The New York Times explains how easy it is to alter digital images, admits it is difficult to spot, informs us that editors are under a great deal of time pressure, then says most altered images that get into print are accidental.
The recent discovery that a Lebanese freelance photographer, Adnan Hajj, had manipulated pictures he took for Reuters has raised questions about the standards of photojournalism at a time of widespread digital photography.
The incident also increased pressure on news photo editors, who select and edit thousands of photographs under deadline each day, to detect digital alterations.
“The Soviets had to have a whole department to doctor pictures,” said David Friend, an editor at Vanity Fair and a former director of photography for Life magazine. “Now all it takes is a swipe of a mouse, and the kid down the street can add smoke and mirrors to everything.”
Detecting the smoke and mirrors is a challenge. While editors for print publications commonly rely on editing systems that track each change made to an article, photo editors have fewer tools at their disposal and often rely simply on experience and instinct. As a result, the most skilled manipulations can be difficult to catch.
The article goes on to tell how Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs discovered the faked images after a reader tipped him off. There are several examples of fakery that have been exposed in recent years. Then comes the defense:
Despite some critics’ wishes to read intent into every manipulation that slips past editors, these mistakes often occur by accident. Santiago Lyon, director of photography for The Associated Press, said that while A.P. photographers “all have a very clear idea of what is acceptable or not acceptable,” recent events had increased the organization’s scrutiny of its pictures. Now, A.P. photographers who use the cloning tool to remove dust from their pictures must tell their editors exactly where they used it when submitting the images.
The A.P. also faced criticism recently over digitally manipulated images when a photographer using the cloning tool to clean a picture of an oil pipeline technician accidentally gave the man an extra pair of hands. The photographer and the editor who missed the mistake were reprimanded, according to Mr. Lyon, who noted that even such obviously unintended effects were damaging to the reputation of news organizations.
“This was an accidental piece of cloning with no deliberate intent to deceive,” Mr. Lyon said. “But while it’s an accident, we can’t put our credibility on the line as a result of carelessness.”
I won't go so far to say that all the manipulation is intentional. I'm sure some is not. I won't dismiss the possibility of intentional alterations quite as easily as the Times does, though. There is also a subtle bias at work. Some of the photos are undoubtedly accepted and not given the scrutiny they really need because the manipulated photo may meet the editor's expectations of what he or she thinks should be in a picture. Sometimes it's failing to ask a question that should be obvious. For example, there have been a number of photographs lately that show a bombed out building with concrete dust absolutely everywhere. And there is a child's toy in the picture. The toy however, is brand, spanking new and completely clean. It appears to have never crossed the editor's mind to question that physical impossibility.
