Doctored photos - Thoughts ?

[Donald Miller]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21978560/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13165165/

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/19/60203.aspx

[Bruce Watson]

Now there's a dead horse that's been beaten for a while.

[harrykauf]

shocking! secret russian technology now available in the west?
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/research/digitaltampering/stalin1+2.jpg

[jetcode]

can't be any worse then rewriting history books in your favor, a common practice in the face of real crime

[tim atherton]

or just do it the old fashioned Victorian way like Roger Fenton...:


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/09/21/opinion/21morris_OFF.533.jpg


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/09/21/opinion/21morris_ON.533.jpg

[billschwab]

Don't believe half of what you see... and none of what you hear.

I don't see where this is a problem unique to digital. Although I've always thought the Beirut shot was pathetic in that it demonstrastes editors have either become too uneducated or too jaded to do their jobs. How obvious can a sh***y cloning job be?

Look around... photographs aren't the only thing lying to us these days. There is no integrity in journalism anymore. When we have entire news agencies that are nothing but propagandists, why would anyone get upset over a few doctored photos?

[tim atherton]

There is no integrity in journalism anymore. When we have entire news agencies that are nothing but propagandists, why would anyone get upset over a few doctored photos?

You mean like in the days of William Randolph Hearst...?

[billschwab]

You mean like in the days of William Randolph Hearst...?Sorry... Hearst is nothing when compared to Murdoch.

[walter23]

I put my face on a midget in a kinky pornographic scene within moments of getting my first copy of photoshop. That was like 10 years ago.

[jb7]

I put my face on a midget in a kinky pornographic scene within moments of getting my first copy of photoshop. That was like 10 years ago.

I'd love to put that in my signature on another photographic forum-
Would you mind?

Full attribution, of course-:D

joseph-

[RDKirk]

When answering questions about the events, the participants [in the study, not in the event] had differing recollections of what happened. Those who viewed the altered images of the Rome protest recalled the demonstration as violent and negative and recollected more physical confrontation and property damage than actually occurred.

Another of those stupid university studies. Of course people who saw a different photograph had a different recollection of what they saw. Did it really take a "study" to figure that out? Of course, if a photographer or editor wanted to slant perception either way, that would have been easy enough with selective framing and editing.

Heck, people who were there had differing recollections of what they saw.

[john collins]

Sorry... Hearst is nothing when compared to Murdoch.

Murdoch is merely a tabloid publisher. Hearst used his papers to fan public opinion
after the USS Maine blew up in Havana Harbor, quite possibly from a boiler exploision.
The sensational reporting (now referred to as yellow journalism) in the Hearst Newspapers is credited with starting the Spanish-American War.

[Nigel Smith]

Everytime this 'old chesnut' gets rolled out, those same pictures are displayed as the justification for saying 'people have been doing this for years'. Jerry Ulesman is the next 'proof' that image combination is a 'run of the mill' alteration. I venture that there's a handful of individuals world-wide that can do analoguely what millions of people can do in PS.

[tim atherton]

Everytime this 'old chesnut' gets rolled out, those same pictures are displayed as the justification for saying 'people have been doing this for years'. Jerry Ulesman is the next 'proof' that image combination is a 'run of the mill' alteration. I venture that there's a handful of individuals world-wide that can do analoguely what millions of people can do in PS.

not at all, it's been a constant in advertising, fashion and magazine photography almost from the start.

Magazines from say the 30's through the 80's had whole departments of retouchers who could do just about anything Photoshop could do so well and seamlessly you could rarely tell unless it was incongruous and meant to be noticed.

Joe public has been bombarded with hundreds of thousands of skillfully manipulated analogue photographs for a few generations

[walter23]

Another of those stupid university studies. Of course people who saw a different photograph had a different recollection of what they saw. Did it really take a "study" to figure that out? Of course, if a photographer or editor wanted to slant perception either way, that would have been easy enough with selective framing and editing.

Heck, people who were there had differing recollections of what they saw.

One could argue that there were police officers there and that there were confrontations as well as peaceful areas, thus both groups were correct. The doctored photograph may have accidentally recalled real events for them.

[Bill_1856]

"Photos don't lie." Yeah. Right!

[Ted Harris]

I remember reading that Mathew Brady and other Civil War photogs. often rearranged bodies, etc. to give a battle scene more impact ......

[jetcode]

Joe public has been bombarded with hundreds of thousands of skillfully manipulated analogue photographs for a few generations

black skies and super saturated color in landscape

[Kirk Gittings]

I remember reading that Mathew Brady and other Civil War photogs. often rearranged bodies, etc. to give a battle scene more impact ......

Is there a fundamental difference between "staged" photographs and "doctored" photographs? Brady staged photographs, Stalin doctored photographs.

[Sylvester Graham]

Is there a fundamental difference between "staged" photographs and "doctored" photographs?

At least when talking about Brady, is there?

Moving inanimate corpses around is a lot different than politely asking someone to play dead.

[Marko]

not at all, it's been a constant in advertising, fashion and magazine photography almost from the start.

Magazines from say the 30's through the 80's had whole departments of retouchers who could do just about anything Photoshop could do so well and seamlessly you could rarely tell unless it was incongruous and meant to be noticed.

Joe public has been bombarded with hundreds of thousands of skillfully manipulated analogue photographs for a few generations

In the end, it is not the question of any individual technology, nor even technology in general, but primarily of human intent and willingness to use it to achieve certain goals.

To paraphrase the guns-rights people, photographs don't lie, people do.

This kind of discussion is "old chestnut" only insomuch as it pops up every time a new technology emerges into the mainstream. It is simply a product of human natural conservatism, a comfort zone interrupted by new arrivals, regardless of true value of old vs. new.

[darr]

I see doctored photos every-time I see a beautiful B&W landscape with a blackened sky, beautiful yet doctored. Is it propaganda to beautify the landscape? Is the intent to mislead? I can speak for my own commercial work that I got paid to make it as appealing as possible. Was I being dishonest or misleading? I would like to think I was doing what I was paid to do through the use of filters and negative retouching and now through photoshop skills. A percentage of the buying public demands the world to be packaged nicely.

The powerful and greedy will encompass whatever tools are available to achieve their goals. Photography can be a very powerful tool and one that is easily manipulated. I think as photographers we all know this.
:rolleyes:

[billschwab]

Murdoch is merely a tabloid publisher. Hearst used his papers to fan public opinion... And Murdoch's rags and TV "News" channels are different how?
.. the Hearst Newspapers is credited with starting the Spanish-American War.As Faux news and other mainstream media sources had no small part in getting us to buy the lies of Iraq.

[Maris Rusis]

I doubt that a doctored photograph is still a photograph.

It may still be a picture but if the marks you are seeing didn't get there via the agency of light then it surely can't be a genuine photograph. I think it was Fred Picker who declared the dismayingly obvious: "Looks like doesn't mean same as."

[john collins]

Sorry... Hearst is nothing when compared to Murdoch.


Murdoch is merely a tabloid publisher. Hearst used his papers to fan public opinion
after the USS Maine blew up in Havana Harbor, quite possibly from a boiler exploision.
The sensational reporting (now referred to as yellow journalism) in the Hearst Newspapers is credited with starting the Spanish-American War.

Hello Bill,

My response was directed to your first statement "Sorry... Hearst is nothing when compared to Murdoch.

My use of the word "merely" in refering to Murdoch did not give him his due.:eek:

[Mark Sawyer]

Murdoch is merely a tabloid publisher. Hearst used his papers to fan public opinion
after the USS Maine blew up in Havana Harbor, quite possibly from a boiler exploision.
The sensational reporting (now referred to as yellow journalism) in the Hearst Newspapers is credited with starting the Spanish-American War.

And Murdoch's Fox News did nothing to fan public opinion towards the the start of the war in Iraq?

[john collins]

And Murdoch's Fox News did nothing to fan public opinion towards the the start of the war in Iraq?

Mark - See post No. 25.

[paulr]

Photos don't lie.

It's not possible for something to lie unless it's also capable of telling the truth. Photos don't tell the truth, either.

There's a difference between truth and facts. Truth can only be established through some kind of context. It is generally based on facts, but the meaning of the truth is established by the context in which we place the facts.

Look at the Fenton photographs of the road through the battlefield. One shows cannon balls; the other doesn't. Both present facts. The only way these images are capable of conveying truth (or lies) is if they are shown to us in a way that suggests a meaning. For instance, if the one with the cannon balls is shown with a caption that reads "aftermath of the battle at county road" and in fact those cannon balls were placed there for effect. Then you could argue that a lie is being told. But the photograph itself is merely presenting a fact that's used in the lie. If the caption reads "landscape with cannon balls" then no lie is being told.

If you airbrush your political enemy out of a photograph, you are changing a factual record. But if the image is presented in a way that acknowledges this (or that makes this irrelevent) then you are not using it to tell a lie.

Saying that photos lie is a bit like saying that words lie. Sure, we can spin lies out of either. We can also use either to seek and elaborate the truth. If there's a difference, it's that it takes more effort to falsify facts with a photograph than with words. And more effort to falsify facts with digital processes than with analog ones. But in any case, it's the messenger, not the medium that deserves scrutiny.

In other words, liars lie.

[Hollis]

I used to work for a certain mega-retail outfit doing photoshop work for their in-store advertising and their catalog and Im sure you can imagine how boring and repetitive it got at some times so to spice things up we would insert very small elements into photos that were, well, not so kosher. A good time was had by all.