The Truth
Throughout our everyday lives, we are confronted with millions of photographs and pictures whether it’s on the cover of a daily news paper or on the inside of a magazine. In a conversation with Hany Farid, Errol Morris attempts to explain the editing in a recent photo that took the center stage of several news organizations. The photo was taken of four Iranian missiles being fired from the ground. The controversy arose when an online blog named Little Green Footballs provided evidence that the photo had been faked. The original photo taken contained only three missiles. By closely analyzing the photo using computer software it was confirmed that the photo containing four missiles was digitally edited. Errol’s purpose in speaking with Hany Farid, an expert on digital photography, was to help answer the issue of whether or not photos can be trusted.
In the process of describing the validity of photos, Errol takes a step back from looking at the advanced photo manipulation software and Photoshop tools, and looks at the components of a photograph. In order to trick someone with a photograph the image doesn’t need to change, “All you need to do is change the caption� (Errol 1). I agree Errol’s statement that by changing the caption, the photo’s claims changes. He gives an example of this using a satellite photo. Two identical images of the building are displayed, one with the caption of “Chemical munitions bunker� and the other with the caption “International House of Pancakes�. Although humorous in some respects, it leads to a very important point. As the detail of image decreases, our ability to recognize objects and form conjectures decrease. As this takes place, the amount of emphasis placed on the caption increases. The example of the satellite photo is this concept taken to its limit. The satellite photo is of such poor quality that anything could be said about the black and white rectangular looking building. There is no discernible characteristic that dignifies the building as a chemical munitions bunker rather than a fast food restaurant. Had the satellite photo been of high resolution and vivid detail, the viewer would look more at the picture and question the truth of the caption. By using the satellite image example, Errol shows that the image doesn’t need to be changed in order for the viewer to be tricked. This leads to the caption and explanation of the missiles.
The number of missiles seen in the Iranian photograph may not be the sole reason for the public’s outrage. By definition, a photograph is a representation of a person or scene in the form of a print or transparent slide (wordnet.princeton). This means that from the very second patterns of light are recorded onto film, the photo has some sort of bias to its meaning. Photographs are used to present what someone saw. In the case of the Iranian missiles the public was lied to, tricked into believing something that didn’t exist. In a prior article Will the real hooded man please stand up, Errol Morris states “We see not what is there, but rather what we want to see or expect to see� (Errol 2). People are angry at the doctored photo of Iranian missiles because they feel they have “been victims of fraud� (Errol 1). Their expectations about the missiles were wrong because the caption was wrong. The photo itself cannot be blamed for the lack of truth. If the photo with 4 missiles had been published in all the newspapers with the caption “Photoshopped Iranian missile test�, there would be no dispute about the truthfulness of the photo.
Given all the scandals Photoshop has caused, many news organizations have banned the usage of photo manipulation programs including Adobe’s Photoshop. Although news organizations believe that such actions will prevent the publication of false images, they are attacking the wrong component of the problem. The restriction of Photoshop leads to a false sense of truth. By stating Photoshop was never used, one may make the false assumption that photos never edited with Photoshop must be true. As shown in the chemical munitions building example, the only thing needed to change the meaning of the photo is the caption.
In some situations, photos are presented without a caption. This was the case in the book Let Us Now Praise Us Famous Men by Walker Evans and James Agee. During the first 63 pages, pictures of sharecropper families taken by Walker Evans are displaced. One of the unique characteristics about these pictures is that they lacked any captions or description. One possible explanation for this is that by excluding any form of context, Walker Evans hopes to display the unmitigated truth. Combining this concept with Errol Morris’s idea of captions and truth, I think that by leaving out captions, the reader is offered the freedom to apply his or her own beliefs and expectations to the pictures. This freedom establishes the perception of truth in the pictures among all audiences as they represent whatever the audience desires.
I think that in order to determine whether or not a photo is truthful, one must think of the circumstances and context associated with the photo. It’s impossible to determine whether or not a photo alone is truthful as it is merely film on paper. In order to determine its truthfulness, one must look at the caption. The caption is what the photo claims to be and is the only component of a photographic presentation that can be evaluated.
Citation:
wordnet.princeton-http://wordnet.princeton.edu
Errol 1-http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/11/photography-as-a-weapon/
Errol 2-http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/15/will-the-real-hooded-man-please-stand-up/
Comments
After reading the article Photography as a Weapon it really makes you think a lot about photographs. Generally, for me at least, I see the picture, read the caption if there is one and think whatever comes to mind. Once you read this though there is a lot more to think about. Some things to think about now that I wouldn’t have before are is the picture a fake, what would I think of the picture without its caption, what does this photograph really mean, or other questions like that. Through Errol Morris’s conversation with Hany Farid we really can learn a lot about photography. It gives you another perspective on how you view a photograph. Like stated in the position paper and directly from the article; all you have to do is change the caption and the example given in the position paper was the one of the Iranian Missiles. I agree and think that is a strong statement when Morris goes into talking about how captions influence how we see a photograph and if you have two identical photographs with different captions the photographs will be exactly the same but we will see them differently because of the way we are influenced by the caption. The position paper gave a very good example of this with the satellite picture of the “chemical bunker� or the “international house of pancakes.�
In Morris’s article Will the Real Hooded Man Please Stand Up he says people say seeing is believing, but rather it should be the other way around. The position paper kind of talked about this, but to add more we see things the way we want too. If there is a picture with no caption we see it as we want to see it, we see it as what we believe it is. Then you throw someone else’s point of view and what we believe it is may change. But if you put a caption under it people see it as the same thing. So I believe that a caption takes away the meaning of believing is seeing, because with a caption you don’t believe whatever you want, you believe and see what the caption says which goes back to how captions influence how we see a photograph. I liked how in the position paper Let us Now Praise Famous Men was brought in because of the fact that it has all those pictures without captions therefore we don’t have to be controlled, if you will, on what to believe the picture is. Our imagination can be free to see the picture however we want. That goes along with what is said in the position paper about the freedom without captions which I strongly agree with. In the reading You Have Seen Their Faces it is quite the opposite being that a location and short descriptive quote is given with the photograph. When looking at those pictures I see or believe only what the caption is telling me to see or believe, which takes away that freedom. With all that I think it becomes quite easy to change the meaning of a photograph and make it a fake or whatever just by changing the caption.
Posted by: Ryan Crowe | September 24, 2008 1:53 AM
A person’s bias can affect the way that that particular person views a certain photo. I agree with the position that was taken by the author of this position paper. A person sees what they want to see and by changing the caption below a photo, it can really confuse what the person actually sees.
The power of captions is underestimated. Captions tell photo viewers to look for a certain part within a photo. With the author’s example of the satellite in space, it’s true. When a person has no prior knowledge about a subject, they’re easily manipulated. When lead astray by a caption, a picture can began to show a whole new side of the story to a person.
Photos from Let Us Now Praise Famous Men force the reader to make his own judgments on the photos. By not giving any text or information with the photos or before the photos, the reader has no choice but to form his or her own opinion. The way that this is laid out in the story is not by mistake. It was intended to be this way as the author points out within this position paper.
As stated in the position paper, modifying a picture to take on a whole new meaning is accomplished with the click of a button. Because of this, it is essential that we view our pictures from credible sources. However, banning photo-enhancing programs is not necessarily the answer. People mostly use these photos to touch up pictures to better quality. As with all technology, if used properly it’s excellent and helps people to learn. However, it can be used to lead people astray and in the wrong direction.
Photos can show us a whole lot of information if they’re explained well. They can help to demonstrate a concept. By adding a caption you help to clarify what is being shown. This can be dangerous, because if the viewer has no past knowledge on a particular subject they’re susceptible to believe what the caption states. Photos from credible sources can be powerful learning tools, but they also can help to distract from the truth. One needs to be careful when critically analyzing a photograph.
Posted by: Nick Mueller | September 24, 2008 10:23 PM