Author : Pam Morris March 15 2015
Summary
This blog set out to explore whether our belief and trust in photography has deteriorated in recent times such that we as the general public have little faith in the veracity of published images. Trends show that our instincts are correct in that the level of image manipulation of photos that purport to portray the truth has increased exponentially in recent years. However it is wrong to think that this phenomenon of image modification is a product of the digital age. Investigation into early photography showed us that enhancing, correcting and manipulating images was an accepted practice from the start. What is clear is that a photograph, even in its purest form can never show the world as we as individuals actually see it since each of us views the world in our own unique way depending on our genetic makeup and visual experiences. So what we each think an image of the real world should look like is in fact likely to be different as is the way we perceive a photographic image of that world. Truth is a moving target where it is impossible to benchmark an absolute truth about reality on which to judge a photo of it. Sometimes we correct a photographic image to bring it more into line with the reality that we see, i.e. Fix it to make it more representational of the truth as we know it or other times we manipulate its colour or tone to make it more aesthetically pleasing but still hold to the tenet that it represents reality. Whilst the world is agreed that removing or adding pixels to a raw image is unacceptable if we want to submit an image as representing fact; there seems to be no published guidelines on the extent we can manipulate colour or tone to render the resultant image acceptable or unacceptable as evidence of fact. It seems that given ever increasing the level of unacceptable manipulation being found in submissions for photo journals and scientific journals that the general position of the public not to believe an image until its proven to be unmodified is a valid position to hold.
However advances in digital technology are enabling us to manipulate, distort, and alter reality in ways that were simply impossible twenty years ago. It is impossible to imagine what the technology of tomorrow will make possible. It will become critical that we fully understand the power, limits, and implications of digital technology, which may mean adopting a different attitude and relationship with digital media (Farid)[i].
In conclusion if in the future photographs are to be used for their full potential in exploring the boundaries of science, evidence of happenings, in courts of law and true representations of historical events then we need to ensure that forensic technology keeps pace with digital advancements so that it is always possible to identify image manipulation. Photographers need to protect our industry and develop and enforce international standards regarding image verification, validation, certification and Meta data recording. I.e. Such recommendations could include:
· All photo-editing software to comply with auditing standards for logging manipulations and technology that secures the content of this Meta data so all raw images can be verified.
· The international photographic community needs a clear set of objective guidelines on what is acceptable and not acceptable regarding image manipulation.
· Images can be officially verified and certified to be within acceptable bounds of manipulation.
[i] Farid H Digital Doctoring: can we trust photographs? Hany Farid Dartmouth College http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/downloads/publications/deception09.pdf Retrieved Mar 11th 2015