When is a photograph no longer a photograph?

[AlanKlein]

On 2/14/2023 at 12:16 PM, samstevens said:

Yes, all true. But also a non sequitur. I wasn’t questioning the greater ease and greater mass access for digital photos to be manipulated. I was saying that an unretouched digital photo (for example providing the raw original) would be as reliable in court as an unretouched film photo.

Sam, I was responding to the part of your post that said: "Propaganda and alterations of photos for nefarious reasons were alive and well during the film only days."  The only point I was making is that most regular photographers were not doing what many regular photographers do today because computer software has made it easy. 

Edited February 15, 2023 by AlanKlein

[AlanKlein]

12 hours ago, httpwww.photo.netbarry said:

Sorry Dustin didn't see that post. I was thinking it was" find the pope in the pizza" from SNL. same difference.  I wonder when the Warhol case will be decided. Just to carry on with Warhol, people have said in today's environment whomever owns Campbells would have sued Wharf; for trademark infringement, but at the time, the head of the company wrote Warhol a letter saying he was an admirer of his art and wished he could afford to buy one of the soup can works but since Warhol apparently had expressed a liking of Campbell's Tomato soup, he sent him 2 cases. 

As far as the discussion about using photos in court I actually do have some experience. as a litigation paralegal.  I can't recall ever having a photo challenged in court as to its accuracy as long as the proper witness is used to introduce the evidence.  For instance accident scene photos taken by a police officer are generally admitted if the officer that was at the scene can testify that is how they recall it, especially if they took the photo whether film or digital, though the pictures are often challenged on other grounds such as relevancy..  I always thought digital photographs could be tricky because parties don't produce raw files and often don't know what they are.  Also with any photograph the focal length of the lens can affect the appearance of objects, giving different impressions of distance etc. When ever I went out with an expert and they were taking photos if size and distance were important I would ask them use a "normal" lens

 

The recent case where a defendant killed two or three people to defend himself at riots in the street who he claimed attacked him had two issues with photos during the trial. 

First, the defendant claimed one of those he shot tried to grab his legal rifle from him.  The video wasn't clear.  Then it came out that the prosecutors submitted at trial a version with less resolution.  When the judge ordered the prosecutor to produce the original video, it clearly showed the defendant was right. The person he shot did in fact grab his rifle.  The judge was so perturbed, he nearly threw the case out right there due to prosecutor malfeasance, but let it go on.  In the end, the defendant was found innocent of all the shootings because he was acting in self defense.  Frankly, had he not been, I think the judge would have declared a mistrial after the jury spoke.

Another situation came up at the same trial when the prosecutor mentioned they sharpened another video or photo.  The judge asked them to explain the procedure. They couldn't do this to his satisfaction.  They way it came off to him is that the photo could have been manipulated although we photographers know what normal sharpening does and is not the same as cloning.  The judge was not convinced and would not allow the photo in as evidence. 

 

Edited February 15, 2023 by AlanKlein

[samstevens]

35 minutes ago, AlanKlein said:

Sam, I was responding to the part of your post that said: "Propaganda and alterations of photos for nefarious reasons were alive and well during the film only days."  The only point I was making is that most regular photographers were not doing what many regular photographers do today because computer software has made it easy. 

Important to remember that these days, viewers should be aware of the potential for propaganda photos to be manipulated. We should be used to it by now. Back in the day, people trusted photos more so propaganda could pass and did pass easily. Just ask Stalin and Goebbels.  

Edited February 15, 2023 by samstevens

[AlanKlein]

11 minutes ago, samstevens said:

Important to remember that these days, viewers should be aware of the potential for propaganda photos to be manipulated. We should be used to it by now. Back in the day, people trusted photos more so propaganda could pass and did pass easily. Just ask Stalin and Goebbels.  

It's not only photojournalism but also portrait, landscape, and other "regular" photography.  You know something is not normal when the viewer asks, "Did you Photoshop it?"  Now the question will  become, "Is it a photo or AI?"

[samstevens]

24 minutes ago, AlanKlein said:

It's not only photojournalism but also portrait, landscape, and other "regular" photography.  You know something is not normal when the viewer asks, "Did you Photoshop it?"  Now the question will  become, "Is it a photo or AI?"

Actually, it may be time to wake up to today’s normal rather than living in a past and idealized normal. Though that may become an important question to you, don’t assume others are preoccupied with it. I view it simply as part of today’s world of photography. It’s not a question I bother with much. If a photo works, it works. 

[httpwww.photo.netbarry]

2 hours ago, AlanKlein said:

The recent case where a defendant killed two or three people to defend himself at riots in the street who he claimed attacked him had two issues with photos during the trial. 

First, the defendant claimed one of those he shot tried to grab his legal rifle from him.  The video wasn't clear.  Then it came out that the prosecutors submitted at trial a version with less resolution.  When the judge ordered the prosecutor to produce the original video, it clearly showed the defendant was right. The person he shot did in fact grab his rifle.  The judge was so perturbed, he nearly threw the case out right there due to prosecutor malfeasance, but let it go on.  In the end, the defendant was found innocent of all the shootings because he was acting in self defense.  Frankly, had he not been, I think the judge would have declared a mistrial after the jury spoke.

Another situation came up at the same trial when the prosecutor mentioned they sharpened another video or photo.  The judge asked them to explain the procedure. They couldn't do this to his satisfaction.  They way it came off to him is that the photo could have been manipulated although we photographers know what normal sharpening does and is not the same as cloning.  The judge was not convinced and would not allow the photo in as evidence. 

 

Defense attorney did a good job then. Maybe they were a photographer. Prosecutor could have put up a digital photography expert, but then again it would throw a bad light on the poor video copy. Disturbing that a prosecutor would do that to get a conviction.  Should be reported to the state bar if it turned out it was done at the attorney's direction. It might have been done by the cops.  Civil trials are a bit different then criminal trials though and as I said I've never seen the authenticity of  photo challenged at trial in 35 years doing this.  That doesn't mean it's never happened anywhere before.

[AlanKlein]

On 2/15/2023 at 6:25 PM, httpwww.photo.netbarry said:

Defense attorney did a good job then. Maybe they were a photographer. Prosecutor could have put up a digital photography expert, but then again it would throw a bad light on the poor video copy. Disturbing that a prosecutor would do that to get a conviction.  Should be reported to the state bar if it turned out it was done at the attorney's direction. It might have been done by the cops.  Civil trials are a bit different then criminal trials though and as I said I've never seen the authenticity of  photo challenged at trial in 35 years doing this.  That doesn't mean it's never happened anywhere before.

I've been involved in civil cases as a defendant and witness and many attorneys play games with evidence.  They either are not providing it or just providing selective evidence that supports their side, even though it's all been subpoenaed. 

When I worked in construction management, I used to use a Polaroid instant film camera shooting progress photos, hidden construction areas, etc to keep for later problems that may come up.  We often needed it to get Archtitects and inspection agencies to sign off work that may have missed inspection when the work was done.  Digital cameras were a lot better than Polaroids and I also had the pictures date stamped when shot.  Now that I think of it, I believe I got my first digital camera from my employer. 

[httpwww.photo.netbarry]

All interesting.  I'm just a paralegal, but my understanding is civil trials  are a production to a blind jury. The only information the jurors have is that which is presented to them.  The attorneys try to paint a picture and narrative to convince a  jury.  They will only present information that supports their story.  It is up to opposing counsel to undermine the information and present their own info.  Of course a lot of facts will be agreed to prior to trial.  However if information is presented by a party that was withheld in discovery, it gets complicated. Though there are exceptions, such evidence would not be allowed in and if it went in over objection, it could be grounds for appeal.  In some situations, the attorney could be sanctioned. You generally can't introduce evidence that was subject to prior discovery and instead of produced was withheld.

It's not the job of an attorney to present evidence favorable to the opposing party at trial, it is however a duty to provide all requested information and documents validly requested during discovery.

Edited February 19, 2023 by httpwww.photo.netbarry

[samstevens]

26 minutes ago, httpwww.photo.netbarry said:

It's not the job of an attorney to present evidence favorable to the opposing party at trial

Exactly. This is why our justice system is known as an adversarial system.

[httpwww.photo.netbarry]

Just to make the last relevant to photography. My understanding is if your photos you mentioned were requested in discovery,, they would probably be produced unless there was a valid privilege protecting their disclosure. If they were withheld because of a claimed privilege , you couldn't turn around and use them in trial, unless they were produced at some point.

Edited February 19, 2023 by httpwww.photo.netbarry

[samstevens]

The only relevant photo I have was taken in traffic court, waiting for the judge to come in. Not sure who was more bored, me or the bailiff. Anyway, the cop didn't show up so, lacking an ... adversary ... my ticket was dismissed! 😊

Edited February 19, 2023 by samstevens

[httpwww.photo.netbarry]

I think he had been looking at my doctored photos. He'll recover, I hope.

[Allen Herbert]

"At what point does an image become an illustration, due to manipulation?" Papa.

There's manipulation and manipulation.. Type in your browser  "Fantasy Photographs"  Methinks, the brush/easel would express their Art a lot better. 

I suppose its all about the image , but for me, it is also about the journey., and the enjoyment of it. Playing around with manipulated images on your computer seems very boring especially when there's a real world out there to discover. 

The real world does not need manipulation it just needs discovering.

The third eye of the Photographer.

Fan Ho Photography (fanho-forgetmenot.com)

Edited April 12, 2023 by Allen Herbert

[Allen Herbert]

I was going to post a photo...but Fan Ho Photography has humbled me.

[inoneeye]

When is a photograph no longer a photograph?  So many techniques and labels to sift through...   unbound photography, go where it takes you and go where you take it. When you are done and have need to categorize... step back and it may be apparent, as with the op image.  But labels are often fluid, subjective so others may or may not agree.

'straight' photograph

x2 neg contact print

in camera double exposure

fonted camera movement

cut/glued neg assemblage

toastered SX70

photogram,rayograph - cameraless photograph
drawing with light

[samstevens]

syncopated multichotomies

[Allen Herbert]

The, what you call the straight photo, catches the eye. Interesting.

The others for me is just someone messing in P/S, akin to someone placing their rear hole on a photo copier, and claiming they have created a masterpiece of originality. Hmm.

Hey ho, everyone to their own. Us heathens would never understand.

The real world does not need manipulation it just needs discovering.

[Allen Herbert]

[Allen Herbert]

[Allen Herbert]

[inoneeye]

~ Don Julio ~
flatbed scanner as camera

Edited April 15, 2023 by inoneeye

[Allen Herbert]

On 1/14/2023 at 8:53 PM, Allen Herbert said:

Lol

What a handsome dude;))

He would make a fortune in Hollywood with a boat race (face) like that.

 

On 1/27/2023 at 8:46 PM, Allen Herbert said:

 

 

 

 

[Allen Herbert]

"At what point does an image become an illustration, due to manipulation? " papa,

Photography as a Art form, and yes ,it is a Art form, it is based on a reality of truths. Its roots are deep in depicting the world as it is. Whether this is Documentary Photography or the magic of Ansell Adams Photography..

That is the Art of Photography.

The difference from other Art. 

[httpwww.photo.netbarry]

I think these kind of questions seeming  to seek some kind of bright line to distinguish a pretty subjective distinctions are kind of fruitless other than eliciting opinions. There's photographs and then there's alterations and processes. There is some point where the after process is beyond a photograph.  for instance things like photo collages. In investments-CDOs, in cooking, stews. I suppose that the point where the photo portion of a piece becomes more of an ingredient in something different, it becomes something different.

Edited April 16, 2023 by httpwww.photo.netbarry

[inoneeye]

Painting evolved from depicting realism. The door was opened and labels were created to accommodate the changes. Impressionism, expressionism etc. The inevitable evolution was slow to be accepted but was recognized by the medium of painting.

Labeling new and evolving uses of photography is challenging because many consider it limited to the image captured by a camera with restrictions in pp. Digital has further complicated, convoluted the question of when it is no longer a photograph. Manipulated photographs from pictorialism to jerry uelsman composites and on have challenged us to seek labels for photographic techniques and tools that photographers employ to express their imagination through photography.

I know when an image that uses photography crosses my subjective line and has become something I would not call a photograph. The op is an example. But it is not a clearly definable.  But if the medium is sourced from photographs I welcome it in to consideration as photo art.

Edited April 16, 2023 by inoneeye