Doctor in the House! Doctor of photographs, that is . . .

[cyrus]

http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/research/digitaltampering/

[paulr]

great examples. worth showing to anyone who thinks altered images were an invention of the digital era.

one thing i'm curiuos about ... does anyone else consider the scandal surrounding the manipulation of O.J.'s picture to be a tempest in a teapot? it seems to me fundamentally different than the other examples (splicing heads onto bodies, removing political enemies, etc.). it's a subjective printing decision, like any other made in a darkroom. it also doesn't strike me as an alteration of O.J., but rather an alteration of the lighting. my guess is that this became a scandal because the general public doesn't understand how subjective the printing process is.

if it was being presented as a news picture that's one thing, but it was an photo illustration for a big feature story with an obvious point of view. thoughts?

[cyrus]

great examples. worth showing to anyone who thinks altered images were an invention of the digital era.

one thing i'm curiuos about ... does anyone else consider the scandal surrounding the manipulation of O.J.'s picture to be a tempest in a teapot? it seems to me fundamentally different than the other examples (splicing heads onto bodies, removing political enemies, etc.). it's a subjective printing decision, like any other made in a darkroom. it also doesn't strike me as an alteration of O.J., but rather an alteration of the lighting. my guess is that this became a scandal because the general public doesn't understand how subjective the printing process is.

if it was being presented as a news picture that's one thing, but it was an photo illustration for a big feature story with an obvious point of view. thoughts?

The particular lighting was chosen to convey a message. In my view, it is still deceptive and manipulative - intended to communicate an agenda or message ("Simpson is Evil!") that was added onto the original photograph, without disclosure.

However, its important to note the most common way of "faking" a photograph does not involve making changes to the photograph itself (which risks exposure) - rather, it is about changing the context & meaning of the photo.
For example, remember the photos of the 'crowds' of Iraqis toppling Saddam's statue - which turned out to be actually a small number of people? The photo taken from up-close suggested (falsely) that there were lots of people participating in the event ("Crowds cheer ... waving and dancing") but the photo taken from farther away proved otherwise.

No one manipulated the photo itself, mind you, they just changed the context by changing the angle of the shot.

Compare:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/09/sprj.irq.statue/

and

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2842.htm


Context is always open to manipulation and interpretation.

Does this photo show: 1- a brave chinese dissident heroically standing up to the tanks, or 2- how the Chinese military respects human-rights so much that they're willing to bring a whole column of tanks to a standstill so as to avoid injuring some moron.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tianasquare.jpg

Smart propagandists don't resort to Photoshop - they make the same image tell a different story by changing the context of the image.

[paulr]

the most common way of "faking" a photograph does not involve making changes to the photograph itself (which risks exposure) - rather, it is about changing the context & meaning of the photo.

i think in the journalism trade that's called "editing." ;)

i saw szarkowski give a lecture on the american picture magazine era, and he talked a lot about this. he challenged the popular notion that photographers were telling stories with pictures, pointing out how difficult it was to construct any kind of independent narrative with journalistic photographs. and he showed how the photojournalists would take painstaking efforts to tell a story, only to see their pictures completely repurposed to illustrate a different (sometimes contradictory) one.

the real story was told by the text, and the pictures were used, ironically, to make the story seem real. it didn't matter if the pictures actually had anything to do with the text ... as long as they worked to lend an air of realism.

[cyrus]

i think in the journalism trade that's called "editing." ;)

i saw szarkowski give a lecture on the american picture magazine era, and he talked a lot about this. he challenged the popular notion that photographers were telling stories with pictures, pointing out how difficult it was to construct any kind of independent narrative with journalistic photographs. and he showed how the photojournalists would take painstaking efforts to tell a story, only to see their pictures completely repurposed to illustrate a different (sometimes contradictory) one.

the real story was told by the text, and the pictures were used, ironically, to make the story seem real. it didn't matter if the pictures actually had anything to do with the text ... as long as they worked to lend an air of realism.


But at the same time, psychologists tell us that people tend to remember & believe the message communicated by photos better than the accompanying text. Mike Deaver, Reagan's PR man, was supposedly the expert at this. He used to thank magazines and newspapers that published highly critical articles about Reagan - as long as they used flattering photographs in which Reagan was "looking presidential".

[Bill_1856]

This piffle is not worth printing.

[Brian Ellis]

great examples. worth showing to anyone who thinks altered images were an invention of the digital era.

one thing i'm curiuos about ... does anyone else consider the scandal surrounding the manipulation of O.J.'s picture to be a tempest in a teapot? it seems to me fundamentally different than the other examples (splicing heads onto bodies, removing political enemies, etc.). it's a subjective printing decision, like any other made in a darkroom. it also doesn't strike me as an alteration of O.J., but rather an alteration of the lighting. my guess is that this became a scandal because the general public doesn't understand how subjective the printing process is.

if it was being presented as a news picture that's one thing, but it was an photo illustration for a big feature story with an obvious point of view. thoughts?

I don't have any problem with the differences between the original and the Time cover. Either way he looks like what he is, a sociopathic murderer who had the good fortune to encounter an inept prosecutorial team and a jury of bigots.