Law For Digitally Altered Photographs

[df cardwell]

Was this a common practice, and is it even possible do that with a digital file?

Yes. Yes.

For starters:

http://www.ists.dartmouth.edu/library/327.pdf

http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~rockmore/pnas-rev.pdf

.

 

[keithwms]

I think there is some kind of encryption key for digital images, it is available at least on pro-level Nikon cameras. I think the purpose is to prevent unauthorized duplication, not really to prevent editing (the photogrpaher could still, in principle, diddle with the file before sending it on to the media org).

In my view, a raw format with extreme encryption is long overdue, to guarantee journalistic integrity of digital images. This would be a means to record time, file accesses and in-camera adjustments, and perhaps also location and some identifier of who shot the image. But that just isn't in the cards just yet. It'd require each camera to contain a hard-wired, unique key, and the encryption would be a bit computationally intensive. In principle the media org could have the sole decryption key for the master raw file, and the photographer would only have access to some downsized jpeg. This would completely eliminate some of the nonsense we've seen recently.

But of course, even in this case, somebody has to have the key and if the media org itself isn't responsible.... and it's also somewhat troubling to me to think that the responsibility for the image would be separated from the photographer. Moreover, if you simply tour the popular news sites, the media orgs are now using really crappy low-res images to report news... cell phone images and the like... so would they actually turn down a compelling image from a non-keyed photographer? I think not. That's very troubling. I can imagine a terroristic act being committed... or not actually being committed... and all the world's news orgs jumping on it and throwing everybody into a dangerous panic and perhaps evoking a strong defensive measure. For example the recent flyover of NYC, which produced some rather disturbing images of Air Force 1 at full tilt approaching some skyscrapers. That image did, justifiably, cause some to panic. It was luck and luck alone that the event didn't lead to injury.

So... film images are, in general, far more proprietary as of now. That's true of the 'files' (negs, slides) and also prints. Also the slight delay of film processing is a good thing in my view, it gives the necessary time to verify the facts on the ground. These days we have photogs beaming live images to the media orgs and the media orgs just suck it all in and publish it with no verification.

 

[Aurum]

Retouching has been going on since photography was invented. Anyone who believes it to be limited to or only a digital process is clearly not aware and knows little about photography.

The Russians were very good at it, even in the early days of photography

For example http://www.tc.umn.edu/~hick0088/classes/csci_2101/false.html

If you want to see what the sate of the art is in Digital manipulation, try Dead Link Removed or for the less subtle http://www.b3ta.com/

 

[Maris]

Before the law gets to be messing with photographs and their purported integrity there needs to be some hard headed, clear headed insight into what it is dealing with.

The key concept is the difference between photograph and picture. A picture is a representation of anything done anyhow. All photographs are pictures but very few pictures are photographs.

A photograph is picture that consists of marks occasioned in a sensitive surface by the arrival of a sample of subject matter. Subject matter is necessary for the possibility of a photograph. Non-existent things cannot send samples of themselves. A photograph is an absolute certificate for the existence of its subject matter. Therein lies its powerful evidential value.

One crucial thing that a photograph does not guarantee is that its subject matter will be correctly identified. Another complicating factor is that most photographs which are not camera-original material are in fact photographs of pictures.

A sharp example of the subject matter question is Ansel Adam's famous "Clearing Winter Storm, Yosemite National Park, California, c 1937". Most commentators would assert that it is a photograph of Yosemite Valley but it is not. The glorious gelatin-silver version of it that I looked at in the vaults of the National Gallery of Australia was a photograph all right. But it was a photograph of a black and white negative, a burning card, and a dodging wand. And to complicate matters even further the gallery curator had lost sight of the fact that the thing was a photograph and fell into calling it a print.

If an image is not a photograph then it does not certify the subject matter and its evidential value is severely curtailed. Non-photographs include photographs disqualified because they bear foreign marks; so-called "retouched photographs". And digital images are out too. They are merely printed maps of electronic files and certify nothing other than the contents of that file. The file itself, as every one knows, can be confected out of thin air.


Even a gelatin-silver photograph of a retouched negative is no better than a digital picture. It may certify the existence of a retouched negative but that negative is hard to credit as a source of information about anything else in the world.

Until the law is guided to a sophisticated insight into words like "photograph", "picture", "print", "digital image", and "subject matter" it has no chance of legislative credibility. Gosh, even some photographic forums seem to anguish over those very concepts.

 

[Q.G.]

All we need is teach people (or rather, the ignorant ones) that photographs are illustrations, not reality itself.

 

[arigram]

Like Maris said, an image can be a photograph and a photograph is an image, but not all images are photographs.
The whole value of a photograph, either artistic or practical, is the actual physical existence of the elements depicted, their composition, their relationships, their existence in space and time. The fact that the photographer was present in a certain space at a certain moment to press the shutter release button. Something that could require perfect timing, extensive preparation, people skills and guts.
Artistically, if you use a camera as a base to create an image using further means, then its just lazier painting.
You don't even need a camera to create a digital photorealistic image.
You just need an automated script to pull image elements from the web, add some CGI, some visual effects and you have a photo-like image.

I draw the line when the shutter is pressed. That is when the photograph is created. Everything else is just dressing.

 

[Q.G.]

You always create an image, if only by selecting what to include and what not, and how to arrange the thingies in the frame.
Both, but in particular the latter is also known as selecting a point of view. Not coincidentally, "point of view" is also used to indicate the relative 'truth' of a statement.

The "actual physical existence of the element depicted" means nothing at all.

 

[arigram]

The "actual physical existence of the element depicted" means nothing at all.

How so?
Is an image of a street scene the same if:
a) One has captured it as it is with a shutter press. All elements, the buildings, the people, their places in the frame, their poses, their proximity to one another, their facial expressions, the lighting, and so on, were captured in a fraction of a breath.
b) The basic background was captured with a camera. Some things like people, lamp posts, cars, garbage, where removed. Someone's hand was changed. Someone else was moved. A landing bird from a random picture from the web was added in for extra drama. Graffiti on the wall was drawn with a paint program. Shadows where added and removed. And so on.

The image could look the same, or very similar and have the same visual impact.
But where then does Photography as an Art stand compared to other visual Arts? On the second description, photography is just the camera capture of the base premise. The rest is computer art. Art still. But not Photography.

 

[Q.G.]

How so?

Because there is a "what of" and a "how" involved.
The "what of" may appear to be rather 'innocent', 'objective' (to use that ugly word) even.
But the "how" spoils the game.

It doesn't matter at all that a presumed objectivity is spoiled by manipulation 'after the fact', when there was no such objectivity to begin with.

"All we need is teach people that photographs are illustrations, not reality itself."


Now that art bit.
What has being art or not to do with it?

And what's up with using a capital "a"?

But you're question is a different one.
The answer is simple: you create images using light and film and whatever you put in front of your lens (or whatever you point your lens at) the same way every other art form creates whatever physical manifestation of art they create.


Then the "photography" bit.
If the sketch used as a basis for an etch or watercolour painting was done using a pencil, does that make the etch or watercolour something else, but definitely not an etch or watercolour?

But, more importantly, who gives a damn?
The object of the game is to create something. Photographic techniques are means to an end. Not the end itself. If you need to use paint, need to rip the paper, put the thing in a dish washer, [etc.] to achieve what you set out to achieve, who the f*&% cares about it being photography or not?

(And how could you reconcile such a strict and extremely limited/limiting view with the use of a capital "a"?)

 

[df cardwell]

The OP referred specifically to advertising targeting CHILDREN
with retouched images, making skinny models even skinnier,
indoctrinating them into a false conception of health and fashion.

Quoting the NYT article, "For Ms. Issermann, the problem is not photography, but a “prepubescent style” — a kind of adolescent androgyny, in which skinny, not very muscular young men are paired with skinny, not very curvaceous girls “disguised as women.” Still, she said, digital pictures often need retouching “to recreate the emotion that caused you to press the shutter in the first place.”

The question is not the nature of photography, but the nature of advertising.
It is not a question of TASTE or ARTISTIC freedom, but using fictional bodies
to sell clothes. It is part of the ongoing blowback in the fashion biz AGAINST using super skinny models.

The PROBLEM is the Pro Anorexic lifestyle targeting young girls.

Those of us fortunate enough to have young children in the house might do well to consider the relative merit of a sophomoric vision of an unfettered artistic purity at the cost of a healthy child.

.

 

[arigram]

How so?

Because there is a "what of" and a "how" involved.
The "what of" may appear to be rather 'innocent', 'objective' (to use that ugly word) even.
But the "how" spoils the game.

It doesn't matter at all that a presumed objectivity is spoiled by manipulation 'after the fact', when there was no such objectivity to begin with.

"All we need is teach people that photographs are illustrations, not reality itself."

There is never complete objectivity to any human knowledge.
Even Science is limited the human experience and means of understanding, even it is the closer to the objective truth that humans can get to.
Journalism is also limited, even other more strict practical uses of photography, such as a snapshot as evidence of a crime. Information, will always be framed around the very limited experience of a human being, even it is shared with others.
Art is maybe the most subjective viewpoint an object can have.

Now that art bit.
What has being art or not to do with it?

I thought photography was one of the arts, thus the need to touch upon its stand as an artistic medium?

And what's up with using a capital "a"?

Well, I didn't know someone was so picky, so I changed it to undercase to please your eyes and make the term less ideological and pretentious looking.

But you're question is a different one.
The answer is simple: you create images using light and film and whatever you put in front of your lens (or whatever you point your lens at) the same way every other art form creates whatever physical manifestation of art they create.

I know not of another that uses physical manifestations and light to create a 2 dimensional artwork. I am not talking about the physicality of the art piece, I am talking about the artistic elements. A painter, sculptor, poet, engraver, graphic designer, CGI artist, doesn't need the actual presence of a physical object and space to create their 2 dimension artwork.

Then the "photography" bit.
If the sketch used as a basis for an etch or watercolour painting was done using a pencil, does that make the etch or watercolour something else, but definitely not an etch or watercolour?

You misread me.
If you use a medium to an artwork in another medium, it is usually the second medium that represents the technique, unless there is a certain balance of elements to call it mixed media. I can use a projector to paint from, a photograph to draw from, a drawing to make a sculpture from, or a set of photographs to create a collage from.

But, more importantly, who gives a damn?
The object of the game is to create something. Photographic techniques are means to an end. Not the end itself. If you need to use paint, need to rip the paper, put the thing in a dish washer, [etc.] to achieve what you set out to achieve, who the f*&% cares about it being photography or not?

Sure you can use any means necessary to create art.
And not any fucking motherfucker fucking cares if its fucking photography or fucking painting or fucking sculpure as they are only fucking means to create fucking art.
I just fucking like to call my sketches pencil drawings because I used pencils to make them or charcoal drawings because I use charcoals to make them. I also call my photography as such because I used a camera to make them, my computer graphics like this because I used a computer to make them and my motherfucking clay sculpture, motherfucking clay sculpture because I used fooking clay to make fooking 3 dimension sculptures.
Savvy mate?

(And how could you reconcile such a strict and extremely limited/limiting view with the use of a capital "a"?)

You call my thinking extremely limited when yours is "any means necessary, image is all, process is irrelevant" fanatical viewpoint that pretends to be all free thinking, without borders and limits creativity, joy, joy, happy, happy, I am free to create, fuck them all, restrictive, oppressive bastards.
Black and white, is it now?
The very restrictive "the medium is the art" and the very free "art is everything" duality?
Sorry, but I don't subscribe into that. I hate black and white rationality.

Just use the new term "imaging" and forget about it.

 

[Q.G.]

Ari,

I'm glad that you now agree that "All we need is teach people that photographs are illustrations, not reality itself."
So we can bury the silly notion that we need the law this thread is about.


The art thing.
Why did you think you needed to make the term more ideological and pretentious looking to begin with?

Anyway, photography is not one of the arts. It is a medium.
Just as talking and writing is not one of the arts.
As such it can be used to do many different things. One of which may be called art.

This thread is not about art. It is about the silly believe that a photograph indeed is reality, which lead to the equally silly demand for an unneccesary law.


I did not misread what you said about "The Pure Art of Photography".
I just find it rather silly. For the reasons stated.

This subject pops up regularly. The answer to the silly questions always is the same. A photograph that, say, has been painted on is a photograph that has been painted on. The photography bit does not disappear as if by magic, just because it is not the only f%$!ing thing that was involved in making something.

As any other puritism, this "what is photography" silliness is about the silliest thing ever heard.
Your opposing criticism by supposing that the only alternative is a limitless "freedom" is typical for narrow minded puritisms too.
Wake up, and be real.
You'll see that you are the only one this far who is heavily involved in a "black and white rationality"

You know, we needn't have strayed along this line. Which was my point.
"All we need is teach people [...] that photographs are illustrations, not reality itself."

 

[arigram]

Ari,

I'm glad that you now agree that "All we need is teach people that photographs are illustrations, not reality itself."
So we can bury the silly notion that we need the law this thread is about.


The art thing.
Why did you think you needed to make the term more ideological and pretentious looking to begin with?

Anyway, photography is not one of the arts. It is a medium.
Just as talking and writing is not one of the arts.
As such it can be used to do many different things. One of which may be called art.

This thread is not about art. It is about the silly believe that a photograph indeed is reality, which lead to the equally silly demand for an unneccesary law.


I did not misread what you said about "The Pure Art of Photography".
I just find it rather silly. For the reasons stated.

This subject pops up regularly. The answer to the silly questions always is the same. A photograph that, say, has been painted on is a photograph that has been painted on. The photography bit does not disappear as if by magic, just because it is not the only f%$!ing thing that was involved in making something.

As any other puritism, this "what is photography" silliness is about the silliest thing ever heard.
Your opposing criticism by supposing that the only alternative is a limitless "freedom" is typical for narrow minded puritisms too.
Wake up, and be real.
You'll see that you are the only one this far who is heavily involved in a "black and white rationality"

You know, we needn't have strayed along this line. Which was my point.
"All we need is teach people [...] that photographs are illustrations, not reality itself."

I won't really disagree with you.
I think we agree on the basic idea, but as we approached it from different places, we mixed it up. You misread me. As I did misread you.
I never said that a photograph is reality itself.
Neither did I claim that any photography is immediately art and not a tool such as a pencil that can be used for practical non creative uses or seen as something artistic.
As far as the case of the first letter of the word Art, well, you took it as pretentious, it is your reading, your viewpoint. I changed the case to please you. I didn't see it as such, neither did I have the same comprehension of the word such you have. Art with a capital letter is the, maybe platonic, concept of the Idea, which exists in a theoretical space separate from the, as I perceived it, solid physicality of the arts, as manifestations of their mediums.

Philosophy and the rest I won't discuss with someone who attacks personally and is down right offensive. If you want to discuss theory that is fine, but when you attack someone and belittle their views, then communication is broken.

 

[Q.G.]

Ari,

I asked why you used a capital letter. You were the one it said it was pretentious.
Though i have no reason to disagree, still your words.

I will call limited/limiting puritan views just that when i come across any.
My fault?

Anyway, i too think we don't disagree much on basics. I just wondered about the why of the so very rondabout way to approach this very simple subject. Art. The really existing subject. When is photography photography. All unecessary detours, some of which don't even lead to where we hoped to be heading.