Trusting Photographs

One of my blog posts that I most enjoyed writing was entitled “Photography And Truth”, which can be read here and here. These posts ultimately turned into an essay that was published on Uwe Steinmuller’s Digital Outback Photography website. In the essay, I mentioned that I was surprised that there was an expectation on the part of many, if not most, viewers that fine art photography should depict ‘the truth’. In reality, there are decisions made by the photographer including focal length, in camera cropping, and shooting in RAW format (to name a few) that explain why most photographs are ‘untruthful’ to at least some degree.. However, there are journalistic standards that move a photograph more (but not necessarily totally) towards depicting the world as it truly is.

As the digital age progresses, there continues to be advancements in technology which allow for photographic 'doctoring' using methods that are increasingly subtle and difficult to detect. Interestingly, however, the concept of photographic manipulation is not a new one. In fact, such manipulations have been used since the earliest days of the medium.

One of the most famous photographic portraits of Abraham Lincoln was actually a composite image of Lincoln's head atop John Calhoun's body (ironic, given that Calhoun was a staunch supporter of slavery), done to give the president a more 'heroic' appearance.

John Calhoun



PLUS

Abraham Lincoln



BECOMES

A New Version Of Abraham Lincoln

An image of Millard Tydings talking to Earl Browder, the leader of the American Communist Party at the time, played a role in his 1950 election defeat. The photograph is widely believed to be a fake composite.

Millard Tydings And Earl Browder....
Felt To Be A Fake Composite

Similarly, a composite image of Senator John Kerry and Jane Fonda was surely not helpful to Kerry's political career.

Photos Of Kerry And Fonda Used In A Fake Composite

I find the use of 'doctored' photographs for political and sensationalistic purposes throughout history a fascinating topic and ran across two very interesting and informative papers dealing with the subject. Both were written by Dr. Hany Farid of Dartmouth University. The first paper, entitled "Digital Doctoring: Can We Trust Photographs" can be read here. The paper discusses these photos, as well as others, and also describes (using layman's language) various new methods of detecting fraudulent photographs. The article is in pdf format and can be downloaded. It makes for a fast, but very interesting, read on the subject.

The second paper, entitled "Photo Tampering Throughout History", has several pages of examples of altered photographs, including many modern day images.

Both papers are definitely worth taking the time to read!

Robert Capa's "Falling Soldier"

Sure, the issue as to whether Robert Capa's famous photograph "Falling Soldier" was staged or not is an old one. But that doesn't make the controversy any less interesting.

Copyright Robert Capa / MagnumPhotos

Jose' Manuel Susperregui has some new information and theories that suggest the image was staged. We may never know the answer, but it certainly makes for interesting reading.

Here is the latest from the August 18, 2009 New York Times.

The History Of Nature Photography

I have previously wriiten about Jeff Curto's two superb podcasts, The History Of Photography Podcast and Camera Position. I have been a bit behind in my listening, but in the car today had the chance to listen to the Febrauary 24th episode of Camera Position entitled The Camera In The Cathedral: Camera Position Goes Historical.

The reason I thought that this particular episode should be mentioned is that it is specifically about the history of nature photography. It contains a lot of insights that were quite new to me about the interaction between the technological developments in photography and how they influenced the way in which nature was depicted photographically. For example, it never dawned upon me that since the Daguerreotype was essentially a one exposure, one image technique (meaning that one was not able to make more than one image from each exposure; there was no ability to make copies of the images) nature images were not frequently made in the early years of photography. This is because nature photographs would typically need to be mass produced for others to see, while portraiture was generally considered to be an image to be given to a single person.

Whet your interest? This episode is really fascinating and contains many interesting insights. Check it out here.

Capture The Moment

Back in March, I wrote a blog post entitled "The Power Of The Still Frame". In that piece, I talked about the emotional impact of an individual photograph and its ability to freeze time, convey a message, and make a lasting impression. As part of that post, I included four photographs as examples of what I was referring to. Oddly enough, this past weekend I was able to view three out of these four images. Not only that, I was able to view every Pulitzer Prize winning photograph from 1942 (the year of the award's inception) to the present. "How?", you ask. By attending a magnificent exhibit at The Heinz History Center in Pittsburgh, PA entitled "Capture The Moment: The Pulitzer Prize Photographs". The exhibit is a traveling one, so it may well also be coming to a city somewhere near you.

Imagine seeing wall size photographs that take you through history along with information about each and every image. I am not talking about technical information, but, rather, a description of what was going on, a description of the photographers feelings, a description of how the photo came to be......mostly in the photographers own words. I don't believe there could be a better way to understand and connect with each image. And, like it or not, you will connect, and it's not all pleasant. In fact, most of it is unpleasant, to say the least. Remember, these are journaistic images.

Executions, accidents, war......you will be reminded of just how terribly violent a species we can be. You will be brought back to events from your youth and, once rechallenged with these events, think about their meaning again and again. Prepare to have your emotions dragged around. You can't walk through the exhibit without getting tearful several times. It is perhaps futile for me to try to describe the feeling of viewing photo after photo of the events that have shaped our culture, our history and our lives. Multiple reviews in newspapers and on-line will undoubtedly do this better than I possibly could.

Besides the intense experience of viewing the photos and trying to digest it all, there was another message that came through to me from a purely photographic viewpoint.......and by stating it I by no means want to detract from the emotional experience of the exhibit. It is just that everyone attending will understand the emotion, but perhaps not everyone attending will think about this: many of the images are less than technically perfect. Some lack perfect focus, some have suboptimal depth of field, some would have been better presented with longer focal lengths so that the subject would not have to be circled to draw your attention.......but they all captured more than just a mere moment or event; in a fraction of a second they captured the very essence of events that have defined who we were, who we are, and where we seem to be heading.

If you live in Western Pennsylvania, or if the exhibit comes to a city near wherever you might be, you really owe it to yourself to take the time to have a look.

The Power Of The Still Frame

I think it is quite interesting that even in this high tech, rapidly moving society in which we live, still images, not movies or video, seem to come to mind when we think about historic events. At least that is the case for me. As examples what I am referring to, what images come to mind when you think about the following events?

The Kent State Shootings :

Photo By John Filo

The Vietnam War:

Photo By Eddie Adams

Photo By Nick Ut

Tiananmen Square:


Etc, etc, etc. I think it is fascinating that while most of the world would rather go to a movie than look at still images, when asked to recall major events I think people are still most affected by single photographs. Certainly there were film clips made of all these events, but that is not what sticks in our minds. The only exception I can think of offhand is the Kennedy assasination and the Magruder film. However, the reason for that may be the subsequent use of the film as forensic evidence and its use to try to suggest second assasins and the like.

The ability of the single frame to freeze time, convey emotion, and to stick with us is, to me, a truly amazing phenomenon and testimony to the potential power of a photograph. Despite being 'old' technology, the single image has not been displaced by movies or video. The true challenge is for each of us to discover how to harness the power that can be had in a single frame. And I suspect that method is going to be quite different for each of us. Nonetheless, it is clearly the goal to which we all aspire.