Is film better for the truth?

[Sirius Glass]

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?!

To date there is neither a cure nor vaccine for stupid.

 

[greg zinselmeier]

True true Sirius glass, I agree 100 percent

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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?

the 'truth' is overrated.

 

[MattKing]

To date there is neither a cure nor vaccine for stupid.

But there is for ignorance and lack of knowledge.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

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.

 

[Helge]

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.

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.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

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.

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.

 

[faberryman]

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.

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.

Take this photo by Vivian Maier. It's obviously been hand colored. It is inconceivable anyone would ever go out in public dressed like that.

 

[Don_ih]

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.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

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.

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.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

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.

 

[Don_ih]

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.

"Accepted as being unaltered and representing the particular state of affairs" does not mean "true" or even "factual" - it means "representative". It is still subject to interpretation - as is the state of affairs being represented.

Truth should not enter into this discussion.

 

[halfaman]

I expect from journalism honesty and integrity in the difusion of information. Truth is for philosophers.

If there is a problem of trust it is because the decisions made by humans. Don't look at the camera, look at the person who handles it.

 

[Don_ih]

If there is a problem of trust it is because the decisions made by humans.

Exactly. On the face of it, a photo appears to be trustworthy - the decisions made by the person who took it and the way it was treated thereafter are what is questionable. Perspective and framing are always subject to questioning, even if the photo itself is trusted.

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

And in that is the complaint that I have. It is a lost in trust.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

There are two problems with threads like this. One is that they end up in discussions about "what is the meaning of truth" and/or "what is the meaning of fact" - not pointless subjects of reflection, but way beyond the scope of a format such as this forum proposes.

The other, even more important, problem is that these discussions are totally detached from the reality of photography today. Out there in the real world, you have hundreds of photojournalists working on digital support doing documentary work and being published in various news outlets. Because of the unethical behavior of a few in the past, these news outlets now have mechanisms in place to prevent manipulation, and because so much of their revenue is tied to what is published online, they can ill-afford to be proven to deliver so-called "fake news". And there aren't many photojournalists who are ready to risk their livelihood by cheating.

I think that, generally speaking, we are past the problems exposed in the OP almost 20 years ago. Is everything perfect in the world of photojournalism? Of course not. But little has to do now with how it's done, more by whom and to whom. Recent examples of the exploitation of the image of children in poor countries by European or North-American photographers and photography agencies are ample proof that there are many ethical questions left to be resolved.

 

[faberryman]

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.

Okay, I'll play along.

It is unlikely that Aunt Patootie saved Uncle Elmer's bermuda shorts in the shoebox with the prints. So you look at the photo and say to yourself: "Really? A grown man wore bermuda shorts like that?" Maybe Uncle Elmer's bermuda shorts were in some tasteful earth tones, and the color dyes in the prints have gone all whacky because Aunt Patootie's attic got up to about 150 degrees in the summer every year for the past 50 years. We may never know the "truth" about Uncle Elmer's bermuda shorts.

Do you think Vivian Maier kept the yellow outfits those people were wearing in a box in a storage locker with her negatives? So you look at the photo and ask yourself: "Is this a practical joke or something?" Maybe old Vivian Maier dressed them up and the whole scene was staged. Maybe in addition to being a street photographer (if you think she was a street photographer), she was also a conceptual photographer, and the thesis she wrote about what the people in yellow outfits in the photo are suppose to represent is still missing. Vivian Maier was interested in social justice (if you believe what her latest biographer had to say), so maybe the photo is all about oppression on banana plantations or something. Maybe we should give John Maloof a call. If Maloof doesn't have the thesis, I bet Jeff Wall could whip something up that would sound pretty convincing. He's a master at it.

Let me ask you, do you believe that all the stuff taken with Lomography's purple film is actually purple. What are people going to think when they find those prints in a shoebox in an attic? Well, it's film so it must be true. What about all the expired film that film enthusiasts like to shoot and cross-process in outdated chemicals. All that stuff the "truth"? And what about Bob?

And just to be clear, i wouldn't make a ridiculous assumption that the "photograph were [sic] somehow an absolute, and not a discreet entity with its own properties and qualities, not subject to aging and deterioration of its own", so that issue wouldn't come up.

So my suggestion is if you find a analog photo of an egg salad sandwich and digital photo of an egg salad sandwich, don't automatically conclude that egg salad sandwiches are fuchsia because the egg salad sandwich is fuchsia in the analog photo and yellow in the digital photo.

 

[sasah zib]

---the pole;
The corpse which you see here is that of M. Bayard, inventor of the process that has just been shown to you. As far as I know this indefatigable experimenter has been occupied for about three years with his discovery. The Government which has been only too generous to Monsieur Daguerre, has said it can do nothing for Monsieur Bayard, and the poor wretch has drowned himself. Oh the vagaries of human life....! ... He has been at the morgue for several days, and no-one has recognized or claimed him. Ladies and gentlemen, you'd better pass along for fear of offending your sense of smell, for as you can observe, the face and hands of the gentleman are beginning to decay.“H.B. 18 October, 1840.
”

---the stream:
Jean Baudrillard (1929–2007)
https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/simulations
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/baudrillard/

 

[faberryman]

Thank you. That Bayard photo is one I like to post when film enthusiasts go off the deep end about digital photos and Photoshop.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

 

[wiltw]

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.

...and then there were handcolored photos in the distant past, too.

And truth is often stranger than fiction. I remember being in a Virginia restaurant not far from a country club, with a business associate, and we see one gentleman with Kelly green ('Masters'-like) jacket with blue trousers, and someone else with blue jacket and Kelly green trousers...and I quipped, "Do you think they got their jackets mixed up with each other at the country club?!"

 

[faberryman]

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.

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.

https://www.jcrew.com/p/mens/catego...-short-in-indian-madras-patchwork-plaid/AY110

 

[BobUK]

In 1990 I was fortunate enough to see an exhibition at The British Museum, London. It was named FAKE ? A Guide to the Art of Deception.
Apart from the usual paintings, sculptures and strange taxidermy, unicorn horns etc. , there were a few exhibits on photography.

There was a real howler from the KGB. A group of perhaps twenty to thirty Russian Officials was shown in the original photograph that was released to the world press. Then alongside was the faked photo released at a later date, where the head and shoulders of one person was missing, but if you counted the legs they had forgotten to remove his. Too many legs.
Apparently he had fallen out of favour with the powers that be and he was removed from the press release. At least his head and shoulders were.

Another was a compilation of WW1 soldiers going over the top. a combination of shots of a field and barbed wire, explosions, supposedly dead and advancing troops. All making one picture of soldiers advancing into battle. Very well done.

The icing on the cake was The Cottingly Fairies. Two young ladies with cut outs of fairies placed in the scene and held in situ with hat pins. No faking at all of the negatives.
This took place in 1917 and fooled people all around the world. Declared "Authentic" by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. I think that no one could prove them fake, and I recall from one account that Kodak experts declared the negatives had definitely not been retouched. Which was completely true.
People that wanted to believe such as Sir Arthur were convinced in the authenticity of the photographs.
In the end one of the by now adult ladies admitted to the whole hoax.
The story had finally been put to rest after years of debate on the photographs.
The camera that Sir Arthur gave to the girls has now been housed in the Bradford Photography Museum in the UK.

Experts were completely fooled by a couple of artistically gifted young ladies in 1917, and the hoax continued to around the 1980 s.

Well worth reading up on the Cottingly Fairies.

There are plenty of American suspect and dubious pictures, the Civil War posed photos, Lee Harvey Oswald posing with the rifle in his garden, the old Hollywood special effects taken on film. Some of them are very convincing and all taken on film.


If you have not heard of the Cottingly Fairies , Google them for an interesting lovely story.

 

[Helge]

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.

No they don’t. This is not a paper or article. We have to rely on people having a modicum of intelligence and knowledge. If they don’t, that’s just too bad and they should merely be ignored.

You can’t declare and define every complex term and concept when you use it.
Define “art”. Define “thruth”. Define “photography”. We would never get anywhere. And the query often turns out to be the wrong one in the end (like Douglas Adam genius in the story about the answer to Life the Universe and Everything).

At most we can hope for cue words and references from those seemingly wiser and more knowledgeable than us. And then follow those in genuine curiosity.

 

[Wallendo]

For most of the 20th century, all Hollywood fantasies were recorded on film, many using practical effects. That doesn't make the Land of Oz true.

Even today, nonmanipulated images can be used to knowingly mislead the public by attributing actual photographs to false dates, locations, and situations.