Twitter  Quartz found an unlikely inspiration for its relaunched homepage: The email newsletter.  
Nieman Journalism Lab
Pushing to the future of journalism — A project of the Nieman Foundation at Harvard

Photoshop, journalism, and forensics: Why skepticism may be the best filter for photojournalism

As a writer this is a painful thing to admit, but here goes: There are times when photos can tell more of a story than words could ever express. When news broke of last month’s tsunami and resulting destruction in Japan, what story could possibly convey the depth of the tragedy like Alan Taylor’s In Focus images at The Atlantic? Or the BBC’s striking “In Pictures” feature?

Part of the reason images like those and others are so powerful and telling is that there is an inherent trust that goes along with photography, particularly news photography: Seeing is believing.

And yet we also live in a time when we’re just as prone not to believe that a picture is real. We use “Photoshopped” in casual conversation and even applaud new achievements in fakery. (Don’t pretend that photo of Joe Biden working on his sweet Trans Am isn’t cool.) And if you’re a professional photojournalist or a news organization that wants — and needs — people to trust the images you publish, that’s a big problem.

“The assumption a lot of people make is, well, pictures don’t lie — you can believe what you see,” said Santiago Lyon, director of photography for the Associated Press. “But of course pictures can lie, and they do lie, and they’ve been manipulated for a long time.”

Lyon and Hany Farid, an expert in the emerging field of digital forensics, were in town last week for a talk at MIT about photojournalism in the age of Photoshop. What the two men share is an interest in establishing systems to ferret out manipulated photos, with Lyon focused on policy while Farid looks to math (the Lab had an extended conversation with him about that last year). Their differing approaches make sense: Lyon oversees about 300 photographers, and Farid is a computer science professor at Dartmouth.

While they spend a fair amount of their time trying to find ways to combat photo manipulation, they say their bigger concern is our cultural acceptance of that manipulation and the resulting erosion of trust in photojournalism. But here’s the good news: Skepticism being alive and well is not entirely a bad thing.

“The camera can see things and report things quite differently than the human eye does,” Lyon said. “I would say we should approach each photograph we look at with the same skepticism that we bring to each story we read.”

That skepticism counts inside and outside the halls of the AP, which Lyons said uploads around 3,000 images every 24 hours, totaling around 1 million a year. For photographers and photo editors, the organization has an established policy on the limits of altering photos through editing (a little dodge and burn here, some cropping there), as well as additional considerations when dealing with photos submitted by citizen journalists. Still, to a large degree, it falls on editors to look critically at what they see before them in a photo and ask questions of the photographer or person who submitted the image.

“What we’ve learned very quickly is that words, and near words, fail us because there are so many variables in play here,” Lyon said. Farid agreed. The problem with relying on a critical eye, he said, is that it, too, is imperfect.

“Let’s agree that while the visual system is remarkable and we are very good at interpreting photographs, we are not perfect and we make mistakes,” Farid said. “The scary part is we don’t often know what the mistakes are.” Which is to say that through an over-reliance on visual cues and through our analytical tendencies (perhaps informed by assumptions about Photoshop lurking around every corner), we end up having trouble discerning real photos from fakes.

This is where Farid’s work is helpful. He uses the aid of computers to break images down to their base numeric elements in order to find patterns and/or discrepancies that the eye may miss. (In fact, Lyon and Farid previously worked together to analyze a set of photos the AP knew had been altered.) That method, though — in the case of the AP set and in others — isn’t 100 percent effective. That’s one reason Farid and his team use multiple methods to test a photo’s veracity.

“There’s no magic button,” Farid said. “You have to come up with a lot of different ways to analyze photographs. At least as many different ways as there are ways of manipulating photographs.”

For the AP, it also helps to have the sort of ambient analysis that comes with having your photos appear in front of countless eyes around the world. Bloggers, Lyon said, have become sources for spotting questionable photos that wind up on the AP wire. But as helpful as they can be, reliance on them means that photo manipulation is discovered only after images are published. It also means that outside observers can quickly start chasing (in this case photographic) windmills. “We find these people can start to see things or think they see things that aren’t really there, and that feeds a kind of frenzy,” Farid said.

That kind of skepticism-run-amok, Lyon suggested, can have a detrimental effect on journalism overall: Being skeptical of a photo is a small step away from being skeptical of an entire news organization, which can ultimately undermine the mission of journalism, he said.

But as odd as it may seem, skepticism may be the new equilibrium in photojournalism. It’s hard to sell the idea of truth in photography, after all, when photo-altering products are being marketed so aggressively to consumers. Take, for example, the Windows 7 commercial where those darn kids are so fidgety and mom just wants that family photo to be perfect. Simple: Just edit in the perfection! Or, as the Windows mom puts it: “Windows gives me the family nature never could.”

The ubiquity of photo manipulation “is starting to slip into the mainstream — forget about journalism,” Lyon said. “We’re talking about consumer stuff now. And that, for me, is very disturbing, in part because I think photography has always been something reliable — even if there is a lot of subjectivity involved.”

What to read next
Ken Doctor    Aug. 25, 2014
America’s largest newspaper company says it’s building for the future. But it’s hurting its own value proposition in the process.
  • Pingback: Photoshop, journalism, and forensics: Why skepticism may be the best filter for photojournalism | Jamie McIntyre — Journosaurus Rex

  • Pingback: Photoshop and Journalism… Sometimes a Strange Combination | Fit to Print

  • David Powers

    Given that the camera sees differently than does the eye, is it fakery to get the photograph closer to what the eye sees?

  • Luna

    Photojournalism has always had skepticism in its history. Especially citizen photojournalism where everyone with a cellphone camera can “report” news.
    We see photos of suffering or something amazing event happening we instantly believe it to be true, but then we see photos of UFOs and “monsters” and are quick to become skeptic.

  • mhmedia

    It would really help if online sites could leave the EXIF data in. If we had settings data accessible at least it would help those with experience of analysing such things judge for themselves.

  • Anonymous

    I’ve been posting news photos online for years now (I started the Big Picture, now edit In Focus at the Atlantic), and this EXIF question comes up often. There are two answers I have, neither very helpful. 1) The photo agencies who provide the majority of the photos (AP, Getty, Reuters) strip out most of the EXIF data before passing image files on to their clients, so there isn’t anything there to pass on to the public most of the time. 2) EXIF data can also be manipulated.

  • Pingback: Tweeting about news: Top 20 journalism Twitter users «

  • Terry Dugas

    Lies, damned lies, and photographs. As the article notes, photographs (and moving pictures) have always been an imperfect record of truth. Some of the most iconic photos of war were either staged or are suspected of being staged. “Seeing is believing” only for those unwilling to put the effort (or who lack the knowledge) to be skeptical.

  • geraldine

    I can even consider Photoshop photo editing as art. The only thing I don’t like is when people use it to mock others or polished their portraits to create a cover girl effect. But what can I do? We have different philosophy in life! I recently created a tutorial on sketch effect in Photoshop: If you can’t paint or draw, you can turn a photo into a watercolor effect. I think that image manipulation is a pop culture and so does graphics editing software like Photoshop. I’m not against it. I’m against at people who are abusing it.

  • Pingback: Links you may have missed: April 17, 2011 | a curious Yankee in Europe's court

  • Pingback: Sunday 17 April 2011

  • Pingback: Writing, Photography, and the Art of Thinking Visually | B2B Memes

  • Pingback: Photoshopped Photojournalism «