photo thesis rasior - texas a&m...
TRANSCRIPT
DIGITALPHOTOGRAPHYANDTHEETHICSOFPHOTOALTERATION
ASeniorHonorsThesis
by
ASCHLEYSCHILLER
SubmittedtotheOfficeofHonorsPrograms
&AcademicScholarships
TexasA&MUniversity
Inpartialfulfillmentoftherequirementsofthe
UNIVERSITYUNDERGRADUATE
RESEARCHFELLOWS
April2008
Major:History
ii
ABSTRACT
DigitalPhotographyandtheEthicsofPhotoAlteration(2008)
AschleySchiller
DepartmentofHistory
TexasA&MUniversity
FellowsAdvisor:Dr.DavidMcWhirter
DepartmentofEnglish
Thisstudydiscussestheimpactofphotoalterationonjournalisticcredibilityin
relationtotheeffectsofthenewcapabilitiesofdigitaltechnology.Thethesisexaminesthe
earlyhistoryofphotomanipulation,inbothdigitalandanalogformats,andsummarizes
debatessurroundingspecificdigitallyalteredimagesandthepublic’sandgoverning
bodies’responsestothesealterations.Finally,digitalphotography’spositionasanew
mediumoranextensionofexistingphotographicmeansisconsidered.Theresearch
analyzesalteredphotos’placementsinmediasourcesandusestheopinionsofartistsand
theoristssourcedfromeditorials,essaysandtextstodevelopanunderstandingofthe
currentusesofdigitalphotographs,andtospeculateaboutwherethetrendtowardsdigital
photographymaylead.
iii
TABLEOFCONTENTS
ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................................................................ii
TABLEOFCONTENTS........................................................................................................................................... iii
LISTOFFIGURES......................................................................................................................................................iv
INTRODUCTION:PHOTOGRAPHYANDREALITY ......................................................................................1
TheRealismofPhotographs ................................................................................................................................3
TheObjectivityoftheUnalteredPhotograph...............................................................................................5
DIGITALPHOTOGRAPHYANDALTERATION ..............................................................................................9
TheEarlyHistoryofAlteration...........................................................................................................................9
TheCreationofDigitalPhotography ............................................................................................................ 14
AlterationSinceDigitalPhotography........................................................................................................... 20
Digitalvs.Analog ................................................................................................................................................... 22
REACTIONSTODIGITALALTERATION.......................................................................................................28
Public’sResponses.................................................................................................................................................. 28
GovernmentReactionstoDigitalAlterability ........................................................................................... 34
NewsOutlets’Reponses ....................................................................................................................................... 37
CONCLUSIONS:WHEREDOWESTAND? ....................................................................................................44
TagtheAnalog ........................................................................................................................................................ 45
Butisn’tthatthepoint?....................................................................................................................................... 48
Howmuchshouldwetrustphotographs?................................................................................................... 50
APPENDIXA:RIGHTSANDPERMISSIONS .................................................................................................57
WORKSREFERENCED .........................................................................................................................................58
CURRICULUMVITA...............................................................................................................................................62
iv
LISTOFFIGURES
1 EadweardMuybridgeCloudsRestValleyoftheYosemite1872 .................................................12
2 NationalGeographicCover,January1982..............................................................................................17
1
INTRODUCTION:PHOTOGRAPHYANDREALITY1
It’sMarch2005andMarthaStewartisgettingoutofjail.Ascelebrities’personal
liveshavebecomemediaworthy,Newsweekpublisheshercomingoutfrombehindared
curtainonthecover.Fromthiscurtain,whichrepresentshertimeinaminimum‐security
prisonforinsidertrading,emergesthenewtrimmer,healthierlookingMartha.Thisnew
trimmerbodyrepresentstheoverallreformationthatStewartexperiencedbehindbars.
Thereisacatch.Yes,thatisMarthaStewart’shead,butthebodybelongstoamodel.Thisis
infactaphoto‐illustration.Anewtermcreatedfortheageofdigitaltechnology,aphoto‐
illustrationisonethatisalteredtothepointthattheeditorsdeemitisnolongerethicalto
consideritaphotograph.Yet,inordertofindoutthatthisimageisinfactaphoto‐
illustration,andnotaphotograph,onehastofliptothethirdpageandreadthefineprint.
Thisphotoisacompilationofthingsthatdoexist,toformapersonwhoneverexistedin
thisform,anditlooksentirelybelievable.Intheageofdigitalmediathisimageisnotthe
exceptiontothenorm—itisthenorm.Weoftenassumethatphotographsdonotneed
interpretation,especiallyinajournalisticcontextwhereitisassumedthattheyrecordthe
realitythejournalistisattemptingtoconvey.Theinferenceofreality,however,isnot
alwaysjustified.
Photographyisalanguage.1Apartofourvisualculture,photographsareused
acrosssocietyfordiversepurposesrangingfrompersonalremembrancestoan
internationalmeansofcommunication.Photosareusedinscrapbooksandgreetingcards,
asbackgroundsoncomputerdesktopsanddecorationsinourhomes.Photographs
1ThisthesisfollowsthestyleandformatofHistoryofPhotography.
2
surroundus.Fromthemomentonewakesup,tothemomentonegoestosleep,thetwenty‐
firstcenturyisdefinedbyphotographicimages.
Thesephotographicimagesareusedasproofincourtcasesandnewspapersto
substantiatethewrittenword.Theyareusedforidentificationondriver’slicensesand
passports.Usingphotographsasproofdependsonphotosbeinganaccuraterecordingof
reality,whileinactuality,astheMarthaStewartexampleshows,thisrelationshipcanbe
tenuous.Thepotentialforalterationforcesthemedia‐consumingcitizentoquestionifan
imagehasbeenmanipulatedandifso,towhatdegree.Membersofthepublicmustbecome
consciouscriticsofthemediatheyrelyon,questioningtheintegrityofimageswhile
resistingthetemptationtobecomeparanoidbybecomingtoodistrustfulofthemediain
general,orjumpingtotheconclusionthateveryimage’scontentandmeaningarealtered.
Thoughitisnecessarytobemindfulofwhoispresentingthenews,thereisalimittothe
productivityofquestioninganimage’svalidity.Thispaperseekstoexaminethealteration
capabilitiesofphotographyingeneral,withanemphasisondigitalphotography,and
discusseshowthesecapabilitieshaveaffectedthemedia’scredibility.
Journalismreliesonacombinationofvisualandwritteninformation.Animportant
difference,however,existsbetweenaphotograph,createdbythecamera,andlinguistic
representation,createdbytheauthor’spen:thecamera’sabilitytoinstantaneouslycapture
reality.2Thoughearlyphotographyrequiredsubjectstositstillforanywherefromafew
minutestomorethananhour,modernphotographicimagesarecreatedinlessthana
second.Thismeansthataphotographrecordsasignificantlydifferentscenethanthemore
time‐consumingwrittenword.Whilethewrittenwordisunderstoodtomediatereality,
3
andallowsitsconveyertocontemplatewhathewishestoportrayaboutascene,the
photographisfarlessforgiving.Inadocumentarysettingitallowsonlysecondsfor
decisionsabouthowtorecordworldevents.Themechanicalmeansofinscriptionmean
photographyisnottypicallyseenasamediationofreality,butinsteadasarecordingof
truth.Aftersnapjudgmentsregardingpositionofthecamera,lightingandexposuretime
aremade,however,alterationsarestillpossible.Thesealterationsthatmayatfirstseeman
after‐thoughtofthephotographeroftenturnouttobethecruxoftheimage.Whileediting
ofthewrittenwordisalsopossible,thisisnotasshockingasthepossiblemanipulationof
photographicimages,becauseliteratureisunderstoodtobeasubjectiveperceptionof
realityfromitscreation,insteadoftheunmediatedrealitywhichphotographypurportedly
represents.Furthermoreitisunderstoodthatthewrittenrecordisacollectionofsymbols
andsignsthatconveytothereadertheobjecttheyrepresent.Thereisnothingaboutthe
wordballthatinherentlytellssomeoneitmeanstheobjectball.Insteadtheindividual
understandsthroughprocessingthecombinationoflettersthatthisistheintendeditem.A
photograph,ontheotherhand,actuallyappearstobetheobjectitrepresents;therefore
allowingtheviewertoassumeitrequireslessinterpretation.
TheRealismofPhotographs
Photography’sabilitytorecordspecificmomentsintimeisoneofitsattributesthat
separatesitfrompaintingsorthewrittenword.Literaturecanbeaboutagenericman,the
everyman,andnotaspecificman.Apaintingmaybeofanindividualthathasneverand
willneverexist.Thusapaintingorastorydepictsanideaortheconceptoftheman.Yetas
theMarthaStewartexampleshows,giventheincreasedabilityofalterationthroughdigital
photography,photographicimagesnowhavethissameability.Thoughpaintingsmay
4
displaytheemotionsthegenericmanisfeeling,hisreactiontoanevent,ormerelythe
spacehefillsinthework,itisassumedthatphotographydoesnothavethissamepowerof
generality;infactphotographyderivesitspowerfromtheoppositesourcealtogether—its
relationshiptospecificity.3Theabilityofphotographstodocumentspecificeventsor
individualsisfurtherrecognizedbygovernmentsandorganizationswhichcommonlyuse
photographsasamethodofidentificationonpassportsordriver’slicenses,strengthening
photography’srelationshipwithspecificdetailsandthetruth,yetastheNewsweekcoverso
aptlyshowed,theapparenttruthofthephotographdoesnotalwayscorrespondwiththe
actualrealityofthesituation.4
Photographyispowerfulbecauseitlooksreal.Mostpeoplehavelookedthrougha
windowandtriedtodecideifitisopenedorclosed.Thewindowissocleanthatthe
individualcannottellifthereisactuallyglassseparatinghimfromtherealityhesees.One
mayhaveasimilarexperiencewithaphotograph.Imagescanlooksomuchlikerealityitis
easytoforgetthereisamechanicalprocessthatdeliversthisimagetotheaudience.Inthe
caseofthephotograph,however,theprocessisnotastransparentasawindowpaneandis
ever‐changing.Itistheevolutioninthisprocess—andthepotentialfortheprocessitselfto
bemanipulated—whichmayleadonetoquestionaphotograph’svalidity.
Savedoffusesthemetaphorofahallucinationtoexplaintherelationshipbetween
photographsandreality.5Sheclaimsthat,aswithhallucinations,anindividualisawarethat
photographsarenotreal;yetaswithhallucinations,photographsseemsorealthatitis
frequentlyimpossibletodistinguishbetweenthefictionofthephotographandthereality
5
thephotographrepresents.Tosomedegree,moreover,photographsdonotmerelyrecord
ascene;theyalsoquiteliterallycaptureapieceofthemomenttheyrepresent.6
Earlyphotographerswerefascinatedbytheconceptthatphotographsactually
containlightfromthescenetheyrecord.Aphotographiscreatedwhenlightentersthe
cameraandaltersthephysicalcompositionofthe“film”beingusedinthespecificprocess.
Thischemicalalterationduetolightexposurepermanentlyrenderstheimageonthe
surface,whichwithmoderntechniquescreatesanegative.Thusthelightwhichwasused
tocreatetheimageandwhichinsomesense‘touched’thephoto’ssubjecthasinessence
becomeapartofthephotograph,changingtheimagefromamererenderingofthereality
itrepresents,toafossilizedpieceofthesceneintheformoflight.Sontagreferstothis
artifactasthe“trace”oftheimage,andstatesthatthelightcontainedintheimageissimilar
tothatofafingerprintitprovidesacorrespondenceandaccordingtoMitchella“causality”
withreality.7Thelightthatcreatedtheimageoriginatedinthescene,andthusthe
photographisadirectresultoftheeventsitrecords,andphysicalproofthatthescenario
tookplace.Bergerfurtherclaimsthatphotographsarevaluableentirelybecauseofthis
relationshipwiththesubject.Thusitcanbearguedthatwhenthisreferenceisremoved,or
weakenedbydigitalmechanisms,thephotographlosesitsinherentdocumentaryvalue.
TheObjectivityoftheUnalteredPhotograph
Itmustberememberedthatevenbeforealterationtakesplace,thepurportedly
realisticimageprovidedbyaphotographdoesnotnecessarilyequatewithanobjective
viewoftheworld.Infact,photographsdepictaparticularwayofseeingtheworld,as
determinedbythephotographerandeditorpriortothepublicreceivingtheimage.8The
6
photographerchooseswhatscenestorecord,wheretorecordthemfromandhowto
recordthem.Thesechoicesinherentlyinvolveincludingandexcludingobjectsfromthe
framebasedonpersonalandaestheticjudgments.Evenafterthephotographerdetermines
whattoincludeintheframethereareavarietyofstylisticchoicesthatalterthecontent
andthereforetheintegrityoftheimage.Oneexampleiswhenthephotographerdecides
uponhowmuchlighttouse:creatinganimageinashadow,insteadofabrightlylitscene,
willalterthetoneandasaresultthemeaningoftheimage.Thephotographeralsodecides
howlongtoleavetheshutteropen,whichdetermineshowmuchtimewilllapseduringthe
creationoftheimage.Thismayresultinablurryimage,duetomovementduringthe
recording,ora“ghost”ifanindividualexitsthescenebeforetheimageiscompleted.
Exclusiveofthesechoices,eventhoughamultitudeofphotographsmaybetakenofasingle
event,fewareincludedbymostmajornewspapers,furtherdiminishingtheobjectivityofa
photo,whichwasoriginallypartofaseries.Thuswhiletheoriginalphotoshootmayhave
containedarelativelyunbiasedviewoftheevent,theendproductmaybecoloredby
personalandorganizationalagendas,whetherthisoutcomeisintentionalornot.
Itisalsoimportantwhenassessingthedocumentarystrengthofanimagethat
photographsaregenerallyintendedtobeaestheticallypleasing.9Evenphotographs
createdforajournalisticpurposearerarelystrictlydocumentaryinnature.10Creating
documentaryimageswithaestheticgoalsinmind,however,isnotnewforphotography.In
factvisualmotivesofphotojournalistsareexemplifiedbyearlywarphotographers,like
MatthewBrady,whoposedCivilWarcorpsestocreatemoreaestheticallypleasingand
fantasticimages.
7
Thesocial,historical,andculturalperspectiveofallindividualsinvolvedinthe
creationanddistributionofaphotographalsoaffectitsinterpretation.11Theindividual
photographer’smotivesandbeliefsmayaltertherealityoftheimageheorsheportrays.If
aphotographerthinksaneventheisdocumentingisfavorablehemaybemorelikelyto
recorditinapositivelight.Takeforinstanceaprotest,ifthephotographerisinfavorofthe
protestershemaybemorelikelytorecordimagesofpoliceviolence.Whileifthe
photographerisonthesideofthegovernmenthemaybemorelikelytorecordrioters’
instigation.Thustheinvestmentoftheartistinfluenceshiscreationofthework,thereby
alteringthespecificviewofrealityitportrays.12Theobjectivityofthephoto,whichis
alreadyinquestionduetodecisionsregardinghowtoconveyascenemadebythe
photographer,isfurtherweakenedbecausethedecisionsmadebythephotographermay
havebeencoloredbytheorganizationhecreatedtheimagefor,aswellasbyhispresumed
audience,andhispersonalstanceinlife.Thusifourhypotheticalreporterwoksasa
publicistfortheprotestershewillrecordaverydifferentscenethanifheworksforthe
newspaper.
AdnanHajjdemonstratedthistendencytopresentmorefantasticimageswithhis
controversialphotoofBeirutduringthe2005IsrealiWarwithHezbollahprintedby
Reuters.HajjphotographedBeirutfollowinganIsraeliair‐strike,butduringtheediting
process,headdedsmoketotheimage.Usingthe“clone”toolonPhotoshop,apublicly
availablephoto‐editingsoftwarehecopiedandpastedsmokeacrosstheimage.
Incidentally,thisfakery,whichwasoriginallyidentifiedbytheInternetblogLittleGreen
Footballs,identifiedtheimageasfakebecausetheexactsameplumeofsmokeappearedat
twopointsinthesameimage.13Anartistfirstalertedtheblogtothefake,asherecognized
8
theworkassimilartohisownearlytrialswithphotographicmanipulationviaPhotoshop.
Yetalteredimagesarerarelythiseasytodetect,asmorecomplicatedprogramsandmore
experiencedphotographersabound.Thisexampleclearlyshowsthetemptationtoa
photographer,inthiscaseHajjwhoreliedoncommissionsforhisincome,tomake
photographsasvaluableaspossibletohisconsumers,thenewseditors,bymakingthemas
dramaticaspossible.WhencontactedtousetheHajjimageinthispaper,Reuters
responded,“UnfortunatelyduetothenatureofthatimageitisnolongeravailableandHajj
nolongerworksforReuters,”demonstratingthatReutersdoesnotagreewithHajj’s
tactics.14
ThoughHajj’simageclearlywasnotobjectivelycreated,evenimagesthatare
“unbiased”maybesubjecttovaryinginterpretations.Thisisexemplifiedbythe
photograph’suseincourttoprovethataspecificeventoccurred.15Duringcross
examination,opposingcounselsmayprovidedifferingexplanationsofthesamevisual
evidence,demonstratingthatthoughtheimagemayprovideevidenceofascenewhichdid
occur,thateventcanbeinterpretedinamultitudeofways—evenfromthesingular
perspectivepresentedinapicture.Thuswhilealterationisanimportantconsiderationin
photography,itisequallyimportanttorecognizethatphotographsarenotnownorhave
theyeverbeencompletelyobjective,butthattheyinsteadrecordthespecificexperiences
ofindividualsthatarethenpublishedasiftheywerereliablefacts.
9
DIGITALPHOTOGRAPHYANDALTERATION
TheEarlyHistoryofAlteration
Allphotoscanbealtered.Digitalphotographydidnotcreatethisability—insteadit
expandedit.In1903EdwardSteichen,anearlyAmericanphotographerandarttheorist,
saidthat“everyphotographisfake,fromstarttofinish,apurelyimpersonal
unmanipulatedphotographbeingpracticallyimpossible.”16Thusevenbeforetheadventof
digitalphotographythetopicofphotographicalterabilitywasdiscussedbyeminent
photographersandcritics.
Thoughitisgenerallyunderstoodthatdigitalphotographsmaybemanipulated,and
thereforemustbequestioned,DerekBousearguesinRestoringthePhotographedPastthat
thepublicfrequentlyhastheinappropriateassumptionthattheolderthephoto,themore
reliableitis.Thisbeliefimpliesthatitwaseitherimprobableorimpossibleforanalog
imagestobealtered,consequentlyassumingthatanalogphotographsaremorereliable
thandigitalimagesthatcanbefaked.17Yetolderimageswerealsoalteredandevenfaked.
Awell‐knownexampleofthisisMatthewBrady’spracticeofarrangingthebodiesofthe
deadtoproducemoredramaticCivilWarphotographs.18Whilethisinterventionoccurred
priortothetechnicalcreationofthephotograph,insteadofafteritscompletionaswith
digitaltechnologies,itstillalteredtherealityrecordedandrelayedtothepublic.Although
digitalalterationhaschangedthemethodsofalteringphotographs,itdidnotinventsuch
practices.
EdwardCurtisisanotherhistoricallyimportantphotographernotoriousforaltering
imagespriortorecordingthem.Awell‐knowndocumenterofNativeAmericangarments,
10
Curtisfrequentlydressedhissubjectsininaccuratecostumes.19Heusedtheclothingof
othertribes,garmentsforceremoniesthatwerenotpictured,andanachronisticdressto
enhancetheartisticqualityofthephotographirrespectiveofthedetrimentthiscausedto
theimage’sdocumentaryvalue,againdemonstratingthatalterationexistedpriortothe
adventofdigitaltechnology.Itisimportanttorecognize,however,thatwhilebothCurtis
andBradyexemplifyalterationbeforethephotographwasrecorded,therewasalso
significantalterationofimagesaftertheircreationinpre‐digitaltimes.
Evenwhenanalogphotographywasthemosttechnicallyadvancedphotographic
technologyavailable,alterationafterimageswereinitiallyrecordedwascommon.One
exampleofthiswasinfamilyphotographs.Itwasnotuncommonforadditionalmembers
ofafamilytobeaddedtoaframeusingcutandpastetactics.20Insomeparticularly
humorousimagesthiscombinationtechniqueleadstosomefamilymembersappearingto
begiantsasotherslooklikemidgetsduetodifferencesinthesizeoftheindividuals
pictured.Someindividualsmayappeartobefloatinginotherimages,suchasthosebyA.
WernerandSons,astheinsertedindividualspictureddonotappeartobestandingonthe
ground.21
OscarGustaveRejlanderwasnotoriousfor“photo‐trickery,”asitwastermedinthe
1850s.Amasterofthecombinationprint,Rejlanderusedmorethanthirtyseparate
negativestocreatehismostfamousallegoricalimage“TheTwoWaysofLife,”whichshows
aphilosopherlookingbetweenthetwotypesoflifeonemaylead,virtueandvice.
Combinationprintswerecreatedbysplicingtogethermultipleimagesandusingthemto
createasingleprint.Inthesecircumstancesitwascrucialthatallimageshavesimilartone
11
qualityandsizereferencestoavoidunintentionalfloatingorshadows,whichwere
discussedinreferencetofamilyphotographs.Originallyapainter,Rejlandercontinuedto
pursuethesamegoalswiththenewmediaofphotographyandfrequentlyuseddouble
exposuresandcombinationprintsinhiswork.Beforetheadventofdigitalphotography
therewerealreadyimagesthatdocumentedeventsthathadneveroccurred.
ThoughRejlanderpracticedobviousphotographicalteration,manyartistsusedthe
samemethodsinmuchlessflagrantways.OnesuchartistwasEadweardMuybridge.
Thoughheisbestknownforhisanimallocomotionseries,hewasalandscape
photographerbeforehebeganhistimedseriesofanimals.Inthemid‐1800sitwasdifficult
todevelopanimageinsuchawaythatthecontrastshowedboththelandscapeandthesky.
Typically,ifthelandscapeappearedtobeinthepropercolorgradationtheskywaswashed
out,yetiftheskyappearedtobeproperlydevelopedthelandscapeappearedtobea
massiveshadow.ThusMuybridgecreatedthe“cloudnegatives.”Thesewereaseriesof
negativeswhichhedevelopedsothatthesky,andhencetheclouds,wereinexcellent
contrast.Hethencutthesenegativestoformcombinationprintswithhisotherimages.His
skyappearedtobeincontrastwiththeimage,butitwasfromacompletelydifferentlocale
andseason.Thisprocess,thoughnotobvioustotheviewerastheimagelookednatural,
wasclearlyanearlyformofphotographicmanipulation,onethatisquitesimilartodigital
adjustmentsmadebyphotographerstoday.Furthermore,forhisYosemiteseries,
Muybridge“cutdowntreesbythescorethatinterferedwith...thebestpointofsight”
(HuntJackson).Henotonlyalteredthenegativeoncethephotographwasrecorded,heat
timesalteredtheworldtobetterfithisframe.OneimagefromhisYellowstoneseries,
12
whichinvolvedbothalterationofthescenerybyremovingatree,andalterationofthe
printbyusingthecloudnegativesistheaptlytitled“CloudsRest”(Fig.3).
Figure1EadweardMuybridgeCloudsRestValleyoftheYosemite1872
WhileMuybridgeusedphotographicmanipulationtocreatemoreaesthetically
pleasingimagesforartisticpurposes,Leninusedphotographicalterationtochangehistory
andmakeitmorecloselyfithispoliticalagendafortheSovietUnion.TheSovietregime
frequentlykilledindividualswhoweredeemed“enemiesofthepeople.”Whenthese
individualswereinstatephotographsorappearedalongsideLenininanyimage,itwasnot
uncommonforthemtoberemoved.Oneofthemostnotoriousexamplesofthisisthe
systematicremovalofLeonTrotskyfromallstateimagesafterLenindecidedhewasan
13
enemyofthepeople.22NikolaiYezov,theleaderofthesovietsecretpolicewasalso
removedfromformalSovietimagesafterhefelloutofStalin’sfavor.Manyoftheimages
manipulatedbyLeninandtheSovietRegimewerecreatedinthe1920s,thoughalteration
ofexistingphotographscontinuedwellintothe1970s.23
Evenwhenanalogprocessesarebeingused,andphotographsarenotclearlyaltered
asintheexampleofMuybridge,amultitudeofstagesareinvolvedpriortothecreationof
thefinalimage.Steichenstatedthat“thedetail,breath,flatnessorcontrast”whichareall
determinedinthedarkroombytheoriginalartist,orwhomeveriscreatingtheprint,alter
thefinalimage,andarguedthatwhensuchalterationsaremadetothefinalproduct“faking
hasbeenresortedto.”24Evenwhencreatingtheinitialexposure,Steichenremindsthe
reader,thephotographercreatesanddeterminesthetimeofexposure,andthemixofthe
developer,againalteringthefinalimagetobestattainhisgoals.Sincetheageofdigital
technologymanyofthesechangesareconsideredappropriate.Infactsomemajor
publications’guidelinesforalteration,whichwillbediscussedlater,statethatalterations
thatcouldoriginallybemadeinadarkroomusinganalogformatsarestilllegitimate
alterations.Theyclaimthatalterationsthatwouldgenerallybemadeinthedarkroomby
thedeveloperdonotequatetophoto‐manipulation,sincetheyhavealwaysbeenapartof
thephotographicprocess—thoughSteichenclearlyheldtheopposingview.Thedifference
liesinthefactthatSteichenrecognizesthatphotographicalterationhasalwaysbeen
possible,whilemanynewssourcesviewitasanewabilityofthedigitalage.
14
TheCreationofDigitalPhotography
Inthe1950sRussellA.KirschandtheNationalBureauofStandardscreatedanearly
scannerthattracedvariationsinintensitiesofphotographs.25Thisfirstversionofdigital
imagerymadepreviouslycreatedanalogphotographsavailableinadigitalformat.Thus
ratherthancreatinganentirelynewpixilatedimage,thistechnologyinitiallyservedto
transformanexistingimageintoanewform.Theabilitytotransferanimagefroman
analogtoadigitalformatisimportantwhenconsideringwhichimagesmaybealtered.
Giventhatanyanalogimagemaybescannedandtransformedintoadigitalform,an
image’sinitialformdoesnotnecessarilyaffectitsfinalalterationpotential.
TheNationalAeronauticsandSpaceAdministration(NASA)wasalsoaforerunner
indevelopingdigitalphotography,whichallowedscientiststotransmitimagesbackfrom
spaceviaasignalinsteadofneedingtotransferphysicalmaterial.Beforetransmitting
digitallyconceivedimageswaspossible,however,NASAuseddigitaltechnologytoclarify
analogimageswithtechnologysimilartothatdesignedbyKirschbeforereleasingthemto
thepublic.ExamplesincludeaninstancewhenNASAremovedflawsfromphotosprovided
byRanger7in1964,andwhenitalsouseddigitaltechnologytoclarifytheanalogimages
ofSurveyor7.26In1977NASAbegantransmittingdigitalfeedsofdigitallycreatedimages
fromspacebacktoEarth.Theseimagessoonbecamemorespecialized,withNASA
commencingtoprovidedigitallycollectedradarimagestoarcheologistsinthe1980s.27
Thegovernmentclearlyledearlyadvancementsindigitalimaging,butinthelate
1970sIBM’sZurichlaboratoriesbegandevelopingdigitaltechnologytoincreasethepower
andcapabilitiesofmicroscopes.28Thetrendofscience’sinvolvementindigitaltechnology,
15
bothexpandingitscapabilitiesandapplyingitscurrentuses,canalsobeseenwiththeuse
ofanMRIscannerthatproducesadigitalimageofhumananatomy.29
Inthe1980sthemediaadopteddigitalimaging.Itwaswidelyusedbyboth
televisionengineers,toimproveclarityforbroadcasting,andphotojournalists,tospeedthe
transmissionofphotosfromlocationstonewsrooms.In1989theWallStreetJournal
estimatedthattenpercentofallimagesconsumedbythepublicweredigitallyretouchedor
alteredinsomeway.30
In1982NationalGeographicpublishedanalteredcover,whichwaslaterdiscovered
andhotlydebatedbythepublicduetoitsalterationwithoutdemarcation.Thiscoverwas
alsothefirstlargelyrecognizeduseofdigitalmanipulationbyareputablejournalistic
organization.Thephoto,whichfeaturedthepyramids,wasoriginallytakenasahorizontal
photograph.YetthecoverofNationalGeographicalwaysfeaturesaverticalimage(Fig.4).
Themagazinethereforemadethedecisiontoshiftthepyramidsclosertogetherinorderto
makethehorizontaloriginalfittheverticalformatandmakethecovermoreaesthetically
pleasing.31Thisprocess,whichNationalGeographiccalledthe“retroactiverepositioningof
thephotographer,”wasstronglydefendedbythemagazines’editors.Theystatedthatif
theirphotographerhadbeenstandingataslightlydifferentlocationataslightlydifferent
timeofthedaythiswouldbethephotographthatwouldhavebeentaken.Yetthefact
remainsthatthiswasnottheimagerecorded.Thatthiswasaphoto‐illustrationandnota
photographwasnotrevealedtothepublicuntilaftertheauthenticityoftheimagewas
questionedbyseveralotherjournalists.JohnLong,oftheNationalPressPhotographers
Association(NPAA),however,claimsthatthissingulardecisiontoalteracover“damaged
16
[journalists’]credibilityand…[thatalthough]tasteissueshaveashortlifespan,ethics
issuesdonotgoaway”(Long).Thisstatementraisestheissuethateventhoughimaging
guidelineshavebecomemorestringentinrecentyears,theearlyperiodoflaxrulesmay
havepermanentlyalteredthepublic’sperceptionofphotographicauthenticity.Long
claimsthatthecontinuoususeofalteredphotographsgradually“erode[d]thecredibilityof
theentireprofession,”andLongisnotsurethatphotojournalists“canwinthiswar”to
maintaintheauthorityofphotographicimages,inthefaceoflargescaleimage‐
manipulation.32Thusdigitalphotography’sinitialpublicbrushwiththemediaraised
importantquestionsregardingthenecessityofdenotingalteredimages,andlegitimate
alterations.
17
Figure2.NationalGeographicCover,January1982
Bythemid‐1980sdigitalphotographyhadexpandedbeyondlaboratoryand
professionalusesandenteredthemassmarket.Thepublicbegantobuydigitalcamerasfor
personaluseasCannon,NikonandSonybegantomarkethome‐use“still‐video”digital
imagingcameras.Theseearlycameras,however,stillrecordedtheimageinananalog
format,beforetransformingitintoadigitalfile.Cannon,NikonandSonyeliminatedthis
18
stepwhentheybeganmarketingthefirstdigitalcamerasforhomeconsumersin1990.
Thischangehadfortuitoustiming,asitcoincidedwithanexpansionincapabilitiesand
memoryofhomecomputers.Thisallowedindividualstousehomecomputerstorun
image‐editingsoftwaretostoreandmanipulatepersonalsnapshots.ThecreationoftheCD
intheearly1980swasalsoanimportantprecursortothedigitalcamera,asKodakbegan
usingCDstostorephotosin1991.
Inthe1990sgovernmentandmediaagenciesuseddigitaltechnologyforthefirst
timeinawarsetting.33Americansuseddigitalphotographytorecordandaltertheevents
oftheGulfWar,butunlikeMatthewBradyintheCivilwar,thesealterationsweremade
aftertheimagewascreated.TheUSgovernmentwasalsowellknownatthistimefor
alteringimagesbeforegivingthemtothemedia.34Thistime,however,ratherthanmerely
documentingoccurrencesforthepublic,thetechnologywasalsoputtotacticalusein
weaponssystems.
Oneofthemorerecentexpansionsintheuseofdigitalimagingisliveelectronic
manipulation,whichallowsreal‐timemanipulationofsatellitedigitalimagefeeds.This
processmaybeusedinavarietyofcontexts,fromaddingthefirstdownlinetoatelevision
broadcastofafootballgametoalteringsatelliteimageryfornationalsecuritypurposes.In
factinmanycasesthesamecompaniesprovidebothservices.Sportvisionisonecompany
thatspecializesinaddingobjectstolivesportingevents,suchasbillboardsbehindmajor
leaguebaseballgamesdesignedtoincreaseadvertisingrevenuefortelevisionnetworks.35
IvanAmatoarguesthatthistrendislikelytospreadtoproductplacementsinmajor
sitcomsasTiVoandsimilarDVR’sallowthepublictoskipcommercials.TheNorthAtlantic
19
TreatyOrganization(NATO)hiredtheSarnofCorporation,apartnercompanyto
Sportvision,togototheAlliedOperationsCenterinItalyandtransformSarnoff’s
experimentalphoto‐alterationsoftwaretoausabletechniqueforlocatingtheSerbian
militaryinKosovoandprotectingNATOpositions.InordertoprotectNATO’spositions,
Sarnoffdesignedsoftwarethatreplacedimagesthatcontainedmilitaryunitswithprevious
digitalimagesofthesamelandscape,hidingNATO’slocation.Sarnoffalsousedthecurrent
imagesoftheterrainsurroundingmilitaryinstallationstocreateacomputersimulationof
whatthatareawouldlooklikewithoutthepresenceoftroops.Thesesimulatedareaswere
thenusedtocloakmilitarylocationsbeforeNATOreleasedtheseimagestothemediaor
foreigngovernments.Indiaalsoreleasedimagesfromitssatellitestothepublicthatused
similartechnologytoremovetheirmilitaryinstallations.36
WaltDisney’sImagineeringStudiohasalsoputtheenhancedcapabilitiesofdigital
technologytouse,astheImagineershavebeguncapturingimagesofagedordeceased
celebritiesfrompreviouslyrecordedfootageandalteringthemtofillpartsinnewshowsor
movies(Amato).Thisuseofdigitalmanipulationonceagainbuttressesthepointthat
althoughdigitaltechnologyallowsgreatermanipulationofphotographsandfilms,these
capabilitiesmaybetransferredtoimagesthatwereoriginallyanaloginform.Halestineof
theIntervalCorporationattheUniversityofCaliforniaBerkeleypredictsthatvideo
manipulationwillsoonbecarriedtoitsmostextremecapabilities.Hestates“withabsolute
certainty”thatsoononepersonwillbeabletocreateanentiremovie,usingdigital
technologiestocreatethebackdropsandcostumingaswellastopullandcreatethe
necessaryimagesofactors.Digitaltechnologyisthereforeusefulinavarietyofsettings,
includingentertainment;yetthesesamecapabilitiesthatareamusinginonecontextcan
20
provedisturbingwhenplacedinthehandsofgovernmentsorotherentities.Creationssuch
asthoseoftheImagineersalsoforcethequestionofwhatexactlyitisthattheyare
creating.Isthesplicedimageinfactsimplyanalteredphotograph,orisitanewentity?
Woskarguesitisthelatter.
Throughoutrecentdecadesanewphaseofphotographyhasbeenentered,the
phase,accordingtoWosk,of“pseudophotography,”“pseudo”becausedigitalphotography
isnotquitephotography.37Thoughtheendresultsaresimilarthevaryingprocessesequate
todifferentlevelsofalterationcapabilitiesthatwillbediscussedinthenextsection.Inthis
age,sheclaims,thetemptationtoduplicityhasbeenheightened,attimesproducing
“politicallychargedphotographsinwhichhistoricfactisaltered.”38
AlterationSinceDigitalPhotography
Digitalalterationofphotographyisnotmerelyanadditivedevelopment.39Instead,
alterationcapabilitiesalterthemorallandscapeinwhichphotographyexistsduetothe
greatlyincreasedpotentialformanipulation.Thisnewdigitalprocessofphotography,
should,inSavedoff’sopinion,carrywithitnewstandards,ethicalconsiderations,and
criteriaforassessingthevalueofimages.Yettheseshiftsintheconceptualizationof
photographyhavenotoccurred,largelybecauseitisdifficulttodistinguishbetweenthe
finalproductofanaloganddigitalphotography,makingitdifficulttohaveadifferentsetof
standardsforeachmedium.Furthermore,photographs’tacitrelationshipwithreality,as
discussedpreviously,remainsseeminglyvisibleinthedigitalfinalproduct,thoughthis
physicalrelationshipmaynotcontinueinthecreationofadigitalimage.Withanalog
creationitcanbearguedthattheimagewastheresultofachemicalprocess,whichleft
21
tracesoflightintheimage.Thoughthissame“trace”appearstobepresentinadigitally
createdimage,thattraceisduetoadigitalrepresentationofreality,insteadofchemical
imprint.Thisconfusionisfurtheredbydigitalphotography’sinherentalterability.When
somethingexistsindigitalformaninfinitenumberofalterationscanbecompletedwhich
leavelittletracebehind.
Whilethedigitalcompositionofimagesallowsforalteration,mostphoto
manipulationisnotdoneoncamerasthemselves.Instead,itiscarriedoutoncomputers
usingimagingsoftwareandscanners.Thus,evenphotoscreatedbeforetheadventof
digitalphotography,orsinceitsadventinananalogformat,maybealtered,asdiscussed
withrelationtotheImagineersandmovies.40Theadventofdigitaltechnologiesinrelation
tophotographyhas,therefore,alteredtheentirelandscapeofphotography.Thisharkens
backtoBouse’soriginalpoint,thatwhileearlierphotographsmaybemoretrustedbythe
public,theenhancedalterationcapabilityofdigitalphotographyaltersnotonlyhow
presentandfutureimagesareinterpreted,butalsoourawarenessofthepotential
manipulationofphotographscreatedinthepast.Althoughthespectatormayknowthata
specificimagewascreatedpriortotheadventofdigitalphotography,heisalsoawarethat
theimagemayhavebeenalteredsincethen,changingthewaythepublicviewseven
unalteredimagesofthepast.41Itcanthereforebearguedthatdigitalphotographyhas
decreasedthecredibilityofphotographyingeneral,asonemustnowquestionall
photographicimages,andasitisfrequentlyimpossibleforthelaymantodistinguishwhich
photographshavebeenalteredandwhichremainintheiroriginalcondition.
22
Itcanalsobeargued,converselyandquiteeffectively,thattheadventofdigital
technologyhasbroughtrelativelyfewcompletelyinnovativewaysofalteringa
photograph.42Insteadexistingcapabilitiesofphotographicmodificationhavebecomemore
accessibleastheyhavebecomelesstimeconsumingandlessexpensive,andhavebeen
marketedasanewinnovationtoapublicthatwaspreviouslyonlyvaguelyawareofsuch
capabilitiesandunabletocompletesuchmodificationsontheirown.Digitalalterationof
photographyandimageshasreallymeantthedemocratizationofalteration,insteadofa
revolutioninthefield.Ithasalsoheightenedthepublic’sawarenessofalteration,perhaps,
asmuchasithasincreasedthefrequencyofalteration.
Digitalvs.Analog
Photographyhasneverbeenstatic;insteadithasbeenaconstantlyevolving
mediumsinceitwasfirstintroducedintheearly1800s.Yetupuntilthispoint
photographywasalwaysbasedonchemistryandlight.JosephNiepcefirstdevelopedthe
permanentrenderingofimagesthroughlightinthe1820susingbitumenofJudea,to
recordimagesbeforefixingthemwithlavenderoil.Hesoonevolvedthismethodinto
heliographs,whichweremadeusingsilvernitrate.EduardDaguerre,whowasworkingon
hisownphotographicprocesstoaidhiminhiscareerasascenemaker,contactedNiepce
suggestingtheyworktogether.ThepairworkedtogetheruntilNeipce’sdeath,afterwhich
Daguerrediscoveredmercury’sabilitytofiximages,andcreatedtheDaguerreotype,which
Daguerreclaimed,“isnotmerelyaninstrumentwhichservestodrawnature;onthe
contraryitisachemicalandphysicalprocesswhichgivesherthepowertoreproduce
herself.”43Fromtheearliestdaysofphotographytheideaofthemechanicallyproduced
unmediatedtruthproliferated,givingthephotographicmediumatruth‐valueitdidnot
23
inherentlydeserve.SimultaneouslyFoxTalbotcreatedasimilarmethodusingtheslated
paperprint.ConcurrentlywiththecreationofphotographybyNiepce,Talbot,and
Daguerre,aFrenchmanbythenameofBayardcreatedalightimagingtechnology.Withthe
creationofphotography,aswiththecreationofdigitaltechnology,thenewimagemaking
processcoincidedwithalargertechnicalinnovationthatwasrealizedbyseveral
practitionersatonce.TheDaguerreotypefastgainedprominenceabovetheothermethods,
andbecameespeciallypopularforthenewartformofportraitmaking.Daguerreotypes
wereaonesteppositiveprocessthat’ssimplicityoriginallyaddedtotheirappeal.Soon,
however,consumerswereonceagainconsideringtheCalotype,createdbyTalbot,a
technologythatwhilesomewhatlessreliable,wasinfinitelymorereproducibleandmore
capableofreproducingfinedetail.Bythe1850sglassnegativesandalbumenpaperwere
thelatesttechnologicalinnovations;theyweremorereproducibleandmoredetailedthan
anypreviousmethod.Itmaybearguedthattheadventofdigitalphotographyhasonce
againpushedreproducingcapabilitiestoanewlevel,asimagesnolongerneedtoexistina
hardformattobeseen.Nowanyphysicalrequirementsforreproducingimageshavebeen
strippedastheymaybetransmittedelectronically.Increasedreproducibilityhasalways
beendesirableinphotography,asdemonstratedbythereturnoftheCalotype.Although
digitaltechnologyfurtheredmanyofanalogmethods’capabilities,itdidsoinan
intrinsicallynewway,onethatisdebatedbyphotographersandphilosophersalikewith
regardstoitseffectonphotography.
MarkAmerika,whendiscussingthedifferencesbetweenanaloganddigital
photography,usesaquitehelpfulexplanation,whichhederivedfromVilemFlusser’s
TowardsaPhilosophyonPhotography,onethatisbasedonviewingthevariouswaysof
24
recordingimagesasapartofaspectrum.Amerikastatesthatthewayimagesare
interpretedisinfluencedbythewaytheyarecaptured,andthusarguesthatastechnology
hasevolvedsohastheinterpretationofphotography.44Throughtheadditionofdigital
photographytothespectrum,theartistisnowfreertoconcentrateonpersonal
interpretationsofthespace,asopposedtoattemptingtocaptureobjectiverealitiesaswith
analogimaging.Theseenhancedalterabilitycapabilitieshavealteredthepublic’s
perceptionofphotographicobjectivitytosuchadegreeitisnolongernecessarytoattempt
objectivity.45Amerika’sargument,however,isweakenedbythefactthattheassumed
objectivityofphotographyingeneralisambiguous,astheindividualartisthasalwayshad
thepowertocaptureapersonalscene.Theclaimthatthecameraismerelyamediumfor
capturinganimagemaybemadeforallformsofphotography,notonlynewdigital
technologies.Furthermore,whileitmaybetruethatagreaterlevelofmanipulationismore
commonsincethecreationofdigitalphotography,makingtheinitialactofrecordingthe
imageasmallerportionoftheoverallequation,itisnottruethattherewerenotartists
whousedsignificantalterationaftercapturinganimagepriortotheadventofdigital
technologies—asevidencedbytheaforementionedRejalnder.
SavedoffandMitchellfurtherarguethatdigitalphotographycannotbeheldtothe
samealterabilitystandardsasanalogphotographybecauseitisnotanalogphotography;
insteaditisanewmediumuntoitself.46Theyarguethatthedifferencebetweentheanalog
formationofaphotographicimageonfilmandthedigitalcreationofanimagethrough
sensorreceptionistantamounttothecreationofanewartform.Thisnewmedium,which
producesanendproductstrikinglysimilartoanalog,doesnotinfactconstitutethesame
process.
25
Digitalimaging,however,gainsmuchofitspowerfromthefactthatitisnearly
indistinguishablefromanalogphotography.Theassumedauthorityoftheolderanalog
imagesistransferredtonewlycreateddigitalimages,increasingtheirassumedveracity.If
thisrelationshipisbroken,digitalphotographymaynotmaintainitscurrentlevelof
esteem.Thisbreakcouldcauseamassiveshiftintheuseofdigitalphotographyasa
methodofreportingthenews,orconveyingevidence,giventhatitsauthoritywouldbe
lessened.Interestingly,digitalphotographyderivesitsvalidityfromitssimilaritytoanalog
photographs,whilethissamerelationshiphasdevaluedanalogimagesastheylose
credibilityalongwiththeirdigitalcounterparts.Theincreasedabilitytoalterimagesalso,
aspreviouslydiscussed,appliestoimagesthatwereonceanaloginform,thusdecreasing
theirinherentdocumentaryworth.
Thoughalterationwaspossiblewithanalogphotographypriortotheadventof
digitalimaging,itwasusedmuchlessandrequiredfarmoreskill.47Thus,whileinsome
waysalterationhasmerelyincreasedwithdigitalphotography,SavedoffandMitchellargue
thisincreaseissufficienttowarrantconceptualizingdigitalphotographyasanewmedium.
Furthermore,analogalterationleftatraceontheoriginalnegative.Regardlessofthetype
ofalteration,itwasnearlyimpossibletochangethefinalimagewithoutinsomeway
permanentlyalteringthenegative.Withdigitalphotography,however,thisisnolongerthe
case.48Whenthe“original”oftheprintismerelyadigitalfile,itbecomesnearlyimpossible
totellifthatfilehasbeenalteredandwhichimageisindeedtheunmanipulatedoriginal.
Thetrueoriginalbecomesindistinguishablefromthealteredfacsimile.
26
Theincreasedamountofskillandtimerequiredtoalteraphotographinananalog
formatmeantalteredphotographsweretheexceptiontothenorm,astheyweredifficult
andexpensivetocreate.Theimprovedcapabilitiesofdigitalalteration,however,andthe
easewithwhichmostchangescanbeapplied,haveledalteredphotographstobecomethe
norm,inthewordsofSavedoffcreatinganenvironmentwherethe“documentary
usefulnessofnewsandfeaturephotographsisseverelydiminished.”49Savedoffargues
thatinaworldofonlyanalogphotography,thereweremanymoreunderstoodlimits
regardingwhichalterationswerelegitimateandwhichwereinappropriate.But,withthe
expandedcapabilitiesofdigitaltechnologies,thesestandardshavebeengreatlyalteredif
notentirelydismissed.50Theneweaseofalterationhasledindividualstoalter
photographsmorefrequentlywithlesscontemplationoftheassociatedconsequencesof
suchactions.
MarkAmerikatakesMitchellandSavedoff’sargumentstotheirmostextremeby
arguingthatratherthandigitalimagingcreatinganewmediumdigitalphotographyinfact
doesnotexist.51Heclaimsit“allcomesdowntocapturingdataandthendigitally
processingitasnecessary,”becauseanything,notonlyaphotographicimage,maybe
printedviaadigitalprocess,includingword‐processingdocumentssuchasthisorimages
pulledfromtheInternet.52Heclaimswhatisimportantwithdigitaltechnologyistheway
thatimages,wordingandothervisualmediaare“remixed”toformanewtypeofart.53
Thus,forAmerika,digitalphotographyisapieceofthelargerspectrumofdigitalart.
Amerikafurtherclaimsthatdigitalimagingisnotphotography,as“alldigitalformsof
expressioncomedowntomanipulatingonesandzeros.”54Ifthislogicisfollowed,however,
thenallanalogimagerycomesdowntochemistry,andtheeffectoflightondifferent
27
compounds.WhileAmerikaisattemptingtoproveavalidpoint,thatdigitalphotography
mayhavecreatedanewartformaltogether,hislogicisweak,makinghisargumentappear
invalid.
IncontrasttoAmerika,whoclaimsthatdigitaltechnologyisnotphotographyatall,
andMitchellandSavedoff,whoclaimthatinsteaditisanewmedium,thereisathird
schoolthatsimplybelievesdigitalimaginghasrevolutionized,or“remediated”
photographyingeneral.Thislineofbelief,representedbyMichelleHenning,statesthat
whiledigitalphotographyisclearlycreatedandusedindifferentwaysfromanalog
technologies,toalargeextentitisexperiencedandinterpretedbytheaudienceinasimilar
fashion.Thecombinationofthesetwofactsmeansthatanewformofanalysismustbe
appliedtobothanaloganddigitalformats.55Digitalcamerasaremadetoresembleanalog
cameras,inexteriordesign,andmaintainantiquatedanalogterminologysuchasASO/ISO
settings—whicharereferencestofilmspeed,andobviouslynotaconcernonadigital
camera.56Thusthepackagingandmarketingofdigitalcamerasfurtheremphasizestheir
relationtoanalogtechnology,perhapstoalleviatebuyers’fearsofnewtechnologies,andin
parttomaintainthetenuousrelationshipbetweenthetwomediums,andindoingsoto
continuetoheightendigitalphotography’svalidity.57Furthermorewhileelectronics
companiesalsomakedigitalcameras,traditionalphotographyfirmssuchasCannon,
OlympusandMinoltaaretheprimarymarketers.58Henningclaimsthistendencytomake
digitalphotographyconformtotheprecedentsofanalogphotographyisdetrimentaltothe
possibilitiesofdigitaltechnologies,whichfarexceedthoseofanalog.59Thefactthatdigital
technologyhasmerelyremediatedanalogphotomaking,inthemindofthethirdschool,is
notduetodigitalphotography’sinherentcapabilities,buttothewayinwhichithasbeen
28
presentedandmarketedtothepublic,andunderstoodbythecorporationsthatsellit.
Henningisalsoquicktopointoutthat,asinanalogphotography,inearlydigital
technologiesthelightwasfirstsensedbythecamerabutthenunlikeanalogformatsitwas
interpretedthroughdigitalmeans.Thus,accordingtoHenning,digitalphotographyisinno
way“lessphotographicthanchemicalanalogis.Itmeansitdeploysverydifferent
processes”forthesameresult.60
Yetanotherschoolofthoughtregardingthedistinctionsbetweendigital
photographyandanalogphotographyistothinkofthemneitherasindependentartforms,
norasthesamethingentirely,butinsteadtoviewthetwoprocessesonacontinuumwith
painting.61Whenanalogphotographywasfirstcreated,artistsandcollectorsalike
predictedthedeathofpainting.Yetastimecontinuedpaintingdidnotdie;insteaditsuses
merelychanged.Withthecreationofdigitalphotography,analogtechnologyisnowforced
tofinditsownnicheinimagingculture.Somearguethatthisnicheislocatedbetween
traditionalphotographyandpainting.Digitalphotographyprovidestherealismand
intricaterelationshipwithrealityofanalogphotography,yetitalsoprovidesahigher
degreeofalterability,whichplacesitsomewherebetweenthetwoartforms.62Asdigital
photographygrapplesforitsplaceamongpreviousimagingtechnologies,thepublic,news
mediaandgovernmentsmustdecidehowtoreacttothisinnovativetechnology.
REACTIONSTODIGITALALTERATION
Public’sResponses
Thepublicisawarethatphotoalterationispossible,becausemanypeoplehave
alteredaphotograph.Whethersomeonehascroppedoutaformerlover,changedanimage
29
toblackandwhitefromcolor,orsimplyremovedred‐eye,mostindividualshaveused
computersoftwaretochangeadigitalimage.Yetbeingawarethatthistypeof
manipulationispossibleandactuallyusingthisknowledgetoactivelyscrutinizeevery
imageoneseesaretwodifferentconcepts.Whenmostpeoplepickupthenewspapertheir
firstthoughtisnot,“Iwonderwhatinthisimagecouldhavebeen,orprobablywas,
altered?”Theimageismerelyinterpretedforitsacceptedpurpose,toprovide
substantiationforthewrittenstoryitaccompanies.Thusthephotoisacceptedatface‐
value,asproofofanincident,duetophotography’spreviouslydiscussedinherentclaimto
truth.
Inthecontextofnewspaperjournalismitisimportanttonotethatitmayalso
rightfullybeclaimedthatonecanalterthewrittenword.Oneunderstandswhenreading
anytextthatsimplybecausesomethingiswrittendowndoesnotimplythatitisfactual
informationorthetruth;insteadtheinterpretivedimensionoftheworkisunderstood
fromitscontext.Theaveragereaderunderstandsthatfairytalesarefiction,thateditorials
areopinion,andthatjournalismismeanttoinformthepublicofthetruth.Thissame
understandingdoesnotexistforphotography;whilethepublicinterpretsimagesin
newspapersasdocumentingthestorieswhichtheyareapartof,andimagesinmuseums
orgalleriesasworksofartuntothemselves,thereisnotnecessarilyatruthjudgment
imposedonthelatterartisticimages,whiletheformerrepresentimpliedreality.This
assumedrealityofjournalisticphotographyisrightfullycomingintoquestionsincethe
adventofdigitalphotography.
30
Thecontext,inwhichadigitalphotographisused,aswithanyimage,isan
importantfactorintheaudience’sinterpretationofthephotograph’sreliability.Context
alsoaffectstheaudience’sassessmentofwhetherornotimagesarelikelytohavebeen
altered.63InPhotographsandContexts,TerryBarrettexaminestheimportanceofcontexts
intheinterpretationofphotographsusingRobertDosineau’sphotographentitled“Atthe
Café,ChezFraysse,RuedeSeine,Paris,1958.”Thisphotographshowsamanandwoman
sittingatabar,withthewomangazingatherdrinkandthemanstaringather.This
seeminglysimpleimageisinterpretedinvastlydifferentwaysdependinguponthecontext
ofthephotograph.WhenviewedintheMuseumofModernArt,itisviewedasanexhibition
ofphotographicmastery;yetwhenviewedinatemperancebrochure,itappearstobea
warningagainstthemoralambiguitythatcomeswithalcoholandtolikenthewomantoa
prostitute.ThisdrivesBarretttoclaimthat“apictureisaboutwhatitappearstobeabout,”
meaningthatwhenaphotographappearstobeabouttemperancefromthecontextin
whichitwasplaced,thereaderinterpretsitassuch.64Likewise,whenaphotographisina
newspaperthereaderinterpretsitasadocumentaryimagebecauseitisunderstoodfrom
itscontextthatthisisitsintendedrole.
Furthermore,theunderstandingofaphotographvarieswhenitisinterpretedfrom
differenthistoricperspectives.65Whilethisshiftisdemonstratedwiththedecreasedtruth‐
valueplacedonallphotographssincetheadventofdigitalphotography,itisalsonoticeable
apartfromthetechnologicaladvancesofphotography.Whenahistorianlooksata
photograph,forexample,hemayuseanydetailtohelpdeterminethedateandlocationof
thatphotograph.Thiscanrangefromusingtheclothingofsubjects,toadvertisementsin
thebackground,toarchitecturalstylesandlandscapestoplacetheinformationprovided
31
bytheimageinalargersocialandculturalperspective.If,however,anyofthesedetailsare
removedbyeitherdigitalortraditionalmeans,theauthenticityofthisphotographis
weakened,asistheabilityofthehistoriantoviewitfromtheappropriatehistorical
framework.
Contextmayalsobeusedwheninterpretingtheappropriatenessofdigital
alterationinphotojournalism.Whenoneseesanimageofa700‐year‐oldbabyonthecover
oftheNationalEnquirer,oneassumesfromthecontext(itsplacementonatabloidcover)
andpreviousknowledge(thatthechancesofa700‐year‐oldbabyareexceedinglyrare)
thatthephotowasmostlikelydigitallyaltered.66Thereisinsomewayslessmoral
ambiguityassociatedwiththisphotograph’salteration,asitcanbeassumedbythe
intelligentmemberofthepublicthatthechanceofsuchaneventoccurringare
infinitesimal.OntheotherhandwhenthereputablenewsmagazineTimeproducedan
imageofO.J.Simpsonthatwassignificantlyalteredfromtheoriginalmug‐shotitwasnot
necessarilypossiblefortheaveragelyintelligentpublictogatherthatthisimagehadbeen
altered.Thiscover,whichwaspublishedonJune27,1994,appearedsimultaneouslywith
thesameimageonthecoverofNewsweek.Thejuxtapositionofthesetwoimagesallowed
thepublicandjournalistsaliketoseethattheimageonTimehadbeensignificantly
darkened.ThusonthecoverofTimeOJSimpsonactuallyappearedtobeblackerthanon
thecoverofNewsweekorintheoriginalmugshot.Whilethisobviouslyraisesthequestion
ofhowraceisperceivedinAmericancultureasrelatedtocrime,italsoraisesthequestion
ofdigitalalteration.Theillustratorwhomadethedecisiontodarkenthemugshotof
Simpson,MattMahurin,statedthathe“wantedtomakeitmoreartful,morecompelling.”67
Furthermore,BryceZabelclaimsthisoriginalimagewasdarkenedbyTimetoshowthe
32
publicinatangibleformthemetaphoricshadowthathadbeencastoverthesports
superstar.68Yetwhenjournalistsaretrustedtoreportthenewsthequestionremains—
wasthisalterationethical?WhetherMahurin’salterationwasethicalornot,Newsweek
obviouslymadethedecisionthatitwasunnecessarybypublishingitscoverimagewithout
manipulation.Timealsoshowedthatitsecond‐guesseditsoriginaldecisionwhenit
revokedtheinitiallyreleasedO.J.Simpsoncoveraftersubstantialcriticismfromminority
groups.Timereleasedasecondversion,whichstillshowedZabel’smetaphoricshadow,yet
thistimeplaceditbehindO.J.Simpsoninsteadofacrosshisface.69AlsoTimehasrestricted
thepermissionsonreprintingthiscover,notallowinganyscholarlypublicationtolegally
reproducethiscoverinanyformforanypurpose;adecisionthatfurthersspeculationthat
perhapsTimehas,rightfully,re‐consideredthisuseofdigitalalteration.Finally,thisimage
raisesthequestionofthemotivesbehindanyactofphotoalteration.Wasitscreatora
racist,orsimplyanartistlookingforamoresensationalimagetoincreasecopysales?70
Whilethetrueanswertothisquestionmayneverbefullyknown,itisimportantthat
varyingmotivesmaychangetheimageportrayedtothepublic.
BarbaraMelzerclaimsthatalterationsofimages,evenofdocumentarynewsscenes,
arenotathreattonewsjournalists’credibilityaslongasthesemanipulationsareobvious.
Infact,shegoessofarastoclaimthatsomeartistsintentionallymakesomealteredimages
obvious.Todemonstratethispoint,however,sheusestheimageofMarthaStewart
previouslydiscussed.Sheclaimsthattheaveragereaderimmediatelydetectsthatthis
imageisafake,andthusthattheillustratorisfulfillingsymbolicgoalswhilenotfoolingthe
public.Yetwhileitcanbearguedthatthisisanoptionofphoto‐editors,itismuchmore
difficulttoarguethatthemanipulationofStewart’sbodyiseasilyapparent.
33
Thepublicoftenviewsphotographyasunmediatedreality,yetitseasilyalterable
contentandcontextclearlyshowthatthisisnotthecase.Whenviewingaphotograph,
Barrettrightlyconcludes,theaudiencemustbemindfulofboththeexternalcontextand
theinternalcontentofthephoto,andbeawareofhowbothcontributetotheindividual’s
readingandinterpretationofagivenphotograph.71Viewersofphotographsmustbe
awarethatonenaturallyattemptstoreconstructthesceneinwhichthephotographwas
created,yetifthatphotographwasaltered,itportraysascenewhichneverexisted,thereby
makingtherecreationexercisefutile,furthermakingtheunderstandingofsuch
photographs—especiallyhowtheymaybeproperlyusedfordocumentarypurposes—
questionableatbest.72
Meltzer,aphotographyeducator,wroteanarticlecallingforincreasedpublic
awarenessofphotomanipulationthroughteaching.Meltzerstressestheimportanceof
readingimages.Asdiscussedpreviously,photographyisalanguage,andaccordingto
Meltzeritisalanguagethatmustbetaughtinschools.Justasonelearnstoreadthewritten
word,onemustlearntointerpretvisualimagesandevaluatetheirvalidityaswellastheir
authenticity.PaulMesssarisfurtherstressestheneedtoteachthepublicto“read”
photographicimages,statingthatmerelyhavingthisknowledgewillhelpthepublicbetter
understandthevisualrepresentationstheyreceiveandtherebysafeguardagainst
counterfeitsanddeception.73Nerigoessofarastostatethatimagereadingshouldbe
taughtinelementaryschools,anideawhichsheadoptedformPaolaPallottino.74They
suggestthat,similartothestudyoficonographyfrequentlyrequiredinthepast,theseskills
willhelpstudentsprepareforthejobsofthefuture,whichwillmostlikelyrequirephoto‐
editingandknowledgeofalterationcapabilities.75Whilesome,likeMelzer,believethatthe
34
bestwaytointegratenewdigitaltechnologyistoteachphotographicinterpretationin
schools,othersbelievetheanswerliesinregulations,suchasthoseproposedbytheUnited
Statesgovernment.
GovernmentReactionstoDigitalAlterability
Inregardstotheneedforlegislationlimitingtheuseofreal‐timedigitalimaging
manipulation,JohnPikeoftheFederationofAmericanScientistsinWashingtonD.C.states
thatthissoftwaredoesnotposeacredibilitythreatforphotography,astherisksaresimply
toogreatifanorganizationorgovernmentiscaughtattemptingtofoolthepublic.76This
idea,however,isdisprovedbythecontinualuseofthistypeoftechnologybytheAmerican
governmentandtheIndianGovernment.Thoughtheseentitiesadmittoalteringtheimages
theyproduce,theyalsoclaimthatthenationalsecurityintereststhismanipulationprotects
outweightheneedforaccuracyinreporting.Whilethismaybethecase,itisinterestingto
contemplatewherethelineliesbetweenprotectingnationalinterestsandlyingtothe
public.Pikegoesontostate,however,thatthe“Achillesheel”ofhisclaimistheInternet.77
Heclaimsthatwhilegovernmentsandnewsorganizationsmostlikelyvaluetheir
credibilitytoomuchtoriskdisplayingalteredimages,thereisnosuchfilteringmechanism
ontheInternet,andthatonceanimageisreleasedintocyberspaceitmaybespreadata
ratethatmakesthedocumentaryvalueofthephotographinconsequential.Thoughthe
imagemaybeill‐conceived,everybodywillstillbeawareitexists,thusgivingitalatent
authority,thoughitmaybefalse.Livingstonalsobringsanimportantpointtothis
discussion,ashecontemplatestheeffectsafewpublicalterationsofphotographsmayhave
onthepublic’srelianceonimages.78Heclaimsthatalthoughthismayonlybeapassing
35
phase,evenafewunfortunateforays,suchastheNationalGeographicpyramids,maylead
thepublictopermanentlyquestiontheintegrityofphotographicsources.79
Thepotentialalterabilityofphotos,however,hasprovedattimesasusefulasitis
intimidatingtogovernments.Oneexampleofthiswasa1989UnitedStatesclaimtoa
UnitedNationsSecurityCouncil.TheUnitedStateshadshotdownaLibyanplane,which
Americathenclaimedhadbeenarmed.ToprovethistheUSproducedphotographs,albeit
blurryones,tosubstantiateitsargument.80TheLibyangovernmentclaimedtheimageshad
beenmanipulatedbytheUnitedStatessoitappearedasthoughtheLibyanMiGshadbeen
armed.Thusatthesametimethatgovernmentswerebeginningtobecomeawareofthe
potentialforphotoalterationandtocontemplatelegislationagainstit,theveryideathata
photomayhavebeenaltereddrewquestionsofethicsintoadebate,andraisedquestions
aboutthereliabilityofasuperpower.
Themostfar‐reachingattemptsatreformcamefromthesameplacedigital
photographyoriginated—theUnitedStatesGovernment.TheArtists’RightsFoundation
wasestablishedinHollywoodinthelate1980stoprotectexistingfilmsfromfuturedigital
alterationandtampering,andlobbiedCongresssothatin1991,1992,and1993Congress
consideredtheFilmDisclosureAct.81Thesebills,whichareoftenusedaspartofthe
dialogueregardingthealterationofdigitalimages,wereactuallydesignedtoprotectthe
rightsofmoviecreators.Underthesebillsthecreatorsofamovieareprotectedfrom
changesmadetothemoviebydistributorsafterthecreativeteamhasfinisheditswork.
Theseactsrequiredthedistributortoclearlymarkonthepackaginganychangesthathad
beenmadesinceitscompletionbytheartists,andwouldhaveallowedtheartiststohave
36
theirnameremovedfromthefinalworkiftheywereunsatisfiedwithalterationsmade.
Theartistswouldalsohavetherighttobringacivilsuitagainstthedistributororstudioif
theyfeltthereleaseofthealteredfilmwoulddegradetheirprofessionalreputation.82
Whilethesebillswerecreatedinpartinreactiontoadvancesindigitalalteration
technology,theywasnotdraftedsolelyforthispurpose,againdemonstratingthepointthat
manyalterationsaremadebyanalogmeans,aswellasthroughdigitaltechnologies;thus
thisbillwasdesignedtoprotecttheartistsingeneral.Thehugeincreaseinavailabledigital
technologieshasclearlyincreasedthedistributor’sorthestudio’sabilitytoalterafilm
withoutthepermission,orknowledge,oftheoriginalartist.Furthermore,whilethesebills
applytoanyimagereleasedontheInternet,videocassette,orthroughtelevision
broadcast,theyareonlyapplicabletomovingimages,andthereforedonotprotect
photojournalistsintheprintmediafromunwantededitingbyanewspaper,orunethical
editingbyasupervisor.83Theyalsodonotrequireprintmediatodisclosetothepublic
whichimageshavebeenaltered;thebillsweredesignedtoprotectintellectualproperty
andcopyright,notphotography’sreliability.Furthermore,anyimagemustonlybelabeled
iftheartistfeelsitisadetrimenttohisorherwork;thereisnosafeguardforthepublicto
bemadeawarethatanimage,thatisintendedtoreportthenews,suchasfromamajor
newspaper,hasbeenaltered.DefensorSantiagopresentedasimilarbilltothePhilippine
Congressin2007,thoughthisbillhasnotyetbeenvotedon.
Whilethefederalgovernmenthasdiscussedbillstomarktheuseofdigitalimaging,
theyhavealsoinvestedintechnologytodetectalteredphotographs.TheFederalBureauof
InvestigationfundedDr.FaniHarid,anappliedmathematicianatDartmouth,tocreate
algorithmsusedtoidentifydigitallyalteredimages.84Thissoftware,whichinpartwas
37
designedtoensuretheveracityofdigitalimagesusedincourt,usesmathematicsto
determineunusualrepetitionsintheimages,whichmaybeduetocopyingandpasting
fromanotherportionoftheimageinordertoremoveanunwantedobject.85Asthe
governmentcontinuestodetectandinsomecasesregulatetheuseofdigitalimaging,
mediaoutletshavebeguntodeveloptheirownregulations.
NewsOutlets’Reponses
GraziaNericlaimsinTheDigitalJournalistthatthereactionofthenewsmediato
photographyingeneralhasbeenoneoffear,andthatprintmediahavethustendedto
ignoreissuesassociatedwithphotography,includingdigitalimaging.Theapparent
strengthandaccuracythatapictorialrepresentationprovidesofaneventhasbeenan
interestingparallelwithlinguisticexplorations.Insteadofattemptingtoteachthepublicto
interpretitsmeaning,orunderstandhowitmaybealtered,thesubjecthasbeenleftlargely
unmentioned.Thisfearofphotographyhaslededitorstorequestthatphotographers
recordimagesthatfitthewrittenstoriestheywishtoillustrate.86Evenpriortotheadvent
ofdigitaltechnology,photographswerecreatedoralteredtofitthenarrativesofa
situationandthepreconceivednotionsintheeditor’s,audience’sandphotographer’s
minds.Acommonexampleofnarrativephotography,Nericlaims,istheportrayalofthe
“disheartenedorhomogenized.Theelderlyandimmigrantsaretwoexcellentexamplesof
this,”astheytendtobeportrayedingenericsceneswhichfitthepublic’snotions.87News
organizationshavesubordinatedimagestosubstantiationofthewrittenwordandavoided
discussingtheircontributions,andthelimitsofthosecontributions,inreactiontothe
immensepowertheyrepresent.Withtheadventofdigitaltechnology,however,the
alterationcapabilitiesofphotographyingeneralinevitablybecameanissue,although
38
analogalterationtechniquesandwaysofreadingallphotographicimageswereneverfully
addressed.
TheproblemisclearlyframedbyAndyGrundberg,writinginTheNewYorkTimes:
Inthefuture,readersofnewspapersandmagazineswillprobablyviewnews
picturesmoreasillustrationsthanasreportage,sincetheywillbewellawarethat
theycannolongerdistinguishbetweenagenuineimageandonethathadbeen
manipulated.Evenifnewsphotographersandeditorsresistthetemptationsof
electronicmanipulation,astheyarelikelytodo,thecredibilityofallreproduced
imageswillbediminishedinaclimateofreducedexpectations.Inshort,
photographswillnotseemasrealastheyoncedid.88
In1989USATodayeditorFolwellstatedthatalthoughthepotentialtoalteran
imagehadalwaysexisted,withtheadventofdigitalphotographytheproofthatanimage
hadnotbeenalteredwastakenaway.89Inthedaysofanalogphotographyifaneditorwas
accusedofalteringanimage,hesimplyproducedtheuntaintednegative,andthecharge
wasdropped;withtheadventofdigitaltechnologiessuchanoriginalnolongerexists.90
Clearly,withtheinitialproliferationofdigitaltechnology,journalistsbegan
assessingthenewrelativevalueofphotographyasproofandcorroborationofthewritten
word.Simultaneously,journalistsbegandesigningrulestolimittheuseofdigitalaltering
capabilitiesandmaintainthephotograph’sreliability.Oneexampleofthiswasthe
AssociatedPress,whichmadeapublicstatementinthemid‐1990s,whenphotoalteration
wasbeginningtobecomeatopicofdebate,thatthecontentofaphotographwouldnever
bealtered;buttheAPdidnotgosofarastoeliminatedigitalmanipulationentirely.More
39
importantly,italsodidnotclearlydefinewhatconstituted“alteringcontent,”leavingthis
opentotheinterpretationoftheindividualphotographerorphotoillustrator.
TheNationalPressPhotographers’Association(NPPA)simultaneouslycalledfora
newsetofstandards,whichwasissuedin1990whentheNPAAapproveditsstatementof
principlethatwasrevisedin1991andincorporatedintothebylawsin1995.Includedin
thesestandardswasacodeofethicswhichstatedinreferencetodigitalphotographythat
“asjournalistswebelievetheguidingprincipleofourprofessionisaccuracy;thereforewe
believeitiswrongtoalterthecontentofaphotographthatinanywaydeceivesthe
public.”91TheNPAAgoesontostateinitscodeofethicsthatitbelievesthestandardethics
ofphotojournalisminanalogformatsshouldbeextendedtodigitallycreatedimages,and
thatanymanipulationwhichwouldhavebeenconsideredinappropriateunderthose
earliercircumstancesremainsinappropriateevenwithdigitalimaging.InEthicsintheAge
ofDigitalPhotography,JohnLong,theethicsco‐chairandpastpresidentoftheNPPA,
furtherstatesthat“theadventofcomputersanddigitalphotographyhasnotcreatedthe
needforawholenewsetofstandards.”92Thisisbasedontheclaimthatdigital
photographyisnotinfactanewmedium,butmerelyanewmethodofprocessingimages.
Thereforethesameprinciples,whichguidedthealterationofanalogimages,shouldbe
maintainedinthenewformat.
DigitalCustomGroup,Inc.,releasedits“ModelEthicGuidelinestoProtectthe
IntegrityofJournalisticPhotographs”in2002.93Thisfirstreleaseoftheguidelinesstated
thatalterationsthat“compensateforlimitationsanddefectsinherentindigitalprocess”
areallowed,butthatthephotomustmaintainits“true‐to‐life”accuracy.94Theseguidelines
40
werefurtherexplainedtomeanthatalterationsofcolorbalance,lensdistortion,focusand
glare,or“othermodificationsconsideredtobepresentationalchangeswereallowed.”95
Yetaddingorremovingobjectswasprohibitedifthecontextoftheimagewasaltered.If
thisintegrityremained,however,thentheinsertionordeletionofelementswithinthe
originalimagewasconsideredappropriate.96Theseguidelines,however,leftimportant
roomforphotographers’personaljudgment.Ashaspreviouslybeendiscussed,the
perspectiveofthephotographeroreditormayaffectwhichelementshebelievesare
pertinenttotheintegrityoftheimage.Furthermore,whenphotosareusedinmultipleand
varyingcontexts,asdiscussedbyBarrett,anobjectthatwasinitiallyunimportantmaylater
holdimmensevalue.
The2002“ModelEthicGuidelines”wentontoprohibitanyalterationthatcould
altertheviewer’sperceptionoftimeorspaceaswellasstatingthatthe“desirability”ofthe
subjectshouldneverbealtered.Thereforetheseguidelinesdisallowedsomeofthemost
commonformsofdigitalalteration,includingremovingthewrinklesfromacelebrity’sor
politicalfigure’sface,andbydoingsoalteringtheaudience’sperceptionoftime,oraltering
aphotographtomakeaperson,orinthecaseofanadvertisement,aproduct,lookmore
desirable.Whiletheseguidelinesareintendedonlyforprofessionalphotojournalism,Fred
ShowkerofDigitalCustomsInc.statesthatanyonewhoproducesanimagemustexamine
hispersonalmotivesforitscreationandhowtheimagewillbedistributedbeforehealters
itinanyway.Showkeralsowarnsartistsandeditorsagainstbecoming“spin‐doctors”by
usingnewdigitalcapabilitiestocreatethemostflattering,orsensationalimages,
dependingonthegoalsofthenewspaperandpersonalopinionsofitsproducers,insteadof
thefactsthephotographisintendedtoreport.
41
GraziaNeri,acolumnistforTheDigitalJournalist,usesapersonalapproachfor
definingtheethicsofdigitalalterationinphotojournalism.Neristatesthatthefirstethical
decisionmadebythephotographerhasnothingtodowithnewtechnologies,butinstead
liesinhisdecidingwhichstorytotellwithhisimagesandthemannerinwhichhewilluse
photographstotellit.Inordertomaintainjournalisticintegrity,thisdecisionmustbe
madefromaperspectiveinwhichthephotographer“safeguardsthetruth”heconveysto
thepublic,ratherthanthatofcreatinganimageforpersonalororganizationalmotives.Itis
alsoimportantwhenconsideringdigitalalterationtorespectnotonlytheintegrityofthe
originalphotograph,butalsothecharacterofthesubject.97Insomeways,digital
technologyhasincreasedphotojournalists’abilitytoprotectthedignityorsafetyofthose
theyshoot,suchaswhenthefacesofvictimsorwitnessesareblurredoreliminated
entirely.Thuswhiledigitaltechnologyhasclearlychangedthecapabilitiesofphoto‐editors
tomanipulatethetruth,attimesthispowerservestoallowimagestobeprintedthat
wouldhavebeenpreviouslyleftundisclosedtoprotectanindividualidentity.Thevalueof
thisskill,howeverwhencomparedtotheindiscriminateusesithassuffered,remains
unclear.
Whilephotographers’associationsandsomemediasourceshavemadeattemptsto
regulatealterabilityinphotographicjournalism,lessthatfivepercentofphotographersare
satisfiedwiththeuseoftheirwork.98Thisisbecausemuchofthedigitaleditingtakesplace
innewsroomsbyeditorsinsteadofbeingdonebythephotographersthemselves,apractice
whichwasdiscussedinrelationtoeditingofimagesintheFilmDisclosureAct.The
decisionstheseeditorsmakearealsoaffectedbyavastarrayoffactorsoutsideofstrict
journalisticethics,suchasthecostofimages,spacesallottedfortheminthefinallayoutof
42
thepaper,andthedeadlineforprinting.Thismeansthatexclusiveofdigitalalteration,
photographicdecisionsarebasedonweakpremises,yetwithnewcapabilitiesofdigital
technology,imagesmaybeforcedtofitthesestandards.
MichaelHoffman,theeditorofAperturemagazine,breaksdownthebasicethicsof
digitalmanipulationintothreepoints.99Hestatesthatfirst,thephotographmustbe
producedforthepublicinthefinestgradepossible,arequirementthatisobviously
frequentlyignoredbynewspapersandothermediainterestedinprofit.Second,the
publishermustrespectthewishesoftheimage’screators,ensuringthatthepublicationis
notundulyinfluencedbymarketingneeds,orcurrentaesthetictrends.Finally,Hoffman
requiresthattheimage“beplacedinacontextincreasingtheethical,intellectual,and
spiritualcommitmentofthespectator.”100ThusHoffmancreatesimageethicsthatmaybe
consideredwithorwithoutdigitalcapabilitiestoenhancephotography’scredibility.
Timemagazinecreateditsowncommentaryontheimpactofdigitalphotographyin
its1989issueentitled“150YearsofPhotojournalism.”Thisissueshowedthetransitionof
imagesthroughoutthehistoryofphotojournalismandendedwithadigitallyalteredimage
ofEdwinAldrin.ItshowedsevenAldrinswalkingonthemoonandhadbeencreatedinthe
HomeBoxOffice(HBO)studiosusingtheoriginalNASAimageofthesingularAldrinonthe
moon.101Thisevent,whichhadobviouslyneverexistedinreality,resultedinanimagethat
usedthemetaphorofspace,“thefinalfrontier,”toshowthenewfrontierwhich
photojournalismwasentering,anerawheretheimpossiblewasnowpossible,andwhere
thingswhichhadneverhappenedcouldbe“proved.”
43
Scientificjournalshavealsostruggledwiththedigitalalterationofphoto
submissionsforjournalarticles.TheJournalofCellBiologywentsofarastoinstituteatest
ofallphotosubmissionsbeginningin2002toidentifyfakes.102Thistestfindsthattwenty‐
fivepercentofimagesviolatethejournal’ssubmissioncodeforimages.Thejournal’s
editor,IraMelman,however,saidthatveryfewoftheseimagesareactualforgeries;
insteadonlyone‐percentareentirelyfalseimages.Photographyeditorsofmajor
publications,however,continuetoemphasizethatflatoutfakingofphotographsisrare.
Insteaditiscommonplaceforaphotographerto“over‐correct”hiswork,andexceed
traditionallyagreeduponlimitsofalteringimages.103Thejournal,whichrequiresthatall
imagesbesubmitteddigitally,firstbegantonoticethetale‐talesignsofPhotoshop
alterationswhentheytransferredtheimagesfromtheformatofsubmissiontothatof
publication.104Thejournal’spublishedguidelinesstatethat“itisallrighttoadjustthe
brightnessorcolorbalanceofthewholephoto,butnottoobscure,moveorintroducean
element.“105TheinterestingpartofthetestbyTheJournalofCellBiology,however,isthat
theyusethesameprogramwhichmostofthesubmittersusedtoedittheimages,
Photoshop,tocatchthefakers.106ThisissimilartoLittleGreenFootballscatchingHajj’s
fakeasthetoolsofPhotoshophavebecomeeasilydetectabletomanyphotographic
professionals.Sciencehassincefollowedsuit,requiringallimagesintheirjournaltobe
checkedforalterations.107CellMagazine,however,statedthattheywouldnotbegintotest
imagesprovidedbyresearchers,astheybelievethe“ethicsofpresentingtruedatashould
beenforcedinascientist’straining,notbyjournaleditors.”108Eveninleadingscientific
publicationsthelinebetweeneditingandmanipulationremainsunclear.Thisconfusion
extendstopopularjournalismashasalreadybeenseen.
44
Thus,whilemanydifferententitiesfromgovernmentstojournalists,attemptedto
regulatetheuseofdigitalphotography,itmaybearguedthatnoneofthemwerespecific
enough,asalltheregulatoryprogramsvaryfromoneanother,andtheyhaveallresultedin
atleastafewquestionableusesofalteration.Yetitcanbearguedthatnoguidelinesthat
arespecificenoughcanbecreated,aseachphotographexistsinitsownuniquesetof
contexts,whichdeterminethealterationsthatareethical.
CONCLUSIONS:WHEREDOWESTAND?
Twentyyearsafterdigitalphotographybecameapartofmassculture,thereisstill
noconsensusontheeffectsitishavingonsociety,oronhowthenewcapabilitiesof
manipulationshouldbeaddressed.Artists,editors,andthepublicagreethatdigital
technologiesarenewanddifferent.Thisiswheretheconsensusends.Noonehascometoa
largelyacceptedconclusionastowhetheritisanewtechnologyentirely,orsimplyan
extensionintheongoingevolutionofphotography.Furthermore,noonehasmadehard
andfastrulesonexactlywhatshouldbeallowedintermsofphotographicalteration,
becauseasitturnsoutstrict,universallyapplicablerulesareimpossibletomake.Whatin
onesituationmaysimplyclarifyanimage,suchasalteringthecolorscheme,mayin
anothersituationcompletelyalterthemeaningofthephotograph,asexemplifiedbytheO.J.
photothatTimealtered.Thusthebestthatcanbeaccomplishedisforeveryoneto
constantlyquestionthevalidityofthephotostheyconsume,whilesimultaneouslytrusting
thattheeditorsandphotographersareaccuratelydocumentingevents.Withnew
technologiescomenewcapabilities,andnewpotentialforexploitation,yetitremainsupto
individualphotographersandnewsagenciestoensurethattheypresentthetruthtothe
bestoftheirability.
45
Forbetterorworse,thedigitalagehascometophotography,anditishereto
stay.109Whilethisfactmaynotbereversed,itshouldberecognizedfortheadvantagesit
provides.Foronething,ithasallowedgreatercatalogingcapabilitiesforeveryonefrom
individualartiststoimportantinstitutionssuchastheMuseumofModernArt.Digital
transferenceofphotographshasalsoallowedforgreateraccesstoimages,throughthe
Internet,andothermeansofmasscommunication.Whileseeinganewphotographonce
requiredaboxofslidesandaprojectorafterlocatinganinstitutionthatactuallypossessed
theslide,itisnowmerelyanInternetsearchaway.Theenhancedabilitytospreadimages
isalsoadvantageousfornewphotographers,whomayusetheInternetanddigital
technologytotransmittheirphotographstomorepotentialpatrons.
TagtheAnalog
Thusfaritseemsasthoughmostauthoritativebodieshaveapproachedthetopicof
markingdigitalalterationfromasinglestandpoint:thatoneshoulddenoteimageswhich
havebeenaltered.Yetinaworldwherethepublicrarelyseesimagesthatarenotdigitalin
eitherconceptionoralteration,thisseemscounterintuitive.Ifsomethingisthenorm,it
typicallydoesnotdeserverecognition.Takeaudiorecordingsforexample:whileitisnot
indicatedoneveryalbumthepublicconsumes,itisunderstoodbymostpatronsthatthe
songsonehearswereneverrecordedinexactlytheforminwhichtheyreceivethem.110
Instead,eachmemberofthegroup,especiallyinpopularorrockmusic,wasrecorded
independently;thenthesetracksweremixedtoformthealbum,similartotheway
Rejlanderdesignedandassembledhiscompositeprints.Whenatrackisinfactasingle
recording,however,thisisindicatedonthealbum,typicallywiththelabelof“live”
recording.111Thoughthisdesignationdoesnotmeanthattherecordingisunedited.
46
Itcanbearguedthatwithregardtothesetwodifferenttypesofrecordedmusic,live
andstudiomixed,neitherisinherentlybetterthantheother.Instead,theysimplyhave
differentgoalsandservedifferentpurposesfortheirconsumers.Thesamecanbesaid
aboutphotography:whileneitherdigitalnoranalogphotographyisinherentlybetter,each
technologyservesdifferentpurposesusingdifferentmeans,andthepublicmustbeaware
ofthesedifferences.Thus,thealternativetomarkingdigitalimagesshouldbe
contemplated,thatismarkingonlythoseimagesthatarenotdigitalinanyway.Such
imageswouldbedefinedasimagesthatwereneverprocessedinapixelform,butinstead
wereanalogfromstarttofinish.Itmust,however,berecognizedthat,ashasbeen
referencedagainandagainthroughoutthisresearch,beinganalogdoesnotequatetothe
imagebeinginherentlytrue.Theimagemaystillbestaged,oralteredusingless
technologicallyadvancedmeans.Thus,theimagecouldstillbeaconstructionofadesired
realityinsteadofadepictionoftherealworld.
Denotinganimageasanalogwouldnotbetodeclareittrue.Instead,thismark
wouldmerelyindicatetothereaderthatonemightusecommonlyunderstoodwaysof
interpretingphotographicimagerywiththisimage.Whileitisstilltruethattheconsumer
ofthisimagemustbeconsciousofpotentialfabrication,itwouldnotbetruetothesame
degreeitistrueofdigitalimages.
Furthermore,itistruewithmostimagesthatthelabel,orinthecaseofjournalistic
photograph,thecaption,isasimportantastheimageitself.112Thecaptionofaphoto
providestheall‐importantcontext.Thiscontextallowsthereadertodeterminewhat
weightshouldbegiventothevalidityofthepicture,byexplainingwhereandwhenitwas
47
taken,andwhatthephotographerintendedittoexpress.Henning,however,arguesthatit
istheverylackofcontextthatallowsaphototobe“availableforaesthetic
contemplation.”113Asinagalleryormuseum,itisthefactthatoneviewsaphotographas
simplythat,aphotograph,andnotascorroborationforawrittenarticle,thatallowsoneto
evaluateitonpurelyvisualterms.Yetthiscannotbeentirelycorrect.Firstofall,many
galleriesandmuseumsdo,infact,tellyoulocationoftheimage,ortheintentbehindits
creation.Second,whileitmaybetruethatsomeartistsleaveimageswithvaguetitles,orno
titlesatall,othersverycarefullytitlethemtoincludedates,locations,namesoreven
emotions.Titlessuchastheseclearlyprovideacontextbywhichoneistoevaluatethe
work.Finally,theveryfactthattheimageisdisplayedinagalleryormuseumisacontext.
Thiscontextinformstheaudiencethattheimageistobeviewedasanartwork,and
thereforetheindividuallooksatitfromanaestheticpointofview,thoughthisistoo
simplisticofaview.ChrisOfili’sexhibitattheBrooklynMuseumofArt,whichincluded
imagescreatedwithelephantdungandtheVirginMarydepictedwithpornographic
images,clearlychallengedthestatementthatwhatisinamuseumisinherentlyart.
Althoughsomepatronsfeltthattheseimagesweredefensiblepreciselybecausetheywere
art.Theinternalcontextoftheimagewillalsoalwaysbepresentregardlessofthe
surroundings,andfrequentlythebackgroundinapicture,orthesurroundingevents,cause
onetoviewtheimageasmorethanamyriadofobjects,butinsteadasarepresentationof
anevent.Thus,thoughanimagemaylackcontextintheformofanewsarticleoracaption
andby‐line,itisnearlyimpossibletoplaceaphotographinasettingwhereitiscompletely
devoidofcontextandmaybeevaluatedsolelybasedonaestheticmerit.
48
Butisn’tthatthepoint?
Alterationisnotnew,norisitinherentlybad;itissimplyanexpandedanddifferent
capability,andshouldbetreatedassuch.Itisonlywhenthenewdigitalcreationsare
assessedinthecontextoftheoldanalogexpectationsthatthereisaproblem.Ashasbeen
discussed,digitalimagescanlie.Itisnoweasilyapparentthatphotographscannolonger
beinherentlyassociatedwithtruth,althoughthatwasneverreallythecasetostartwith.
Thoughapicturemaybeworthathousandwords,itcannotbeassumedthatthose
thousandwordsarecorrect.Withthebeginningofphotographycamethecommencement
ofphotoalteration.Withdigitalimaging,thiscapabilityhasbeentakentoanewlevel,with
wideraccessibilitytothepublic,andgreatereconomicfeasibilityandcapabilitiesforall.
Indeed,theincreasedalterabilityofimagesitcanbearguedisultimatelythepointofdigital
photography.
Itseemsthepublicistooquicktoacceptthatdigitalphotographyhasthisnew
power.Ifoneweretopresentaseniorthesisthatmerelystatedthatdigitalphotographs
canbealteredthetopicwouldinvariablyfail.Itisassumedthatdigitalphotographscanbe
altered,asmostofushavealteredourownpictures.Yetthereisagapbetween
understandingthisfactandapplyingthatknowledgeineverydayinterpretationsofthe
news.
TakeforinstancetheNewYorkTimesphotothatshowedGrouchoMarxandRambo
atYalta.Lookingatthisphoto,eventhoseindividualsmostunawareofhistoryanddigital
imagingcouldsafely,andrightly,assumethattheimagehadbeendigitallyaltered.One
assumesthisbecauseofthecontextofthatimage.Itdoesnottakearocketscientistto
49
determinethatafictionalcharacterandcomedianwereprobablynotatamajordiplomatic
event.Furthermorethisimagewasoriginallyfeaturedinanarticleabouthowtofake
digitalimages.Thisimagealsodemonstratestheabilityofdigitaltechnologytoalter
imagesthatwereinitiallyinanalogform.Yetthepublicfailstoapplythissameknowledge
toeverydaynewsphotos.Whenflippingthroughthenewspapermostpeopleonly
contemplatethatanimagemaybealteredafteritappearstobefalse.Ifthephotodoesnot
questionourexpectedreality,wedonotconsiderthepossibilityitmayhavebeenaltered.
Digitaltechnologyisusefulinpartbecauseitmakesimagesalterable.Thisishow
thedigitalmediumhaslargelysupersededanalogtechniques.Digitaltechnologyalso
allowsforfastercommunicationofimagesbetweendistantlocales,asseenbyNASA’searly
adoptionofdigitalphotography.Itsprimarydraw,however,hasbeenitsenhanced
alterationcapabilities.Itisironic,therefore,thatthesamecapabilitythatgivesdigital
photographyitsusefulnessalsocausesthemajorityofdebatesurroundingitsuse.Itmust
berecognizedthatenhancedalterationcapacityisineffecttheessenceofdigital
photographyandthusatraitthatshouldberecognizedbutnotdevalued.
Whileitistruethatmanyphotographsarenowaltered,andthatsomeofthese
alterationsprovideafalsesenseoftheworld,therearelimitstothesealterationsthatare
notcreatedbynewsorganizationsorindividualsbutwhichinsteadaredictatedbyreality.
Theaverageconsumerofaphotographtypicallyhasageneralideaofwhatthescenethatis
beingrepresentedshouldlooklike.Forinstanceitisunderstoodthatlandshouldliebelow
theskyandthatpeoplearetypicallylargerthaninsects.Thusalterationsthatwouldviolate
eitherofthesenormsareguardedagainstbyrealityandconvention.Ifthephotographer’s
50
goalistobebelieved,hecannotstraytoofarfromconventionalreality.Therangeof
manipulationsisusuallyrelativelysmall.Throughbothalteredandunalteredimages,
digitaltechnologieshaveprovidedartistswithgreatercapabilitiesinthisfield,yetthe
barriersofwhatcouldconceivablyberealityhaveremainedlargelyunchanged.
Howmuchshouldwetrustphotographs?
Whenitcomesdowntotheabsoluteimportanceofthistopic,thesubjectreally
narrowsdowntoonesimplequestion—howmuchshouldonetrustphotographs?Digital
photographs,allphotographs,infact,shouldbetrustedtoa“reasonable”degree.Clearly
thisisavaguestatementbyanauthorwhohasheartilycritiquedthevaguenessof
standardsproposedbygoverningbodiesthusfar,yet,itcannotcategoricallybestatedhow
muchonemaytrustphotographicevidence.TheMarthaStewartandAdnanHajjexamples
showthatthedegreetowhichanimagemaybetrustedmaynotbebasedsolelyonthe
contextinwhichitappears.Imagessuchasthe1982coverofNationalGeographicshow
thatonecannotalwaysuseinternalcluesinthephotographtodetectwhetheranimageis
infactafraud,thoughtheRamboimagedemonstratesthatsometimesthisprocessis
successful.Thusperhapsthebestanalogythatcanbemadeisthatphotographsshouldbe
trustedaboutasmuchastheneighborhoodbusybodyinany1950stelevisionshow.While
theyprovideawealthofinformation,someofittrue,someofitfictitious,theconsumer
mustalwaysbeawareofthesourcefromwhichitcomes,andremainacriticalconsumerof
theknowledgehereceives.Previousknowledgeofthesituationmustalwaysbetakeninto
account,andthefactthatphotographs,alongwithbusybodies,maylieforpersonalbenefit.
51
Perhaps,however,digitalphotographyhasactuallyhelpedthepublicinterpret
photography.Whileitwaspreviouslylatentlyassumedthatonecouldtrustphotographic
images,recentscandalssuchastheHajjimageforcethisidealtocomeintoquestion—with
allphotographs.Analogphotography,whichalwaysshouldhavebeenquestioned,isnow
questionedpurelybecauseitisindistinguishablefromdigitalimages.Thusthoughdigital
photographyhaslessenedthetruth‐valueassociatedwithallimagesithasdonesotoan
acceptabledegree,asthepublicmaynowquestionallimages—apracticewhichshould
haveexistedsincethe1800s.
1RomanJackson,LanguageinLiterature,Cambridge:TheBeleknapPressofHarvard UniversityPress1987,24.
2GraziaNeri,‘EthicsandPhotography,’TheDigitalJournalist.http://dirckhalstead.org/.
3WilliamJ.Mitchell,TheReconfiguredEye:TruthinthePostPhotographicEra,Boston:MIT Press1992,29.
4BarbaraE.Savedoff,‘EscapingReality:DigitalImageryandtheResourcesofPhotography,’ TheJournalofAestheticsandArtCriticism,55:2(Spring1997),202.
5Ibid.,208.
6Ibid.,208.
7Mitchell,TheReconfiguredEye,24.
8BerndHueppauf,‘EmptyingtheGaze:FramingViolencethroughtheViewfinder,’New GermanCritique,72(Autumn1977),17.
9TerryBarrett,‘PhotographsandContexts,’JournalofAestheticEducation19:3 (Autumn1985),55.
10Ibid.,55.
11Hueppauf,‘EmptyingtheGaze:FramingViolencethroughtheViewfinder,’35.
12Barrett,‘PhotographsandContexts,’62.
13MariaAspan,‘EaseofPhotoAlterationaddsaHurdleforNewsOutlets’,International HeraldTribune(14August2006).
52
14DavidPillingerandAschleySchiller,personalcommunication,April2008.
15Hueppauf,‘EmptyingtheGaze:FramingViolencethroughtheViewfinder,’40.
16EdwardSteichen,‘YeFakers’CameraWork,1:1(January1903),48.
17DerekBouse,‘RestoringthePhotographedPast,’ThePublicHistorian,24:2(Spring 2002),11.
18Ibid.,11.
19Ibid.,11.
20JerryLodriguss,‘TheEthicsofDigitalManipulation’CatchingtheLight, http://www.astropix.com/HTML/J_DIGIT/ETHICS.HTM
21Ibid.
22Mitchell,TheReconfiguredEye,200.
23Ibid.,200.
24Steichen,‘YeFakers,’48.
25Mitchell,TheReconfiguredEye,3.
26Ibid.,11.
27Ibid.,12.
28Ibid.,11.
29Ibid.,12.
30ClaireAnsberry,‘AlterationofPhotosRaiseHostofLegal,EthicalIssues,’TheWallStreet Journal,(26January1989),B1.
31H.Farid,‘DigitalDoctoring:CanWeTrustPhotographs’DeceptionMotivesand Consequences(2007),3.
32JohnLong,‘Truth,TrustMeetNewTechnology’TheElectronicTimes(6October19989).
33Mitchell,TheReconfiguredEye,13.
34Ibid.,17.
35IvanAmato,‘LyingwithPixels,’MITTechnologyReview,(July/August2000).
36Ibid.
53
37JulieWosk,‘ReviewTheReconfiguredEye:VisualTruthinthePost‐PhotographicEra,’ TechnologyandCulture,35:3(July1994)640.
38Ibid.,640.
39Savedoff,‘EscapingReality:DigitalImageryandtheResourcesofPhotography,’201.
40Bouse,‘RestoringthePhotographedPast,’37.
41Savedoff,‘EscapingReality:DigitalImageryandtheResourcesofPhotography,’212.
42MichelleHenning,‘NewLampsforOld:Photography,ObsolescenceandSocial Change,’inResidualMedia,UniversityofMinnesotaPress2007,59.
43RobertHirsch,SeizingtheLight:AHistoryofPhotography,Boston:McGrawHillHigher Education2000,13.
44KarenJacobs,‘AConversationwithMarkAmerika,’EnglishLanguageNotes,44:2 (Fall/Winter2006),151.
45Ibid.,152.
46Savedoff,‘EscapingReality:DigitalImageryandtheResourcesofPhotography,’210.
47Ibid.,210.
48Ibid.,210.
49Ibid.,211.
50Ibid.,211.
51Jacobs,‘AConversationwithMarkAmerika,’150.
52Ibid.,150.
53Ibid.,150.
54Ibid.,152.
55Henning,‘NewLampsforOld:Photography,ObsolescenceandSocialChange,’48.
56Jacobs,‘AConversationwithMarkAmerika,’151.
57Henning,‘NewLampsforOld:Photography,ObsolescenceandSocialChange,’53.
58Ibid.,53.
59Ibid.,55.
60Ibid.,51.
54
61Mitchell,TheReconfiguredEye,30.
62Ibid.,30.
63Neri,‘EthicsandPhotography.’
64Barrett,‘PhotographsandContexts,’54.
65Neri,‘EthicsandPhotography
66Mitchell,TheReconfiguredEye,42.
67BonnieMeltzer,‘DigitalPhotography:AQuestionofEthics,’LeadingandLearningwith Technology,(December/January1996).
68BryceZabel,‘O.J.’sLastRun:ATaleofTwoCovers’BlogCritic’sMagazine(31August 2005),http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/08/31/012306.php.
69Ibid.
70Meltzer,‘DigitalPhotography:AQuestionofEthics.’
71Barrett,‘PhotographsandContexts,’59.
72Ibid.,61.
73Meltzer,‘DigitalPhotography:AQuestionofEthics.’
74Neri,‘EthicsandPhotography.’
75Ibid.
76Amato,‘LyingwithPixels.’
77Ibid.
78Ibid.
79Ibid.
80Mitchell,TheReconfiguredEye,23.
81ASCAP(AmericanSocietyofComposers,AuthorsandPublishers),ASCAPCopyrightLaw Symposium:Nos.40and41,41(April1997),685.
82Ibid.,687.
83PatricHedlund,‘Artists’RightsintheDigitalFuture,’DigitalMedia,1996 http://www.forests.com/digitfut.html.
55
84NicholasWade,‘ItMayLookAuthentic;Here’sHowtoTellItIsn’t,’TheNewYorkTimes (24January2006)
85Ibid.
86Neri,‘EthicsandPhotography.’
87Ibid.
88AndyGrundberg,‘AskitNoQuestions:TheCameraCanLie,’NewYorkTimes(12August 1990),29
89GordonGraff,‘What’sNewInFilmlessPhotography;EthicalQuestionsthatAriseWhen itsEasytoDoctorImages,’TheNewYorkTimes(15January1989).
90Ibid.
91JohnLong,EthicsintheAgeofDigitalPhotography, http://www.nppa.org/professional_development/self‐ training_resources/eadp_report/
92Ibid.
93FredShowker,‘EthicsinDigitalPhotography,’60‐SecondWindow,(1990), http://www.60‐seconds.com/168_ethics.html.
94Ibid.
95Ibid.
96Ibid.
97Neri,‘EthicsandPhotography.’
98Ibid.
99Ibid.
100Ibid.
101Mitchell,TheReconfiguredEye,38.
102Wade,‘ItMayLookAuthentic;Here’sHowtoTellItIsn’t.’
103Aspan,‘EaseofPhotoAlterationaddsaHurdleforNewsOutlets.’
104Wade,‘ItMayLookAuthentic;Here’sHowtoTellItIsn’t.’
105Ibid.
56
106Ibid.
107Ibid.
108Ibid.
109Neri,‘EthicsandPhotography.’
110Mitchell,TheReconfiguredEye,,214.
111Ibid.,214.
112Barrett,‘PhotographsandContexts,’57.
113Henning,‘NewLampsforOld:Photography,ObsolescenceandSocialChange,’62.
57
APPENDIXA:RIGHTSANDPERMISSIONS
FigureOne.EadweardMuybridge,CloudsRest,ValleyofYosemite1872,LibraryofCongress,Prints&PhotographsDivision,LaurenceandHouseworthCollection
PermissionsandCredits
AsapubliclysupportedinstitutiontheLibrarygenerallydoesnotownrightstomaterialinitscollections.Therefore,itdoesnotchargepermissionfeesforuseofsuchmaterialandcannotgiveordenypermissiontopublishorotherwisedistributematerialinitscollections.Imagesinthiscollectionareconsideredtobeinthepublicdomain.CreditLine:LibraryofCongress,Prints&PhotographsDivision,LawrenceandHouseworthCollection.http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/372_lawr.html
FigureTwo.Hi Aschley, Here's the cover. IMAGE IS FOR YOUR ONE-TIME EXCLUSIVE USE ONLY. NO SALES, NO TRANSFERS. COVER MAY NOT BE CROPPED OR ALTERED IN ANY WAY. ©2008 National Geographic Kate Baylor Communications National Geographic Society 1145 17th Street NW Washington DC 20036 202.862.5299 [email protected]
58
WORKSREFERENCED
BerniceAbbott,‘PhotographyattheCrossroads’inClassicEssaysonPhotographyeditedby AlanTrachtenbergNewHaven:Leete’sIslandBooks1980,179‐84.
IvanAmato,‘LyingwithPixels,’MITTechnologyReview,(July/August2000).
ClaireAnsberry,‘AlterationofPhotosRaiseHostofLegal,EthicalIssues,’TheWallStreet Journal,(26January1989).
ASCAP(AmericanSocietyofComposers,AuthorsandPublishers),ASCAPCopyrightLaw Symposium:Nos.40and41,41(April1997),680‐698.
MariaAspan,‘EaseofPhotoAlterationaddsaHurdleforNewsOutlets’,International HeraldTribune(14August2006).
TerryBarrett,‘PhotographsandContexts,’JournalofAestheticEducation19:3 (Autumn1985),51‐64.
RolandBarthes.CameraLucida:ReflectionsonPhotography,translatedbyRichardHoward, NewYork:HillandWang,1980.
GeoffreyBatchen,‘PhantasmDigitalImagingandtheDeathofPhotography’Aperture 136(1994),47‐50.
JeanBaudrillard,‘TheEvilDemonofImagesandthePrecessionofSimulacra,’inTheEvil DemonofImages,NewYork,NY:ThePowerInstituteofFineArts1983,28‐31,33.
JohnBerger,WaysofSeeing,London:PenguinBooks,1977.
HarlaBeloff,CameraCulture.NewYork:BlackwellPublishing,1985.
DerekBouse,‘RestoringthePhotographedPast,’ThePublicHistorian,24:2(Spring2002), 9‐40.
RebeccaBusselle,‘ADefiningReality:ThePhotographsofNancyBurson,’Aperture136 (1994),73‐75.
TimothyDruckrey,‘FromDadatoDigitalMontageintheTwentiethCentury’Aperture 136(1994),3‐7.
KurtKarlEberlein,‘OntheQuestion:OriginalorFacsimileReproduction?’inPhotography intheModernEra:EuropeanDocumentsandCriticalWritings19131940,editedby ChristopherPhillips,NewYork:MoMA/AperturePress1989,145‐150.
H.Farid,‘DigitalDoctoring:CanWeTrustPhotographs’DeceptionMotivesand Consequences(2007),1‐10.
GiseleFreund,PhotographyandSociety,Boston:DavidR.GodinePublisher1980.
59
GordonGraff,‘What’sNewInFilmlessPhotography;EthicalQuestionsthatAriseWhenits EasytoDoctorImages,’TheNewYorkTimes(15January1989).
MoraGilles,Photospeak:AGuidetotheIdeas,MovementsandTechniquesofPhotography1839toPresent,NewYork:AbbevillePress,1998.
JonathonGreen,‘PedroMeyer’sDocumentaryFictions’,Aperture136(1994),33‐35.
AndyGrundberg,‘AskitNoQuestions:TheCameraCanLie,’NewYorkTimes(12August 1990),29.
PatricHedlund,‘Artists’RightsintheDigitalFuture,’DigitalMedia,1996 http://www.forests.com/digitfut.html.
MichelleHenning,‘NewLampsforOld:Photography,ObsolescenceandSocial Change,’inResidualMedia,UniversityofMinnesotaPress2007,48‐64.
RobertHirsch,SeizingtheLight:AHistoryofPhotography,Boston:McGrawHillHigher Education2000.
HelenHuntJackson,‘AcontemporaryViewofMuybridgesPictorialPhotographer,’Muy Blog,editedbyStephenHerbert.April10,2007 http://stephenherbert.co.uk/muy%20blog.htm.
BerndHueppauf,‘EmptyingtheGaze:FramingViolencethroughtheViewfinder,’New GermanCritique,72(Autumn1977),3‐44.
RomanJackson,LanguageinLiterature,Cambridge:TheBeleknapPressofHarvard UniversityPress1987,19‐27.
KarenJacobs,‘AConversationwithMarkAmerika,’EnglishLanguageNotes,44:2 (Fall/Winter2006),145‐155.
ColinJacobson,Underexposed:CensoredPicturesandHiddenHistory,NewYork:Vision Publishing,2002.
IanJeffrey,TimeFrames:TheStoryofPhotography,NewYork:BPICommunications,1998.
HenryJenkins,ConvergenceCulture:WhereOldandNewMediaCollide,NewYork:NewYork UniversityPress,2006.
JohnLouisLecaites&RobertHariman,‘VisualRhetoric,PhotojournalismandDemocraticPublicCulture,’RhetoricReview,20:1/2(Spring2001),37‐42.
VincentKatz,‘WildIrisesANashEditionsPortfolio,’Aperture136(1994),18‐20.
JerryLodriguss,‘TheEthicsofDigitalManipulation’CatchingtheLight, http://www.astropix.com/HTML/J_DIGIT/ETHICS.HTM
60
JohnLong,EthicsintheAgeofDigitalPhotography, http://www.nppa.org/professional_development/self‐ training_resources/eadp_report/
JohnLong,‘Truth,TrustMeetNewTechnology’TheElectronicTimes(6October19989).
MaryWarnerMarien,PhotographyandItsCritics:ACulturalHistory18391900,New York:CambridgeUniversityPress,1997.
BonnieMeltzer,‘DigitalPhotography:AQuestionofEthics,’LeadingandLearningwith Technology,(December/January1996).
WilliamJ.Mitchell,TheReconfiguredEye:TruthinthePostPhotographicEra,Boston:MIT Press,1992.
LaszloMoholy‐Nagy,‘Production‐Reproduction,’inPhotographyintheModernEra:EuropeanDocumentsandCriticalWritings19131940,editedbyChristopherPhillips,NewYork:MoMA/AperturePress1989,79‐82.
GraziaNeri,‘EthicsandPhotography,’TheDigitalJournalist.http://dirckhalstead.org/.
BeaumontNewhall,HistoryofPhotography1839toPresent,GardenCity:Museumof ModernArt1971.
DavidPillingerandAschleySchiller,personalcommunication,April2008.
ManRay,‘OnPhotographicRealism’inPhotographyintheModernEra:European DocumentsandCriticalWritings19131940,editedbyChristopherPhillips,New York:MoMA/AperturePress,198957‐59.
RobertB.Ray,‘Snapshots:TheBeginningsofPhotography’inTheImageinDispute— ArtandCinemaintheAgeofPhotography,editedbyDudleyAndrew,Austin: UniversityofTexasPress,1997,293‐305.
PaulRenner,‘ThePhotograph’inPhotographyintheModernEra:EuropeanDocumentsand CriticalWritings19131940,editedbyChristopherPhillips,NewYork: MoMA/AperturePress1989,164‐169.
DanRichards,‘MyPointandShoot’sToast—NowWhat?,’PopularPhotographyand Imaging(February2003),58.
CarlosRim,‘OntheSnapshot’inPhotographyintheModernEra:EuropeanDocumentsand CriticalWritings19131940,editedbyChristopherPhillips,NewYork: MoMA/AperturePress1989,38‐40.
FranzRoh,‘TheValueofPhotography’inPhotographyintheModernEra:European DocumentsandCriticalWritings19131940,editedbyChristopherPhillips,New York:MoMA/AperturePress1989,160‐163.
61
BarbaraE.Savedoff,‘EscapingReality:DigitalImageryandtheResourcesofPhotography,’ TheJournalofAestheticsandArtCriticism,55:2(Spring1997),201‐214.
FredShowker,‘EthicsinDigitalPhotography,’60‐SecondWindow,(1990), http://www.60‐seconds.com/168_ethics.html.
PhillipeSoupault,‘ThePresentStateofPhotography’inPhotographyintheModernEra: EuropeanDocumentsandCriticalWritings19131940,editedbyChristopherPhillips, NewYork:MoMA/AperturePress1989,50‐51.
EdwardSteichen,“YeFakers”CameraWork,1:1(January1903),48.
NicholasWade,‘ItMayLookAuthentic;Here’sHowtoTellItIsn’t,’TheNewYorkTimes(24 January2006)
WarrenWestcott,‘PictureWritingandPhotographicTechniquesfortheWriting Process,’TheEnglishJournal,86:7(November1997),49‐54.
JulieWosk,‘ReviewTheReconfiguredEye:VisualTruthinthePost‐PhotographicEra,’ TechnologyandCulture,35:3(July1994)640‐642.
MinorWhite,‘Metamorphoses:PhotographyintheElectronicAge,’Aperture136 (1994),3.
BryceZabel,‘O.J.’sLastRun:ATaleofTwoCovers’BlogCritic’sMagazine(31August2005), http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/08/31/012306.php.
62
CURRICULUMVITA