Digital Manipulation | The Ethics Of Photography

Published Date: 23 Mar 2015 Last Modified: 18 May 2017

Photography is a form of visual communication (LESTER, Paul, 2006). Photographs are used for a range of purposes including documenting personal events such as birthdays, weddings or christenings, for advertising products or services, for decorating the home, and for appointing authority and authenticity to news stories. Passports and other official forms of identification use photographs as a way to identify people. Current culture is image driven and we are exposed to imagery every waking hour of our lives through forms of visual media on the Internet, television, newspapers, magazines, mobiles phones and now tablets.

In using photography to identify an individual's identity or to document the occurrence of an event, a great amount of trust must be invested in the medium of the photograph. Photographs are used in courtrooms as evidence, an occurrence that evidences the trust invested in photographs. By using photographs as evidence it is important to question if the medium of the photograph is an accurate recording of reality. In 2012 an Iranian news agency published an apparent newly developed military drone manufactured by Iran, see Figure 1. The published image was soon discovered to be an already published image of a drone developed by a Japanese University which had been modified to give the impression it was a new and authentic image of a new machine considered desirable by a government. This example evidences the developing ambiguous and potentially dishonest role of digital manipulation within photography. Image manipulation such as this encourages those who read these images and similar images to consider whether images have been manipulated and if so, to what extent and for what motivation. The readers of images must question the media that they read and question the veracity of the images whilst not awarding great doubts in the media in general or jumping to the conclusion that every image read has been manipulated. This dissertation will consider more fully inspect the manipulation of imagery, whilst particularly the development of digital photography and will evaluate how this process has affected media credibility.

Iran successfully tests Koker-1 VTOL drone (PHOTO)

Figure - Manipulated image used by Iranian Government to try substantiate deveoplemt of military drone.

Journalism in our society often requires the combination of visual and written information to both reach and inform a mass target audience. There is a difference between the photograph and the written representation which is that the camera is able to capture reality (NERI, GRAZIA, 2003). Early photographic technology required a subject to be still in order for it to be recorded whereas modern technology allows for a photograph to be made in less than a second. This significant development in technology means that subjects and material capable of being photographed have become far more extensive than in the early years of photography where limitations were imposed by both camera size and slowness of film. There is also a fundamental difference between photography and the written word in documenting situations. The written word allows an author to mediate reality, choosing what aspects of a subject to detail and describe, governed often by personality and knowledge of a subject. A photograph however, may be taken in a situation in which time is limited which in turn forces the photographer to record a subject with little conscious consideration to other objects within the image. Additionally, because the camera is seen as a mechanical device it is not considered to mediate reality like a written account. The camera instead is seen as a device that records truth and cannot be used subjectively (BAUDELAIRE, CHARLES, 1855). If a photograph is considered to have been be manipulated, for example through the use of exposure to give a different reading of the photographs meaning then this could be regarded as providing a less than this could be regarded as a subjective representation. Whereas in regard to the written word mediation is much less alarming due to our familiarity with literature as a subjective representation of reality. It is understood that words are made up of symbols and signs that express the subject they characterise. The word 'cup' does not innately inform the reader it means the object cup but rather the meaning of the word cup is understood by reading the letters of the word. Yet a photograph is able to demonstrate the appearance of the object it represents and it is able to make this representation with little interpretation required.

An Inherent Realism

Unlike painting or writing, a photograph can record a specific moment in time. A painting can be of a place that has never existed and literature may describe any place whether real or not. However the example of the Iranian military drone demonstrates that photography shares the same ability as painting and writing in that it can be subjective. Although, painting may be able to demonstrate the emotion of a subject, it is assumed that photography is unable to. In fact, photography has a stronger relationship with specificity as opposed to generality found in painting and writing (MITCHELL, WILLIAM J, 1992). Photography's ability to accurately document is recognised by governments who use photographs for identification purposes in official documents such as passports and driving licenses. Because photography is used for such official purposes, the relationship it holds with specificity is strengthened. However, the Iranian military drone example contests that a photograph may not always show the reality of the situation.

Photography is powerful because it carries the authority of looking like reality. When looking through a clear glass window it is easy to forget that you are looking through a glass window at reality. Because photographs look so much like reality, it is easy to disregard the complex mechanical and scientific processes which combine to create the photograph. This mechanical and scientific process is not as simple as the window analoguey and will be further reconciled or distorted by considering the technology employed. It is this increasing reliance on science, where there is even no longer a latent image as with analogue processes by which the photograph is made which prompts legitimate and valid questioning of a photograph's legitimacy.

Barbara Savedoff (1997) uses the analoguey of a hallucination to describe the relationship a photograph has with reality. Savedoff argues that we know photographs are not real and that we know hallucinations are not real. However, photographs seem so real that it is difficult to determine the difference between representation of reality in the photograph and the fact that the photograph is only a representation to begin with. Furthermore, Savedoff points out that photographs do not just record a scene, they also capture a segment of the moment they represent.

The idea that photographs contain light from the subject they recorded was considered greatly by early photographers and theorists. In analogue photography, light bounces off the subject and enters the lens and makes contact with the film starting a chemical reaction which produces an image on the surface of the film, creating an exposed negative. This light used to expose the negative has a specific relationship with the subject, the negative and later the printed photograph. Susan Sontag (On Photography, 1977) argues that this process is called the "trace" and refers to it as "something directly stencilled off the real". John Berger (Uses of Photography, 1980) also maintains that the value of the photograph is found within its relationship with the subject. This raises the question when a photograph is manipulation what effect does it have on this relationship between light, subject and recording medium?

It is important to note that before a photograph is manipulated the photograph may not already be an objective observation of a subject (HUEPPAUFF, BERND, 1977). It is the photographers decision from where and in what manner a subject or scene should be recorded. Other decisions include what to keep inside of the frame. Once the composition of the photograph is made, there are still variables controlled by the photographer that can ultimately change the way in which the photograph is read. The exposure of the photograph is another consideration, along with the edit performed by the person who has comissioned the photographer to make these photographs. In a news environment, an editor may choose the photographs he thinks best fit the objective of the agency regardless of whether or not that is an entirely accurate representation of the events that took place. These decisions can weaken the objectivity of the photographs made.

When photographs are evaluated, one consideration is aesthetic quality (BARRETT, TERRY, 1985). Photographs made for journalism are seldom truly documentary (BARRETT, TERRY, 1985). Increasing the aesthetic value of documentary photographs is not new. During the Spanish Civil War, Robert Capa made a photograph of a militant being shot. It later turned out to be staged to create a more compelling photograph.

The perspective of those who produce and broadcast photographs can also affect the way in which a photograph is understood (HUEPPAUFF, BERND, 1977). For example, if a photographer is photographing a public demonstration and they feel positively toward the demonstration, it is probable that they will make photographs that show the demonstration in a positive light. However, if the photographer was opposed to the demonstration then they are likely to record anti-social behaviour of members of those involved. This example shows how the photographer can manipulate the photograph and the reality it presents (BARRETT, TERRY, 1985). In summary, the photograph's objectivity which is already questionable due to the way in which the photographer makes a photograph is further questioned as it may have been manipulated by those commissioning the photographer through the process of selection, ultimately undermining the objectivity of the photographer and photograph.

Adnan Hajj photographed Beirut after an Israeli bombing. Hajj edited the photograph and added more smoke to make a more compelling photograph. Hajj used the "clone tool" within Adobe Photoshop to clone and copy smoke to additional areas of the photograph, see Figure 2. After initially publishing the photograph, Reuters withdrew it once members of the public claimed it had been manipulated. To anyone who asked to use Hajj's photograph, Reuters stated that the work was no longer available and stated that Hajj no longer works for Reuters (DAY, JULIA, 2006). The photograph was picked up by a blog, which recognised the fake because the same piece of smoke occurred in multiple places (DAY, JULIA, 2006). Manipulated images are normally harder to identify, especially with more advanced software and more experienced digital editors. This case evidences the desire for Hajj to make a more compelling photograph for his clients by manipulating the aesthetic qualities of his photograph.

https://sites.google.com/site/tsoldrin/leb-phony.jpg

Figure - Adnan Hajj's manipulated representation of Beiruit Bombings in 2006

Nonetheless, Hajj's photograph was created subjectively but it is important to note that even photographs that are objective can be interpreted in different ways. For instance a photograph may be used in court to prove that an event has happened. During a trial the two opposing sides may read photographic evidence of the same subject in different ways, even from the perspective of the photographer who took the photograph. (HUEPPAUFF, BERND, 1977). It is apparent that photographs have never been entirely objective now or in years past. Additionally, it is apparent that they record the views of an individual as presented as if they were actuality.

While with digital photography it may be easier to manipulate photographs due to the availability of digital cameras and imaging software over darkroom equipment, the truth is that photography has a historic relationship synonymous with manipulation. Derek Bouse (2002) reasons that people generally believe that the age of a photograph relates directly to its accuracy, and that the older a photograph is the more likely it has not been manipulated. However, still numerous instances of analogue photographs exist. For instance, a photographer employed by Mathew Brady during the American Civil War named Alexander Gardner rearranged a dead person on the battlefield to make a more compelling photograph, see Figure 3 (LESTER, MARTIN, 1991). It is important to recognise that this manipulation took place before the photograph was made. The practice of digital photography is still vulnerable to manipulation before the photograph is made however manipulation is usually carried out after the photograph is made.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAPgardner.jpg

Figure - Alexander Gardner rearranges the position of a corpse and gun to increase the drama of photograph

Another photographer known for manipulating a photograph prior to making one is Edward Curtis. Curtis paid Native Indians to dress in exotic clothing and photographed them to make a more compelling photograph and to turn them into a spectacle for the public to view them (MICHAELIS, PAMELA, 2008). However, by dressing these subjects the worth of the photograph as document is reduced, see Figure 4.

Although analogue technology was the latest available technology, it was still used to manipulate photographs, even after being made. For instance, in family portrait photographs it was common for members of the family to be cut and pasted into a photograph (Lodriguss, 2008). People would sometimes appear to be disproportionate to others in the pictures due to the position of the subject in the original photograph. In some photographs people are also seen floating.

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/melan002/melandblog/Piegan-Lodge,%20clock.jpg

Figure - Edward Curtis changes the traditional dress of subjects and removes clock from the photograph

An example of someone who used many negatives to form one photograph print is Oscar Rejlander. In the 1860's, for some pieces of work he used in excess of 30 negatives to create his well-known "The Two Ways of Life" which demonstrates a philosopher between a life of virtue and vice, see Figure 5. These composite prints were made by cutting together numerous negatives and using them to create a photographic print. In order for the final photographic print to be consistent from left to right, it was vital that sizing and contrast be the same to prevent people from hovering above the ground. Rejlander, before using multiple exposures and cutting negatives in photography was a painter. These examples show that even before digital imaging technologies existed there was extensive manipulation of photographs through analogue techniques.

http://twcdc.com/andycox/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Oscar-gustave-rejlander_two_ways_of_life.jpg

Figure - Oscar Rejlander uses up to 30 composite negatives to create one photograph

Using double exposures was also very common and was used often by photographers namely Eadweard Muybridge who photographed landscapes. The photographic materials of the 1850s were not very sensitive to green but were however very sensitive to blue. Therefore, landscape photographs were often improperly exposed. The correct exposure of the blue sky would render the foreground underexposed, or if the foreground would be exposed for the blue sky would be white with no detail. In order to solve this problem Muybridge and a handful of other photographers at the time would create negatives of desirable skies with differing cloud and all exposed properly. He would then use these negatives to add well exposed sky to his landscape photographs (SCOTT, AMY, 2006). The photograph produced would look natural to a viewer but is obviously a form of manipulation, a process often practised today by digital photographers. Muybridge photographed Yosemite and not only added a false sky but removed trees that prevented his view over the landscape, see Figure 6 (SCOTT, AMY, 2006).

http://www.imaging-resource.com/ee_uploads/news/1284/muybridge-2.jpg

Figure - Edward Muybridge, used his collection of cloud negatives to combat technical limitations of early photography

The so far discussed photographers have used manipulation to enhance the aesthetics of the photograph; however photography has also a large history with propaganda and political influences. Vladimir Lenin manipulated photographs as a form of propaganda to make historical events support his regime for the Soviet Union. Individuals who were seen as enemies of the state were often ordered to be killed by Stalin. If these individuals were to be within a photograph next to Lenin they would often be removed. Leon Trotsky is a prime example of this. Once Lenin had determined that Trotsky was an enemy of the state he was methodically removed from all traces of him from state photographs. Nikolai Yezov also suffered a similar fate once he fell out of favour with Stalin. This process of manipulation existing photographs carried on to the late 1900s.

From looking at Muybridge, we can see that there are numerous stages in the manipulation and some of which are not clear that they have been altered. Edward Steichen states:

A manipulated print may not be a photograph. The personal intervention between the action of the light and the print itself may be a blemish on the purity of photography. But, whether this intervention consists merely of marking, shading and tinting in a direct print, or of stippling, painting and scratching on the negative, or of using glycerine, brush and mop on a print, faking has set in, and the results must always depend on the photographer, upon his personality, his technical ability and his feeling (STEICHEN, EDWARD, 1903, p.48).

Here Steichen is arguing that every decision the photograph carries out whether that be "painting or scratching on the negative" is a form of manipulation or as he calls it of "faking". Steichen also refers to the "personality, technical ability and his feeling" which refers to the photographer and their intentions or motives which will manipulate or cause the process of "faking". In the period of digital imaging some of these manipulations are seen as ethically acceptable and are not disputed. Media agency guidelines for manipulation, which we will talk about in greater depth soon, maintain that manipulations that were possible during analogue printing technique times are still genuine. These assertions are that if the chemicals used in the darkroom manipulated a photograph in a certain way then this would be a part of the photographic method and could not be criticised. Steichen obviously would not agree with this as he knows the extent to which analogue photographs can be manipulated.

Digital Technology and Manipulation

The first device invented that could digitise or make analogue photographs available in a digital format was a scanner made by Russell Kirsh in 1957 (TERRAS, MELLIA M, 2008). The scanner functioned by looking at the variations in tone within photographs and assigning a digital value to represent a tone band. Instead of creating a new photograph this scanner copied an existing photograph and recorded it digitally. Because photographs can be scanned to a digital format, the initial analogue negative can now be manipulated digitally and the truth value held by analogue photographs can now be challenged.

Birth of Digital Imaging

During the 1960s digital imaging technologies was still only used by large institutions such as NASA and the American government. It was not until the 1980s that the media began to use digital imaging technologies. Digital technology could be employed to enhance the clearness of television broadcasts and speed up the time in which photojournalists were able to send pictures to the media.

In 1982, National Geographic published a photograph of the pyramids at Giza on the front cover of the magazine, see Figure 7. The photograph has been manipulated to fit a horizontal photograph of the pyramids onto the portrait cover of the magazine to make the front cover more captivating (TERRAS, MELLIA M, 2008). It is important to note that this instance of manipulation was one of the first by a recognised organisation. National Geographic's editor, Fred Ritchen who decided to compress the pyramids felt he had achieved "a new point of view by the retroactive repositioning of the photographer a few feet to one side" (WRIGHT, TERRENCE, 1999, p.110). Ritchen's defence to accusations of manipulating the photograph was that if the photographer had moved and taken the photograph at a different time of the day then the photograph would be the same (WRIGHT, TERRENCE, 1999). However the fact remains that this photograph was not the one that was made. The fact that the photograph was manipulated was not broadcast. It was admitted to have been manipulated when other journalists questioned the photograph. Howard Chapnick (LESTER, MARTIN, 1991, p.96) argued that the words "Credibility" and "Responsibility" allow photographers to call photography a profession due to ethical considerations rather than a business. Chapnick goes on to argue that not maintaining these ethics will damage journalistic impact and photography as a language. Lastly, he maintains the threat to credibility is permanent if people begin to disbelieve the news photograph.

http://www.lagunabeachbikini.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/newspictures/national-geographic-feb82.jpg

Figure - National Geographic Magazine Cover 1981

In 1985 digital cameras became widely used by professional photographers. Companies also marketed digital imaging camera to the public for domestic use. During this time the processing capabilities of computers was also advancing and provided a way for individuals to load image manipulation software and manipulate photographs. In 1991 the American government and the media used digital photography as a technology for the first time in a war environment. Not only was digital photography used to photograph the war but was used in weapon systems by America (FLORIDI, LUCIANO, 1999).

A much more current use of digital imaging technology is live electronic manipulation. Manipulating a live feed allows the editing of satellite image feeds. On the fly image editing may be used in sports programming to show lines on pitches or by governments to hide classified buildings from satellite imagery that is available to the public such as Google Maps. News television channels can also employ technology to sow text feeds beneath news anchors. Delta Tre supply FIFA with sports data services and on screen graphics (BEVIR, GEORGE, 2012). In 2012, the union of European Football Associations placed recorded footage of a fan crying at the opening of the game and played it after one of the teams had won the game to make for more compelling television. Ivan Amato (Lying with Pixels, 2000) argues that as this technology becomes more widespread and available the credibility of video media will be damaged permanently. In some ways this is similar to National Geographic's manipulated Pyramid in that both representations existed but were manipulated to give heightened sensation.

The abilities that digital imaging technology have provided have been used by Walt Disney Imagineering Studio to take existing photographs and film of aged or dead celebrities made in the past to be used in new programmes or films (AMATO, IVAN, 2000). This use of technology to manipulate media, demonstrates how analogue photographs and films are susceptible to these processes and also questions the fundamental nature of the final product? Is it simply a manipulated piece of video footage or a new creation entirely? Mitchell (The Reconfigured Eye: Truth in the Post-Photographic Era, 1992) argues that it is a new creation entirely. Mitchell also argues that photography in recent times has entered a phase which he terms "pseudophotography" meaning that digital photography is not photography. Though the two methods are comparable, they possess different manipulation potentials which are examined in the next section.

Manipulation Since Digital photography

Savedoff (1997, p.19) argues that "technologies alter rather than simply add to the resources of art". This suggests that photography as an art form has been altered by added manipulation potential. This new digital imaging practice should pose a whole range of ethical considerations relating to the manipulation of photographs. However, this has largely failed to have happened due principally to differentiating between the printed or published digital or analogue photograph creating difficulty in identifying and developing a set of different standards for each method. Photography's relationship with reality as previously outlined is apparent in digital photography, however the relationship created by the subject's personal relationship with light as evinced by Sontag and others will be absent in a digital photograph. There is no latent image. In an analogue photograph created through a chemical process there is room for argument that the relationship with light remains intact. Although this "trace" looks to be evident in a photograph created by digital means, the trace is not a chemical reaction but a digital representation of reality and therefore not an embedded feature of the relationship between the subject and the photographic process as with analogue. Additionally, the very nature of digital photography means that the process is limitless in the number of alterations or manipulations that can be applied. These manipulations leave little or no evidence of themselves.

Modern digital cameras allow the photographer to instantly review the image made and thus allows them amend the and other factors of image capture until the photographer is satisfied with the final result. Images are manipulated by using computers and image editing software such as Adobe Photoshop, along with scanners to digitise analogue images. Therefore, photographs made before digital photography are susceptible to manipulation just like the case of Disney outlined earlier (BOUSE, DEREK, 2002). The development of digital imaging technology has changed photography and its relative relationship with veracity permanently. This lends evidence to Bouse's argument that old photographs may be more widely trusted and that digital photography makes readers of images aware not only of current manipulations but of those in the past also. The reader of an analogue photograph, although aware that the photograph was made before the invention of digital technologies is aware that the photograph might have been manipulated and nonetheless changes the way the reader interprets all photographs, manipulated or not (SAVEDOFF, BARBARA E, 1997). This suggests that digital technology has decrease the impression that photographs are mostly objective and truth-relating and that there is a greater tendency for viewers of images to question the veracity of all photographs. A key factor in this significant reduction of trust is the difficulty for the average reader to easily and readily distinguish between manipulated and non-manipulated photographs.

Conversely Michelle Henning (2007) argues that digital imaging technologies have enabled limited new ways of manipulating a photograph. Henning continues that digital technologies have only made the manipulation of photographs more available. Henning also argues that the public was previously unaware of image manipulation techniques before the invention of digital imaging technology. Digital manipulation has made the public more aware of photo manipulation and paradoxically served to increase the frequency with which images are manipulated.

Evolution of a Medium

Photography has been constantly developing since its birth in the 1800's and many of the changes have been driven by evolving technology but were always based on chemical reactions to light. In the 1820's Joseph Niepce found a method to permanently fix a photograph using lavender oil and bitumen. Niepce swiftly developed this method further into heliographs made by using silver nitrate. Eduard Daguerre was also looking for a way to photographically record subjects and contacted Niepce to work with each other. After Niepce died, Daguerre found that mercury could fix images much more permanently and created the Daguerreotype which Daguerre believed at the time "serves to draw nature" and gives nature "the power to reproduce herself" (MARIEN, MARY WARNER, 2002, p.23). Since photography's invention the idea of a device that could create unmediated representations of reality was widely believed yet now we begin to see photography may not deserve the verisimilitude it has been ascribed. At the same time Henry Fox Talbot worked on a photographic method using paper print. Like the creation of photography and the creation of digital photography these changes and advances were driven simultaneously by several individuals at once. The daguerreotype became the most popular and was widely used to make very simple portraits. Later though, interest was given to the Calotype created by Talbot. The Calotype was less reliable but allowed for prints to be reproduced much more easily and allowed greater detail with the print at least initially. During the mid-1800's negatives were made from glass and coated with albumen paper. These proved much more reproducible and gave more detailed and sharper results than earlier methods. With regard to contemporary digital methods, has digital photography made reproducing images easier due to the fact that digital images when stored on a computer can be duplicated instantly, require no specialist education, now contain little or no cost and can be transmitted and viewed globally without a physical print ever being produced? Being able to reproduce a photograph has always been desirable and this is shown by the demand for the Calotype. Bearing in mind that digital imaging technology has helped progress the ease, convenience and technical, it has done this in a way that has divided the two forms of photography causing great debates among both practitioners and observers of both.

Mark Amerika, digital artist and writer, in an interview draws attention to and discusses the differences between digital and analogue photography. Amerika claims that images and how they are read is influenced by the way they are captured, suggesting that as technology changes so does our interpretation of photographs (JACUPS, Karen, 2006). Because photography is much more easily manipulated with digital photography it can be argued that the objectivity of the photograph is lost and it is futile to pursue objectivity (JACUPS, Karen, 2006). It would seem true that manipulation is more common since the advent of digital photography, which could argue that the making of an image is only a small portion of the final product like in the aforementioned case of Rejalnder.

Both Mitchell and Savedoff claim that digital photography and the manipulation of it cannot be compared to analogue photography because it is a new medium (MITCHELL, WILLIAM J, 1992) (SAVEDOFF, BARBARA E, 1997). Both continue to argue that because with digital photographs the image is created with a digital sensor digital capture is a separate process to analogue capture.

Digital photographs receive their authority because they are almost identical to analogue photographs and this authority is passed to the digital photograph. However, if this authority is diminished, digital photography may be criticised for its lack of authority. News reporting currently accomplished by digital photography may no longer be an acceptable medium for those purposes. Oddly, as already outlined, if digital photographs obtains its authority from its similarity to analogue photographs, analogue photographs may similarly lose its authority because of this relationship.

It is important to note that photo manipulation was possible before digital technologies; it took place much less and needed much more time, effort and dexterity (SAVEDOFF, BARBARA E, 1997). Savedoff and Mitchell contend that the increase in frequency of digital manipulations is enough to show the conceptualisation of digital photography as a new medium. When an analogue photograph was manipulated evidence of this procedure could be found on the negative and would more than likely mean the negative would be permanently modified. Yet with digital photography this does not apply (SAVEDOFF, BARBARA E, 1997). The digital file makes it very difficult to ascertain whether the file has been manipulated and also difficult to determine which file is the original, if one exists.

Because analogue manipulations needed expertise and dexterity it means that they were the exception to the norm as they were costly to accomplish. The refined abilities of digital technology that allow image manipulation to be completed with ease have made manipulated photographs become the ordinary. Savedoff (1997) claims that the power of the reportage photograph has lessened. Savedoff (1997) also contends that before digital photography there were well known standards regarding what was and what was not acceptable manipulation of an image. However, with digital technologies these standards have become irrelevant. This new trend of manipulation gives much less regard to what it means to manipulate an image.

Amerika (JACUPS, Karen, 2006) furthers Savedoffs claims and he believes that instead of digital photography being a new entity it simply does not exist. Amerika argues that digital photography is just the processing of information and to print a digital image is no different to printing a text document from a computer. Amerika believes digital photography is not about photography but about binary code or "manipulation ones and zeroes" (JACUPS, Karen, 2006, p.151) However, if this school of thought is accepted then surely analogue photographs are about chemistry and the reaction of light to a light sensitive medium.

A third argument exists which opposes both Amerika and Savedoff. Michelle Henning (2007) makes the case that digital photography has changed or "remediated" the landscape of photography. Keeping in mind that digital photography is used somewhat differently to analogue photography, but to greater extent is experienced and interpreted in similar ways. The design of digital cameras imitate analogue cameras and feature the same vocabulary such as ASA/ISO standards which relate to film speed and are not necessary for digital cameras (JACUPS, Karen, 2006). Maybe these imitations create a bridge between the two technologies that allows the inherent veracity of analogue photography to be inherited by digital cameras (HENNING, MICHELLE, 2007). Henning (2007) asks why digital cameras try to imitate analogue cameras when the potential of digital imaging is greater than analogue capabilities. It is important to state that although many companies manufacture cameras it is the larger companies such as Canon and Nikon and Sony that market digital cameras aggressively. Henning's idea that digital photography has remediated analogue forms of photo making is not because of the abilities afforded by digital photography but because of the way it has been aggressively marketed by the companies that manufacture them (2007). Henning (2007, p.59) summarises in saying that digital imaging is not "less photographic than chemical analogue is" and that it is a different process but ends up as the same result.

The final analysis of the differences between digital photography and analogue photography outlined by Mitchell (MITCHELL, WILLIAM J, 1992) is to see digital and analogue photography as similar to painting. Rather than painting no longer being used as many feared it would with the birth of photography, its purpose simply changed. A change similar to this may also be experienced by analogue photography, finding its niche somewhere between analogue photography and painting. Digital photography however possesses the realism of analogue photography but is more easily manipulated, putting it next to the two art forms (MITCHELL, WILLIAM J, 1992).

Responses to Digital Manipulation

Familiarity with Manipulation

The majority of people have manipulated a photograph. This manipulation may include correcting red-eye, removing a person from a photograph or removing the saturation of a colour photograph. It is likely that this would have been achieved by using software on a computer. Although many people know that these manipulations are possible, they rarely question forms of print media. The image is read and is not questioned, meaning that the image is accepted as truth and in line with photography's previously discussed credibility.

With regard to news media, it should be observed that it is possible to manipulate the written word because words can be used to describe fiction and do not always describe truth. The majority of people realise that editorial text is opinion and that the role of journalism is supposed to provide unbiased and objective accounts to its readers. With photography, photographs in newspapers are seen as truth whereas photographs in art galleries or museums are not necessarily assigned this truth status. In the case of Hajj it is apparent that the assumed reality of the news photographs is being questioned.

Another important variable in the way digital images are read is the context in which they are used. This context can affect whether or not a reader suspects an image has been manipulated (NERI, GRAZIA, 2003). If we take Robert Doisneau's photograph entitled "At the Café, Chez, France" as an example, the photograph depicts a male and female at a café. The female is looking at her beverage and the male at the female. This photograph is read in completely different ways depending on the context it is viewed. When the photograph is seen in Museum of Modern Art it is seen as a well-regarded piece of art, however when it appears in a brochure on the troubles of alcohol consumption it becomes an allegory for prostitution and alcohol (BARRETT, TERRY, 1985). Terry Barrett's point refers to the ambiguity of the photograph within a news medium and how context plays a huge role on the reading of the photograph. This observation strongly suggests that a photograph, when used within a newspaper the authority of the context, a newspaper, is carried to the photograph minimising or even entirely supplanting any residual meaning or intent the original photographer may have wished to have conveyed.

Different historical perspectives can also change the way a photograph is read (NERI, GRAZIA, 2003). When photographs are studied by historians, all details within the photograph, including the attire of people, architecture, and commercial advertisement can be used to identify further information regarding the time in which the photograph was made. If however the photograph has been manipulated these details may not be able to be found and the relationship the photograph holds with historical specificity is reduced, along with the veracity of the photograph.

The context in which a photograph is read can also relate to the appropriateness of digital manipulation in photojournalism. When the Independent Newspaper published a photograph of celebrity Kate Moss with black skin and modified bone structure it is likely that the viewer is likely to assume that Kate Moss has not actually become more similar in appearance to an African women but rather the photograph has been manipulated. Yet when Time magazine published a manipulated photograph of Orenthal James Simpson, it was not likely that the reader would have been able to know that the photograph has been manipulated. The photograph of Simpson published by Time Magazine appeared also on the cover of Newsweek Magazine and by being able to compare the two images it was obvious that the photograph published by Time magazine has been manipulated. Simpson's skin had been darkened, appearing blacker than on the cover of Newsweek. This not only raises questions potentially serious questions of how race is perceived in American but also encourages awareness of and gives attention to digital manipulation. Matt Mahurin, the editor of Time decided to manipulate the photograph because he "wanted to make it more artful, more compelling" (MELTZER, BONNIE, 1996). We can see that Newsweek did not feel the need to manipulate the photograph of Simpson which raises the question why did Time? Subsequently, Time made the decision to withdraw the photograph after being criticised by minority groups who complained the manipulation had been for racist reasons. Finally, this photograph begs the question why are photographs manipulated? In this instance perhaps it was an attempt to generate more income for the magazine or was alternatively been due to underlying racial motives (MELTZER, BONNIE, 1996). The real reason may never be known.

Numerous writers of semiology and photography have favoured the idea of promoting further public awareness of image manipulation through education. Bonnie Meltzer (1996) believes photography is a language of imagery and should be implemented within the school curriculum along with reading, writing and spelling. Paul Messaris (Visual Persuasion: The Role of Images in Advertising, 1997) also believes the public should be better educated in reading imagery. Messaris believes this would be a step toward members of the public analysing the authenticity of images. Neri (Ethics and Photography, 2003) agrees and believes that jobs in the future will require an understanding of image manipulation software. While educating the public on how to read images may be one way of reducing the practice of image manipulation, another is through government regulation.

Official Responses

With regard to government responses to digital manipulation The Artists' Rights Foundation is an important precedent in protecting the authenticity and authority of the analogue film industry. Founded in 1998, The Artists' Rights Foundation provides was created to safeguard already made films from digital manipulation and modification in the future. In the early 1990's American Congress contemplated but didn't pass the Film Disclosure Act which was intended to protect the rights of film creators (MITCHELL, WILLIAM J, 1992). The Film Disclosure Act sought to protect film creators from any changes made by distributors once the film had been made. The Act meant that the distributor was obliged to make note of any manipulations of the film that took place from completion and this information would have to be printed on the outside of the film. If the artists were not satisfied with the final work due to manipulation they had the right to have their name removed from the film along with the right to bring civil legal proceedings if they felt the film would damage their reputation as film makers (BIDEN, JOSEPTH R, 1992).

While these efforts exist to protect film media and can be extended to media on the Internet or on television broadcast, they only apply to film and thus do not safeguard photographers in print media from undesired manipulation by media organisations or editors (HEDLUND, PATRICK, 1996). Additionally, in terms of print media, the acts do not require manipulations to be evidenced showing that the bills do not aim to reinforce photographers credibility.

The American government has also invested its efforts in identifying manipulated photographs through the use of technology. Dr Hani Farid at Dartmouth College, Connecticut has invented algorithms to recognise manipulated images (WADE, NICHOLAS, 2006). These algorithms were created in efforts to check the authenticity of digital photographs that were being used as evidence in the courtroom; the process uses arithmetic to identify repeated patterns in the image, which may be a result of copying other pieces of the image to that location (WADE, NICHOLAS, 2006).

Media Reactions

Neri (Ethics and Photography, 2003) writes in the Digital Journalist that news agencies and print media have often ignored issues associated with photography, which include digital imaging. This apprehension of photography has led news agency editors to request photographs from photographers that fit with the written stories they wish to illustrate (NERI, GRAZIA, 2003). Even before digital photography, photographs were made or manipulated to fit with the preconceived narratives in the mind of the editor. Neri (Ethics and Photography, 2003) outlines that a common narrative is the representation of the disheartened or disenfranchised. Both the elderly and immigrants are examples that fall into this category. The elderly and immigrants both tend to be portrayed generically, always coinciding with public expectations.

Digital photography and its ability to be manipulated so easily is changing photography (GRUNBERG, ANDY, 1990). Andy Grunberg (1990) in the New York Times writes that in the future news photographs will be read "more as illustrations as reportage", because people will no longer be able to determine an original photograph from a manipulated photograph. Grunberg (1990, p.29) summarises saying "photographs will not seem as real as they once did" evidencing his feelings towards the relationship photographs will hold with realism in the future.

As digital photography became the de facto standard for journalism, journalists began to create rules in an effort to limit the use of manipulation and to more widely retain the authority of the photograph as accurate document. The Associated Press (AP) gave a public statement in 1995 when image manipulation became a heated topic. However, the AP did not ask for any restriction on image manipulation not did it make any attempts to define what acceptable or unacceptable image manipulation was deemed to be.

The National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) called for new standards to be employed by journalists in 1990. These new standards included a code of ethics which related directly to digital image technologies. The new standards maintained that journalisms main objective was to deliver accurate information and that to "alter the content of a photograph that in any way deceives the public" is wrong (NPPA, 1991). The NPPA in its code of ethics also states that the standards and ethics applied to analogue photography should be applied to digital photography and that any manipulation that was seen as wrong under those standards continues to be unacceptable among digital practice. John Long (NPPA Special Report: Ethics in the Age of Digital Photography, 2005), previous president of the NPPA argues that computers and digital photography did not create the need for a new set of standards. Longs claim is based on the idea that digital photography is not a new entity but a different way to arrive at the same results and that the principles used for analogue photography should be carried forward to be used with digital photography.

Neri, when considering the ethics of photojournalism, uses a method created by him. For Neri, the first decision the photographer has to make is choosing what narrative the images will form a basis of and how these photographs will form this narrative. This has nothing to do with new technologies but focuses on the credibility of the journalist. The photographs produced by the journalist must not be untruthful and should not fit the ideologies of an organisation. Another important point is when the image is edited on the computer, not only the integrity of the subject should be respected but the entire photograph (NERI, GRAZIA, 2003). Digital photography can increase a journalist's ability to protect subjects by allowing through manipulation a subjects identity to be removed. While this was able to be performed previously, it could be done with much fewer resources digitally. The argument that due to the large investment of manipulating a photograph with analogue technology to protect a subjects identity it may be done with digital technologies much more quickly with less resources, increasing the chances that the photograph is chosen to be used by an editor.

Although photography associations and media organisations have made attempts to provide regulations to standardise image manipulation, less than five per cent of photographers are happy with the way they are used (NERI, GRAZIA, 2003). Instead of the photographer manipulating their work, this is completed by the editor within the institution. The choices made by the editors are susceptible to influences that can fall outside of correctly perceived journalistic ethics. Photographers may find their work cropped or that budgets are reduced lessening the objectivity of their work.

Michael Hoffman, the editor of Aperture magazine, argues the ethics of digital photography and manipulation can be broken down to three points (NERI, GRAZIA, 2003). Hoffman's first point is that the photograph is required to be made to the highest grade possible. This requirement is often ignored by magazines and newspapers that seek financial return over quality content. Hoffman's second point is that the organisation must not pressure the photographer to make photographs that are in keeping with the organisational marketing needs. Hoffman's third and final point is that the image be put within a context that increases the "ethical, intellectual and spiritual commitment" of the reader (NERI, GRAZIA, 2003). In summary, Hoffman creates photograph ethics that may be used in regard to both digital and analogue photography and to increase both formats credibility.

Time magazine, in a 1989 issue discussed how digital photography has made the landscape of photography very different. The issue was named "150 years of photojournalism" and detailed the history of images through photojournalism. The last photograph was of Edwin Aldren on the moon. However, within the photograph there are seven Aldren's walking on the moon. The image had been manipulated by using the original to clone additionally Aldren's through the frame. The photograph acts as a metaphor and uses the first occurrence of landing on the moon to make reference to the unexplored world of digital imaging technology and manipulation.

Scientific journals have also found it difficult to keep manipulated images from their archives. (WADE, NICHOLAS, 2006) The Journal of Cell Biology tested their catalogue of images in 2002, finding that twenty-five per cent of images did not fit with the journals code of ethics. However, the journal's editor stated that very little of these were actual fakes. Editors of large media organisations identify that entirely fake photographs are rare but photographers often overcorrect their work, exceeding the accepted limits of manipulation (ASPAN, MARIA, 2006). The Journal of Cell Biology required that all images were submitted electronically and began to see signs of manipulated photographs when the photographs were printed (WADE, NICHOLAS, 2006). Guidelines used by the journal to set standards for manipulation state that changing the global appearance of the image in terms of colour or brightness was acceptable; however guidelines show that any local adjustments made to the photograph are not acceptable (WADE, NICHOLAS, 2006). Whilst Photoshop is predominantly used to manipulate photographs it is also conversely used to detect the presence of manipulations (WADE, NICHOLAS, 2006). Cell magazine however, do not test images provided by researchers as their philosophy is that during training scientists should not be advised of ethical considerations by journal editors (WADE, NICHOLAS, 2006). The lack of standards among the science community regarding image manipulation is similar to the lack of standards in the journalism community.

In summary, we can see that different individuals and groups have tried to regulate the manipulation of photographs, however it may be arguable that they lack specificity as all standards are different. Nonetheless it can be argued that a standard cannot be created that would effectively apply to all photographs due to all photographs existing within their own contexts.

Conclusion

It is twenty three years since digital photography was formally accepted and adopted worldwide as a valid alternative to analogue following its application in the first Gulf War, there is still little agreement as to how this change is affecting its use within society or how the manipulation of photographs should be regulated and standardised. Members of the public, media editors and photographers agree that digital photography is a new technology and very different to analogue photography. There is no clear voice however whether digital photography is an entirely new art form predominantly due to an absence of 'trace', or chemical reaction with light, as described by Sontag or an extension of analogue photography as proposed by Mitchell. Additionally, there is no single voice or model which provides definitive rules or conventions on the manipulation of photographs. It can be argued that all photographs are different, and their meaning is flexible and dependent upon the context in which they are read. Manipulation which may be acceptable for one photograph may be considered unethical for another. For example, it may be considered beneficial to manipulate a photograph in order to more accurately match the colours seen by a photographer, however, in the previously example of Simpson, changing the colour of the photograph dramatically changed the way in which the photograph was read to potentially reinforce common prejudices and encourage sales. In conclusion, as evinced by Neri and Meltzer, it would be desirable for the general public to develop a greater understanding of photo manipulation, even, as previously described, receiving education within schools. In addition the public must begin to actively question the use of photographs which may have been used in contexts the original photographer did not intend and must be read for what they are regardless of the context they are presented in. Lastly the public require faith that photographers and editors objectively record events. As technology grants new capabilities and new opportunities for potential exploitation, responsibility remains with photographers and media agencies to ensure truth is present within their work and that it is made with the best of their ability, in line with Hoffman's argument.

There is no doubt that the development of digital photography is permanent (Neri, 2003). It should be understood that digital imaging technologies do grant advantages which include the ability for artists and organisations to catalogue work much more efficiently. Also, digital transfer of images has increased the availability of these images through the Internet. Before digital imaging technologies, in order to view a photograph, an institution which holds the desired slide must be located and a projector must be set up to project the slide. This analogue process, in contrast to the digital process, now seems much slower and inconvenient. Reportage photographers also greatly benefit from digital technology as they are able to send images to agencies that were previously geographically unreachable and do this almost instantly. It is the speed at which digital photography can be used that is its primary advantage.

If we turn our attention to the music industry, we see songs are created by recording one instrument at a time and then amalgamating all recordings into one (MITCHELL, WILLIAM J, 1992). This process is not outlined on the label of the album or in the info of the song downloaded, drawing parallels with the idea in photography that manipulations are not told to the reader. When music is recorded live it is often stated on the case or within the download's metadata. It could be argued that while these two types of music, live and studio, exist, neither is considered better than the other. Rather, they are considered two different processes that provide the listener with different versions of the same song. Photography can be seen in the same light. Digital photography is not considered worse than analogue photography, but the two mediums are recognised as different processes that serve a different purpose but ultimately arrive in a similar place, as discussed by Savedoff and Mitchell.

Another important element of the photograph is the caption. The caption is regarded as important as the photograph itself (Barrett, 1985). The caption is able to provide the context of the photograph which allows the reader to assign truth to the image through information such as where the photograph was taken. The caption also provides the intended narrative of the photograph that the photographer intended. However Henning argues (Henning, 2007) that it is the lack of context that permits a photograph to be "available for aesthetic contemplation". Within the gallery or museum, a photograph is able to be seen as it is, without the written article requesting substantiation. However this is not entirely true as many galleries and museums do in fact tell you the location of an image and the perspective of the artist. Some artists leave images with vague titles or no titles, whereas other artists carefully provide information to add to the context of the photograph through use of a caption. Lastly, it is important to understand that photographs exhibited in a gallery are photographs which are being assigned a context; a context which informs the reader that the photograph is to be read as a work of art. Regardless of where a photograph is placed context cannot be avoided. Even with the caption removed, context is still given by where the photograph is read.

The manipulation of photographs is not a new phenomenon it is not fundamentally negative. It is seen as a capability of digital photography, however it is a capability of analogue photography also. It is therefore apparent that photographs can no longer be inherently associated with truth, a conclusion that should have been realised and publicised widely at photography's birth. Although a picture may be known to be worth a thousand words, if it is then there is no guarantee that those words are true. With the birth of photography came the beginning of manipulation. Digital technology only allows this manipulation potential to grow, proving much less costly methods of manipulating photographs.

It is widely known that digital photography is commonly manipulated yet there is a gap between comprehending this fact and using this knowledge in actively reading pictures. In the case of Hajj, National Geographic, Simpson, and the Iranian drone, the public found out about these manipulations relatively quickly and on a wide scale, however the public do not actively seek out false images when reading newspapers because of the context the photograph is presented. If the photograph does not question expected reality then we are not able to challenge its credibility.

Now that many photographs are manipulated, can these manipulations provide a false sense of the world? There are limits to manipulation that are not governed by the artist or any organisation. Instead, reality governs rules for image manipulation, provided the photographs manipulation is intended not to be detected. Readers of photographs understand the principle of scale and know what size a human is compared to a car. Readers of photographs also know that beneath sky there is always land. Therefore, manipulations cannot exceed these expectations of reality or they will be questioned and their value as credible documents lost.

Maybe digital photography has increased the public's knowledge of photography. If before digital photography the public wrongly assumed that analogue photography was absolutely credible then digital photography has brought them closer to the truth. Although digital photography may have lessened the credibility of photographs in general, maybe occurrences of manipulation has encouraged the reader of images to question the veracity of photographs more rigorously. This further questioning of photographs should have been implemented with the birth of photography in the 19th century.