Digital images can't be trusted, says war photographer

[Trigger]

One of Britain’s most celebrated and respected photographers has lamented the digital domination of his field, calling it “a totally lying experience” that cannot be trusted.
Don McCullin, one of the world’s finest photographers of war and disaster, said the digital revolution meant viewers could no longer trust the truthfulness of images they see.
He said photography had been “hijacked” because “the digital cameras are
http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign ... tal-images

[Mel]

One of Britain’s most celebrated and respected photographers has lamented the digital domination of his field, calling it “a totally lying experience” that cannot be trusted.

I suppose that depends on the photographer or the person manipulating the image. Even photographers using film could manipulate their pictures in the dark room, so although I understand what he is saying I think to say digital domination is 'a totally lying experience' is a rather over the top reaction.

[boatbuilder]

I agree Mel, as with this picture - a scan of a picture I created from two negatives about 50 years ago. You may recall I previously posted it on Lowestoft Online. The 'castle' was from a negative of a picture taken at Alton Towers and the 'air' from the negative of a picture overlooking the River Mersey. The wording was added digitally after I scanned it.

[funkychick]

I agree with the photographer I hate all the false photos... in the photography group I go on the winner is invariable a picture that has been enhanced so the sunrise/set is vivid or the colours are different or things are 'improved' I know you could do it before but only real photographers with dark rooms now anyone and everyone can take a crap photo and use an app to make it what it isn't and I hate falseness along with boobs and bums When it comes to war photography it is imperative to see truth and I can imagine how much it can be 'played with' to make it say whatever you want I would imagine wrongs can be righted and right things can easily be wrong just more of the contrievence and manipulation that goes on in the world today .......Hate lies

[Mel]

... in the photography group I go on the winner is invariable a picture that has been enhanced so the sunrise/set is vivid or the colours are different or things are 'improved' ... When it comes to war photography it is imperative to see truth

Unless in the rules of your photography groups competition it states that the picture has to come straight from camera I can see no problem in enhancement of entries Funkychick. I agree with you entirely though that photo/journalists shouldn't enhance photos; we should see what they see not what their editors or their political paymasters wants us to see.

[Trigger]

I agree with you entirely though that photo/journalists shouldn't enhance photos; we should see what they see not what their editors or their political paymasters wants us to see.

But . . . . when the end product is shown . . . how do we know if it's been manipulated / digitally enhanced - or not?

[boatbuilder]

In journalistic circles there is nothing wrong with digitally enhancing pictures to correct things such as exposure/colour correctness or to sharpen them as sometimes the environments in which they may be taken could be difficult to get the expected 'finish'. However, to manipulate the images by adding or removing things to alter the whole meaning of the image is certainly wrong in such circumstances where the true facts are what should be reported and shown.

Manipulating images for pleasure, as we do on here in the 'Filtered Photos' topic, is fine as that is what we are expecting to see. However, I do wonder about some of the images in competitions where things like scenes look really too dramatic to be true. I think competitions should be for 'straight' pictures, with maybe the exception of 'cropping', unless specifically stated in the competition's rules and all serious competitions should state this, one way or another, so entrants will know what they are likely to be competing against. Of course these are just my opinions.

[funkychick]

I totally understand that if rules don't say no enhancements then not a problem and with that I agree .....I m just saying in my eyes if a pictured that is enhanced in other ways other than simple issues like cropping or sharpening its like winning a cake baking completion with a packet mix I also have no problem if people say This picture has been enhanced using a b or c but when it's passed off as nature and it obviously isn't I feel annoyed as it's not the photographer skill but the apps skill if you have a section for enhanced pics that too is absolutely fine each to his own I also hate all the changes made to 'celebrities' photos a few inches off here a high cheekbone there all blemishes gone nothing's blooming real it's all fake no ones satisfied with God s work always trying to change or improve on it

[frankiesays]

I'm with FC on this one. I know the site she is referring to and there is hardly a single photo on there which has not been enhanced in some way even if just using the on-board enhancing facility that comes with the camera. They are getting to be very samey and we seem to be losing the art of composing a great picture in a single "take". I think it tends to put people who do not go for all this back-room stuff off entering the competitions. I think it is good than on here we still see mostly "honest" shots. Nothing against playing around with images but it seems to be talking over lately especially the HDR shots.