Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The History of Lying With Images

Posted by Soulskill on from the i-can-tell-by-the-pixels dept.

An article at The Verge discusses a new exhibit at the Metropolitan Museum of Art which traces the history of photo manipulation, starting in the mid-1800s. Early photographers used simple techniques like painting on their negatives or simply forming a composite image from many painstakingly framed shots. That period of time even had its own approximation of modern memes: "A large number of prints from that era — featuring decapitated subjects holding, juggling, or otherwise posing with their own heads — might be seen as the lolcats of their day, owing to an alluringly macabre and widespread fascination with parlour tricks and stage magic." However, lying with pictures really took off when business and government figured out how effective it could be as a tool for propaganda. The exhibit has many examples, such as President Ulysses S. Grant's head superimposed onto a soldier's body and a different background, or another of Joseph Goebbels removed from a photo of a party. The article likens these manipulations to more recent situations like the faked pictures of Osama Bin Laden's corpse, and often-hilarious altered ads featured on Photoshop Disasters. The article ends with a quote from photographer Jerry Uelsmann: "Let us not delude ourselves by the seemingly scientific nature of the darkroom ritual. It has been and always will be a form of alchemy."

52 of 72 comments (clear)

  1. Nothing new by Caesar+Tjalbo · · Score: 1

    Just a footnote in the history of lying^w mankind.

    --
    "I'm not much interested in interoperability. I want substitutability. I want to be able to throw your software out."
    1. Re:Nothing new by Ferzerp · · Score: 1

      We do have a remarkable propensity for trying to mislead one another don't we?

      It's like the species, collectively, is a pathological liar.

    2. Re:Nothing new by lawnboy5-O · · Score: 2

      Wait until they get a load of the linguistic programming that has transpired...

    3. Re:Nothing new by khallow · · Score: 1

      Well, I imagine lying would happen in any group of moderately sentient beings with independent, conflicting interests and an ability to lie, no matter how rational they might be. And when lying is advantageous to the liar, then it can't be pathological.

    4. Re:Nothing new by khallow · · Score: 1

      Eh, the original poster saw lying as some sort of deep imperfection in humanity. I just pointed out that lying would be present (and indeed, lying and other social tools of deception show up in other intelligent species on Earth) for anything that has certain basic qualities like humans.

    5. Re:Nothing new by swalve · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The problem with racists like you is that you cannot, or refuse to, differentiate culture from race. When a white guy does something bad, it reflects on him. But when a black guy does something bad, you saddle the entire race with blame for that individual's actions.

      Of course tests can be culturally biased. Imagine giving a test written in England with UK idioms to kids from Montana. They aren't going to know what those idioms mean. That's the problem.

    6. Re:Nothing new by rubycodez · · Score: 2

      The tests are culturally biased but on average asian people score over 10% higher than white people, while blacks score over 10% lower.

      I'm bringing this up because I'll bet over half of slashdotters can't have a rational discussion on these facts.

    7. Re:Nothing new by Ferzerp · · Score: 1

      But lying within the species is not a benefit to the species as a whole, hence, the species is a pathological liar (in my view).

    8. Re:Nothing new by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      It's like the species, collectively, is a pathological liar.
      Sadly, Mr. Data wasn't until Number One explained about bluffing in poker. It was all downhill after that.

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    9. Re:Nothing new by poofmeisterp · · Score: 2

      We do have a remarkable propensity for trying to mislead one another don't we?

      It's like the species, collectively, is a pathological liar.

      Survival instinct + intelligence = interesting maneuvers.

    10. Re:Nothing new by khallow · · Score: 1

      But lying within the species is not a benefit to the species as a whole

      And what makes you think that? Or that vague "benefit to the species" is any sort of relevant characteristic?

    11. Re:Nothing new by swalve · · Score: 1

      If you correct for socioeconomics, those differences disappear. In the US, the tests are biased toward the middle class and upper classes. They are culturally biased against poor people and the different ways intelligence manifests itself in those circumstances.

    12. Re:Nothing new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Of course tests can be culturally biased. Imagine giving a test written in England with UK idioms to kids from Montana. They aren't going to know what those idioms mean. That's the problem.

      But the Blacks in question aren't from another country (despite their insistence in being called "African-Americans"- exactly where is "Africa-America"??)- they are from the same country and therefore should know the same stuff.

  2. The Late Scott Mutter's Photomontages Ruled! by theodp · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Scott Mutter: A More Perfect World. Before there was Photoshop, there was Scott Mutter's Surrational World!

  3. You want lying with images? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Real estate. The scummiest "industry" that exists. Everything is image. Condos sold on image only.

    1. Re:You want lying with images? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Scummiest? There's SEO, insurance, used car sales, telecoms, social media, curated computing...real estate might not be in the top 20.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  4. Uelsmann by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2

    Uelsmann is sort of a hero of mine. His images are boldly imaginative and technically impeccable. That he was able to create what he did in the pre-digital era is astonishing.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  5. 10th Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Pics or it didn't happen.

    1. Re:10th Post by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      Pics or it didn't happen.

      I wonder if we'll ever get to the point that faking is so good that it can't be detected. (I wouldn't be surprised if spy agencies can already fake them so good that no one else can detect it.)

      Think of the implications for creating political scandals, or for getting "undesirables" thrown in prison.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:10th Post by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      Pics or it didn't happen.

      On the other hand, "Pics and it probably didn't happen" actually does work. :)

    3. Re:10th Post by cusco · · Score: 1

      I'm quite sure it's been done, images are too valuable NOT to fake. A low-resolution digital image of a member of parliament having sex with a collie would be powerful blackmail material, especially if accompanied by a whispering campaign. Processing could be done in Brazil or Russia or Sri Lanka, and even if they took six months altering one pixel at a time it could be completely affordable. Information on an upcoming vote or classified data concerning an international treaty negotiation could make an inside stock trader rich overnight.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  6. The timing is seems to be pretty good for ... by giorgist · · Score: 2

    The timing is seems to be pretty good for the photoshop fail of the Russian orthodox Church http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2126092/Watch-closely-Russian-church-apologises-Photoshop-fail-20-000-timepiece-disappears-wrist-Patriarch.html Although Nokias PureView was a pretty good one as well :-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud0wbhUqX1Q

  7. We Photoshoppers... by kiriath · · Score: 1

    have been around for AGES.

    1. Re:We Photoshoppers... by bogaboga · · Score: 1

      We photoshoppers...have been around for AGES

      You made this up, right?

      The begining of Photoshop lies in the late 80s. You're not saying 25 years or so, is "AGES", as you put it. Are you?

    2. Re:We Photoshoppers... by kiriath · · Score: 1

      Photoshoppers in spirit sir!

    3. Re:We Photoshoppers... by Penurious+Penguin · · Score: 1

      Accentuating the subtleties of angels.

      I have great respect for national security, and I know I may have harshly ridiculed a likely candidate for Mother of the Year, but I figure it fair enough to retort theater with theater, especially since I became a terrorist for my interest in Ron Paul and very little of much of anything makes much since since.

      --
      Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
    4. Re:We Photoshoppers... by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 2

      Sir, you are implying that I cannot photoshop with the Gimp.

      I CAN most definitely photoshop with the Gimp. I can do a better job of photoshopping with the Gimp than most persons can do with Photoshop. And I can always do it at less cost.

      You are most definitely wrong, Sir. Photoshop is entirely unnecessary for photoshopping.

      --
      Will
    5. Re:We Photoshoppers... by halcyon1234 · · Score: 1

      I can do a better job of photoshopping with the Gimp than most persons can do with Photoshop.

      And I'm sure most people can easily gimp an image with Photoshop. Otherwise, sites like Photoshop Disasters wouldn't exist.

      --
      UTF-8: There and Back Again
  8. I go way back by wbr1 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I started with Adobe CD (Creative Daguerreotype) alpha 0.4
    The healing brush was a razor and skill. And jeez were gradient fills slow.

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
  9. Any Cottingley Fairies ? by reiko13 · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://www.philipcoppens.com/cottingley.html This is my favorite story of Photoshopping without Photoshop. I still don't get why many people believed those photos, especially Arthur Conan Doyle...

    1. Re:Any Cottingley Fairies ? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

      It's all about "supporting conclusions that you wish were true." It's a good thing that our modern scientific minds are immune to this sort of fallacy.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  10. Re:Sadly the Moon Landing was not included by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · · Score: 4, Funny

    How do you know they didn't send men to the moon to create fake photos of a studio? It goes that deep. That's what she said.

  11. Any women's magazine cover will show you by girlinatrainingbra · · Score: 3, Informative

    Pretty any women's magazine cover and most of the photos inside will show you multiple ways of lying with images.

    1. Re:Any women's magazine cover will show you by Kugrian · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure it's the case with all magazines.

    2. Re:Any women's magazine cover will show you by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Also the pictures on containers of food at the supermarket often look better than the contents, and those on menus better than the served dishes. Strange, no?

  12. Manipulation just one part of the problem by lurker412 · · Score: 2

    Manipulation--whether in the darkroom or with a computer--is only one of the ways images can mislead. Scenes may be staged. Even when they are not, framing an image in the viewfinder and deciding when to release the shutter determine what small bit of reality is rendered. It may or may not be an honest, representative sample. Every photographer knows that you don't need Photoshop to lie with a camera.

    1. Re:Manipulation just one part of the problem by itsdapead · · Score: 1

      Any politician knows you don't need a camera to lie.

      Yeah, but it is harder to tell with a camera because you can't see its lips moving.

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
  13. Headline is lying... by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 2
    Flash: Photographers have been manipulating images since before photoshop. Photography is an art; and unless you are claiming to be doing photojournalism, where accuracy is important, adjusting an image to capture what you want to convey is part of the process. it's no more lying than the painter who leaves out things in a landscape or adds details to make a picture more appealing. It's the ability to compose a shot, get the lighting right, and then work darkroom magic to get it perfect is what separates a photographer from someone with a camera.

    Of course, photos can be manipulated to deceive as well; it's all a matter of intent.

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    1. Re:Headline is lying... by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Artists and sculpturers have been manipulating images for thousands of years

    2. Re:Headline is lying... by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

      Photography is an art; and unless you are claiming to be doing photojournalism, where accuracy is important, adjusting an image to capture what you want to convey is part of the process.

      Above is true but does not go far enough, it is not the whole truth. Even in photojournalism and perfectly accurate photos, images can and should be composed in the viewfinder and diddled as needed in processing to best convey what the photographer feels is important.

      The only truly accurate photos are the forensic ones taken at crime scenes, those of OR-7 when he trips a shutter release during his search for a girl friend, and those from the security cameras at your favorite store. Oh, some scientific photos, but not many. Most use false colors and other manipulations to bring out truths that otherwise would be missed.

      --
      Will
    3. Re:Headline is lying... by cowboy76Spain · · Score: 1

      Photographers? Talk about painters.

      In the tomb of a Pharaoh (I think it was Rameses II), some of the painting was about his "crushing victory" in Qadesh. Turns out the "crushing victory" consisted in avoiding being crushed himself.

      As long as there is a way to transmit information, there is a way of lying. News at 11.

      --
      Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.
  14. Re:Sadly the Moon Landing was not included by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 2

    How do you know they didn't send men to the moon to create fake photos of a studio? It goes that deep. That's what she said.

    Yup. The hard part was getting that giant wind machine up there to make the flag flutter.

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  15. One good book by Slugster · · Score: 3, Informative

    about this subject (historical propaganda retouching) is titled "The Commisar Vanishes". New copies are a bit pricey but lots of example photo pairs are online.

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Commissar-Vanishes-Falsification-Photographs/dp/0805052941

    1. Re:One good book by TarPitt · · Score: 1

      If I had mod points, I'd mod this post up

      --
      If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
  16. Well, /. has to get better at it :) by Udo+Schmitz · · Score: 1
    http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicmatrix.gif

    (cringe)

  17. History changed by epSos-de · · Score: 2

    The famously creepy portrait of Stalin and Lenin was also in the exhibit: http://i.huffpost.com/gen/740931/thumbs/o-STALIN-570.jpg Stalin actually faked a lot of history. He lied himself to the top, but started as a simple thief and bagger. One can dismiss the idea, but not the effect.

    --
    ~ Best man at your service.
  18. JFK - the movie by Kittenman · · Score: 1

    I remember when Olly Stone released this - some folks mentioned that if the version of history is seen, it tends to remembered as real, rather than what really happened. (Not saying that JFK was/wasn't killed by a conspiracy - that's all besides the point).

    Moon landing hoax believers probably jumped in number after "Capricorn One".

    --
    "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
  19. Re:Amoral Assholes. by hoboroadie · · Score: 1

    Your mileage may vary.

    --
    They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
  20. Re:Sadly the Moon Landing was not included by hoboroadie · · Score: 1

    I thought the special effects were most amazing when Commander David Scott dropped the feather and the hammer.
    That fooled everyone.

    --
    They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
  21. mod up anonymous parent post by girlinatrainingbra · · Score: 1

    Photographers and developers definitely "photo-shopped" images in the dark-room well before the software named "Photoshop" existed. In fact, this history of photo-manipulation in the dark-room or in front of the lens is exactly what this whole topic is about: photo-shopping and photo-manipulation in the early days...

  22. Re:Sadly the Moon Landing was not included by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

    They sent up huge tanks of helium as a gas for the wind machine to save weight, that's why it's so scarce now.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  23. Re:The standard of lying by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    In Soviet Russia thing airbrushed out of photo is YOU!

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel