Outside of work I mostly keep busy with artistic hobbies: music, painting, photography. When I first began learning photography I struggled with the idea of whether or not photos should be edited with software or if I should try to stay true to the subject and accept what comes out of the camera. Over the last 10 years or so I have come to learn that artistic photos are made, not taken. Meaning, it doesn't matter how good your camera is, a beautiful art photo requires some amount of digital editing. They are made, not taken.
There are a few different types of photography, including but surely not limited to:
- Artistic - These are often nature and landscape photos, beautiful sunsets, etc. But this can include street photography, architecture, cars, boats, and more.
- Portrait - These are exactly what they sound like, photos of people including headshots and some candid photography.
- Commercial - Often pictures of "stuff" and are pictures for catalogs, online shopping, real estate, etc. This, blended with Portrait would include Weddings, Bar Mitzvahs, and other events.
- Photo Journalism - This is candid photography of events and may be used in newspapers, magazines, and television, usually for the purpose of educating with news of the world around us.
Recently I took a picture at a dance recital where an audience member's head was in the shot and cut off a dancer's leg in the picture. It was an otherwise nice picture, but it had this big...obstruction. I didn't want to just delete this photo, so I made a copy of another dancer's leg and Photoshopped it on the other dancer. I've also removed unsightly telephone wires from landscapes, cleaned up some acne on portraits, and more.
You see, in the first three categories, especially the Artistic category, what matters is the result. Does the photo capture what the photographer wants to convey?
But for photo journalism, the only editing that should take place is to accurately convey what actually happened. A photographer may crop a photo to bring the subject closer, or may brighten parts of a photo so you can better see what is happening. But an ethical photojournalist would never -- should never -- alter a photo to twist reality to meet their view of the event. A photojournalist's job is to give a factual account of an event through pictures.
And this is a major problem with our society today. In our super charged world of politics and world events, we are seeing "news sources" on both sides doing this, presenting altered images as factual and all it takes is for someone with Photoshop skills to do it. And people will believe it and they propagate it. And that is problem number two.
Knowing that facts are being twisted to meet someone's narrative means that we, as average consumers of this information, need to practice critical thinking in an age of disinformation. We can no longer accept something as real just because we see it, and maybe because we want it to be true. We should consider two simple and key questions:
- Does this really seem like something that occurred? This is an honest gut-check. In this polarized time, we may accept something as fact simply because we want to believe it. But really? What's the likelihood this thing actually happened?
- Is the source of this information legitimate? Anyone can create a webpage and call it news. Literally anyone. If this event is true, it would likely be picked up by all major news sources. I know, I know, you can't trust the media. But there are two sides to that coin too. And while most news sources these days do have some bias one way or another, they still check facts, and sources, at least the ethical ones do.
A friend of mine recently shared an article on Facebook, "Leaked Image of Barack Obama Dressed As Satan Goes Viral." Regardless of what your opinion of Obama may be, what is the likelihood that this actually occurred? In this article is a pretty good Photoshop job of the former President, seemingly dressed as Satan, from the "news" site neonnettle.com. Using our litmus test above, this seems highly unlikely to be true and should be fact checked.
Now, I have average Photoshop skills but I have recreated the same photo but with myself in the picture. I don't have quite the same skills as whomever put Obama in this picture, but the point still stands -- someone with decent photo editing capabilities can make the unbelievable seem believable.
Neonnettle goes one step further in their article to trick the uninformed by running the photo through a series of filters to "prove" it hadn't been photoshopped. That's bunk and proves nothing.
Part of the problem is that there is now a high level of distrust of the media, fueled by President Trump's constant bashing of the press, calling them fake news. To CBS's Leslie Stahl, the President said, "You know why I do it? I do it to discredit you all and demean you all so when you write negative stories about me, no one will believe you." So, of course, the President's followers tend to doubt the facts that are before their very eyes.
Perhaps even more troubling is that this can now be extended beyond still photography. "Deep Fake" videos are now becoming easier to make and can trick viewers into seeing and hearing video of something that didn't actually occur.
So what do we do about this? First, don't believe everything you see just because it fits your politics. If something seems almost too crazy to be true, it probably is. Then, check your source. Verify if other legitimate news sources are reporting the same thing. Lastly, do your best to not spread disinformation. Part of what makes dishonest information seem legitimate is when friends whom we trust share it. And that is what makes social media shares so dangerous.
