Finding it more difficult to distinguish 'photoshopped' images vs. originals?

[DanK]

Though, I'm quite aware most images are manipulated to some effect for presentation on the web...I have 'suddenly' realized it has become quite difficult to identify 'digitally altered' images...even viewing images firsthand, in person, in hand...

For me personally, I have always felt some sense of security knowing, or at least being able to identify 'something' and assume that an image was altered or photoshopped to some degree....usually from a stray 'whatever' - too soft, too crisp, dof, wrong shadow, lighting, etc...

But lately...quite recently, I realized I honestly can't tell on many...the usual 'tells' are gone....which now forces me to question more....and lends toward a feeling of distrust in general....

I wonder if being 'too perfect' will be the eventual demise of digital art? (of course I am bias - but really?)

Anyone else have thoughts on this? or a similar feeling of 'distrust'? Curious.

Cheers,
Dan



(Mod's - if this post is better suited for the lounge, or the trash bin, please move accordingly - Thanks)

[Bill_1856]

What does it matter, so long as you like the picture?

[Peter Gomena]

edited - duplicate post

[Peter Gomena]

I assume everything that is not a direct analog print has been photoshopped along the way. The internet and motion picture/television special effects have pretty much erased my expectations of reality in the media. I'm skeptical, not distrustful.

Today, all of my prints are photoshopped, not to significantly alter them, or in an attempt to bring them closer to perfection, but to realize my creative vision. My negatives often are technically imperfect for any number of reasons. I use a light hand on the stylus and endeavor to make my changes invisible. I'm not out to fool anyone.

[DanK]

What does it matter, so long as you like the picture?

Sounds like a Forrest Fenn quote, when he was dealing in 'reproductions'...

"If you love it less when you see the signature who now is the fake?"

Which leads in the same direction...'Wouldn't the original be better?'

Dan

[AuditorOne]

Though, I'm quite aware most images are manipulated to some effect for presentation on the web...I have 'suddenly' realized it has become quite difficult to identify 'digitally altered' images...even viewing images firsthand, in person, in hand...

For me personally, I have always felt some sense of security knowing, or at least being able to identify 'something' and assume that an image was altered or photoshopped to some degree....usually from a stray 'whatever' - too soft, too crisp, dof, wrong shadow, lighting, etc...

But lately...quite recently, I realized I honestly can't tell on many...the usual 'tells' are gone....which now forces me to question more....and lends toward a feeling of distrust in general....

I wonder if being 'too perfect' will be the eventual demise of digital art? (of course I am bias - but really?)

Anyone else have thoughts on this? or a similar feeling of 'distrust'? Curious.

Cheers,
Dan

Is this really an issue of you distrusting the authorship of the image in your hand, or is it more a subconscious discomfort that your bias may now be misplaced?

Are you uncomfortable that the "signature" may be missing, or incorrect, or are you uncomfortable about the fact that digital may finally be assuming equality with film?

[DanK]

Is this really an issue of you distrusting the authorship of the image in your hand, or is it more a subconscious discomfort that your bias may now be misplaced?

Are you uncomfortable that the "signature" may be missing, or incorrect, or are you uncomfortable about the fact that digital may finally be assuming equality with film?

Really wasn't looking at authorship (hijacked my own thread with the last comment)


As far as my original post - The distrust is purely related to content manipulation.

Dan

[AuditorOne]

But if I am not mistaken, image manipulation has been going on almost since photography began. Manipulation may have been a bit more difficult, and some things were certainly more difficult than others, but trust in content when dealing with photography seems a bit of a chimera.

The only thing digital has done has made the tools more readily available to those who care to use them. I still suspect that the difference in your own mind was that analogue photography was somehow "real" while digital was not.

I can remember discussions of photos back in the 60s and 70s where there was concern that a foreign power (Soviet Union specifically) had manipulated the photo in processing and that it would be impossible to tell that it had been done. In fact, at one point (maybe even yet today) people were convinced that the US government was doing it as well. Content manipulation in photography has been going on for a very long time.

[gleaf]

Perhaps the issue is the philosophical difference between a copy write and a patent.

[Brian Ellis]

I have no idea what you mean by "photoshopped." That's about as meaningful a verb as saying a print was "darkroomed." It can mean anything from minor sharpening to the most extreme manipulations possible and thousands of things in between.