William Mortensen, Human Relations, bromoil transfer print through textured screen. Allegedly inspired because he was angry about a long distance phone bill.
I don't mean to stir up a bitter old argument, but I thought I'd address one little question*.
Whenever I or anyone says "digital images are easy to manipulate," people will inevitably chime in and claim that photos could always be manipulated and that it's not just digital images.
No disrespect to anyone who did so, but...well...
Sigh.
It's true, strictly speaking (they're not wrong). But it's also deeply misleading. I spent many years printing for a living, and a print from a negative, much less a slide, is very difficult to substantively modify. And doing so—even successfully—almost always leaves telltale signs that the manipulation was done. Maybe these telltales are not obvious to a layperson, but often they can be detected by an expert. So...
...Yes, the Soviets used to "disappear" luckless officials and expunge them from old pictures, as documented in David King's The Commissar Vanishes (a good book by the way). But the CIA and MI6 could pore over the pictures and sometimes (no one could claim "always"!) detect when changes had been made.
...Yes, objects could be "airbrushed out" of a print, such as the unfortunate "fencepost growing out of the subject's head" in the famous Kent State image. But airbrushing was difficult to accomplish and almost always had to be done by a skilled expert. It wasn't available to everyone by any stretch, and it cost money.
...Yes, Ansel Adams retouched an image of a high school graduation year spelled out in white painted stones on a shadowed hillside in one of his landscapes. Negative-to-positive prints were routinely "spotted." If a negative had dust on it when it was printed, the mote of dust or dirt, printed as a negative image, would create a tiny white spot on the print; sometimes there were dozens or hundreds of these (it only seemed like thousands). Photographers routinely "knocked down" this white spot to make it invisible by dabbing it with a dye called SpoTone** using a tiny pointed brush. Spotting, like darkroom work, was a chore enjoyed only by a small minority of those who had to do it. One of my advanced expert Contributing Editors at Darkroom Techniques magazine was initially excited by digital imaging because it meant that spotting would become so much easier! He said if he never had to spot a print again he would thank his lucky stars. Anyway, from there, it was a short leap to realizing that unwanted small light objects in prints could be similarly disguised. But this was pretty limited. It didn't work with anything that was too large, at least if you didn't have mad skills like the Master.
...Yes, similarly, many photographic techniques had various controls by which to correct images to make them look like they were "supposed" to look (burning and dodging and contrast adjustments being the usual examples trotted out), and these controls could be extended or overdone to change the visual effect of an picture.
...Yes, you could retouch wrinkles and blemishes by "drawing" in pencil on the back of a large-format portrait image—Edward Weston complained bitterly about having to spend long, boring hours at this thankless task for his commercial portrait clients (he was an artist. Except he really was). Some sheet films were specifically made with a "retouching surface," meaning a matte surface with some "tooth" that was easier to draw on than a glossy surface. But if you went too far with this, it could make for an odd-looking image which even an untrained eye could "sense" if not actually "see."
George Hurrell asked movie stars to arrive at his studio wearing no makeup, and Joan Crawford said she came for this portrait with only a "scrubbed face." Hurrell's master retouchers then spent many hours making the finished portrait on the left from the straight shot on the right. But this was high-level work in 1931, available to very few photographers and very expensive even for the pros who had access to it. Moreover, would any professional photographer (now or then!) look at the result on the left and not know it has been retouched?
...Yes, many Pictorialist photographers reworked photographic images so extensively that they were essentially half photograph, half traditional visual artwork (cf. "Struggle" by Robert Demachy). The Pictorialists had many camera-club heirs in later decades, the reductio ad absurdum of whom is that notorious paragon of kitsch William Mortensen, whose work is so bad it's almost, well, good. There was eventually a reaction against the practice of striving to make photographs mimic traditional paintings and drawings, a goal which has never been seriously or widely revived.
...Yes, Henry Peach Robinson and O.E. Reijlander were featured in Newhall's once-standard history (first printed 1937 and revised several times—I prefer the fifth edition) as examples of combination printing, meaning making one image from two more more negatives. A. Aubrey Bodine had favorite dramatic skies that he would drop into different pictures, and Jerry Uelsmann, a master of the technique, used it to create surrealistic dream images—which, however, were not intended to deceive. Another type of combination printing were those spoof postcards of people with giant vegetables and so forth so beloved of the 19th century—you can still find these occasionally at antique-slash-junk shops if you look for them. But those were jokes and also not intended to deceive.
But no, I don't think Matt Mahurin's 1994 alteration of O.J. Simpson's mugshot on the cover of TIME magazine is an example of pre-digital manipulation. Photoshop was introduced in 1987 and even I had access to it by 1994, at least though my company's Graphic Design department. I can't find a source, at least not off the cuff, but I'm guessing it's likely that Matt created his unfortunate and ill-fated "illustration" (you can read his own thoughts about it here) using digital means.
O.J.'s mugshot and Matt Mahurin's TIME magazine cover. Of course the values (lightness and darkness) you're seeing now, here, aren't absolute.
So yes, it's certainly true that photographs were manipulated before digital came along. But most such methods a.) required skill and practice and/or specialized equipment to put into effect (i.e., to airbrush, you needed an airbrush and the practiced skill to use it); b.) cost money; c.) were severely limited in their availability to average and casual snapshooters, if only because few would take the pains or go to all the effort; and d.) very often left telltales of the manipulation in the resulting image such that an expert could at least guess that something might be fishy. It required great skill to make substantive alterations invisibly, and even then, you'd be limited as to the extent of the alterations you could pull off. Digital images, early on, became, by orders of magnitude, a.) easier to alter and to a much greater extent if desired; b.) and more cheaply; and c.) far more invisibly, very often leaving absolutely no visible trace in the image that any changes had been made. Even to the eyes of experts. And of course the means of making such changes were far more widely available, to many, many more people. So to claim that there is equivalence or parity in the ways digital and pre-digital photographs can be faked is, as I said, deeply misleading. Of course, it's something Internet believes, and what Internet believes is indelible. That can never be altered!
Part of a broader fight
Finally, I need to point out that the assertion that "photographs have always been manipulated" was, originally, during the earlier years of the digital transition, essentially an argumentative claim in defense of digital. There was a period when film users were defending film as being superior, and, at first, they had the weight of long history and prestige on their side. Initially they were pretty smug about it, even insufferable at times, and adopters of the upstart medium were correspondingly touchy about defending it from attack. This was only true for a short period of time, maybe a decade or a decade and a half depending on how you look at it. (It would be interesting to run down the specifics of the various stages by which advances in digital imaging overwhelmed all of the supposed advantages of film.) But, during that time, it was largely a status argument, not a technical one—so neither side were particularly inclined to take an objective look at the relative ease and extent of how various kinds of photographs could be manipulated.
Mike
Image sources, from top down: Minneapolis Institute of Art; Mark A. Vieira via The Hollywood Reporter; Comitialbulb561; WorthPoint.
*Again.
**As far as I could find out, the owner of SpoTone had a heart attack around the year 2000 and the company was shuttered. (One wag wickedly opined, "If I owned Spotone I probably would have had a heart attack too when I saw what could be done with the rubber stamp and healing tools in Photoshop.") Alternatives remain available.
P.S. I will say that one reason I like demotic film snapshots—I have many books—is that they were almost never manipulated. They just "came out," as people used to say. ("Did it come out?" "I took a picture of her, but it didn't come out.") That was for a time true of smartphone snaps too. It wasn't that phone snaps couldn't be manipulated, it was merely that they seldom were, because so few people could or would go to the trouble. That period is over now too, if the manipulations are going to be built into the phones and applied automatically.
Original contents copyright 2024 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)
Featured Comments from:
