Can Photos Be Trusted to Tell the Truth

This “boomerang effect”, where awareness of digital modification increases rather than diminishes the influence of the images has also been found using retouched images of normal people, to control for the effect of the thin-ideal model [14]. In this study, male and female adolescents viewed photographs of same gender young adults that were either not retouched, were retouched to remove blemishes and subtly improve body contours, and labelled as so, or were retouched and not labelled. Physical self-esteem decreased and objectified body consciousness increased following exposure to the images only in those adolescents who were informed about the digital alteration.

Recall is the percentage of manipulated images that we could find of the total number of manipulated images.

Put another way, the person who took the photo, any person who subsequently handles it, or any person present when the photo was taken, is not required to testify about the authenticity of the photo. If people cannot distinguish between original and fake photos, then litigants might use manipulated images to intentionally deceive the court, or even testify about images, unaware they have been changed.

... A study by London's City University found 90% of women surveyed would edit pictures to reshape their nose or jaw, brighten their teeth or alter their waist before posting on social media.

We may think of AI deepfakes, and ... reliable medium, but we would be wrong. It turns out people have been doctoring photos, manipulating and meddling, from the start....

After close inspection, major news agencies like Associated Press, Reuters, Getty Images, and Agence France-Presse issued a "kill notice" to stop the distribution of the royal image due to apparent edits that failed to meet industry photo standards, such as inconsistencies in hand alignment and oddly blurred hair points. Although Middleton acknowledged the photo had been altered, describing it as an "experiment with editing," the incident raised broader questions about the credibility of official releases and the media's role in disseminating manipulated images.

When one views a photograph, one is always at least partially a victim of the reality it allows one to see. The more photographs, still or cinematic, one views, the more ingrained the anamorphic view of reality becomes. Thus, one’s concept of reality becomes increasingly anamorphic as one views more photographic material.

If I am interpreting Reece correctly, he takes a well-supported position that photography was a game-changer from the get-go, which I think is true, but that photography represents reality, as opposed to paintings and sketches that the artist inevitably influences.

It’s always going to be a digital or analog representation of reality. Some people will say you‘re showing a part of reality by framing and that the frame, from the middle to its borders is true reality. But is that so? It might have been from that one exact angle but there’s another problem: The person that watches your photo. He will make up his own reality. It doesn...