Slashdot Mirror
Photoshop Allows Us To Alter Our Memories
Anti-Globalism writes "In an age of digital manipulation, many people believe that snapshots and family photos need no longer stand as a definitive record of what was, but instead, of what they wish it was. It used to be that photographs provided documentary evidence, and there was something sacrosanct about that, said Chris Johnson, a photography professor at California College of the Arts in the Bay Area. If you wanted to remove an ex from an old snapshot, you had to use a Bic pen or pinking shears. But in the digital age, people treat photos like mash-ups in music, combining various elements to form a more pleasing whole. What were doing, Mr. Johnson said, is fulfilling the wish that all of us have to make reality to our liking. And he is no exception. When he photographed a wedding for his girlfriends family in upstate New York a few years ago, he left a space at the end of a big group shot for one member who was unable to attend. They caught up with him months later, snapped a head shot, and Mr. Johnson used Photoshop to paste him into the wedding photo. Now, he said, everyone knows it is phony, but this faked photograph actually created the assumption people kind of remember him as there."
I'm a photographer and i had a bride ask me if i could photoshop her father into one of the shots.... only problem.... he died 3 weeks before the wedding. i did it, and it looks good... but it's creepy as hell.
Sure, you will keep your photgraphs as they are, but what happens when you see other photographs - perhaps even altered video later that might clearly show something that did not really happen. On of the points was that even the people who "were there" adapt their own memories to match the photograpic "evidence".
Sure you know that Spielberg digitally altered the guns in "E.T." to big honking walkie talkies.
Sure you know that "Han shot first".
You might even remember when Oprah had Ann-Margaret's body.
But those were all pretty high profile examples. Do you really remember if cousin Lynette was at cousin Bill's wedding twelve years ago? There she is in the group shot - and again at the reception. Or to borrow from George O. - make up your own much more sinister example. Perhaps someone who consistently shows up in media footage of fires for example.
You either believe in rational thought or you don't
Look up Damnatio Memoriae sometime. They erased people from public records thousands of years ago, for a range of reasons that included:
- betrayal
- so others wouldn't be tempted to do something heinous just to get popularity (e.g., Herostratus)
- being really hated as an Emperor (e.g., Domitian. Though Caligula and Nero came this close to getting one too.)
- someone not liking the role you've played or the model you'd be for others (E.g., Hatshpsut was almost erased from history as a Pharaoh by her son, but he left her name and images alone where she was depicted/named as anything else than a Pharaoh. E.g., Akhenaten got his name defaced off most monuments after death.)
- some reasons ranging all the way to outright silly (E.g., the abovementioned Akhenaten, the pharaoh formerly known as Amenhotep IV, managed to almost erase his father Amenhotep III from history for the sole reason that the name contained the name of the God Amen/Amon/Amun/whatever-you-call-him. And Akhenaten had just gone rabidly monotheistic, even renaming himself the Servant Of Aten.)
Of course, nobody managed to really erase a Roman Emperor from history, because nobody had the resources for such a herculean task. It didn't stop the Senate from at least trying. And IIRC Hatshepsut was pretty much erased until very recently. It took a while to piece together that she's the missing piece in that chronology.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
with conventional retouching techniques, if one kne what to look for, one could tell the image was retouched. As one who spent the better portion of 15 years digitally retouching photos, I can honestly say that there was a time when that was true for digital retouching, but no longer. I have seen images that I know were retouched, I sat in the same room as the person doing the retouching, but if I had not known what was being altered, even I, someone who digitally altered photos myself for a living, would never have been able to tell that the image had been altered. That level of alteration is not common, and its a lot harder than you might think, and no, your average Joe with GIMP is not going to pass off an altered photo to a pro, but with digital manipulation, it is possible for one pro to pass of an image to another pro in the field, and that was not possible with conventional retouching techniques.
I saw a policeman ticket a women in front of my office for using a handicapped parking spot. He used a polaroid camera - the kind which develops a print on the spot - to take a picture of her vehicle and where it was situated. For a second I was asking myself why he was not just using a cheap digital camera and then it dawned on me that answering your question was likely the reason. :)
It's obviously not ironclad, but it probably lessens the likelihood of the photo having been manipulated if it goes into the evidence bag at the crime scene.
Indeed. Reading your post I was reminded of a conversation I had with a photographer many years ago based around the old saying, "the camera never lies". His responce was that the camera is the biggest darn lier you'll ever meet.
I guess modern Photoshop techniques which largely reflect age old darkroom techniques, are just adding a little embelishment to the story.