Alright here's an OP question for us all...?

Question

Has the digital revolution challenged the truth and credibility of images ?
Photography used to be the evidential medium and the very definition of visual truth. Used to be someone challenged your image, your show em' the negative or slide. Tangible, real, and containing the information as captured. Even the most skilled darkroom artist would be hard pressed to alter the image beyond focus and exposure during printing with believable results. So has the digital capture/ darkroom actually caused the general public to doubt an image's credibility ? Especially a great shot, I hear it all the time 'bah you can do that with digital'

So what do you think ?

Doc, perki,edwin, lidy and others, I'd be curious to hear your thoughts...
Great answers so far...thank you all !!!

Answer 1

Thanks J-man.... for the Q!!

Personally, I think there are 3 sides to this issue.

Some people just wont beleive that something is real, for whatever reason. The paranoid "people".

Some people believe everything they see is real, just because. The "faithful".

And, I am hoping there are more of these, the people that use rational thought to keep an open mind, or at least not be closed minded. The "normal". I hope

Whether its film, or digital, these things havent changed.

I think the digital age has blurred the lines for some. But there has always been challenges.

How many magazines have published photos outside of most peoples expereince. Like 2 headed turtles. When things are published like that, its hard to show everyone the negative, or even the 2 headed turtle. Some scoff, some beleive, and some enjoy the pic, and wonder.

Answer 2

Ever since it was proven that a photo could be altered, doctor up, there has been a sense of doubt across the general public as to whether any given photo is real.

Now that the computer literate members of the society have grown in great numbers, there are far more skeptics of the authenticity of any given photo do to digital editing programs that a fifth grader can use, i.e. the number of school/home photos that are cleaned up to remove pimples, etc. Are they true and creditable? How may digital photos will hold up in court?

On the other hand a photo can still be a work of art, even if it is edited. Beauty is still in the eye of the beholder.

Even though a photo may be real, most that I know ask or question in their mind, "Is that really real"?

Make it a great day!

Answer 3

I think the truth has always been stretched but it used to be more subtle. In other words, truly great photos of landscapes for instance -- they were dodged and burned into submission in the dark room. What was shot may or may not be faithful to the final print as far as how an actual scene looked.

Today you can do *anything* right? So credibility is lost, sure. I believe the news media are doing their hardest to maintain credibility by keeping very strict editing guidelines, and thats a good thing. The last thing you want is for a New York Times to have National Enquirer credibility because of obviously doctored photos. Photographers have been tarred and feathered for doing so, and rightfully so.

So any run of the mill shot -- yes, their credibility has been lowered. News media shots, we'd like to believe that there is vigilance towards keeping them honest.

Answer 4

What is true?
In photography we cannot capture the true passion and feeling of a painter with our one to one photograph likenesses.
Now we take the next step down with digital imaging.
It is art, more like graphic arts, but is it true photography?

As much as I fought digital and I am now fighting to learn it.
As usual big money won. Kodak, HP, etc. said let there be digital and will someday eliminate film.

I now believe that we may have to divide into two schools. The old way on one hand and completely embracing every form of editing totally on the other hand.

To try to create true photography in the middle, as much as I would like to see it, will never work. It will always be a matter of who wants to push what guide line and to what degree.
There no longer will be any full truth and credibility of images as we once knew them. Just like photography will never be the same type of art as painting the "Mona Lisa".

Answer 5

some high end DSLR cams imprint the raw with "........." forget the term sure someone will answer with it, this is "proof" the image has not been tampered with and is straight from the camera file,

ryan has covered the mentality of it all, really one can still lie using trannies or negs - with focal lenghts, lights, tricky exposures etc,

i see photography going two ways - one way is like "photo realism" and the other is towards more arty, cant think of a term but it will be about soon?

a

Answer 6

Using a picture as evidence is like playing an audio tape of someone talking and insisting it's Jesus speaking. With the digital revolution a digital picture is an relevent as any other random collection of colors.

Answer 7

i don't have alot of technical knowlege, but in my limited experience "trash in trash out" computer and digital doctoring of a photo can only go so far...it is no magic wand and if it is faked that can generally be spotted quickly...