Fake Photography

Not sure that I have anything profound to say about this subject, but it is something that I am interested in tracking in the next 15-20 years.

We all spend time on the internet, and we've all seen digitally "doctored" photos (such as the Bush photo you see here with this posting). So my question is this: In 20, 30, or 100 years, how will we even know what is real? How will we know if a picture is a representation of reality at that time, or if it has been modified, and therefore a misrepresentation? A notable example that I can remember was the totally fake photograph that was supposedly developed from a camera found in the World Trade Center rubble. Nike ran a "What if?" commercial in 2005 that showed footage of famous athletes playing in different sports (i.e. Lance Armstrong in the ring boxing and Andre Agassi playing for the Red Sox). In 100 years, will anyone realize that it's not real?

Anybody can do it these days. Heck, even "tech dummy" Brad was able to put me side-by-side with Mel Gibson, right? Not too many years ago it would have taken someone considerably skilled to do it, but not anymore. Whereas professional photographers were able to modify our senior pictures a little bit to cover up our zits, there was no way any of us would have been able to do that on our own. But now it's so easy that digital photo software companies actually use that line of thinking as an advertising tool (i.e. make the perfect family Christmas photo by blending photos together). In fact that reminds me that the picture that we put in our Christmas card this year was modified. I had a fever blister on my lip so Jennifer "fixed" my lip. I've always complained about Brad screwing up the barn door photo. If we had a digital copy of it we could just fix it to look like Ed and me (doing it the right way). Haha!

We've all heard the saying, "seeing is believing", but this digital photo thing changes the whole game. How do we know that the pictures we see in the news have not been doctored? How do we know that the government, for example, doesn't doctor photographs for trial evidence or a host of other things? What if the pictures of Soviet nuclear missile sites in Cuba weren't real photos? What if the Zapruder film was doctored to hide the second shooter? Okay, that's a movie clip, but we all know what they can do with digital effects in movies these days. It scares me a little bit to see how people will try to modify history with altered digital photographs/movies in the future. History has the potential to get pretty foggy.

I did a cursory search on the task of authenticating digital photographs and it does appear to be an issue (already) in the criminal justice system. Just like all evidence, there must be some chain of custody, some way of demonstrating to a jury that photos are REAL photos, and not modified photos. I would assume that in the next couple of decades, the forensic examination and authentication of all types of digital media (not just photographs) is going to become a HUGE industry.

The bottom line is that I am totally suspicious of any photographs that get emailed to me that are billed as "amazing photos". I know that you guys think I'm a regular Mel Gibson conspiracy guy, but I'm vary wary of that kind of thing these days. Who knows who "created" those amazing shots.

I should just end it there, but I'm going to make a quick tie into my last post about the cult of the amateur. Is it just me or is everybody in the world suddenly a "professional photographer"? It doesn't take any training apparently, just an investment of about $2K for a nice camera and some high-end photo-editing software. I personally know a friend of ours that was a grade school teacher but now runs what appears to be a very successful photography (family/kid pics) business. She hasn't had a single class in photography.

Interestingly enough, she says that taking the pictures is the easiest and least consuming part of the job. It's all the editing (I think Dad would prefer "doctoring") the takes so much time.

So how much of your personal photo collection is doctored?