photos involving officials is so strong. Protocol correctness stipulates one of a certain rank occupies a designated place in a photo relative to his superiors and subordinates. When the correct ranking cannot be achieved visually, photograph editing software comes to rescue - as an omnipotent savior of sorts.

Imagine the shock of many of my countrymen when we saw the photograph of US President Barack Obama sitting in a room with his team watching a live relay of the US mission to kill Bin Laden. Obama is off the center and looks the smallest of the group. This is so hierarchically incorrect that it became a joke to some of us and, to others, the joke is on us.

Beyond the protocol, there is a certain political correctness at play when historical images are changed to reflect current political winds. Take the group photo of the founders of the People's Republic when Chairman Mao Zedong declared it on Tian'anmen Rostrum. One by one, the founders fell out of political favor and were removed from the photo - before PhotoShop was invented no less. In the end, we had to rely on an oil painting of the event, which, as you can understand, is the most flawless in a revisionist way.

Fortunately, the tendency to revise historical photos is less popular now. In museums, you'll see Lin Biao, a major revolutionary veteran who died fleeing the country, in old photos.

Journalistic photography is the last bastion of truthfulness in terms of visual information. Even if it is not digitally adjusted, it may not reflect the complete truth as certain situations can be staged and key elements may not be seized at the right moment. If we cannot hold this last line to present what we see, we had better resort to fashion photography.

For example, a group photo for a fashion magazine is usually composed piece by piece rather than shot all at once. Using the same logic, the graduation photo can have more than two portions joining together; it can be shot individually and placed in whatever formation the school authorities deem perfect.

Maybe we should substitute the journalistic standard for the fashion standard. Hire stylists for official functions and turn current affairs publications into glossy fashion books.

Why take a few tentative steps when you can push the concept of "beautification" all the way to the extreme? You can turn stolid imagery into pop idolatry with one swoosh.

We live in a world of black comedy anyway.

Picture doctoring is predominantly used for powers-that-be, but sometimes it is used against them. In recent years there have been reports that criminals use PhotoShop to create nude photos of officials and use these photos to blackmail them. I guess most recipients would simply laugh it off, but a few are said to have paid up. "But why? It's not your body; it's just your face grafted on someone else's body," I can't help but protest. Maybe the doctoring is so well done even the blackmail victims believe they are real, taken when they were totally inebriated.

Think of it. Digital photograph editing software is like genetically modified food. It can make you sprout an extra arm or leg just as a GM tomato can be in any shape the grower wants. It can create some fun, but what we need is correct labeling.

If you enhance a photo, just don't call it a news photo and don't publish it in a news platform. Then I don't mind if everyone is edited to look like Huang Xiaoming or Fan Bingbing.

For more X-Ray, here