Figure 4 shows a make-up artist on The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring movie using a photograph to ensure continuity because of a break in filming.
(Figure 4: captured from The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring DVD)
This is just one example of how photographs are used with the belief that the camera has ‘told the truth’, just like when photo finishes are used to determine who has won a race or when photographs are used as evidence in court cases. In all these instances the photographs accuracy is not questioned however this is not always the case. People are now very aware of the ability to manipulate photographs and this has led to the questioning of pictures that may look puzzling or deal with unbelievable issues, such as UFO’s.
Human intervention can play a large part in how believable a picture is. Effects can be incorporated into a photograph both while it’s being taken and after the shot has been captured. There are several ways the camera itself can be used to manipulate a photograph. ‘The camera cannot lie but it can be an accessory to untruth’ (Evans, www.photoquotes.com). A photographer’s use of extended exposure for example, will alter how a photograph looks when it is developed (especially if the picture has been taken at night).
(Figure 5: Frost, 1999 p24)
Figure 5 is an example of a photograph taken with an extended exposure time of two minutes. The red and white light trails produced by the quick passing traffic have been recorded onto film while the cars themselves haven’t because they would have been moving to fast. The left and right hand sides of the photo look completely normal because everything within these parts of the image has stayed constant for the entire length of the exposure. When a person looks at the photograph they know that those strips of light weren’t there in reality but instead are an illusion that have been created by the photographer. In a sense the camera has been used to stretch time in order to generate an image that could not be seen otherwise. Reality can also be altered by the photographer with the use of filters and different kinds of lenses. Coloured filters can shade a photograph with a specific colour as shown in figures 6 and 7. Just like with black and white images, filtered pictures portray actual places but with altered colour. What the photographer was seeing in reality when they captured the picture would have been a lot different from the photographs shown below. Coloured filters are often used to create a particular tone that in turn connotes a particular feeling or mood. John Hedgecoe points out ‘…tone is yet another layer of communication between yourself and the picture’s audience…so the selective use of tone communicates the form, mood or atmosphere you want to convey’ (Hedgecoe, 1994 p62).
(Figure 6: www.imagebank.com) (Figure 7: www.imagebank.com)
With the use of a fish-eye lens picture distortion can also be created. Fish-eye lenses create a ‘spherical perspective’ (Spitzing, 1974 p82) that means objects can look out of proportion however people can now easily recognise pictures taken with this type of lens so the obvious manipulation that occurs in the resulting pictures is not questioned. Figure 8 and 9 show two examples of photographs taken with fish-eye lenses.
(Figure 8: www.imagebank.com) (Figure 9: www.imagebank.com)
Not all image manipulation takes place while a photograph is being taken. Most photographs undergo much more manipulation after they have been developed, especially now with the rise of digital technology. With the use of programmes such as Adobe Photoshop you can make an endless number of alterations to photographs. You can add texture effects, add filters, adjust exposure, add in or take away elements, distort pictures and even combine more than one photograph. When a photograph is manipulated dramatically, it is often obvious that changes have been made using the computer (see figures 10 and 11 on the following page) however this is not always the case. Programmes such as this can also be used to subtlety improve images. It is possible to adjust colour, cover up mistakes, such as taking away ‘red eye’ or crop out something that wasn’t meant have been captured in the frame. With this clever and subtle use of digital manipulation, it becomes almost impossible to tell apart genuine photographs from those that have been tampered with.
(Figure 10: source unknown) (Figure 11: www.imagebank.com)
Fake or hoax photographs are also a result of image manipulation and if they are created carefully some can be very convincing. They will often involve combining more than one photograph or manipulating an element that already exists within a single photograph. Figure 12 shows a famous example of a hoax photograph that was circulated on the Internet as being real. When first released many people were convinced the image was genuine because it looks completely believable. It was soon discovered however that the picture had been created using two separate images, taken in different countries (see figures 13 and 14 on the following page). Unless an explanation is given to how a picture has been faked many remarkable pictures like this are at first deemed to be authentic.
(Figure 12: http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blsharkattack)
(Figures 13 and 14: www.urbanlegends.com/ulz/shark)
Visual perception plays a large role in how we ‘read’ photographs, how we interpret them and how we decide if they are telling the truth. ‘The way we see things is effected by what we know or what we believe’ (Berger, 1972 p8). Everyone ‘sees’ differently therefore we make sense of different photographs in different ways. We will often ‘see’ more than simply what we are looking at through our interpretation of a photograph. We unconsciously try to give images a context and so we may link a photograph that we have not seen before with similar photographs stored in our memories. Comments such as ‘Oh, that reminds me of...’ enforces that people draw parallels between similar images in order to make better sense of them. When looking into audience reception Janet Staiger concluded that ‘…viewers actively participate in constructing meaning from what they see’ (Newton, 2000 p87). Our need to recognise the logic of a photograph means that we sometimes question things that look odd, even if these same things went unnoticed at the time when the photograph was taken.
Photographic perspective is one feature of photographs that can raise questions. Angles pictures are taken from and the distance of the subjects within the frame can sometimes lead to a visual deception in photographs.
(Figure 15: www.imagebank.com) (Figure 16: www.imagebank.com)
The low angle shot shown in figure 16 gives the illusion that the buildings are becoming closer as they get higher and that they are all leaning towards the centre of the image. The lamppost in the foreground looks especially tilted and even gives the false impressions that it is as tall as the buildings that surround it. In a photograph taken from the opposite perspective, looking down from above (see figure 15), the two buildings now give the illusion that they get closer together the nearer they are to the ground. Of course, in reality the buildings are not getting closer, further apart or leaning and this illusion is just a side effect of how the cameras perspective reads the reality. Indeed these illusions would still appear if the buildings were looked at from these angels with our own eyes however we are less likely to notice them and just accept the reality. We must use our experiences of reality to explain the photographs. ‘If we want to put a photograph back into the context of experience, social experience, social memory, we have to respect the laws of memory’ (Berger1980 p61). Even in pictures not taken from such an extreme angles, perspective can still cause effects that can be misleading, such as those shown in figures 17 and 18 (on the following page). Both the path way in the garden (or even the garden itself) and the railway tracks seem to get closer together as they head towards the horizon but again our experience of reality can prove that they don’t even if the camera makes it appear as if they do.
(Figure 17: Hedgecoe, 1994 p72) (Figure 18: www.imagebank.com)
Lastly, when objects within the frame are at different distances from the lens visual illusions can be created. Figure 19 shows an example of this. Because the boy in the picture is a lot closer to the camera than the Taj Mahal, it appears as if he is holding up the building with his left hand.
(Figure 19: Edensor, 1998 p134)
Selectivity is another feature of photography that can lead to people interpreting photographs in different ways. Cropping can have dramatic effect on how a photograph may be interpreted. For example, a picture that looks completely plausible (such as in figure 20) may have been cropped down and so when we are shown the original (figure 21) are interpretation of it changes and even our trust in it is lost because it becomes clear that the image is a set up. It is very unlikely that the three people were really having a meeting in the back of a truck.
(Figure 20: www.imagebank.com) (Figure 21: www.imagebank.com)
Photographs are taken for different reasons and this too can have an effect on how much we trust them and how we interpret the pictures we look at. ‘We bring to a picture a whole set of personal and social associations. It is these ‘meanings’ that are conjured up that make up the perception. We never merely see our retinal image’ (Beloff, 1985 p18). The different purposes of photograph will effect how we perceive it. Professional art photography, journalistic photography and snap shot photography are all recognised to be different because of their different uses and it is often easy to tell the three types apart. Photographs can be applied to many uses because ‘they are like images in the memory of a stranger’ (Berger, 1980 p53), until they are applied they don’t carry a meaning. Snap shots give photography a very personal meaning. Almost everyone will take pictures to remember and have evidence of the past. Pictures are taken of ourselves, our family’s, friends and places we’ve been and because we are taking the pictures personally or are a witness to them being taken, we are likely to have the most trust in these photographs. Snap shots are taken to record a specific event that the people involved in want to remember or to prove a person has been to a particular place or met a particular person. ‘Our personal histories are…validated by them’ (Beloff, 1985 p179). The snap shot shown in figure 22 is of the Auckland Skyline in New Zealand.
(Figure 22: Authors own photograph)
This picture is proof to the photographer that they were in Auckland, New Zealand and although a better professional photograph (see figure 23) could easily be obtained by them (or indeed by anyone, even if they haven’t been to New Zealand) it doesn’t carry the authenticity of the personal snap shot. ‘Having a photograph, we have captured some aspect of our world. We have it for keeps’ (Beloff, 1985 p179).
(Figure 23: www.imagebank.com)
The two pictures are of the same place but look very different however one is no more true than the other. Every photograph is ‘the product of the photographer. It is always the reflection of a specific point of view’ (Clarke, 1997 p29) and we will often trust our own point of view the most. Journalistic photography works in a completely different way. Often this kind of photography is trying to get across a particular message, sell us a particular product or make a stand for a particular belief. We have less trust in these photographs because we haven’t been a witness to them being taken and we are always aware that they may have been manipulated to give a specific message. ‘Images of reportage enter a morass of images swirling in the public sphere. Some of these images are intended to present the truth accurately. Some are designed to manipulate and mislead’ (Newton, 200 p97). Personal snap shots are taken to be treasured while journalistic photographs are taken to persuade. They are impersonal.
In conclusion I would say that, as a tool the camera does not lie but photographs do not always tell the truth. The practicality of photography means that anyone can take photographs and the flexibility of the medium also means it has many uses. We tend to trust photography more than other visual mediums, such as paintings however most people are now aware of how easy it has become to manipulate photographs so are careful not to put all their trust into pictures that look unusual or raise questions as they may well turn out to be fake. There are however situations when photographs will have are complete trust as they may be providing answers or evidence. Manipulation both with the help of the camera and through digital packages means authentic photographs can be made better or hoax pictures can be produced. We must learn to trust our visual perception and accept the rules of perspective and selectivity that can sometimes cause us to query a photograph or change our interpretation of it. We give different levels of trust to the different types of photography that exist, however a great deal of the photography that surrounds us is from outside sources, such as the press, so ultimately it is left up to us to make the decision over how genuine a photograph is. This also means that the only photographs we can place complete trust in are the ones we’ve taken ourselves.
References
Beloff, Halla (1985), Camera Culture, Basil Blackwell, London
Berger, John (1972), Ways of Seeing, BBC and Penguin books
Berger, John (1980), About Looking, Writers and Readers, London
Clarke, Graham (1997), The Photograph, Oxford University Press
Edensor, Tim (1998), Tourists at the Taj, Routledge
Frost, Lee (1999), The Complete Guide to Night and Low-Light Photography, David
and Charles
Hedgecoe, John (1994), Complete Guide to Photography, Collins and Brown
Newton, Julianne (2000), The Burden of Visual Truth: The Role of Photojournalism
in mediating reality, Lawrence and Erlbaum Associates
Spitzing, Gunter (1974), The Photo Guide to Effects and Tricks, Focal Press
Internet sources
www.exoticindiaart.com (accessed 19/03/04)
www.imagebank.com (accessed on multiple occasions between 18/03/04 - 23/03/04)
www.photoquotes.com (accessed 21/93/04)
www.sullivangoss.com (accessed 19/03/04)
www.urbanlegends.com/ulz/shark (accessed 22/03/04)
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blsharkattack (accessed 22/03/04)
DVD Recording
Jackson, Peter (2001), The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
