Photo Thesis Rasior - Texas A&M Universityoaktrust.library.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/85719/Photo Thes… · of photo manipulation, in both digital and analog formats, and summarizes

DIGITALPHOTOGRAPHYANDTHEETHICSOFPHOTOALTERATION

ASeniorHonorsThesis

by

ASCHLEYSCHILLER

SubmittedtotheOfficeofHonorsPrograms

&AcademicScholarships

TexasA&MUniversity

Inpartialfulfillmentoftherequirementsofthe

UNIVERSITYUNDERGRADUATE

RESEARCHFELLOWS

April2008

Major:History

ii

ABSTRACT

DigitalPhotographyandtheEthicsofPhotoAlteration(2008)

AschleySchiller

DepartmentofHistory

TexasA&MUniversity

FellowsAdvisor:Dr.DavidMcWhirter

DepartmentofEnglish

Thisstudydiscussestheimpactofphotoalterationonjournalisticcredibilityin

relationtotheeffectsofthenewcapabilitiesofdigitaltechnology.Thethesisexaminesthe

earlyhistoryofphotomanipulation,inbothdigitalandanalogformats,andsummarizes

debatessurroundingspecificdigitallyalteredimagesandthepublic’sandgoverning

bodies’responsestothesealterations.Finally,digitalphotography’spositionasanew

mediumoranextensionofexistingphotographicmeansisconsidered.Theresearch

analyzesalteredphotos’placementsinmediasourcesandusestheopinionsofartistsand

theoristssourcedfromeditorials,essaysandtextstodevelopanunderstandingofthe

currentusesofdigitalphotographs,andtospeculateaboutwherethetrendtowardsdigital

photographymaylead.

iii

TABLEOFCONTENTS

ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................................................................ii

TABLEOFCONTENTS........................................................................................................................................... iii

LISTOFFIGURES......................................................................................................................................................iv

INTRODUCTION:PHOTOGRAPHYANDREALITY ......................................................................................1

TheRealismofPhotographs ................................................................................................................................3

TheObjectivityoftheUnalteredPhotograph...............................................................................................5

DIGITALPHOTOGRAPHYANDALTERATION ..............................................................................................9

TheEarlyHistoryofAlteration...........................................................................................................................9

TheCreationofDigitalPhotography ............................................................................................................ 14

AlterationSinceDigitalPhotography........................................................................................................... 20

Digitalvs.Analog ................................................................................................................................................... 22

REACTIONSTODIGITALALTERATION.......................................................................................................28

Public’sResponses.................................................................................................................................................. 28

GovernmentReactionstoDigitalAlterability ........................................................................................... 34

NewsOutlets’Reponses ....................................................................................................................................... 37

CONCLUSIONS:WHEREDOWESTAND? ....................................................................................................44

TagtheAnalog ........................................................................................................................................................ 45

Butisn’tthatthepoint?....................................................................................................................................... 48

Howmuchshouldwetrustphotographs?................................................................................................... 50

APPENDIXA:RIGHTSANDPERMISSIONS .................................................................................................57

WORKSREFERENCED .........................................................................................................................................58

CURRICULUMVITA...............................................................................................................................................62

iv

LISTOFFIGURES

1 EadweardMuybridgeCloudsRestValleyoftheYosemite1872 .................................................12

2 NationalGeographicCover,January1982..............................................................................................17

1

INTRODUCTION:PHOTOGRAPHYANDREALITY1

It’sMarch2005andMarthaStewartisgettingoutofjail.Ascelebrities’personal

liveshavebecomemediaworthy,Newsweekpublisheshercomingoutfrombehindared

curtainonthecover.Fromthiscurtain,whichrepresentshertimeinaminimum‐security

prisonforinsidertrading,emergesthenewtrimmer,healthierlookingMartha.Thisnew

trimmerbodyrepresentstheoverallreformationthatStewartexperiencedbehindbars.

Thereisacatch.Yes,thatisMarthaStewart’shead,butthebodybelongstoamodel.Thisis

infactaphoto‐illustration.Anewtermcreatedfortheageofdigitaltechnology,aphoto‐

illustrationisonethatisalteredtothepointthattheeditorsdeemitisnolongerethicalto

consideritaphotograph.Yet,inordertofindoutthatthisimageisinfactaphoto‐

illustration,andnotaphotograph,onehastofliptothethirdpageandreadthefineprint.

Thisphotoisacompilationofthingsthatdoexist,toformapersonwhoneverexistedin

thisform,anditlooksentirelybelievable.Intheageofdigitalmediathisimageisnotthe

exceptiontothenorm—itisthenorm.Weoftenassumethatphotographsdonotneed

interpretation,especiallyinajournalisticcontextwhereitisassumedthattheyrecordthe

realitythejournalistisattemptingtoconvey.Theinferenceofreality,however,isnot

alwaysjustified.

Photographyisalanguage.1Apartofourvisualculture,photographsareused

acrosssocietyfordiversepurposesrangingfrompersonalremembrancestoan

internationalmeansofcommunication.Photosareusedinscrapbooksandgreetingcards,

asbackgroundsoncomputerdesktopsanddecorationsinourhomes.Photographs

1ThisthesisfollowsthestyleandformatofHistoryofPhotography.

2

surroundus.Fromthemomentonewakesup,tothemomentonegoestosleep,thetwenty‐

firstcenturyisdefinedbyphotographicimages.

Thesephotographicimagesareusedasproofincourtcasesandnewspapersto

substantiatethewrittenword.Theyareusedforidentificationondriver’slicensesand

passports.Usingphotographsasproofdependsonphotosbeinganaccuraterecordingof

reality,whileinactuality,astheMarthaStewartexampleshows,thisrelationshipcanbe

tenuous.Thepotentialforalterationforcesthemedia‐consumingcitizentoquestionifan

imagehasbeenmanipulatedandifso,towhatdegree.Membersofthepublicmustbecome

consciouscriticsofthemediatheyrelyon,questioningtheintegrityofimageswhile

resistingthetemptationtobecomeparanoidbybecomingtoodistrustfulofthemediain

general,orjumpingtotheconclusionthateveryimage’scontentandmeaningarealtered.

Thoughitisnecessarytobemindfulofwhoispresentingthenews,thereisalimittothe

productivityofquestioninganimage’svalidity.Thispaperseekstoexaminethealteration

capabilitiesofphotographyingeneral,withanemphasisondigitalphotography,and

discusseshowthesecapabilitieshaveaffectedthemedia’scredibility.

Journalismreliesonacombinationofvisualandwritteninformation.Animportant

difference,however,existsbetweenaphotograph,createdbythecamera,andlinguistic

representation,createdbytheauthor’spen:thecamera’sabilitytoinstantaneouslycapture

reality.2Thoughearlyphotographyrequiredsubjectstositstillforanywherefromafew

minutestomorethananhour,modernphotographicimagesarecreatedinlessthana

second.Thismeansthataphotographrecordsasignificantlydifferentscenethanthemore

time‐consumingwrittenword.Whilethewrittenwordisunderstoodtomediatereality,

3

andallowsitsconveyertocontemplatewhathewishestoportrayaboutascene,the

photographisfarlessforgiving.Inadocumentarysettingitallowsonlysecondsfor

decisionsabouthowtorecordworldevents.Themechanicalmeansofinscriptionmean

photographyisnottypicallyseenasamediationofreality,butinsteadasarecordingof

truth.Aftersnapjudgmentsregardingpositionofthecamera,lightingandexposuretime

aremade,however,alterationsarestillpossible.Thesealterationsthatmayatfirstseeman

after‐thoughtofthephotographeroftenturnouttobethecruxoftheimage.Whileediting

ofthewrittenwordisalsopossible,thisisnotasshockingasthepossiblemanipulationof

photographicimages,becauseliteratureisunderstoodtobeasubjectiveperceptionof

realityfromitscreation,insteadoftheunmediatedrealitywhichphotographypurportedly

represents.Furthermoreitisunderstoodthatthewrittenrecordisacollectionofsymbols

andsignsthatconveytothereadertheobjecttheyrepresent.Thereisnothingaboutthe

wordballthatinherentlytellssomeoneitmeanstheobjectball.Insteadtheindividual

understandsthroughprocessingthecombinationoflettersthatthisistheintendeditem.A

photograph,ontheotherhand,actuallyappearstobetheobjectitrepresents;therefore

allowingtheviewertoassumeitrequireslessinterpretation.

TheRealismofPhotographs

Photography’sabilitytorecordspecificmomentsintimeisoneofitsattributesthat

separatesitfrompaintingsorthewrittenword.Literaturecanbeaboutagenericman,the

everyman,andnotaspecificman.Apaintingmaybeofanindividualthathasneverand

willneverexist.Thusapaintingorastorydepictsanideaortheconceptoftheman.Yetas

theMarthaStewartexampleshows,giventheincreasedabilityofalterationthroughdigital

photography,photographicimagesnowhavethissameability.Thoughpaintingsmay

4

displaytheemotionsthegenericmanisfeeling,hisreactiontoanevent,ormerelythe

spacehefillsinthework,itisassumedthatphotographydoesnothavethissamepowerof

generality;infactphotographyderivesitspowerfromtheoppositesourcealtogether—its

relationshiptospecificity.3Theabilityofphotographstodocumentspecificeventsor

individualsisfurtherrecognizedbygovernmentsandorganizationswhichcommonlyuse

photographsasamethodofidentificationonpassportsordriver’slicenses,strengthening

photography’srelationshipwithspecificdetailsandthetruth,yetastheNewsweekcoverso

aptlyshowed,theapparenttruthofthephotographdoesnotalwayscorrespondwiththe

actualrealityofthesituation.4

Photographyispowerfulbecauseitlooksreal.Mostpeoplehavelookedthrougha

windowandtriedtodecideifitisopenedorclosed.Thewindowissocleanthatthe

individualcannottellifthereisactuallyglassseparatinghimfromtherealityhesees.One

mayhaveasimilarexperiencewithaphotograph.Imagescanlooksomuchlikerealityitis

easytoforgetthereisamechanicalprocessthatdeliversthisimagetotheaudience.Inthe

caseofthephotograph,however,theprocessisnotastransparentasawindowpaneandis

ever‐changing.Itistheevolutioninthisprocess—andthepotentialfortheprocessitselfto

bemanipulated—whichmayleadonetoquestionaphotograph’svalidity.

Savedoffusesthemetaphorofahallucinationtoexplaintherelationshipbetween

photographsandreality.5Sheclaimsthat,aswithhallucinations,anindividualisawarethat

photographsarenotreal;yetaswithhallucinations,photographsseemsorealthatitis

frequentlyimpossibletodistinguishbetweenthefictionofthephotographandthereality

5

thephotographrepresents.Tosomedegree,moreover,photographsdonotmerelyrecord

ascene;theyalsoquiteliterallycaptureapieceofthemomenttheyrepresent.6

Earlyphotographerswerefascinatedbytheconceptthatphotographsactually

containlightfromthescenetheyrecord.Aphotographiscreatedwhenlightentersthe

cameraandaltersthephysicalcompositionofthe“film”beingusedinthespecificprocess.

Thischemicalalterationduetolightexposurepermanentlyrenderstheimageonthe

surface,whichwithmoderntechniquescreatesanegative.Thusthelightwhichwasused

tocreatetheimageandwhichinsomesense‘touched’thephoto’ssubjecthasinessence

becomeapartofthephotograph,changingtheimagefromamererenderingofthereality

itrepresents,toafossilizedpieceofthesceneintheformoflight.Sontagreferstothis

artifactasthe“trace”oftheimage,andstatesthatthelightcontainedintheimageissimilar

tothatofafingerprintitprovidesacorrespondenceandaccordingtoMitchella“causality”

withreality.7Thelightthatcreatedtheimageoriginatedinthescene,andthusthe

photographisadirectresultoftheeventsitrecords,andphysicalproofthatthescenario

tookplace.Bergerfurtherclaimsthatphotographsarevaluableentirelybecauseofthis

relationshipwiththesubject.Thusitcanbearguedthatwhenthisreferenceisremoved,or

weakenedbydigitalmechanisms,thephotographlosesitsinherentdocumentaryvalue.

TheObjectivityoftheUnalteredPhotograph

Itmustberememberedthatevenbeforealterationtakesplace,thepurportedly

realisticimageprovidedbyaphotographdoesnotnecessarilyequatewithanobjective

viewoftheworld.Infact,photographsdepictaparticularwayofseeingtheworld,as

determinedbythephotographerandeditorpriortothepublicreceivingtheimage.8The

6

photographerchooseswhatscenestorecord,wheretorecordthemfromandhowto

recordthem.Thesechoicesinherentlyinvolveincludingandexcludingobjectsfromthe

framebasedonpersonalandaestheticjudgments.Evenafterthephotographerdetermines

whattoincludeintheframethereareavarietyofstylisticchoicesthatalterthecontent

andthereforetheintegrityoftheimage.Oneexampleiswhenthephotographerdecides

uponhowmuchlighttouse:creatinganimageinashadow,insteadofabrightlylitscene,

willalterthetoneandasaresultthemeaningoftheimage.Thephotographeralsodecides

howlongtoleavetheshutteropen,whichdetermineshowmuchtimewilllapseduringthe

creationoftheimage.Thismayresultinablurryimage,duetomovementduringthe

recording,ora“ghost”ifanindividualexitsthescenebeforetheimageiscompleted.

Exclusiveofthesechoices,eventhoughamultitudeofphotographsmaybetakenofasingle

event,fewareincludedbymostmajornewspapers,furtherdiminishingtheobjectivityofa

photo,whichwasoriginallypartofaseries.Thuswhiletheoriginalphotoshootmayhave

containedarelativelyunbiasedviewoftheevent,theendproductmaybecoloredby

personalandorganizationalagendas,whetherthisoutcomeisintentionalornot.

Itisalsoimportantwhenassessingthedocumentarystrengthofanimagethat

photographsaregenerallyintendedtobeaestheticallypleasing.9Evenphotographs

createdforajournalisticpurposearerarelystrictlydocumentaryinnature.10Creating

documentaryimageswithaestheticgoalsinmind,however,isnotnewforphotography.In

factvisualmotivesofphotojournalistsareexemplifiedbyearlywarphotographers,like

MatthewBrady,whoposedCivilWarcorpsestocreatemoreaestheticallypleasingand

fantasticimages.

7

Thesocial,historical,andculturalperspectiveofallindividualsinvolvedinthe

creationanddistributionofaphotographalsoaffectitsinterpretation.11Theindividual

photographer’smotivesandbeliefsmayaltertherealityoftheimageheorsheportrays.If

aphotographerthinksaneventheisdocumentingisfavorablehemaybemorelikelyto

recorditinapositivelight.Takeforinstanceaprotest,ifthephotographerisinfavorofthe

protestershemaybemorelikelytorecordimagesofpoliceviolence.Whileifthe

photographerisonthesideofthegovernmenthemaybemorelikelytorecordrioters’

instigation.Thustheinvestmentoftheartistinfluenceshiscreationofthework,thereby

alteringthespecificviewofrealityitportrays.12Theobjectivityofthephoto,whichis

alreadyinquestionduetodecisionsregardinghowtoconveyascenemadebythe

photographer,isfurtherweakenedbecausethedecisionsmadebythephotographermay

havebeencoloredbytheorganizationhecreatedtheimagefor,aswellasbyhispresumed

audience,andhispersonalstanceinlife.Thusifourhypotheticalreporterwoksasa

publicistfortheprotestershewillrecordaverydifferentscenethanifheworksforthe

newspaper.

AdnanHajjdemonstratedthistendencytopresentmorefantasticimageswithhis

controversialphotoofBeirutduringthe2005IsrealiWarwithHezbollahprintedby

Reuters.HajjphotographedBeirutfollowinganIsraeliair‐strike,butduringtheediting

process,headdedsmoketotheimage.Usingthe“clone”toolonPhotoshop,apublicly

availablephoto‐editingsoftwarehecopiedandpastedsmokeacrosstheimage.

Incidentally,thisfakery,whichwasoriginallyidentifiedbytheInternetblogLittleGreen

Footballs,identifiedtheimageasfakebecausetheexactsameplumeofsmokeappearedat

twopointsinthesameimage.13Anartistfirstalertedtheblogtothefake,asherecognized

8

theworkassimilartohisownearlytrialswithphotographicmanipulationviaPhotoshop.

Yetalteredimagesarerarelythiseasytodetect,asmorecomplicatedprogramsandmore

experiencedphotographersabound.Thisexampleclearlyshowsthetemptationtoa

photographer,inthiscaseHajjwhoreliedoncommissionsforhisincome,tomake

photographsasvaluableaspossibletohisconsumers,thenewseditors,bymakingthemas

dramaticaspossible.WhencontactedtousetheHajjimageinthispaper,Reuters

responded,“UnfortunatelyduetothenatureofthatimageitisnolongeravailableandHajj

nolongerworksforReuters,”demonstratingthatReutersdoesnotagreewithHajj’s

tactics.14

ThoughHajj’simageclearlywasnotobjectivelycreated,evenimagesthatare

“unbiased”maybesubjecttovaryinginterpretations.Thisisexemplifiedbythe

photograph’suseincourttoprovethataspecificeventoccurred.15Duringcross

examination,opposingcounselsmayprovidedifferingexplanationsofthesamevisual

evidence,demonstratingthatthoughtheimagemayprovideevidenceofascenewhichdid

occur,thateventcanbeinterpretedinamultitudeofways—evenfromthesingular

perspectivepresentedinapicture.Thuswhilealterationisanimportantconsiderationin

photography,itisequallyimportanttorecognizethatphotographsarenotnownorhave

theyeverbeencompletelyobjective,butthattheyinsteadrecordthespecificexperiences

ofindividualsthatarethenpublishedasiftheywerereliablefacts.

9

DIGITALPHOTOGRAPHYANDALTERATION

TheEarlyHistoryofAlteration

Allphotoscanbealtered.Digitalphotographydidnotcreatethisability—insteadit

expandedit.In1903EdwardSteichen,anearlyAmericanphotographerandarttheorist,

saidthat“everyphotographisfake,fromstarttofinish,apurelyimpersonal

unmanipulatedphotographbeingpracticallyimpossible.”16Thusevenbeforetheadventof

digitalphotographythetopicofphotographicalterabilitywasdiscussedbyeminent

photographersandcritics.

Thoughitisgenerallyunderstoodthatdigitalphotographsmaybemanipulated,and

thereforemustbequestioned,DerekBousearguesinRestoringthePhotographedPastthat

thepublicfrequentlyhastheinappropriateassumptionthattheolderthephoto,themore

reliableitis.Thisbeliefimpliesthatitwaseitherimprobableorimpossibleforanalog

imagestobealtered,consequentlyassumingthatanalogphotographsaremorereliable

thandigitalimagesthatcanbefaked.17Yetolderimageswerealsoalteredandevenfaked.

Awell‐knownexampleofthisisMatthewBrady’spracticeofarrangingthebodiesofthe

deadtoproducemoredramaticCivilWarphotographs.18Whilethisinterventionoccurred

priortothetechnicalcreationofthephotograph,insteadofafteritscompletionaswith

digitaltechnologies,itstillalteredtherealityrecordedandrelayedtothepublic.Although

digitalalterationhaschangedthemethodsofalteringphotographs,itdidnotinventsuch

practices.

EdwardCurtisisanotherhistoricallyimportantphotographernotoriousforaltering

imagespriortorecordingthem.Awell‐knowndocumenterofNativeAmericangarments,

10

Curtisfrequentlydressedhissubjectsininaccuratecostumes.19Heusedtheclothingof

othertribes,garmentsforceremoniesthatwerenotpictured,andanachronisticdressto

enhancetheartisticqualityofthephotographirrespectiveofthedetrimentthiscausedto

theimage’sdocumentaryvalue,againdemonstratingthatalterationexistedpriortothe

adventofdigitaltechnology.Itisimportanttorecognize,however,thatwhilebothCurtis

andBradyexemplifyalterationbeforethephotographwasrecorded,therewasalso

significantalterationofimagesaftertheircreationinpre‐digitaltimes.

Evenwhenanalogphotographywasthemosttechnicallyadvancedphotographic

technologyavailable,alterationafterimageswereinitiallyrecordedwascommon.One

exampleofthiswasinfamilyphotographs.Itwasnotuncommonforadditionalmembers

ofafamilytobeaddedtoaframeusingcutandpastetactics.20Insomeparticularly

humorousimagesthiscombinationtechniqueleadstosomefamilymembersappearingto

begiantsasotherslooklikemidgetsduetodifferencesinthesizeoftheindividuals

pictured.Someindividualsmayappeartobefloatinginotherimages,suchasthosebyA.

WernerandSons,astheinsertedindividualspictureddonotappeartobestandingonthe

ground.21

OscarGustaveRejlanderwasnotoriousfor“photo‐trickery,”asitwastermedinthe

1850s.Amasterofthecombinationprint,Rejlanderusedmorethanthirtyseparate

negativestocreatehismostfamousallegoricalimage“TheTwoWaysofLife,”whichshows

aphilosopherlookingbetweenthetwotypesoflifeonemaylead,virtueandvice.

Combinationprintswerecreatedbysplicingtogethermultipleimagesandusingthemto

createasingleprint.Inthesecircumstancesitwascrucialthatallimageshavesimilartone

11

qualityandsizereferencestoavoidunintentionalfloatingorshadows,whichwere

discussedinreferencetofamilyphotographs.Originallyapainter,Rejlandercontinuedto

pursuethesamegoalswiththenewmediaofphotographyandfrequentlyuseddouble

exposuresandcombinationprintsinhiswork.Beforetheadventofdigitalphotography

therewerealreadyimagesthatdocumentedeventsthathadneveroccurred.

ThoughRejlanderpracticedobviousphotographicalteration,manyartistsusedthe

samemethodsinmuchlessflagrantways.OnesuchartistwasEadweardMuybridge.

Thoughheisbestknownforhisanimallocomotionseries,hewasalandscape

photographerbeforehebeganhistimedseriesofanimals.Inthemid‐1800sitwasdifficult

todevelopanimageinsuchawaythatthecontrastshowedboththelandscapeandthesky.

Typically,ifthelandscapeappearedtobeinthepropercolorgradationtheskywaswashed

out,yetiftheskyappearedtobeproperlydevelopedthelandscapeappearedtobea

massiveshadow.ThusMuybridgecreatedthe“cloudnegatives.”Thesewereaseriesof

negativeswhichhedevelopedsothatthesky,andhencetheclouds,wereinexcellent

contrast.Hethencutthesenegativestoformcombinationprintswithhisotherimages.His

skyappearedtobeincontrastwiththeimage,butitwasfromacompletelydifferentlocale

andseason.Thisprocess,thoughnotobvioustotheviewerastheimagelookednatural,

wasclearlyanearlyformofphotographicmanipulation,onethatisquitesimilartodigital

adjustmentsmadebyphotographerstoday.Furthermore,forhisYosemiteseries,

Muybridge“cutdowntreesbythescorethatinterferedwith...thebestpointofsight”

(HuntJackson).Henotonlyalteredthenegativeoncethephotographwasrecorded,heat

timesalteredtheworldtobetterfithisframe.OneimagefromhisYellowstoneseries,

12

whichinvolvedbothalterationofthescenerybyremovingatree,andalterationofthe

printbyusingthecloudnegativesistheaptlytitled“CloudsRest”(Fig.3).

Figure1EadweardMuybridgeCloudsRestValleyoftheYosemite1872

WhileMuybridgeusedphotographicmanipulationtocreatemoreaesthetically

pleasingimagesforartisticpurposes,Leninusedphotographicalterationtochangehistory

andmakeitmorecloselyfithispoliticalagendafortheSovietUnion.TheSovietregime

frequentlykilledindividualswhoweredeemed“enemiesofthepeople.”Whenthese

individualswereinstatephotographsorappearedalongsideLenininanyimage,itwasnot

uncommonforthemtoberemoved.Oneofthemostnotoriousexamplesofthisisthe

systematicremovalofLeonTrotskyfromallstateimagesafterLenindecidedhewasan

13

enemyofthepeople.22NikolaiYezov,theleaderofthesovietsecretpolicewasalso

removedfromformalSovietimagesafterhefelloutofStalin’sfavor.Manyoftheimages

manipulatedbyLeninandtheSovietRegimewerecreatedinthe1920s,thoughalteration

ofexistingphotographscontinuedwellintothe1970s.23

Evenwhenanalogprocessesarebeingused,andphotographsarenotclearlyaltered

asintheexampleofMuybridge,amultitudeofstagesareinvolvedpriortothecreationof

thefinalimage.Steichenstatedthat“thedetail,breath,flatnessorcontrast”whichareall

determinedinthedarkroombytheoriginalartist,orwhomeveriscreatingtheprint,alter

thefinalimage,andarguedthatwhensuchalterationsaremadetothefinalproduct“faking

hasbeenresortedto.”24Evenwhencreatingtheinitialexposure,Steichenremindsthe

reader,thephotographercreatesanddeterminesthetimeofexposure,andthemixofthe

developer,againalteringthefinalimagetobestattainhisgoals.Sincetheageofdigital

technologymanyofthesechangesareconsideredappropriate.Infactsomemajor

publications’guidelinesforalteration,whichwillbediscussedlater,statethatalterations

thatcouldoriginallybemadeinadarkroomusinganalogformatsarestilllegitimate

alterations.Theyclaimthatalterationsthatwouldgenerallybemadeinthedarkroomby

thedeveloperdonotequatetophoto‐manipulation,sincetheyhavealwaysbeenapartof

thephotographicprocess—thoughSteichenclearlyheldtheopposingview.Thedifference

liesinthefactthatSteichenrecognizesthatphotographicalterationhasalwaysbeen

possible,whilemanynewssourcesviewitasanewabilityofthedigitalage.

14

TheCreationofDigitalPhotography

Inthe1950sRussellA.KirschandtheNationalBureauofStandardscreatedanearly

scannerthattracedvariationsinintensitiesofphotographs.25Thisfirstversionofdigital

imagerymadepreviouslycreatedanalogphotographsavailableinadigitalformat.Thus

ratherthancreatinganentirelynewpixilatedimage,thistechnologyinitiallyservedto

transformanexistingimageintoanewform.Theabilitytotransferanimagefroman

analogtoadigitalformatisimportantwhenconsideringwhichimagesmaybealtered.

Giventhatanyanalogimagemaybescannedandtransformedintoadigitalform,an

image’sinitialformdoesnotnecessarilyaffectitsfinalalterationpotential.

TheNationalAeronauticsandSpaceAdministration(NASA)wasalsoaforerunner

indevelopingdigitalphotography,whichallowedscientiststotransmitimagesbackfrom

spaceviaasignalinsteadofneedingtotransferphysicalmaterial.Beforetransmitting

digitallyconceivedimageswaspossible,however,NASAuseddigitaltechnologytoclarify

analogimageswithtechnologysimilartothatdesignedbyKirschbeforereleasingthemto

thepublic.ExamplesincludeaninstancewhenNASAremovedflawsfromphotosprovided

byRanger7in1964,andwhenitalsouseddigitaltechnologytoclarifytheanalogimages

ofSurveyor7.26In1977NASAbegantransmittingdigitalfeedsofdigitallycreatedimages

fromspacebacktoEarth.Theseimagessoonbecamemorespecialized,withNASA

commencingtoprovidedigitallycollectedradarimagestoarcheologistsinthe1980s.27

Thegovernmentclearlyledearlyadvancementsindigitalimaging,butinthelate

1970sIBM’sZurichlaboratoriesbegandevelopingdigitaltechnologytoincreasethepower

andcapabilitiesofmicroscopes.28Thetrendofscience’sinvolvementindigitaltechnology,

15

bothexpandingitscapabilitiesandapplyingitscurrentuses,canalsobeseenwiththeuse

ofanMRIscannerthatproducesadigitalimageofhumananatomy.29

Inthe1980sthemediaadopteddigitalimaging.Itwaswidelyusedbyboth

televisionengineers,toimproveclarityforbroadcasting,andphotojournalists,tospeedthe

transmissionofphotosfromlocationstonewsrooms.In1989theWallStreetJournal

estimatedthattenpercentofallimagesconsumedbythepublicweredigitallyretouchedor

alteredinsomeway.30

In1982NationalGeographicpublishedanalteredcover,whichwaslaterdiscovered

andhotlydebatedbythepublicduetoitsalterationwithoutdemarcation.Thiscoverwas

alsothefirstlargelyrecognizeduseofdigitalmanipulationbyareputablejournalistic

organization.Thephoto,whichfeaturedthepyramids,wasoriginallytakenasahorizontal

photograph.YetthecoverofNationalGeographicalwaysfeaturesaverticalimage(Fig.4).

Themagazinethereforemadethedecisiontoshiftthepyramidsclosertogetherinorderto

makethehorizontaloriginalfittheverticalformatandmakethecovermoreaesthetically

pleasing.31Thisprocess,whichNationalGeographiccalledthe“retroactiverepositioningof

thephotographer,”wasstronglydefendedbythemagazines’editors.Theystatedthatif

theirphotographerhadbeenstandingataslightlydifferentlocationataslightlydifferent

timeofthedaythiswouldbethephotographthatwouldhavebeentaken.Yetthefact

remainsthatthiswasnottheimagerecorded.Thatthiswasaphoto‐illustrationandnota

photographwasnotrevealedtothepublicuntilaftertheauthenticityoftheimagewas

questionedbyseveralotherjournalists.JohnLong,oftheNationalPressPhotographers

Association(NPAA),however,claimsthatthissingulardecisiontoalteracover“damaged

16

[journalists’]credibilityand…[thatalthough]tasteissueshaveashortlifespan,ethics

issuesdonotgoaway”(Long).Thisstatementraisestheissuethateventhoughimaging

guidelineshavebecomemorestringentinrecentyears,theearlyperiodoflaxrulesmay

havepermanentlyalteredthepublic’sperceptionofphotographicauthenticity.Long

claimsthatthecontinuoususeofalteredphotographsgradually“erode[d]thecredibilityof

theentireprofession,”andLongisnotsurethatphotojournalists“canwinthiswar”to

maintaintheauthorityofphotographicimages,inthefaceoflargescaleimage‐

manipulation.32Thusdigitalphotography’sinitialpublicbrushwiththemediaraised

importantquestionsregardingthenecessityofdenotingalteredimages,andlegitimate

alterations.

17

Figure2.NationalGeographicCover,January1982

Bythemid‐1980sdigitalphotographyhadexpandedbeyondlaboratoryand

professionalusesandenteredthemassmarket.Thepublicbegantobuydigitalcamerasfor

personaluseasCannon,NikonandSonybegantomarkethome‐use“still‐video”digital

imagingcameras.Theseearlycameras,however,stillrecordedtheimageinananalog

format,beforetransformingitintoadigitalfile.Cannon,NikonandSonyeliminatedthis

18

stepwhentheybeganmarketingthefirstdigitalcamerasforhomeconsumersin1990.

Thischangehadfortuitoustiming,asitcoincidedwithanexpansionincapabilitiesand

memoryofhomecomputers.Thisallowedindividualstousehomecomputerstorun

image‐editingsoftwaretostoreandmanipulatepersonalsnapshots.ThecreationoftheCD

intheearly1980swasalsoanimportantprecursortothedigitalcamera,asKodakbegan

usingCDstostorephotosin1991.

Inthe1990sgovernmentandmediaagenciesuseddigitaltechnologyforthefirst

timeinawarsetting.33Americansuseddigitalphotographytorecordandaltertheevents

oftheGulfWar,butunlikeMatthewBradyintheCivilwar,thesealterationsweremade

aftertheimagewascreated.TheUSgovernmentwasalsowellknownatthistimefor

alteringimagesbeforegivingthemtothemedia.34Thistime,however,ratherthanmerely

documentingoccurrencesforthepublic,thetechnologywasalsoputtotacticalusein

weaponssystems.

Oneofthemorerecentexpansionsintheuseofdigitalimagingisliveelectronic

manipulation,whichallowsreal‐timemanipulationofsatellitedigitalimagefeeds.This

processmaybeusedinavarietyofcontexts,fromaddingthefirstdownlinetoatelevision

broadcastofafootballgametoalteringsatelliteimageryfornationalsecuritypurposes.In

factinmanycasesthesamecompaniesprovidebothservices.Sportvisionisonecompany

thatspecializesinaddingobjectstolivesportingevents,suchasbillboardsbehindmajor

leaguebaseballgamesdesignedtoincreaseadvertisingrevenuefortelevisionnetworks.35

IvanAmatoarguesthatthistrendislikelytospreadtoproductplacementsinmajor

sitcomsasTiVoandsimilarDVR’sallowthepublictoskipcommercials.TheNorthAtlantic

19

TreatyOrganization(NATO)hiredtheSarnofCorporation,apartnercompanyto

Sportvision,togototheAlliedOperationsCenterinItalyandtransformSarnoff’s

experimentalphoto‐alterationsoftwaretoausabletechniqueforlocatingtheSerbian

militaryinKosovoandprotectingNATOpositions.InordertoprotectNATO’spositions,

Sarnoffdesignedsoftwarethatreplacedimagesthatcontainedmilitaryunitswithprevious

digitalimagesofthesamelandscape,hidingNATO’slocation.Sarnoffalsousedthecurrent

imagesoftheterrainsurroundingmilitaryinstallationstocreateacomputersimulationof

whatthatareawouldlooklikewithoutthepresenceoftroops.Thesesimulatedareaswere

thenusedtocloakmilitarylocationsbeforeNATOreleasedtheseimagestothemediaor

foreigngovernments.Indiaalsoreleasedimagesfromitssatellitestothepublicthatused

similartechnologytoremovetheirmilitaryinstallations.36

WaltDisney’sImagineeringStudiohasalsoputtheenhancedcapabilitiesofdigital

technologytouse,astheImagineershavebeguncapturingimagesofagedordeceased

celebritiesfrompreviouslyrecordedfootageandalteringthemtofillpartsinnewshowsor

movies(Amato).Thisuseofdigitalmanipulationonceagainbuttressesthepointthat

althoughdigitaltechnologyallowsgreatermanipulationofphotographsandfilms,these

capabilitiesmaybetransferredtoimagesthatwereoriginallyanaloginform.Halestineof

theIntervalCorporationattheUniversityofCaliforniaBerkeleypredictsthatvideo

manipulationwillsoonbecarriedtoitsmostextremecapabilities.Hestates“withabsolute

certainty”thatsoononepersonwillbeabletocreateanentiremovie,usingdigital

technologiestocreatethebackdropsandcostumingaswellastopullandcreatethe

necessaryimagesofactors.Digitaltechnologyisthereforeusefulinavarietyofsettings,

includingentertainment;yetthesesamecapabilitiesthatareamusinginonecontextcan

20

provedisturbingwhenplacedinthehandsofgovernmentsorotherentities.Creationssuch

asthoseoftheImagineersalsoforcethequestionofwhatexactlyitisthattheyare

creating.Isthesplicedimageinfactsimplyanalteredphotograph,orisitanewentity?

Woskarguesitisthelatter.

Throughoutrecentdecadesanewphaseofphotographyhasbeenentered,the

phase,accordingtoWosk,of“pseudophotography,”“pseudo”becausedigitalphotography

isnotquitephotography.37Thoughtheendresultsaresimilarthevaryingprocessesequate

todifferentlevelsofalterationcapabilitiesthatwillbediscussedinthenextsection.Inthis

age,sheclaims,thetemptationtoduplicityhasbeenheightened,attimesproducing

“politicallychargedphotographsinwhichhistoricfactisaltered.”38

AlterationSinceDigitalPhotography

Digitalalterationofphotographyisnotmerelyanadditivedevelopment.39Instead,

alterationcapabilitiesalterthemorallandscapeinwhichphotographyexistsduetothe

greatlyincreasedpotentialformanipulation.Thisnewdigitalprocessofphotography,

should,inSavedoff’sopinion,carrywithitnewstandards,ethicalconsiderations,and

criteriaforassessingthevalueofimages.Yettheseshiftsintheconceptualizationof

photographyhavenotoccurred,largelybecauseitisdifficulttodistinguishbetweenthe

finalproductofanaloganddigitalphotography,makingitdifficulttohaveadifferentsetof

standardsforeachmedium.Furthermore,photographs’tacitrelationshipwithreality,as

discussedpreviously,remainsseeminglyvisibleinthedigitalfinalproduct,thoughthis

physicalrelationshipmaynotcontinueinthecreationofadigitalimage.Withanalog

creationitcanbearguedthattheimagewastheresultofachemicalprocess,whichleft

21

tracesoflightintheimage.Thoughthissame“trace”appearstobepresentinadigitally

createdimage,thattraceisduetoadigitalrepresentationofreality,insteadofchemical

imprint.Thisconfusionisfurtheredbydigitalphotography’sinherentalterability.When

somethingexistsindigitalformaninfinitenumberofalterationscanbecompletedwhich

leavelittletracebehind.

Whilethedigitalcompositionofimagesallowsforalteration,mostphoto

manipulationisnotdoneoncamerasthemselves.Instead,itiscarriedoutoncomputers

usingimagingsoftwareandscanners.Thus,evenphotoscreatedbeforetheadventof

digitalphotography,orsinceitsadventinananalogformat,maybealtered,asdiscussed

withrelationtotheImagineersandmovies.40Theadventofdigitaltechnologiesinrelation

tophotographyhas,therefore,alteredtheentirelandscapeofphotography.Thisharkens

backtoBouse’soriginalpoint,thatwhileearlierphotographsmaybemoretrustedbythe

public,theenhancedalterationcapabilityofdigitalphotographyaltersnotonlyhow

presentandfutureimagesareinterpreted,butalsoourawarenessofthepotential

manipulationofphotographscreatedinthepast.Althoughthespectatormayknowthata

specificimagewascreatedpriortotheadventofdigitalphotography,heisalsoawarethat

theimagemayhavebeenalteredsincethen,changingthewaythepublicviewseven

unalteredimagesofthepast.41Itcanthereforebearguedthatdigitalphotographyhas

decreasedthecredibilityofphotographyingeneral,asonemustnowquestionall

photographicimages,andasitisfrequentlyimpossibleforthelaymantodistinguishwhich

photographshavebeenalteredandwhichremainintheiroriginalcondition.

22

Itcanalsobeargued,converselyandquiteeffectively,thattheadventofdigital

technologyhasbroughtrelativelyfewcompletelyinnovativewaysofalteringa

photograph.42Insteadexistingcapabilitiesofphotographicmodificationhavebecomemore

accessibleastheyhavebecomelesstimeconsumingandlessexpensive,andhavebeen

marketedasanewinnovationtoapublicthatwaspreviouslyonlyvaguelyawareofsuch

capabilitiesandunabletocompletesuchmodificationsontheirown.Digitalalterationof

photographyandimageshasreallymeantthedemocratizationofalteration,insteadofa

revolutioninthefield.Ithasalsoheightenedthepublic’sawarenessofalteration,perhaps,

asmuchasithasincreasedthefrequencyofalteration.

Digitalvs.Analog

Photographyhasneverbeenstatic;insteadithasbeenaconstantlyevolving

mediumsinceitwasfirstintroducedintheearly1800s.Yetupuntilthispoint

photographywasalwaysbasedonchemistryandlight.JosephNiepcefirstdevelopedthe

permanentrenderingofimagesthroughlightinthe1820susingbitumenofJudea,to

recordimagesbeforefixingthemwithlavenderoil.Hesoonevolvedthismethodinto

heliographs,whichweremadeusingsilvernitrate.EduardDaguerre,whowasworkingon

hisownphotographicprocesstoaidhiminhiscareerasascenemaker,contactedNiepce

suggestingtheyworktogether.ThepairworkedtogetheruntilNeipce’sdeath,afterwhich

Daguerrediscoveredmercury’sabilitytofiximages,andcreatedtheDaguerreotype,which

Daguerreclaimed,“isnotmerelyaninstrumentwhichservestodrawnature;onthe

contraryitisachemicalandphysicalprocesswhichgivesherthepowertoreproduce

herself.”43Fromtheearliestdaysofphotographytheideaofthemechanicallyproduced

unmediatedtruthproliferated,givingthephotographicmediumatruth‐valueitdidnot

23

inherentlydeserve.SimultaneouslyFoxTalbotcreatedasimilarmethodusingtheslated

paperprint.ConcurrentlywiththecreationofphotographybyNiepce,Talbot,and

Daguerre,aFrenchmanbythenameofBayardcreatedalightimagingtechnology.Withthe

creationofphotography,aswiththecreationofdigitaltechnology,thenewimagemaking

processcoincidedwithalargertechnicalinnovationthatwasrealizedbyseveral

practitionersatonce.TheDaguerreotypefastgainedprominenceabovetheothermethods,

andbecameespeciallypopularforthenewartformofportraitmaking.Daguerreotypes

wereaonesteppositiveprocessthat’ssimplicityoriginallyaddedtotheirappeal.Soon,

however,consumerswereonceagainconsideringtheCalotype,createdbyTalbot,a

technologythatwhilesomewhatlessreliable,wasinfinitelymorereproducibleandmore

capableofreproducingfinedetail.Bythe1850sglassnegativesandalbumenpaperwere

thelatesttechnologicalinnovations;theyweremorereproducibleandmoredetailedthan

anypreviousmethod.Itmaybearguedthattheadventofdigitalphotographyhasonce

againpushedreproducingcapabilitiestoanewlevel,asimagesnolongerneedtoexistina

hardformattobeseen.Nowanyphysicalrequirementsforreproducingimageshavebeen

strippedastheymaybetransmittedelectronically.Increasedreproducibilityhasalways

beendesirableinphotography,asdemonstratedbythereturnoftheCalotype.Although

digitaltechnologyfurtheredmanyofanalogmethods’capabilities,itdidsoinan

intrinsicallynewway,onethatisdebatedbyphotographersandphilosophersalikewith

regardstoitseffectonphotography.

MarkAmerika,whendiscussingthedifferencesbetweenanaloganddigital

photography,usesaquitehelpfulexplanation,whichhederivedfromVilemFlusser’s

TowardsaPhilosophyonPhotography,onethatisbasedonviewingthevariouswaysof

24

recordingimagesasapartofaspectrum.Amerikastatesthatthewayimagesare

interpretedisinfluencedbythewaytheyarecaptured,andthusarguesthatastechnology

hasevolvedsohastheinterpretationofphotography.44Throughtheadditionofdigital

photographytothespectrum,theartistisnowfreertoconcentrateonpersonal

interpretationsofthespace,asopposedtoattemptingtocaptureobjectiverealitiesaswith

analogimaging.Theseenhancedalterabilitycapabilitieshavealteredthepublic’s

perceptionofphotographicobjectivitytosuchadegreeitisnolongernecessarytoattempt

objectivity.45Amerika’sargument,however,isweakenedbythefactthattheassumed

objectivityofphotographyingeneralisambiguous,astheindividualartisthasalwayshad

thepowertocaptureapersonalscene.Theclaimthatthecameraismerelyamediumfor

capturinganimagemaybemadeforallformsofphotography,notonlynewdigital

technologies.Furthermore,whileitmaybetruethatagreaterlevelofmanipulationismore

commonsincethecreationofdigitalphotography,makingtheinitialactofrecordingthe

imageasmallerportionoftheoverallequation,itisnottruethattherewerenotartists

whousedsignificantalterationaftercapturinganimagepriortotheadventofdigital

technologies—asevidencedbytheaforementionedRejalnder.

SavedoffandMitchellfurtherarguethatdigitalphotographycannotbeheldtothe

samealterabilitystandardsasanalogphotographybecauseitisnotanalogphotography;

insteaditisanewmediumuntoitself.46Theyarguethatthedifferencebetweentheanalog

formationofaphotographicimageonfilmandthedigitalcreationofanimagethrough

sensorreceptionistantamounttothecreationofanewartform.Thisnewmedium,which

producesanendproductstrikinglysimilartoanalog,doesnotinfactconstitutethesame

process.

25

Digitalimaging,however,gainsmuchofitspowerfromthefactthatitisnearly

indistinguishablefromanalogphotography.Theassumedauthorityoftheolderanalog

imagesistransferredtonewlycreateddigitalimages,increasingtheirassumedveracity.If

thisrelationshipisbroken,digitalphotographymaynotmaintainitscurrentlevelof

esteem.Thisbreakcouldcauseamassiveshiftintheuseofdigitalphotographyasa

methodofreportingthenews,orconveyingevidence,giventhatitsauthoritywouldbe

lessened.Interestingly,digitalphotographyderivesitsvalidityfromitssimilaritytoanalog

photographs,whilethissamerelationshiphasdevaluedanalogimagesastheylose

credibilityalongwiththeirdigitalcounterparts.Theincreasedabilitytoalterimagesalso,

aspreviouslydiscussed,appliestoimagesthatwereonceanaloginform,thusdecreasing

theirinherentdocumentaryworth.

Thoughalterationwaspossiblewithanalogphotographypriortotheadventof

digitalimaging,itwasusedmuchlessandrequiredfarmoreskill.47Thus,whileinsome

waysalterationhasmerelyincreasedwithdigitalphotography,SavedoffandMitchellargue

thisincreaseissufficienttowarrantconceptualizingdigitalphotographyasanewmedium.

Furthermore,analogalterationleftatraceontheoriginalnegative.Regardlessofthetype

ofalteration,itwasnearlyimpossibletochangethefinalimagewithoutinsomeway

permanentlyalteringthenegative.Withdigitalphotography,however,thisisnolongerthe

case.48Whenthe“original”oftheprintismerelyadigitalfile,itbecomesnearlyimpossible

totellifthatfilehasbeenalteredandwhichimageisindeedtheunmanipulatedoriginal.

Thetrueoriginalbecomesindistinguishablefromthealteredfacsimile.

26

Theincreasedamountofskillandtimerequiredtoalteraphotographinananalog

formatmeantalteredphotographsweretheexceptiontothenorm,astheyweredifficult

andexpensivetocreate.Theimprovedcapabilitiesofdigitalalteration,however,andthe

easewithwhichmostchangescanbeapplied,haveledalteredphotographstobecomethe

norm,inthewordsofSavedoffcreatinganenvironmentwherethe“documentary

usefulnessofnewsandfeaturephotographsisseverelydiminished.”49Savedoffargues

thatinaworldofonlyanalogphotography,thereweremanymoreunderstoodlimits

regardingwhichalterationswerelegitimateandwhichwereinappropriate.But,withthe

expandedcapabilitiesofdigitaltechnologies,thesestandardshavebeengreatlyalteredif

notentirelydismissed.50Theneweaseofalterationhasledindividualstoalter

photographsmorefrequentlywithlesscontemplationoftheassociatedconsequencesof

suchactions.

MarkAmerikatakesMitchellandSavedoff’sargumentstotheirmostextremeby

arguingthatratherthandigitalimagingcreatinganewmediumdigitalphotographyinfact

doesnotexist.51Heclaimsit“allcomesdowntocapturingdataandthendigitally

processingitasnecessary,”becauseanything,notonlyaphotographicimage,maybe

printedviaadigitalprocess,includingword‐processingdocumentssuchasthisorimages

pulledfromtheInternet.52Heclaimswhatisimportantwithdigitaltechnologyistheway

thatimages,wordingandothervisualmediaare“remixed”toformanewtypeofart.53

Thus,forAmerika,digitalphotographyisapieceofthelargerspectrumofdigitalart.

Amerikafurtherclaimsthatdigitalimagingisnotphotography,as“alldigitalformsof

expressioncomedowntomanipulatingonesandzeros.”54Ifthislogicisfollowed,however,

thenallanalogimagerycomesdowntochemistry,andtheeffectoflightondifferent

27

compounds.WhileAmerikaisattemptingtoproveavalidpoint,thatdigitalphotography

mayhavecreatedanewartformaltogether,hislogicisweak,makinghisargumentappear

invalid.

IncontrasttoAmerika,whoclaimsthatdigitaltechnologyisnotphotographyatall,

andMitchellandSavedoff,whoclaimthatinsteaditisanewmedium,thereisathird

schoolthatsimplybelievesdigitalimaginghasrevolutionized,or“remediated”

photographyingeneral.Thislineofbelief,representedbyMichelleHenning,statesthat

whiledigitalphotographyisclearlycreatedandusedindifferentwaysfromanalog

technologies,toalargeextentitisexperiencedandinterpretedbytheaudienceinasimilar

fashion.Thecombinationofthesetwofactsmeansthatanewformofanalysismustbe

appliedtobothanaloganddigitalformats.55Digitalcamerasaremadetoresembleanalog

cameras,inexteriordesign,andmaintainantiquatedanalogterminologysuchasASO/ISO

settings—whicharereferencestofilmspeed,andobviouslynotaconcernonadigital

camera.56Thusthepackagingandmarketingofdigitalcamerasfurtheremphasizestheir

relationtoanalogtechnology,perhapstoalleviatebuyers’fearsofnewtechnologies,andin

parttomaintainthetenuousrelationshipbetweenthetwomediums,andindoingsoto

continuetoheightendigitalphotography’svalidity.57Furthermorewhileelectronics

companiesalsomakedigitalcameras,traditionalphotographyfirmssuchasCannon,

OlympusandMinoltaaretheprimarymarketers.58Henningclaimsthistendencytomake

digitalphotographyconformtotheprecedentsofanalogphotographyisdetrimentaltothe

possibilitiesofdigitaltechnologies,whichfarexceedthoseofanalog.59Thefactthatdigital

technologyhasmerelyremediatedanalogphotomaking,inthemindofthethirdschool,is

notduetodigitalphotography’sinherentcapabilities,buttothewayinwhichithasbeen

28

presentedandmarketedtothepublic,andunderstoodbythecorporationsthatsellit.

Henningisalsoquicktopointoutthat,asinanalogphotography,inearlydigital

technologiesthelightwasfirstsensedbythecamerabutthenunlikeanalogformatsitwas

interpretedthroughdigitalmeans.Thus,accordingtoHenning,digitalphotographyisinno

way“lessphotographicthanchemicalanalogis.Itmeansitdeploysverydifferent

processes”forthesameresult.60

Yetanotherschoolofthoughtregardingthedistinctionsbetweendigital

photographyandanalogphotographyistothinkofthemneitherasindependentartforms,

norasthesamethingentirely,butinsteadtoviewthetwoprocessesonacontinuumwith

painting.61Whenanalogphotographywasfirstcreated,artistsandcollectorsalike

predictedthedeathofpainting.Yetastimecontinuedpaintingdidnotdie;insteaditsuses

merelychanged.Withthecreationofdigitalphotography,analogtechnologyisnowforced

tofinditsownnicheinimagingculture.Somearguethatthisnicheislocatedbetween

traditionalphotographyandpainting.Digitalphotographyprovidestherealismand

intricaterelationshipwithrealityofanalogphotography,yetitalsoprovidesahigher

degreeofalterability,whichplacesitsomewherebetweenthetwoartforms.62Asdigital

photographygrapplesforitsplaceamongpreviousimagingtechnologies,thepublic,news

mediaandgovernmentsmustdecidehowtoreacttothisinnovativetechnology.

REACTIONSTODIGITALALTERATION

Public’sResponses

Thepublicisawarethatphotoalterationispossible,becausemanypeoplehave

alteredaphotograph.Whethersomeonehascroppedoutaformerlover,changedanimage

29

toblackandwhitefromcolor,orsimplyremovedred‐eye,mostindividualshaveused

computersoftwaretochangeadigitalimage.Yetbeingawarethatthistypeof

manipulationispossibleandactuallyusingthisknowledgetoactivelyscrutinizeevery

imageoneseesaretwodifferentconcepts.Whenmostpeoplepickupthenewspapertheir

firstthoughtisnot,“Iwonderwhatinthisimagecouldhavebeen,orprobablywas,

altered?”Theimageismerelyinterpretedforitsacceptedpurpose,toprovide

substantiationforthewrittenstoryitaccompanies.Thusthephotoisacceptedatface‐

value,asproofofanincident,duetophotography’spreviouslydiscussedinherentclaimto

truth.

Inthecontextofnewspaperjournalismitisimportanttonotethatitmayalso

rightfullybeclaimedthatonecanalterthewrittenword.Oneunderstandswhenreading

anytextthatsimplybecausesomethingiswrittendowndoesnotimplythatitisfactual

informationorthetruth;insteadtheinterpretivedimensionoftheworkisunderstood

fromitscontext.Theaveragereaderunderstandsthatfairytalesarefiction,thateditorials

areopinion,andthatjournalismismeanttoinformthepublicofthetruth.Thissame

understandingdoesnotexistforphotography;whilethepublicinterpretsimagesin

newspapersasdocumentingthestorieswhichtheyareapartof,andimagesinmuseums

orgalleriesasworksofartuntothemselves,thereisnotnecessarilyatruthjudgment

imposedonthelatterartisticimages,whiletheformerrepresentimpliedreality.This

assumedrealityofjournalisticphotographyisrightfullycomingintoquestionsincethe

adventofdigitalphotography.

30

Thecontext,inwhichadigitalphotographisused,aswithanyimage,isan

importantfactorintheaudience’sinterpretationofthephotograph’sreliability.Context

alsoaffectstheaudience’sassessmentofwhetherornotimagesarelikelytohavebeen

altered.63InPhotographsandContexts,TerryBarrettexaminestheimportanceofcontexts

intheinterpretationofphotographsusingRobertDosineau’sphotographentitled“Atthe

Café,ChezFraysse,RuedeSeine,Paris,1958.”Thisphotographshowsamanandwoman

sittingatabar,withthewomangazingatherdrinkandthemanstaringather.This

seeminglysimpleimageisinterpretedinvastlydifferentwaysdependinguponthecontext

ofthephotograph.WhenviewedintheMuseumofModernArt,itisviewedasanexhibition

ofphotographicmastery;yetwhenviewedinatemperancebrochure,itappearstobea

warningagainstthemoralambiguitythatcomeswithalcoholandtolikenthewomantoa

prostitute.ThisdrivesBarretttoclaimthat“apictureisaboutwhatitappearstobeabout,”

meaningthatwhenaphotographappearstobeabouttemperancefromthecontextin

whichitwasplaced,thereaderinterpretsitassuch.64Likewise,whenaphotographisina

newspaperthereaderinterpretsitasadocumentaryimagebecauseitisunderstoodfrom

itscontextthatthisisitsintendedrole.

Furthermore,theunderstandingofaphotographvarieswhenitisinterpretedfrom

differenthistoricperspectives.65Whilethisshiftisdemonstratedwiththedecreasedtruth‐

valueplacedonallphotographssincetheadventofdigitalphotography,itisalsonoticeable

apartfromthetechnologicaladvancesofphotography.Whenahistorianlooksata

photograph,forexample,hemayuseanydetailtohelpdeterminethedateandlocationof

thatphotograph.Thiscanrangefromusingtheclothingofsubjects,toadvertisementsin

thebackground,toarchitecturalstylesandlandscapestoplacetheinformationprovided

31

bytheimageinalargersocialandculturalperspective.If,however,anyofthesedetailsare

removedbyeitherdigitalortraditionalmeans,theauthenticityofthisphotographis

weakened,asistheabilityofthehistoriantoviewitfromtheappropriatehistorical

framework.

Contextmayalsobeusedwheninterpretingtheappropriatenessofdigital

alterationinphotojournalism.Whenoneseesanimageofa700‐year‐oldbabyonthecover

oftheNationalEnquirer,oneassumesfromthecontext(itsplacementonatabloidcover)

andpreviousknowledge(thatthechancesofa700‐year‐oldbabyareexceedinglyrare)

thatthephotowasmostlikelydigitallyaltered.66Thereisinsomewayslessmoral

ambiguityassociatedwiththisphotograph’salteration,asitcanbeassumedbythe

intelligentmemberofthepublicthatthechanceofsuchaneventoccurringare

infinitesimal.OntheotherhandwhenthereputablenewsmagazineTimeproducedan

imageofO.J.Simpsonthatwassignificantlyalteredfromtheoriginalmug‐shotitwasnot

necessarilypossiblefortheaveragelyintelligentpublictogatherthatthisimagehadbeen

altered.Thiscover,whichwaspublishedonJune27,1994,appearedsimultaneouslywith

thesameimageonthecoverofNewsweek.Thejuxtapositionofthesetwoimagesallowed

thepublicandjournalistsaliketoseethattheimageonTimehadbeensignificantly

darkened.ThusonthecoverofTimeOJSimpsonactuallyappearedtobeblackerthanon

thecoverofNewsweekorintheoriginalmugshot.Whilethisobviouslyraisesthequestion

ofhowraceisperceivedinAmericancultureasrelatedtocrime,italsoraisesthequestion

ofdigitalalteration.Theillustratorwhomadethedecisiontodarkenthemugshotof

Simpson,MattMahurin,statedthathe“wantedtomakeitmoreartful,morecompelling.”67

Furthermore,BryceZabelclaimsthisoriginalimagewasdarkenedbyTimetoshowthe

32

publicinatangibleformthemetaphoricshadowthathadbeencastoverthesports

superstar.68Yetwhenjournalistsaretrustedtoreportthenewsthequestionremains—

wasthisalterationethical?WhetherMahurin’salterationwasethicalornot,Newsweek

obviouslymadethedecisionthatitwasunnecessarybypublishingitscoverimagewithout

manipulation.Timealsoshowedthatitsecond‐guesseditsoriginaldecisionwhenit

revokedtheinitiallyreleasedO.J.Simpsoncoveraftersubstantialcriticismfromminority

groups.Timereleasedasecondversion,whichstillshowedZabel’smetaphoricshadow,yet

thistimeplaceditbehindO.J.Simpsoninsteadofacrosshisface.69AlsoTimehasrestricted

thepermissionsonreprintingthiscover,notallowinganyscholarlypublicationtolegally

reproducethiscoverinanyformforanypurpose;adecisionthatfurthersspeculationthat

perhapsTimehas,rightfully,re‐consideredthisuseofdigitalalteration.Finally,thisimage

raisesthequestionofthemotivesbehindanyactofphotoalteration.Wasitscreatora

racist,orsimplyanartistlookingforamoresensationalimagetoincreasecopysales?70

Whilethetrueanswertothisquestionmayneverbefullyknown,itisimportantthat

varyingmotivesmaychangetheimageportrayedtothepublic.

BarbaraMelzerclaimsthatalterationsofimages,evenofdocumentarynewsscenes,

arenotathreattonewsjournalists’credibilityaslongasthesemanipulationsareobvious.

Infact,shegoessofarastoclaimthatsomeartistsintentionallymakesomealteredimages

obvious.Todemonstratethispoint,however,sheusestheimageofMarthaStewart

previouslydiscussed.Sheclaimsthattheaveragereaderimmediatelydetectsthatthis

imageisafake,andthusthattheillustratorisfulfillingsymbolicgoalswhilenotfoolingthe

public.Yetwhileitcanbearguedthatthisisanoptionofphoto‐editors,itismuchmore

difficulttoarguethatthemanipulationofStewart’sbodyiseasilyapparent.

33

Thepublicoftenviewsphotographyasunmediatedreality,yetitseasilyalterable

contentandcontextclearlyshowthatthisisnotthecase.Whenviewingaphotograph,

Barrettrightlyconcludes,theaudiencemustbemindfulofboththeexternalcontextand

theinternalcontentofthephoto,andbeawareofhowbothcontributetotheindividual’s

readingandinterpretationofagivenphotograph.71Viewersofphotographsmustbe

awarethatonenaturallyattemptstoreconstructthesceneinwhichthephotographwas

created,yetifthatphotographwasaltered,itportraysascenewhichneverexisted,thereby

makingtherecreationexercisefutile,furthermakingtheunderstandingofsuch

photographs—especiallyhowtheymaybeproperlyusedfordocumentarypurposes—

questionableatbest.72

Meltzer,aphotographyeducator,wroteanarticlecallingforincreasedpublic

awarenessofphotomanipulationthroughteaching.Meltzerstressestheimportanceof

readingimages.Asdiscussedpreviously,photographyisalanguage,andaccordingto

Meltzeritisalanguagethatmustbetaughtinschools.Justasonelearnstoreadthewritten

word,onemustlearntointerpretvisualimagesandevaluatetheirvalidityaswellastheir

authenticity.PaulMesssarisfurtherstressestheneedtoteachthepublicto“read”

photographicimages,statingthatmerelyhavingthisknowledgewillhelpthepublicbetter

understandthevisualrepresentationstheyreceiveandtherebysafeguardagainst

counterfeitsanddeception.73Nerigoessofarastostatethatimagereadingshouldbe

taughtinelementaryschools,anideawhichsheadoptedformPaolaPallottino.74They

suggestthat,similartothestudyoficonographyfrequentlyrequiredinthepast,theseskills

willhelpstudentsprepareforthejobsofthefuture,whichwillmostlikelyrequirephoto‐

editingandknowledgeofalterationcapabilities.75Whilesome,likeMelzer,believethatthe

34

bestwaytointegratenewdigitaltechnologyistoteachphotographicinterpretationin

schools,othersbelievetheanswerliesinregulations,suchasthoseproposedbytheUnited

Statesgovernment.

GovernmentReactionstoDigitalAlterability

Inregardstotheneedforlegislationlimitingtheuseofreal‐timedigitalimaging

manipulation,JohnPikeoftheFederationofAmericanScientistsinWashingtonD.C.states

thatthissoftwaredoesnotposeacredibilitythreatforphotography,astherisksaresimply

toogreatifanorganizationorgovernmentiscaughtattemptingtofoolthepublic.76This

idea,however,isdisprovedbythecontinualuseofthistypeoftechnologybytheAmerican

governmentandtheIndianGovernment.Thoughtheseentitiesadmittoalteringtheimages

theyproduce,theyalsoclaimthatthenationalsecurityintereststhismanipulationprotects

outweightheneedforaccuracyinreporting.Whilethismaybethecase,itisinterestingto

contemplatewherethelineliesbetweenprotectingnationalinterestsandlyingtothe

public.Pikegoesontostate,however,thatthe“Achillesheel”ofhisclaimistheInternet.77

Heclaimsthatwhilegovernmentsandnewsorganizationsmostlikelyvaluetheir

credibilitytoomuchtoriskdisplayingalteredimages,thereisnosuchfilteringmechanism

ontheInternet,andthatonceanimageisreleasedintocyberspaceitmaybespreadata

ratethatmakesthedocumentaryvalueofthephotographinconsequential.Thoughthe

imagemaybeill‐conceived,everybodywillstillbeawareitexists,thusgivingitalatent

authority,thoughitmaybefalse.Livingstonalsobringsanimportantpointtothis

discussion,ashecontemplatestheeffectsafewpublicalterationsofphotographsmayhave

onthepublic’srelianceonimages.78Heclaimsthatalthoughthismayonlybeapassing

35

phase,evenafewunfortunateforays,suchastheNationalGeographicpyramids,maylead

thepublictopermanentlyquestiontheintegrityofphotographicsources.79

Thepotentialalterabilityofphotos,however,hasprovedattimesasusefulasitis

intimidatingtogovernments.Oneexampleofthiswasa1989UnitedStatesclaimtoa

UnitedNationsSecurityCouncil.TheUnitedStateshadshotdownaLibyanplane,which

Americathenclaimedhadbeenarmed.ToprovethistheUSproducedphotographs,albeit

blurryones,tosubstantiateitsargument.80TheLibyangovernmentclaimedtheimageshad

beenmanipulatedbytheUnitedStatessoitappearedasthoughtheLibyanMiGshadbeen

armed.Thusatthesametimethatgovernmentswerebeginningtobecomeawareofthe

potentialforphotoalterationandtocontemplatelegislationagainstit,theveryideathata

photomayhavebeenaltereddrewquestionsofethicsintoadebate,andraisedquestions

aboutthereliabilityofasuperpower.

Themostfar‐reachingattemptsatreformcamefromthesameplacedigital

photographyoriginated—theUnitedStatesGovernment.TheArtists’RightsFoundation

wasestablishedinHollywoodinthelate1980stoprotectexistingfilmsfromfuturedigital

alterationandtampering,andlobbiedCongresssothatin1991,1992,and1993Congress

consideredtheFilmDisclosureAct.81Thesebills,whichareoftenusedaspartofthe

dialogueregardingthealterationofdigitalimages,wereactuallydesignedtoprotectthe

rightsofmoviecreators.Underthesebillsthecreatorsofamovieareprotectedfrom

changesmadetothemoviebydistributorsafterthecreativeteamhasfinisheditswork.

Theseactsrequiredthedistributortoclearlymarkonthepackaginganychangesthathad

beenmadesinceitscompletionbytheartists,andwouldhaveallowedtheartiststohave

36

theirnameremovedfromthefinalworkiftheywereunsatisfiedwithalterationsmade.

Theartistswouldalsohavetherighttobringacivilsuitagainstthedistributororstudioif

theyfeltthereleaseofthealteredfilmwoulddegradetheirprofessionalreputation.82

Whilethesebillswerecreatedinpartinreactiontoadvancesindigitalalteration

technology,theywasnotdraftedsolelyforthispurpose,againdemonstratingthepointthat

manyalterationsaremadebyanalogmeans,aswellasthroughdigitaltechnologies;thus

thisbillwasdesignedtoprotecttheartistsingeneral.Thehugeincreaseinavailabledigital

technologieshasclearlyincreasedthedistributor’sorthestudio’sabilitytoalterafilm

withoutthepermission,orknowledge,oftheoriginalartist.Furthermore,whilethesebills

applytoanyimagereleasedontheInternet,videocassette,orthroughtelevision

broadcast,theyareonlyapplicabletomovingimages,andthereforedonotprotect

photojournalistsintheprintmediafromunwantededitingbyanewspaper,orunethical

editingbyasupervisor.83Theyalsodonotrequireprintmediatodisclosetothepublic

whichimageshavebeenaltered;thebillsweredesignedtoprotectintellectualproperty

andcopyright,notphotography’sreliability.Furthermore,anyimagemustonlybelabeled

iftheartistfeelsitisadetrimenttohisorherwork;thereisnosafeguardforthepublicto

bemadeawarethatanimage,thatisintendedtoreportthenews,suchasfromamajor

newspaper,hasbeenaltered.DefensorSantiagopresentedasimilarbilltothePhilippine

Congressin2007,thoughthisbillhasnotyetbeenvotedon.

Whilethefederalgovernmenthasdiscussedbillstomarktheuseofdigitalimaging,

theyhavealsoinvestedintechnologytodetectalteredphotographs.TheFederalBureauof

InvestigationfundedDr.FaniHarid,anappliedmathematicianatDartmouth,tocreate

algorithmsusedtoidentifydigitallyalteredimages.84Thissoftware,whichinpartwas

37

designedtoensuretheveracityofdigitalimagesusedincourt,usesmathematicsto

determineunusualrepetitionsintheimages,whichmaybeduetocopyingandpasting

fromanotherportionoftheimageinordertoremoveanunwantedobject.85Asthe

governmentcontinuestodetectandinsomecasesregulatetheuseofdigitalimaging,

mediaoutletshavebeguntodeveloptheirownregulations.

NewsOutlets’Reponses

GraziaNericlaimsinTheDigitalJournalistthatthereactionofthenewsmediato

photographyingeneralhasbeenoneoffear,andthatprintmediahavethustendedto

ignoreissuesassociatedwithphotography,includingdigitalimaging.Theapparent

strengthandaccuracythatapictorialrepresentationprovidesofaneventhasbeenan

interestingparallelwithlinguisticexplorations.Insteadofattemptingtoteachthepublicto

interpretitsmeaning,orunderstandhowitmaybealtered,thesubjecthasbeenleftlargely

unmentioned.Thisfearofphotographyhaslededitorstorequestthatphotographers

recordimagesthatfitthewrittenstoriestheywishtoillustrate.86Evenpriortotheadvent

ofdigitaltechnology,photographswerecreatedoralteredtofitthenarrativesofa

situationandthepreconceivednotionsintheeditor’s,audience’sandphotographer’s

minds.Acommonexampleofnarrativephotography,Nericlaims,istheportrayalofthe

“disheartenedorhomogenized.Theelderlyandimmigrantsaretwoexcellentexamplesof

this,”astheytendtobeportrayedingenericsceneswhichfitthepublic’snotions.87News

organizationshavesubordinatedimagestosubstantiationofthewrittenwordandavoided

discussingtheircontributions,andthelimitsofthosecontributions,inreactiontothe

immensepowertheyrepresent.Withtheadventofdigitaltechnology,however,the

alterationcapabilitiesofphotographyingeneralinevitablybecameanissue,although

38

analogalterationtechniquesandwaysofreadingallphotographicimageswereneverfully

addressed.

TheproblemisclearlyframedbyAndyGrundberg,writinginTheNewYorkTimes:

Inthefuture,readersofnewspapersandmagazineswillprobablyviewnews

picturesmoreasillustrationsthanasreportage,sincetheywillbewellawarethat

theycannolongerdistinguishbetweenagenuineimageandonethathadbeen

manipulated.Evenifnewsphotographersandeditorsresistthetemptationsof

electronicmanipulation,astheyarelikelytodo,thecredibilityofallreproduced

imageswillbediminishedinaclimateofreducedexpectations.Inshort,

photographswillnotseemasrealastheyoncedid.88

In1989USATodayeditorFolwellstatedthatalthoughthepotentialtoalteran

imagehadalwaysexisted,withtheadventofdigitalphotographytheproofthatanimage

hadnotbeenalteredwastakenaway.89Inthedaysofanalogphotographyifaneditorwas

accusedofalteringanimage,hesimplyproducedtheuntaintednegative,andthecharge

wasdropped;withtheadventofdigitaltechnologiessuchanoriginalnolongerexists.90

Clearly,withtheinitialproliferationofdigitaltechnology,journalistsbegan

assessingthenewrelativevalueofphotographyasproofandcorroborationofthewritten

word.Simultaneously,journalistsbegandesigningrulestolimittheuseofdigitalaltering

capabilitiesandmaintainthephotograph’sreliability.Oneexampleofthiswasthe

AssociatedPress,whichmadeapublicstatementinthemid‐1990s,whenphotoalteration

wasbeginningtobecomeatopicofdebate,thatthecontentofaphotographwouldnever

bealtered;buttheAPdidnotgosofarastoeliminatedigitalmanipulationentirely.More

39

importantly,italsodidnotclearlydefinewhatconstituted“alteringcontent,”leavingthis

opentotheinterpretationoftheindividualphotographerorphotoillustrator.

TheNationalPressPhotographers’Association(NPPA)simultaneouslycalledfora

newsetofstandards,whichwasissuedin1990whentheNPAAapproveditsstatementof

principlethatwasrevisedin1991andincorporatedintothebylawsin1995.Includedin

thesestandardswasacodeofethicswhichstatedinreferencetodigitalphotographythat

“asjournalistswebelievetheguidingprincipleofourprofessionisaccuracy;thereforewe

believeitiswrongtoalterthecontentofaphotographthatinanywaydeceivesthe

public.”91TheNPAAgoesontostateinitscodeofethicsthatitbelievesthestandardethics

ofphotojournalisminanalogformatsshouldbeextendedtodigitallycreatedimages,and

thatanymanipulationwhichwouldhavebeenconsideredinappropriateunderthose

earliercircumstancesremainsinappropriateevenwithdigitalimaging.InEthicsintheAge

ofDigitalPhotography,JohnLong,theethicsco‐chairandpastpresidentoftheNPPA,

furtherstatesthat“theadventofcomputersanddigitalphotographyhasnotcreatedthe

needforawholenewsetofstandards.”92Thisisbasedontheclaimthatdigital

photographyisnotinfactanewmedium,butmerelyanewmethodofprocessingimages.

Thereforethesameprinciples,whichguidedthealterationofanalogimages,shouldbe

maintainedinthenewformat.

DigitalCustomGroup,Inc.,releasedits“ModelEthicGuidelinestoProtectthe

IntegrityofJournalisticPhotographs”in2002.93Thisfirstreleaseoftheguidelinesstated

thatalterationsthat“compensateforlimitationsanddefectsinherentindigitalprocess”

areallowed,butthatthephotomustmaintainits“true‐to‐life”accuracy.94Theseguidelines

40

werefurtherexplainedtomeanthatalterationsofcolorbalance,lensdistortion,focusand

glare,or“othermodificationsconsideredtobepresentationalchangeswereallowed.”95

Yetaddingorremovingobjectswasprohibitedifthecontextoftheimagewasaltered.If

thisintegrityremained,however,thentheinsertionordeletionofelementswithinthe

originalimagewasconsideredappropriate.96Theseguidelines,however,leftimportant

roomforphotographers’personaljudgment.Ashaspreviouslybeendiscussed,the

perspectiveofthephotographeroreditormayaffectwhichelementshebelievesare

pertinenttotheintegrityoftheimage.Furthermore,whenphotosareusedinmultipleand

varyingcontexts,asdiscussedbyBarrett,anobjectthatwasinitiallyunimportantmaylater

holdimmensevalue.

The2002“ModelEthicGuidelines”wentontoprohibitanyalterationthatcould

altertheviewer’sperceptionoftimeorspaceaswellasstatingthatthe“desirability”ofthe

subjectshouldneverbealtered.Thereforetheseguidelinesdisallowedsomeofthemost

commonformsofdigitalalteration,includingremovingthewrinklesfromacelebrity’sor

politicalfigure’sface,andbydoingsoalteringtheaudience’sperceptionoftime,oraltering

aphotographtomakeaperson,orinthecaseofanadvertisement,aproduct,lookmore

desirable.Whiletheseguidelinesareintendedonlyforprofessionalphotojournalism,Fred

ShowkerofDigitalCustomsInc.statesthatanyonewhoproducesanimagemustexamine

hispersonalmotivesforitscreationandhowtheimagewillbedistributedbeforehealters

itinanyway.Showkeralsowarnsartistsandeditorsagainstbecoming“spin‐doctors”by

usingnewdigitalcapabilitiestocreatethemostflattering,orsensationalimages,

dependingonthegoalsofthenewspaperandpersonalopinionsofitsproducers,insteadof

thefactsthephotographisintendedtoreport.

41

GraziaNeri,acolumnistforTheDigitalJournalist,usesapersonalapproachfor

definingtheethicsofdigitalalterationinphotojournalism.Neristatesthatthefirstethical

decisionmadebythephotographerhasnothingtodowithnewtechnologies,butinstead

liesinhisdecidingwhichstorytotellwithhisimagesandthemannerinwhichhewilluse

photographstotellit.Inordertomaintainjournalisticintegrity,thisdecisionmustbe

madefromaperspectiveinwhichthephotographer“safeguardsthetruth”heconveysto

thepublic,ratherthanthatofcreatinganimageforpersonalororganizationalmotives.Itis

alsoimportantwhenconsideringdigitalalterationtorespectnotonlytheintegrityofthe

originalphotograph,butalsothecharacterofthesubject.97Insomeways,digital

technologyhasincreasedphotojournalists’abilitytoprotectthedignityorsafetyofthose

theyshoot,suchaswhenthefacesofvictimsorwitnessesareblurredoreliminated

entirely.Thuswhiledigitaltechnologyhasclearlychangedthecapabilitiesofphoto‐editors

tomanipulatethetruth,attimesthispowerservestoallowimagestobeprintedthat

wouldhavebeenpreviouslyleftundisclosedtoprotectanindividualidentity.Thevalueof

thisskill,howeverwhencomparedtotheindiscriminateusesithassuffered,remains

unclear.

Whilephotographers’associationsandsomemediasourceshavemadeattemptsto

regulatealterabilityinphotographicjournalism,lessthatfivepercentofphotographersare

satisfiedwiththeuseoftheirwork.98Thisisbecausemuchofthedigitaleditingtakesplace

innewsroomsbyeditorsinsteadofbeingdonebythephotographersthemselves,apractice

whichwasdiscussedinrelationtoeditingofimagesintheFilmDisclosureAct.The

decisionstheseeditorsmakearealsoaffectedbyavastarrayoffactorsoutsideofstrict

journalisticethics,suchasthecostofimages,spacesallottedfortheminthefinallayoutof

42

thepaper,andthedeadlineforprinting.Thismeansthatexclusiveofdigitalalteration,

photographicdecisionsarebasedonweakpremises,yetwithnewcapabilitiesofdigital

technology,imagesmaybeforcedtofitthesestandards.

MichaelHoffman,theeditorofAperturemagazine,breaksdownthebasicethicsof

digitalmanipulationintothreepoints.99Hestatesthatfirst,thephotographmustbe

producedforthepublicinthefinestgradepossible,arequirementthatisobviously

frequentlyignoredbynewspapersandothermediainterestedinprofit.Second,the

publishermustrespectthewishesoftheimage’screators,ensuringthatthepublicationis

notundulyinfluencedbymarketingneeds,orcurrentaesthetictrends.Finally,Hoffman

requiresthattheimage“beplacedinacontextincreasingtheethical,intellectual,and

spiritualcommitmentofthespectator.”100ThusHoffmancreatesimageethicsthatmaybe

consideredwithorwithoutdigitalcapabilitiestoenhancephotography’scredibility.

Timemagazinecreateditsowncommentaryontheimpactofdigitalphotographyin

its1989issueentitled“150YearsofPhotojournalism.”Thisissueshowedthetransitionof

imagesthroughoutthehistoryofphotojournalismandendedwithadigitallyalteredimage

ofEdwinAldrin.ItshowedsevenAldrinswalkingonthemoonandhadbeencreatedinthe

HomeBoxOffice(HBO)studiosusingtheoriginalNASAimageofthesingularAldrinonthe

moon.101Thisevent,whichhadobviouslyneverexistedinreality,resultedinanimagethat

usedthemetaphorofspace,“thefinalfrontier,”toshowthenewfrontierwhich

photojournalismwasentering,anerawheretheimpossiblewasnowpossible,andwhere

thingswhichhadneverhappenedcouldbe“proved.”

43

Scientificjournalshavealsostruggledwiththedigitalalterationofphoto

submissionsforjournalarticles.TheJournalofCellBiologywentsofarastoinstituteatest

ofallphotosubmissionsbeginningin2002toidentifyfakes.102Thistestfindsthattwenty‐

fivepercentofimagesviolatethejournal’ssubmissioncodeforimages.Thejournal’s

editor,IraMelman,however,saidthatveryfewoftheseimagesareactualforgeries;

insteadonlyone‐percentareentirelyfalseimages.Photographyeditorsofmajor

publications,however,continuetoemphasizethatflatoutfakingofphotographsisrare.

Insteaditiscommonplaceforaphotographerto“over‐correct”hiswork,andexceed

traditionallyagreeduponlimitsofalteringimages.103Thejournal,whichrequiresthatall

imagesbesubmitteddigitally,firstbegantonoticethetale‐talesignsofPhotoshop

alterationswhentheytransferredtheimagesfromtheformatofsubmissiontothatof

publication.104Thejournal’spublishedguidelinesstatethat“itisallrighttoadjustthe

brightnessorcolorbalanceofthewholephoto,butnottoobscure,moveorintroducean

element.“105TheinterestingpartofthetestbyTheJournalofCellBiology,however,isthat

theyusethesameprogramwhichmostofthesubmittersusedtoedittheimages,

Photoshop,tocatchthefakers.106ThisissimilartoLittleGreenFootballscatchingHajj’s

fakeasthetoolsofPhotoshophavebecomeeasilydetectabletomanyphotographic

professionals.Sciencehassincefollowedsuit,requiringallimagesintheirjournaltobe

checkedforalterations.107CellMagazine,however,statedthattheywouldnotbegintotest

imagesprovidedbyresearchers,astheybelievethe“ethicsofpresentingtruedatashould

beenforcedinascientist’straining,notbyjournaleditors.”108Eveninleadingscientific

publicationsthelinebetweeneditingandmanipulationremainsunclear.Thisconfusion

extendstopopularjournalismashasalreadybeenseen.

44

Thus,whilemanydifferententitiesfromgovernmentstojournalists,attemptedto

regulatetheuseofdigitalphotography,itmaybearguedthatnoneofthemwerespecific

enough,asalltheregulatoryprogramsvaryfromoneanother,andtheyhaveallresultedin

atleastafewquestionableusesofalteration.Yetitcanbearguedthatnoguidelinesthat

arespecificenoughcanbecreated,aseachphotographexistsinitsownuniquesetof

contexts,whichdeterminethealterationsthatareethical.

CONCLUSIONS:WHEREDOWESTAND?

Twentyyearsafterdigitalphotographybecameapartofmassculture,thereisstill

noconsensusontheeffectsitishavingonsociety,oronhowthenewcapabilitiesof

manipulationshouldbeaddressed.Artists,editors,andthepublicagreethatdigital

technologiesarenewanddifferent.Thisiswheretheconsensusends.Noonehascometoa

largelyacceptedconclusionastowhetheritisanewtechnologyentirely,orsimplyan

extensionintheongoingevolutionofphotography.Furthermore,noonehasmadehard

andfastrulesonexactlywhatshouldbeallowedintermsofphotographicalteration,

becauseasitturnsoutstrict,universallyapplicablerulesareimpossibletomake.Whatin

onesituationmaysimplyclarifyanimage,suchasalteringthecolorscheme,mayin

anothersituationcompletelyalterthemeaningofthephotograph,asexemplifiedbytheO.J.

photothatTimealtered.Thusthebestthatcanbeaccomplishedisforeveryoneto

constantlyquestionthevalidityofthephotostheyconsume,whilesimultaneouslytrusting

thattheeditorsandphotographersareaccuratelydocumentingevents.Withnew

technologiescomenewcapabilities,andnewpotentialforexploitation,yetitremainsupto

individualphotographersandnewsagenciestoensurethattheypresentthetruthtothe

bestoftheirability.

45

Forbetterorworse,thedigitalagehascometophotography,anditishereto

stay.109Whilethisfactmaynotbereversed,itshouldberecognizedfortheadvantagesit

provides.Foronething,ithasallowedgreatercatalogingcapabilitiesforeveryonefrom

individualartiststoimportantinstitutionssuchastheMuseumofModernArt.Digital

transferenceofphotographshasalsoallowedforgreateraccesstoimages,throughthe

Internet,andothermeansofmasscommunication.Whileseeinganewphotographonce

requiredaboxofslidesandaprojectorafterlocatinganinstitutionthatactuallypossessed

theslide,itisnowmerelyanInternetsearchaway.Theenhancedabilitytospreadimages

isalsoadvantageousfornewphotographers,whomayusetheInternetanddigital

technologytotransmittheirphotographstomorepotentialpatrons.

TagtheAnalog

Thusfaritseemsasthoughmostauthoritativebodieshaveapproachedthetopicof

markingdigitalalterationfromasinglestandpoint:thatoneshoulddenoteimageswhich

havebeenaltered.Yetinaworldwherethepublicrarelyseesimagesthatarenotdigitalin

eitherconceptionoralteration,thisseemscounterintuitive.Ifsomethingisthenorm,it

typicallydoesnotdeserverecognition.Takeaudiorecordingsforexample:whileitisnot

indicatedoneveryalbumthepublicconsumes,itisunderstoodbymostpatronsthatthe

songsonehearswereneverrecordedinexactlytheforminwhichtheyreceivethem.110

Instead,eachmemberofthegroup,especiallyinpopularorrockmusic,wasrecorded

independently;thenthesetracksweremixedtoformthealbum,similartotheway

Rejlanderdesignedandassembledhiscompositeprints.Whenatrackisinfactasingle

recording,however,thisisindicatedonthealbum,typicallywiththelabelof“live”

recording.111Thoughthisdesignationdoesnotmeanthattherecordingisunedited.

46

Itcanbearguedthatwithregardtothesetwodifferenttypesofrecordedmusic,live

andstudiomixed,neitherisinherentlybetterthantheother.Instead,theysimplyhave

differentgoalsandservedifferentpurposesfortheirconsumers.Thesamecanbesaid

aboutphotography:whileneitherdigitalnoranalogphotographyisinherentlybetter,each

technologyservesdifferentpurposesusingdifferentmeans,andthepublicmustbeaware

ofthesedifferences.Thus,thealternativetomarkingdigitalimagesshouldbe

contemplated,thatismarkingonlythoseimagesthatarenotdigitalinanyway.Such

imageswouldbedefinedasimagesthatwereneverprocessedinapixelform,butinstead

wereanalogfromstarttofinish.Itmust,however,berecognizedthat,ashasbeen

referencedagainandagainthroughoutthisresearch,beinganalogdoesnotequatetothe

imagebeinginherentlytrue.Theimagemaystillbestaged,oralteredusingless

technologicallyadvancedmeans.Thus,theimagecouldstillbeaconstructionofadesired

realityinsteadofadepictionoftherealworld.

Denotinganimageasanalogwouldnotbetodeclareittrue.Instead,thismark

wouldmerelyindicatetothereaderthatonemightusecommonlyunderstoodwaysof

interpretingphotographicimagerywiththisimage.Whileitisstilltruethattheconsumer

ofthisimagemustbeconsciousofpotentialfabrication,itwouldnotbetruetothesame

degreeitistrueofdigitalimages.

Furthermore,itistruewithmostimagesthatthelabel,orinthecaseofjournalistic

photograph,thecaption,isasimportantastheimageitself.112Thecaptionofaphoto

providestheall‐importantcontext.Thiscontextallowsthereadertodeterminewhat

weightshouldbegiventothevalidityofthepicture,byexplainingwhereandwhenitwas

47

taken,andwhatthephotographerintendedittoexpress.Henning,however,arguesthatit

istheverylackofcontextthatallowsaphototobe“availableforaesthetic

contemplation.”113Asinagalleryormuseum,itisthefactthatoneviewsaphotographas

simplythat,aphotograph,andnotascorroborationforawrittenarticle,thatallowsoneto

evaluateitonpurelyvisualterms.Yetthiscannotbeentirelycorrect.Firstofall,many

galleriesandmuseumsdo,infact,tellyoulocationoftheimage,ortheintentbehindits

creation.Second,whileitmaybetruethatsomeartistsleaveimageswithvaguetitles,orno

titlesatall,othersverycarefullytitlethemtoincludedates,locations,namesoreven

emotions.Titlessuchastheseclearlyprovideacontextbywhichoneistoevaluatethe

work.Finally,theveryfactthattheimageisdisplayedinagalleryormuseumisacontext.

Thiscontextinformstheaudiencethattheimageistobeviewedasanartwork,and

thereforetheindividuallooksatitfromanaestheticpointofview,thoughthisistoo

simplisticofaview.ChrisOfili’sexhibitattheBrooklynMuseumofArt,whichincluded

imagescreatedwithelephantdungandtheVirginMarydepictedwithpornographic

images,clearlychallengedthestatementthatwhatisinamuseumisinherentlyart.

Althoughsomepatronsfeltthattheseimagesweredefensiblepreciselybecausetheywere

art.Theinternalcontextoftheimagewillalsoalwaysbepresentregardlessofthe

surroundings,andfrequentlythebackgroundinapicture,orthesurroundingevents,cause

onetoviewtheimageasmorethanamyriadofobjects,butinsteadasarepresentationof

anevent.Thus,thoughanimagemaylackcontextintheformofanewsarticleoracaption

andby‐line,itisnearlyimpossibletoplaceaphotographinasettingwhereitiscompletely

devoidofcontextandmaybeevaluatedsolelybasedonaestheticmerit.

48

Butisn’tthatthepoint?

Alterationisnotnew,norisitinherentlybad;itissimplyanexpandedanddifferent

capability,andshouldbetreatedassuch.Itisonlywhenthenewdigitalcreationsare

assessedinthecontextoftheoldanalogexpectationsthatthereisaproblem.Ashasbeen

discussed,digitalimagescanlie.Itisnoweasilyapparentthatphotographscannolonger

beinherentlyassociatedwithtruth,althoughthatwasneverreallythecasetostartwith.

Thoughapicturemaybeworthathousandwords,itcannotbeassumedthatthose

thousandwordsarecorrect.Withthebeginningofphotographycamethecommencement

ofphotoalteration.Withdigitalimaging,thiscapabilityhasbeentakentoanewlevel,with

wideraccessibilitytothepublic,andgreatereconomicfeasibilityandcapabilitiesforall.

Indeed,theincreasedalterabilityofimagesitcanbearguedisultimatelythepointofdigital

photography.

Itseemsthepublicistooquicktoacceptthatdigitalphotographyhasthisnew

power.Ifoneweretopresentaseniorthesisthatmerelystatedthatdigitalphotographs

canbealteredthetopicwouldinvariablyfail.Itisassumedthatdigitalphotographscanbe

altered,asmostofushavealteredourownpictures.Yetthereisagapbetween

understandingthisfactandapplyingthatknowledgeineverydayinterpretationsofthe

news.

TakeforinstancetheNewYorkTimesphotothatshowedGrouchoMarxandRambo

atYalta.Lookingatthisphoto,eventhoseindividualsmostunawareofhistoryanddigital

imagingcouldsafely,andrightly,assumethattheimagehadbeendigitallyaltered.One

assumesthisbecauseofthecontextofthatimage.Itdoesnottakearocketscientistto

49

determinethatafictionalcharacterandcomedianwereprobablynotatamajordiplomatic

event.Furthermorethisimagewasoriginallyfeaturedinanarticleabouthowtofake

digitalimages.Thisimagealsodemonstratestheabilityofdigitaltechnologytoalter

imagesthatwereinitiallyinanalogform.Yetthepublicfailstoapplythissameknowledge

toeverydaynewsphotos.Whenflippingthroughthenewspapermostpeopleonly

contemplatethatanimagemaybealteredafteritappearstobefalse.Ifthephotodoesnot

questionourexpectedreality,wedonotconsiderthepossibilityitmayhavebeenaltered.

Digitaltechnologyisusefulinpartbecauseitmakesimagesalterable.Thisishow

thedigitalmediumhaslargelysupersededanalogtechniques.Digitaltechnologyalso

allowsforfastercommunicationofimagesbetweendistantlocales,asseenbyNASA’searly

adoptionofdigitalphotography.Itsprimarydraw,however,hasbeenitsenhanced

alterationcapabilities.Itisironic,therefore,thatthesamecapabilitythatgivesdigital

photographyitsusefulnessalsocausesthemajorityofdebatesurroundingitsuse.Itmust

berecognizedthatenhancedalterationcapacityisineffecttheessenceofdigital

photographyandthusatraitthatshouldberecognizedbutnotdevalued.

Whileitistruethatmanyphotographsarenowaltered,andthatsomeofthese

alterationsprovideafalsesenseoftheworld,therearelimitstothesealterationsthatare

notcreatedbynewsorganizationsorindividualsbutwhichinsteadaredictatedbyreality.

Theaverageconsumerofaphotographtypicallyhasageneralideaofwhatthescenethatis

beingrepresentedshouldlooklike.Forinstanceitisunderstoodthatlandshouldliebelow

theskyandthatpeoplearetypicallylargerthaninsects.Thusalterationsthatwouldviolate

eitherofthesenormsareguardedagainstbyrealityandconvention.Ifthephotographer’s

50

goalistobebelieved,hecannotstraytoofarfromconventionalreality.Therangeof

manipulationsisusuallyrelativelysmall.Throughbothalteredandunalteredimages,

digitaltechnologieshaveprovidedartistswithgreatercapabilitiesinthisfield,yetthe

barriersofwhatcouldconceivablyberealityhaveremainedlargelyunchanged.

Howmuchshouldwetrustphotographs?

Whenitcomesdowntotheabsoluteimportanceofthistopic,thesubjectreally

narrowsdowntoonesimplequestion—howmuchshouldonetrustphotographs?Digital

photographs,allphotographs,infact,shouldbetrustedtoa“reasonable”degree.Clearly

thisisavaguestatementbyanauthorwhohasheartilycritiquedthevaguenessof

standardsproposedbygoverningbodiesthusfar,yet,itcannotcategoricallybestatedhow

muchonemaytrustphotographicevidence.TheMarthaStewartandAdnanHajjexamples

showthatthedegreetowhichanimagemaybetrustedmaynotbebasedsolelyonthe

contextinwhichitappears.Imagessuchasthe1982coverofNationalGeographicshow

thatonecannotalwaysuseinternalcluesinthephotographtodetectwhetheranimageis

infactafraud,thoughtheRamboimagedemonstratesthatsometimesthisprocessis

successful.Thusperhapsthebestanalogythatcanbemadeisthatphotographsshouldbe

trustedaboutasmuchastheneighborhoodbusybodyinany1950stelevisionshow.While

theyprovideawealthofinformation,someofittrue,someofitfictitious,theconsumer

mustalwaysbeawareofthesourcefromwhichitcomes,andremainacriticalconsumerof

theknowledgehereceives.Previousknowledgeofthesituationmustalwaysbetakeninto

account,andthefactthatphotographs,alongwithbusybodies,maylieforpersonalbenefit.

51

Perhaps,however,digitalphotographyhasactuallyhelpedthepublicinterpret

photography.Whileitwaspreviouslylatentlyassumedthatonecouldtrustphotographic

images,recentscandalssuchastheHajjimageforcethisidealtocomeintoquestion—with

allphotographs.Analogphotography,whichalwaysshouldhavebeenquestioned,isnow

questionedpurelybecauseitisindistinguishablefromdigitalimages.Thusthoughdigital

photographyhaslessenedthetruth‐valueassociatedwithallimagesithasdonesotoan

acceptabledegree,asthepublicmaynowquestionallimages—apracticewhichshould

haveexistedsincethe1800s.

1RomanJackson,LanguageinLiterature,Cambridge:TheBeleknapPressofHarvard UniversityPress1987,24.

2GraziaNeri,‘EthicsandPhotography,’TheDigitalJournalist.http://dirckhalstead.org/.

3WilliamJ.Mitchell,TheReconfiguredEye:TruthinthePost­PhotographicEra,Boston:MIT Press1992,29.

4BarbaraE.Savedoff,‘EscapingReality:DigitalImageryandtheResourcesofPhotography,’ TheJournalofAestheticsandArtCriticism,55:2(Spring1997),202.

5Ibid.,208.

6Ibid.,208.

7Mitchell,TheReconfiguredEye,24.

8BerndHueppauf,‘EmptyingtheGaze:FramingViolencethroughtheViewfinder,’New GermanCritique,72(Autumn1977),17.

9TerryBarrett,‘PhotographsandContexts,’JournalofAestheticEducation19:3 (Autumn1985),55.

10Ibid.,55.

11Hueppauf,‘EmptyingtheGaze:FramingViolencethroughtheViewfinder,’35.

12Barrett,‘PhotographsandContexts,’62.

13MariaAspan,‘EaseofPhotoAlterationaddsaHurdleforNewsOutlets’,International HeraldTribune(14August2006).

52

14DavidPillingerandAschleySchiller,personalcommunication,April2008.

15Hueppauf,‘EmptyingtheGaze:FramingViolencethroughtheViewfinder,’40.

16EdwardSteichen,‘YeFakers’CameraWork,1:1(January1903),48.

17DerekBouse,‘RestoringthePhotographedPast,’ThePublicHistorian,24:2(Spring 2002),11.

18Ibid.,11.

19Ibid.,11.

20JerryLodriguss,‘TheEthicsofDigitalManipulation’CatchingtheLight, http://www.astropix.com/HTML/J_DIGIT/ETHICS.HTM

21Ibid.

22Mitchell,TheReconfiguredEye,200.

23Ibid.,200.

24Steichen,‘YeFakers,’48.

25Mitchell,TheReconfiguredEye,3.

26Ibid.,11.

27Ibid.,12.

28Ibid.,11.

29Ibid.,12.

30ClaireAnsberry,‘AlterationofPhotosRaiseHostofLegal,EthicalIssues,’TheWallStreet Journal,(26January1989),B1.

31H.Farid,‘DigitalDoctoring:CanWeTrustPhotographs’DeceptionMotivesand Consequences(2007),3.

32JohnLong,‘Truth,TrustMeetNewTechnology’TheElectronicTimes(6October19989).

33Mitchell,TheReconfiguredEye,13.

34Ibid.,17.

35IvanAmato,‘LyingwithPixels,’MITTechnologyReview,(July/August2000).

36Ibid.

53

37JulieWosk,‘ReviewTheReconfiguredEye:VisualTruthinthePost‐PhotographicEra,’ TechnologyandCulture,35:3(July1994)640.

38Ibid.,640.

39Savedoff,‘EscapingReality:DigitalImageryandtheResourcesofPhotography,’201.

40Bouse,‘RestoringthePhotographedPast,’37.

41Savedoff,‘EscapingReality:DigitalImageryandtheResourcesofPhotography,’212.

42MichelleHenning,‘NewLampsforOld:Photography,ObsolescenceandSocial Change,’inResidualMedia,UniversityofMinnesotaPress2007,59.

43RobertHirsch,SeizingtheLight:AHistoryofPhotography,Boston:McGrawHillHigher Education2000,13.

44KarenJacobs,‘AConversationwithMarkAmerika,’EnglishLanguageNotes,44:2 (Fall/Winter2006),151.

45Ibid.,152.

46Savedoff,‘EscapingReality:DigitalImageryandtheResourcesofPhotography,’210.

47Ibid.,210.

48Ibid.,210.

49Ibid.,211.

50Ibid.,211.

51Jacobs,‘AConversationwithMarkAmerika,’150.

52Ibid.,150.

53Ibid.,150.

54Ibid.,152.

55Henning,‘NewLampsforOld:Photography,ObsolescenceandSocialChange,’48.

56Jacobs,‘AConversationwithMarkAmerika,’151.

57Henning,‘NewLampsforOld:Photography,ObsolescenceandSocialChange,’53.

58Ibid.,53.

59Ibid.,55.

60Ibid.,51.

54

61Mitchell,TheReconfiguredEye,30.

62Ibid.,30.

63Neri,‘EthicsandPhotography.’

64Barrett,‘PhotographsandContexts,’54.

65Neri,‘EthicsandPhotography

66Mitchell,TheReconfiguredEye,42.

67BonnieMeltzer,‘DigitalPhotography:AQuestionofEthics,’LeadingandLearningwith Technology,(December/January1996).

68BryceZabel,‘O.J.’sLastRun:ATaleofTwoCovers’BlogCritic’sMagazine(31August 2005),http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/08/31/012306.php.

69Ibid.

70Meltzer,‘DigitalPhotography:AQuestionofEthics.’

71Barrett,‘PhotographsandContexts,’59.

72Ibid.,61.

73Meltzer,‘DigitalPhotography:AQuestionofEthics.’

74Neri,‘EthicsandPhotography.’

75Ibid.

76Amato,‘LyingwithPixels.’

77Ibid.

78Ibid.

79Ibid.

80Mitchell,TheReconfiguredEye,23.

81ASCAP(AmericanSocietyofComposers,AuthorsandPublishers),ASCAPCopyrightLaw Symposium:Nos.40and41,41(April1997),685.

82Ibid.,687.

83PatricHedlund,‘Artists’RightsintheDigitalFuture,’DigitalMedia,1996 http://www.forests.com/digitfut.html.

55

84NicholasWade,‘ItMayLookAuthentic;Here’sHowtoTellItIsn’t,’TheNewYorkTimes (24January2006)

85Ibid.

86Neri,‘EthicsandPhotography.’

87Ibid.

88AndyGrundberg,‘AskitNoQuestions:TheCameraCanLie,’NewYorkTimes(12August 1990),29

89GordonGraff,‘What’sNewInFilmlessPhotography;EthicalQuestionsthatAriseWhen itsEasytoDoctorImages,’TheNewYorkTimes(15January1989).

90Ibid.

91JohnLong,EthicsintheAgeofDigitalPhotography, http://www.nppa.org/professional_development/self‐ training_resources/eadp_report/

92Ibid.

93FredShowker,‘EthicsinDigitalPhotography,’60‐SecondWindow,(1990), http://www.60‐seconds.com/168_ethics.html.

94Ibid.

95Ibid.

96Ibid.

97Neri,‘EthicsandPhotography.’

98Ibid.

99Ibid.

100Ibid.

101Mitchell,TheReconfiguredEye,38.

102Wade,‘ItMayLookAuthentic;Here’sHowtoTellItIsn’t.’

103Aspan,‘EaseofPhotoAlterationaddsaHurdleforNewsOutlets.’

104Wade,‘ItMayLookAuthentic;Here’sHowtoTellItIsn’t.’

105Ibid.

56

106Ibid.

107Ibid.

108Ibid.

109Neri,‘EthicsandPhotography.’

110Mitchell,TheReconfiguredEye,,214.

111Ibid.,214.

112Barrett,‘PhotographsandContexts,’57.

113Henning,‘NewLampsforOld:Photography,ObsolescenceandSocialChange,’62.

57

APPENDIXA:RIGHTSANDPERMISSIONS

FigureOne.EadweardMuybridge,CloudsRest,ValleyofYosemite1872,LibraryofCongress,Prints&PhotographsDivision,LaurenceandHouseworthCollection

PermissionsandCredits

AsapubliclysupportedinstitutiontheLibrarygenerallydoesnotownrightstomaterialinitscollections.Therefore,itdoesnotchargepermissionfeesforuseofsuchmaterialandcannotgiveordenypermissiontopublishorotherwisedistributematerialinitscollections.Imagesinthiscollectionareconsideredtobeinthepublicdomain.CreditLine:LibraryofCongress,Prints&PhotographsDivision,LawrenceandHouseworthCollection.http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/372_lawr.html

FigureTwo.Hi Aschley, Here's the cover. IMAGE IS FOR YOUR ONE-TIME EXCLUSIVE USE ONLY. NO SALES, NO TRANSFERS. COVER MAY NOT BE CROPPED OR ALTERED IN ANY WAY. ©2008 National Geographic Kate Baylor Communications National Geographic Society 1145 17th Street NW Washington DC 20036 202.862.5299 [email protected]

58

WORKSREFERENCED

BerniceAbbott,‘PhotographyattheCrossroads’inClassicEssaysonPhotographyeditedby AlanTrachtenbergNewHaven:Leete’sIslandBooks1980,179‐84.

IvanAmato,‘LyingwithPixels,’MITTechnologyReview,(July/August2000).

ClaireAnsberry,‘AlterationofPhotosRaiseHostofLegal,EthicalIssues,’TheWallStreet Journal,(26January1989).

ASCAP(AmericanSocietyofComposers,AuthorsandPublishers),ASCAPCopyrightLaw Symposium:Nos.40and41,41(April1997),680‐698.

MariaAspan,‘EaseofPhotoAlterationaddsaHurdleforNewsOutlets’,International HeraldTribune(14August2006).

TerryBarrett,‘PhotographsandContexts,’JournalofAestheticEducation19:3 (Autumn1985),51‐64.

RolandBarthes.CameraLucida:ReflectionsonPhotography,translatedbyRichardHoward, NewYork:HillandWang,1980.

GeoffreyBatchen,‘PhantasmDigitalImagingandtheDeathofPhotography’Aperture 136(1994),47‐50.

JeanBaudrillard,‘TheEvilDemonofImagesandthePrecessionofSimulacra,’inTheEvil DemonofImages,NewYork,NY:ThePowerInstituteofFineArts1983,28‐31,33.

JohnBerger,WaysofSeeing,London:PenguinBooks,1977.

HarlaBeloff,CameraCulture.NewYork:BlackwellPublishing,1985.

DerekBouse,‘RestoringthePhotographedPast,’ThePublicHistorian,24:2(Spring2002), 9‐40.

RebeccaBusselle,‘ADefiningReality:ThePhotographsofNancyBurson,’Aperture136 (1994),73‐75.

TimothyDruckrey,‘FromDadatoDigitalMontageintheTwentiethCentury’Aperture 136(1994),3‐7.

KurtKarlEberlein,‘OntheQuestion:OriginalorFacsimileReproduction?’inPhotography intheModernEra:EuropeanDocumentsandCriticalWritings1913­1940,editedby ChristopherPhillips,NewYork:MoMA/AperturePress1989,145‐150.

H.Farid,‘DigitalDoctoring:CanWeTrustPhotographs’DeceptionMotivesand Consequences(2007),1‐10.

GiseleFreund,PhotographyandSociety,Boston:DavidR.GodinePublisher1980.

59

GordonGraff,‘What’sNewInFilmlessPhotography;EthicalQuestionsthatAriseWhenits EasytoDoctorImages,’TheNewYorkTimes(15January1989).

MoraGilles,Photospeak:AGuidetotheIdeas,MovementsandTechniquesofPhotography1839toPresent,NewYork:AbbevillePress,1998.

JonathonGreen,‘PedroMeyer’sDocumentaryFictions’,Aperture136(1994),33‐35.

AndyGrundberg,‘AskitNoQuestions:TheCameraCanLie,’NewYorkTimes(12August 1990),29.

PatricHedlund,‘Artists’RightsintheDigitalFuture,’DigitalMedia,1996 http://www.forests.com/digitfut.html.

MichelleHenning,‘NewLampsforOld:Photography,ObsolescenceandSocial Change,’inResidualMedia,UniversityofMinnesotaPress2007,48‐64.

RobertHirsch,SeizingtheLight:AHistoryofPhotography,Boston:McGrawHillHigher Education2000.

HelenHuntJackson,‘AcontemporaryViewofMuybridgesPictorialPhotographer,’Muy Blog,editedbyStephenHerbert.April10,2007 http://stephenherbert.co.uk/muy%20blog.htm.

BerndHueppauf,‘EmptyingtheGaze:FramingViolencethroughtheViewfinder,’New GermanCritique,72(Autumn1977),3‐44.

RomanJackson,LanguageinLiterature,Cambridge:TheBeleknapPressofHarvard UniversityPress1987,19‐27.

KarenJacobs,‘AConversationwithMarkAmerika,’EnglishLanguageNotes,44:2 (Fall/Winter2006),145‐155.

ColinJacobson,Underexposed:CensoredPicturesandHiddenHistory,NewYork:Vision Publishing,2002.

IanJeffrey,TimeFrames:TheStoryofPhotography,NewYork:BPICommunications,1998.

HenryJenkins,ConvergenceCulture:WhereOldandNewMediaCollide,NewYork:NewYork UniversityPress,2006.

JohnLouisLecaites&RobertHariman,‘VisualRhetoric,PhotojournalismandDemocraticPublicCulture,’RhetoricReview,20:1/2(Spring2001),37‐42.

VincentKatz,‘WildIrisesANashEditionsPortfolio,’Aperture136(1994),18‐20.

JerryLodriguss,‘TheEthicsofDigitalManipulation’CatchingtheLight, http://www.astropix.com/HTML/J_DIGIT/ETHICS.HTM

60

JohnLong,EthicsintheAgeofDigitalPhotography, http://www.nppa.org/professional_development/self‐ training_resources/eadp_report/

JohnLong,‘Truth,TrustMeetNewTechnology’TheElectronicTimes(6October19989).

MaryWarnerMarien,PhotographyandItsCritics:ACulturalHistory1839­1900,New York:CambridgeUniversityPress,1997.

BonnieMeltzer,‘DigitalPhotography:AQuestionofEthics,’LeadingandLearningwith Technology,(December/January1996).

WilliamJ.Mitchell,TheReconfiguredEye:TruthinthePost­PhotographicEra,Boston:MIT Press,1992.

LaszloMoholy‐Nagy,‘Production‐Reproduction,’inPhotographyintheModernEra:EuropeanDocumentsandCriticalWritings1913­1940,editedbyChristopherPhillips,NewYork:MoMA/AperturePress1989,79‐82.

GraziaNeri,‘EthicsandPhotography,’TheDigitalJournalist.http://dirckhalstead.org/.

BeaumontNewhall,HistoryofPhotography1839toPresent,GardenCity:Museumof ModernArt1971.

DavidPillingerandAschleySchiller,personalcommunication,April2008.

ManRay,‘OnPhotographicRealism’inPhotographyintheModernEra:European DocumentsandCriticalWritings1913­1940,editedbyChristopherPhillips,New York:MoMA/AperturePress,198957‐59.

RobertB.Ray,‘Snapshots:TheBeginningsofPhotography’inTheImageinDispute— ArtandCinemaintheAgeofPhotography,editedbyDudleyAndrew,Austin: UniversityofTexasPress,1997,293‐305.

PaulRenner,‘ThePhotograph’inPhotographyintheModernEra:EuropeanDocumentsand CriticalWritings1913­1940,editedbyChristopherPhillips,NewYork: MoMA/AperturePress1989,164‐169.

DanRichards,‘MyPointandShoot’sToast—NowWhat?,’PopularPhotographyand Imaging(February2003),58.

CarlosRim,‘OntheSnapshot’inPhotographyintheModernEra:EuropeanDocumentsand CriticalWritings1913­1940,editedbyChristopherPhillips,NewYork: MoMA/AperturePress1989,38‐40.

FranzRoh,‘TheValueofPhotography’inPhotographyintheModernEra:European DocumentsandCriticalWritings1913­1940,editedbyChristopherPhillips,New York:MoMA/AperturePress1989,160‐163.

61

BarbaraE.Savedoff,‘EscapingReality:DigitalImageryandtheResourcesofPhotography,’ TheJournalofAestheticsandArtCriticism,55:2(Spring1997),201‐214.

FredShowker,‘EthicsinDigitalPhotography,’60‐SecondWindow,(1990), http://www.60‐seconds.com/168_ethics.html.

PhillipeSoupault,‘ThePresentStateofPhotography’inPhotographyintheModernEra: EuropeanDocumentsandCriticalWritings1913­1940,editedbyChristopherPhillips, NewYork:MoMA/AperturePress1989,50‐51.

EdwardSteichen,“YeFakers”CameraWork,1:1(January1903),48.

NicholasWade,‘ItMayLookAuthentic;Here’sHowtoTellItIsn’t,’TheNewYorkTimes(24 January2006)

WarrenWestcott,‘PictureWritingandPhotographicTechniquesfortheWriting Process,’TheEnglishJournal,86:7(November1997),49‐54.

JulieWosk,‘ReviewTheReconfiguredEye:VisualTruthinthePost‐PhotographicEra,’ TechnologyandCulture,35:3(July1994)640‐642.

MinorWhite,‘Metamorphoses:PhotographyintheElectronicAge,’Aperture136 (1994),3.

BryceZabel,‘O.J.’sLastRun:ATaleofTwoCovers’BlogCritic’sMagazine(31August2005), http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/08/31/012306.php.

62

CURRICULUMVITA