Do digitally altered photos frighten you when they purport to be news?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Of course, we know that Hollywood will award an Oscar to a "non fiction" "documentary" film that purposely changes timelines, re-arranges/re-segments various speeches (all without disclosure) in order create a desired narrative, but doesn't the item below scare you just a little bit?

http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/showcase/la-ednote_blurb.blurb

Or is this photographer just the latest Peter Arnett?

Or does your mind naturally wonder how easy it would be for the government to create false composites in a criminal court, how easy it would be for your ex-spouse to come up with shit like this in a nasty divorce, etc.

If nothing else, Fark.com proves that they made Photoshop WAY too easy to use.

― don weiner, Thursday, 3 April 2003 00:48 (twenty-two years ago)

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39027000/jpg/_39027407_abfab-bbc-203index.jpg

― Chris P (Chris P), Thursday, 3 April 2003 01:22 (twenty-two years ago)

dietcokeSPITTAKE!

― felicity (felicity), Thursday, 3 April 2003 01:23 (twenty-two years ago)

she was holding a dead rat before

― electric sound of jim (electricsound), Thursday, 3 April 2003 01:56 (twenty-two years ago)

And the twin towers were in the background. They've been digitally replaced with an enormo tower of Big Hair.

― Trayce (trayce), Thursday, 3 April 2003 02:49 (twenty-two years ago)

eh, I don't condone it. Bad journalism. However, the content and intent of the photo isn't really changed, is it? Overall it's sloppy photshopping. Back to digital editing 101 for you hack!!

― That Girl (thatgirl), Thursday, 3 April 2003 04:20 (twenty-two years ago)

The intent of the photo was never there to begin with.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Thursday, 3 April 2003 04:27 (twenty-two years ago)

Agreed, but I like the side-by-side comparison

― jm (jtm), Thursday, 3 April 2003 04:31 (twenty-two years ago)

Do you see any huge difference between the photos? Perhaps I'm missing it.

I understand the basic argument. You fuck with any photo and you put them all into question. That's a bad idea. However, this already happens. I think Vanity Fair (?) digitally slimming down Kate Winselt would have more of a negative impact than this photoshopping sin. So in the big scheme of things, what's the impact?

― That Girl (thatgirl), Thursday, 3 April 2003 04:33 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah, well, y'know, that's not what newspapers are for, y'know? you wanna have control over composition like that, there are things called art galleries.
the only thing about this is that the guy got caught in some pretty stupid giveaways. i'm sure there are altered photos in major US (and Europe and probably Australia) papers every week that no one notices.
Are they being changed to alter the Truth or to suit the layout or aesthetic ideas? Probably the benign latter, but they should not be allowed to be either comfortable nor cavalier in this practice.

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Thursday, 3 April 2003 04:34 (twenty-two years ago)

Like I said, "I understand the basic argument. You fuck with any photo and you put them all into question. That's a bad idea."

and like I implied, are we naive enough to think this doesn't happen on a regular basis? You can't believe everything you see.

― That Girl (thatgirl), Thursday, 3 April 2003 04:36 (twenty-two years ago)

The photoshopped one seems vaguely off in terms of proportions etc. And I see photos which look similarly !?! all the time in certain pubs.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Thursday, 3 April 2003 04:48 (twenty-two years ago)

There was a great example of doing this kind of thing with videotape several years ago, on I think the main ITV news. Labour party conference, leader speaking (can't remember which leader it was at the time). Wide shot of the stage with all of the cabinet members etc. applauding enthusiastically. Close-up of Tony Benn (radical lefty type) frowning, arms crossed, back to clapping. But Benn was without his jacket in the closeup, and you could see him in the main shot, jacket on, clapping with all the rest. They had slipped that in to provide an image of alleged internal rifts.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Thursday, 3 April 2003 10:42 (twenty-two years ago)

There have been several British newspapers that have photoshopped pictures like this, and noone's been sacked when it's been exposed. The Daily Mail combined two photos of Michael Jackson and his children recently; and a few years ago The Guardian was caught editing people out of a photograph of the Chancellor on Budget Day, and promised not to do it again.

― caitlin (caitlin), Thursday, 3 April 2003 12:13 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.