Lotsa folks don't believe that the video shot on January 6, 2021 really happened, things were peaceful, folks were not supporters of the losing vote getter but 'the other party' members pretending to be...here we have proof that photos do not convince, they are not 'proof'. At least, not 'digital video' would film be more convincing?!
This is not intended to be a us vs. them thread. But I was thinking after reading up on the various uses of photoshop to embellish (a nice way of putting it) older images.
If someone scans a negative into a computer and then destroys the negative, is there any way to disprove that the image from the negative later manipulated by software is not the original image on a negative?
If I produce an image or images in my digital camera, manipulate, combine, edit out details etc and then destroy the files leaving only a printed copy, can anyone prove this was not an orignal scene?
As a journalist, it seems that it would be improtant to have a record that could be examined by experts and determined to be ture. A negative would provide that level of credibility.
Then i realized that the manipulated image could be transferred to film, giving the impression that it originated there.
My question is: do you think that as people become more and more aware of how easy it is to manipulate images and alter their content, they will eventually quit believing anything they see.
For many years people have looked on print and TV journalists as rating lower then used car salesman.
It always seemed that photographers were seen as better communicators of the truth. Are we at the end of that era?
But there is for ignorance and lack of knowledge.To date there is neither a cure nor vaccine for stupid.
The concept of truth is complicated and thorny, same with “factual”, and far outside the scope of a forum post to deal with.Y'all are abusively misusing the word "truth". There is no "truth" to photographs. They can be factual, but they are not true. True is a moral state, and only occasionally overlaps with factual. Things that are true often rely on faith that they are true, sometimes without empirical evidence, sometimes in contravention of empirical evidence (virgin births, winged horse rides, turning people into pillars of salt, etc).
What confuses people about the factuality of photographs is the high degree of verisimiltude they possess. Because a photograph can be made in such a way that it represents a moment in a place with a high degree of verisimilitude does not make it "true", or even factual. A photograph from a given angle can make a scene appear to be one thing when a different photograph, taken at the same time of the same scene, from a different angle, can give the appearance of something entirely different.
There are so many choices that are made, either consciously or instinctively, in the moments prior to exposure that shape the appearance of an image. Lens focal length, camera format, film grain, focusing, lens aperture, shutter speed, color or black and white, processing of that film (assuming we are talking about film given the venue in which we are discussing this question).
Up to a point, a photograph does have evidentiary value (the things depicted in the photograph were in a certain relationship to one another at a given time in a given place). But that is not an exclusive, all-encompassing definition of what a photograph is, regardless of the medium in which it was recorded. And just because a photograph may have evidentiary value does not mean that it can only have evidentiary value or that its evidentiary value is fixed. The evidentiary value of a photograph may be superseded by emotional value, for example.
If people are going to use such a loaded word as "True" in a discussion about a photograph, then they had better be able and willing to define it and defend that definition. Trying to blow off that discussion by saying it is outside the scope is simple evasion.The concept of truth is complicated and thorny, same with “factual”, and far outside the scope of a forum post to deal with.
You get the merest grazing sense by looking at the first hits from Googling: “the concept of thruth”.
What is the concern of this thread is the folk understanding and the tacit understanding of truth.
Viscerally, with even the most shallow knowledge of the workings of the two technologies, most people sense that a piece of film has more “truth” in it than a readily manipulated digitally stored photo.
Various advanced in camera techniques will be able to do some practically invisible manipulation directly on the negative. And going extra devious and eager to manipulate a false negative is possible, though detectable by an expert.
But still a digital collage is far more likely and seamless.
All images on the internet are digital, so that means you are only going to find truth in a shoebox in Aunt Patootie's attic, and once you get a load of those plaid bermuda shorts Uncle Elmer was supposedly wearing, you are going to loose all faith in the truth of analog prints as well.If people are going to use such a loaded word as "True" in a discussion about a photograph, then they had better be able and willing to define it and defend that definition. Trying to blow off that discussion by saying it is outside the scope is simple evasion.
Actually no. But in your example of the shoebox in Aunt Patootie's attic, you'd lose faith if you saw the actual shorts vs the photos in the shoebox because the photos in the shoebox aged and faded and the color dyes drifted. But you'd also only lose faith if you assumed that the photograph were somehow an absolute, and not a discreet entity with its own properties and qualities, not subject to aging and deterioration of its own.All images on the internet are digital, so that means you are only going to find truth in a shoebox in Aunt Patootie's attic, and once you get a load of those plaid bermuda shorts Uncle Elmer was supposedly wearing, you are going to loose all faith in the truth of analog prints as well.
Just because something is easily accepted does not make it factually correct. At one time it was easily accepted that the sun revolved around the earth, and people were imprisoned/executed for insisting otherwise. Didn't make it factually correct. It was, though, for the people who believed it, true. You can't uncomplicate something that is by nature very complex just because you don't want it to be.The idea being probed by the original question is whether or not a film photo is more easily accepted as being unaltered and representing the particular state of affairs it is claimed to represent than a digital photo.
There's no need to talk about truth.
Just because something is easily accepted does not make it factually correct. At one time it was easily accepted that the sun revolved around the earth, and people were imprisoned/executed for insisting otherwise. Didn't make it factually correct. It was, though, for the people who believed it, true. You can't uncomplicate something that is by nature very complex just because you don't want it to be.
If there is a problem of trust it is because the decisions made by humans.
Don Heisz said:We have all been pounded for 20 years or so with how easy it is to manipulate photos using a computer. At this point, even if that's not accurate, almost everyone believes it.
Actually no. But in your example of the shoebox in Aunt Patootie's attic, you'd lose faith if you saw the actual shorts vs the photos in the shoebox because the photos in the shoebox aged and faded and the color dyes drifted. But you'd also only lose faith if you assumed that the photograph were somehow an absolute, and not a discreet entity with its own properties and qualities, not subject to aging and deterioration of its own.
Actually no. But in your example of the shoebox in Aunt Patootie's attic, you'd lose faith if you saw the actual shorts vs the photos in the shoebox because the photos in the shoebox aged and faded and the color dyes drifted. But you'd also only lose faith if you assumed that the photograph were somehow an absolute, and not a discreet entity with its own properties and qualities, not subject to aging and deterioration of its own.
I certainly remember my madras bermuda shorts fondly. No two pair were exactly alike, so you never knew whether an analog photo of someone on vacation in Florida was true or not. J. Crew still offers them. Every photographer should have a pair. They are particularly fetching with one of those mesh vests with all the pockets. Socks and sandals optional.Mid 20th century a Bermuda short fad infected the US and many men and women who should have never been seen in shorts started wearing them. Even worse some wore plaid shorts and even Bleeding Madris short. The result was some people went blind and others could only wish that they had become blind. Fortunately like most fashion fad it passed leave many worse for the wear.
If people are going to use such a loaded word as "True" in a discussion about a photograph, then they had better be able and willing to define it and defend that definition. Trying to blow off that discussion by saying it is outside the scope is simple evasion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?