5 ms·

Photoshop and 'morphing' did not lead to deluge of claims and counter-claims around fake pictures. Why? Do society and human behavior adopts to new reality?

by achow 6y ago

dmd 6y ago
What? It absolutely did!
- ShamelessC 6y ago
  I believe that this has been widespread on social media but do you know of any examples where reputable media outlets were fooled by a Photoshop? Not saying I don't believe you but I watch plenty of news and haven't personally seen much of this.
  - carapace 6y ago
    National Geographic moved the Pyramids for a cover photo in '82. https://www.alteredimagesbdc.org/national-geographic/ https://www.alteredimagesbdc.org/national-geographic/ Granted that's a case of a reputable media outlet fooling their readers by Photoshop, but it's arguably part of the problem.
    - ghaff 6y ago
      That's a somewhat different case though. That gets into what degree of image manipulation for aesthetic purposes is acceptable for a given use. Because any photograph reflects decisions about composition, lens, film (at the time)/color temperature/B&W vs. color, and so forth. And what you might choose to do with a vacation picture (or, for that matter, a fine art poster) isn't necessarily acceptable for many publications . You also have the photo illustration that Time did of OJ Simpson which was about photo manipulation to fit with a narrative tone. Of course, photo selection could have the same effect.
    - ShamelessC 6y ago
      I think a case could be made that Nat Geo certainly took a hit to their reputation: "The manipulation damaged the magazine’s credibility. Tom Kennedy, who became National Geographic’s Director of Photography after the incident, stated: “We no longer use that technology to manipulate elements in a photo simply to achieve a more compelling graphic effect. We regarded that afterwards as a mistake, and we wouldn’t repeat that mistake today.” [https://www.alteredimagesbdc.org/national-geographic/ https://www.alteredimagesbdc.org/national-geographic/] In any case, I was certain it had happened but this isn't exactly compelling evidence that it's a widespread problem. A much more recent example would help your case. Also, (as you mentioned) this is a case of an outlet fooling people with their own fakes, not an outlet getting fooled by a fake which is more what I was referring to.

Photoshop and 'morphing' did not lead to deluge of claims and counter-claims around fake pictures. Why? Do society and human behavior adopts to new reality?

by achow 6y ago

Photoshop and 'morphing' did not lead to deluge of claims and counter-claims around fake pictures. Why? Do society and human behavior adopts to new reality?

dmd 6y ago

What? It absolutely did!

ShamelessC 6y ago
I believe that this has been widespread on social media but do you know of any examples where reputable media outlets were fooled by a Photoshop? Not saying I don't believe you but I watch plenty of news and haven't personally seen much of this.
- carapace 6y ago
  National Geographic moved the Pyramids for a cover photo in '82. https://www.alteredimagesbdc.org/national-geographic/ https://www.alteredimagesbdc.org/national-geographic/ Granted that's a case of a reputable media outlet fooling their readers by Photoshop, but it's arguably part of the problem.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    That's a somewhat different case though. That gets into what degree of image manipulation for aesthetic purposes is acceptable for a given use. Because any photograph reflects decisions about composition, lens, film (at the time)/color temperature/B&W vs. color, and so forth. And what you might choose to do with a vacation picture (or, for that matter, a fine art poster) isn't necessarily acceptable for many publications . You also have the photo illustration that Time did of OJ Simpson which was about photo manipulation to fit with a narrative tone. Of course, photo selection could have the same effect.
  - ShamelessC 6y ago
    I think a case could be made that Nat Geo certainly took a hit to their reputation: "The manipulation damaged the magazine’s credibility. Tom Kennedy, who became National Geographic’s Director of Photography after the incident, stated: “We no longer use that technology to manipulate elements in a photo simply to achieve a more compelling graphic effect. We regarded that afterwards as a mistake, and we wouldn’t repeat that mistake today.” [https://www.alteredimagesbdc.org/national-geographic/ https://www.alteredimagesbdc.org/national-geographic/] In any case, I was certain it had happened but this isn't exactly compelling evidence that it's a widespread problem. A much more recent example would help your case. Also, (as you mentioned) this is a case of an outlet fooling people with their own fakes, not an outlet getting fooled by a fake which is more what I was referring to.