Very interesting post. My comments are coming from the frame of reference of a woman in her late 50s. Throughout most of my life, photographs were a slice of reality. And the people who took them were generally trustworthy. As the digital age took over, manipulation became an easy exercise for those who chose to use it. And people became less trustworthy. When I am duped by a manipulated photo, I feel very disappointed. My disappointment is aimed at the character of the people who have spun the false tale. It may be innate in our human consciousness that "seeing is believing," and that may have been necessary for us to survive in some very dangerous situations in the past. But people who take advantage of that quality, people who manipulate photos and start computer viruses, confound me. Whatever psychological reward they get is at the price of many innocent victims. Teaching our children that their actions (whether good or bad) affect the other people around them, would be a good start in solving this enourmous problem.

Great article. It's quite scary that a photography - while worth 1,000 words, it can do some serious damage if altered and perceived as truth.

Great article. It's quite scary that a photography - while worth 1,000 words, it can do some serious damage if altered and perceived as truth.

It just stands to point out that we cannot always trust what we see and we don't always see what we should. Perception is somuch more than a physical act--Malcolm Gladwell delves into this in his book, Blink. The technological advancements have ironically served to force people to develop and hone a less "sophisticated" approach to determining what's real--intuition.

Nesta, thank you for commenting on this post. I appreciate your perspective regarding how photography was once seen as a slice of life, however I would argue that photo manipulation isn't a product of the digital age. The NYT article mentioned some examples of "fauxtography" that were relevant in '30s/'40s...

Nick, your insights are spot on when you talk about the damage that altered photographs can cause, however a photograph doesn't have to be altered to have been manipulated. Couldn't one argue that the method, angle, close-up, lens, framing etc, of the photographer him/herself is in a sense an alteration of reality? If that's true, can photographs "be trusted"?

Dawn, thank you for commenting on this post.

Your comment about "Blink" brings me back to the story in the last chapters; "Seven Seconds in the Bronx". The chapter details a police shootout with a suspect where officers make one mistaken assumption after another within a compressed timeframe.

Seven seconds may however appear to be a long time compared to the amount of time people usually spend reviewing a picture or image in the paper or on the web. Shouldn't we be spending more time critically analyzing photographs and paying close attention to how captions "frame" a picture?

Critical thinking, in my opinion, is becoming a lost art.

Your post raises some important points where marketing is concerned, Paul. Consumers would like to believe that what they see isn't fake or manipulated. However, recent abuses of our trust have led all consumers to become more cynical, as a result. I'm not sure that any amount of analysis of photographs and captions artfully done can be discerned to be real or fake. Bottom line for me: once a company abuses my trust by being found out as disingenuous with the way they photograph and talk about their products, they've lost my business. If my expectations don't measure up to the build-up, it's over. I believe that's true for most of us. It's that important for companies to honestly portray their products and their brands. Their survival depends on it.

Ted, thank you for adding your insights. It appears that a key underlying theme is "trust" - with the credibility of the company/brand/product at stake. However, with retouching, airbrushing, and Photoshop- can consumers ever really "trust" what they see- whether it's from a "trustworthy" brand or not? Should we be more skeptical regarding the images presented before us?

Two more questions- with "time" at a premium for most people, do we have enough time to critically analyze the photos before us, and more importantly - how many of us care?

I remember very clearly being told in my first photography class, "all photographs are lies" and that was before all this fancy digital stuff hit the scene.

The point was that even if you can't manipulate the actual arrangement of particles on the film, a photograph is the product of many conscious choices that cause it to depart from the reality of experience, from framing and cropping to staging the scene and even the choice to even make or publish the photograph in the first place.

Pictures are powerful because vision is powerful, perhaps affecting us more viscerally than words. Photographs have the feeling of reality even if we know better.

I believe that people's faith in the truth of a photo or film clip comes less from faith in the recording medium and more from faith in the media outlet. For example, I don't believe a photo in the New York Times because it's a photo, I believe it because I believe in the New York Times. Others DISbelieve it for the same reason.

But, as Jayson Blair showed us, no media outlet is immune to being corrupted, duped or simply mistaken, so caveat lector.

I'd be interested to see a similar discussion of the use of statistics and graphs in the media. Do they have the same ring of truthiness? Do people believe them more or less than photos or reporting?

personally, I dont fee cheated when the photos are unintentionally doctored up. thats life,,, next time - people will be more careful or loose ratings which translates into revenues.

Paul.
First of all i'd like to mention to everyone reacting to this article that manipulations in photography is not something new. since war photography and more generally "journalistic" photography was born, there have always been alterations of the reality. war photographs used to be staged set ups (for technical reasons and.. other reaosns). for a couple decades now, staging a photograph becomes less and less common and photoshop comes in the game.
what you say is interesting when you mention the fact that photographs change how we perceive a reality we don't know anything about except images. for a long time governments have had their say in what should be shown and what shouldnt. Since the vietnam war, press photographers have acquired a sort of freedom they didn't really have before that, at least to that extent. but that freedom of theirs is all relative. they still have to sell their photos, and for that they have to produce images that will please the media (newspapers, magazines), and what those media want, are photos that 1-speak to the reader, correspond somwhat to their subconscious imagery, so that they can relate to it or even just understand it and 2-serve what the right minds want us to think and how we are to analyze a conflict. We're never gonna see photos of dead american soldiers on the field. why? i think that's pretty clear.
Photos and images in general have always been a very strong mean of propaganda and most people arent careful enough with them. Just a twist in a legend can change the whole meaning of a picture and this, amongst other things, can be very dangerous.
Even a photograph that is not staged nor photoshopped can be a big lie.
photographs not only capture a split second but they also photographs and very, very small portion of reality.

all that knowing i'm a photographer myself :P

oh well.

i meant "but they also capture a very, very small etc..."

Charlotte, thank you for your thoughtful insights and especially lending your experience as a photographer.

So if all that you say is true, and I don't doubt it is, 'why then, do we still trust photography' ?