{"id":11186,"date":"2006-08-13T23:58:24","date_gmt":"2006-08-13T23:58:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.adobe.com\/jnackdev\/2006\/08\/can-you-trust-what-you-see.html"},"modified":"2006-08-13T23:58:24","modified_gmt":"2006-08-13T23:58:24","slug":"can_you_trust_what_you_see","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/jnack.com\/blog\/2006\/08\/13\/can_you_trust_what_you_see\/","title":{"rendered":"Can you trust what you see?"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>I&#8217;ve refrained from commenting on the <a href=\"http:\/\/theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com\/2006\/08\/apropos-truth-telling.html\">Reuters Photochopping debacle<\/a>, figuring I didn&#8217;t have much new or valuable to add to the discussion.  I&#8217;m not sure I do now, but Jim Lewis&#8217; <a href=\"http:\/\/www.slate.com\/id\/2147502\/?nav=ais\">Don&#8217;t Believe What You See in the Papers<\/a> offers good perspective on the long history of manipulated (and manipulative) news photography.  He links to Dr. Hany Farid&#8217;s interesting <a href=\"http:\/\/www.cs.dartmouth.edu\/farid\/research\/digitaltampering\/\" \/>tampering gallery<\/a>, where the chronology suggests that fakery is growing more common.<br \/>\nAs I&#8217;ve noted previously, Adobe has been <a href=\"http:\/\/blogs.adobe.com\/jnack\/2006\/01\/image_authentication.html\">working with Dr. Farid &amp; his team<\/a> on technology to detect digital manipulation.  Its arrival in mainstream tools will take some time, and even then it&#8217;s powerless against images that mislead in other ways.  I&#8217;m reminded of the aerial shots in the immediate aftermath of the 1989 Bay Area earthquake, zoomed in on a single burning block that suggested more massive devastation; or Fox News&#8217; decision last year during an LA blackout to zoom in on a fiery exhaust plume at an area factory&#8211;never mind that it&#8217;s that smokestack&#8217;s <i>natural state 24\/7<\/i>.<br \/>\nA lack of context and clarification may be ultimately more damaging than faked pixels, given that it&#8217;s subjective &amp; maybe impossible to prove.  Technology may help sniff out forgeries, but it has to go hand in hand with the audience seeking out multiple, diverse sources of news.<br \/>\n[Update: Rob Galbraith has collected <a href=\"http:\/\/www.robgalbraith.com\/bins\/content_page.asp?cid=7-7897-8520\">a variety of additional perspectives<\/a> on the topic.]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>I&#8217;ve refrained from commenting on the Reuters Photochopping debacle, figuring I didn&#8217;t have much new or valuable to add to the discussion. I&#8217;m not sure I do now, but Jim Lewis&#8217; Don&#8217;t Believe What You See in the Papers offers good perspective on the long history of manipulated (and manipulative) news photography. He links to [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[5,3],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/jnack.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11186"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/jnack.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/jnack.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/jnack.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/jnack.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11186"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/jnack.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11186\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/jnack.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11186"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/jnack.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11186"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/jnack.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11186"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}