Digital forensics and doctored images
The electronic era has thrown up some new challenges for newspaper editors including the use of digitally enhanced images.
Most newspapers declare when they have created a graphic using photographs that have been modified.
I can personally recall a lot of situations though when pictures have been “improved” and we made no declaration. These were generally to iron out a few wrinkles in a woman’s face. I don’t imagine that raises any ethical issues, or does it?
Something beyond an editor’s obvious control is the handling of a supplied image. I’ve always accepted these at face value and never questioned their veracity.
After reading this article in Scientific American I will be more wary in future.
Barely a month goes by without some newly uncovered fraudulent image making it into the news. In February, for instance, an award-winning photograph depicting a herd of endangered Tibetan antelope apparently undisturbed by a new high-speed train racing nearby was uncovered to be a fake.
The article goes on to say: “The validity of an image can determine whether or not someone goes to prison and whether a claimed scientific discovery is a revolutionary advance or a craven deception that will leave a dark stain on the entire field. Fake images can sway elections …”
A new field of digital image forensics is emerging to analyse photographs.
A country newspaper isn’t going to send a contributed picture of Mr Brown’s giant pumpkin to the lab for testing, but editors will have to question their authenticity.
The decision-making process will have to consider the potential risks and implications of publishing a dodgy photograph.
Comments
Leave a Reply