Who put the cigarette filters there?
There seems not to be a real consensus about photo editing and photo authenticity. The discussion is lively and appears to be endless. So, why should one care? I think that it is an important discussion, because it is about facts and fake. A discussion, which is important way beyond photography. I will try to keep it short, focused and simple. It is in fact quite simple, I believe. I don’t want to start a discussion here, I only want to try to stipulate a rethinking of the problem.There should be a consensus about what kind of pictures we call a photograph. Languages are based on conventions and communication is only possible, if the majority accepts these conventions. A simple example. If somebody would decide to call a table a chair and a chair a table, misunderstandings would be the consequence and communication impossible.
What is the definition of a photograph?
The name describes the technique: drawing a picture by light (photons). A photograph shows a moment in time and viewers will think that the depicted scene existed at the moment of exposure. It doesn’t matter how the scene was recorded. Focal length, aperture, color or b&w, filters, exposure time, movements during long exposure times, and so on only effect how a scene will appear in the photograph.
Editing, yes or no?
Editing a photograph can be a technical necessity. Analog film, scanned film or digital photographs have a much higher dynamic range than paper, which has a dynamic range of only about eight stops. Therefore, printing a photograph requires an adaptation of the dynamic range and the kind of adaptation depends on the paper type. Glossy papers, matte papers, cotton papers, baryta papers etc., all require different adaptations of a photograph for its transfer onto paper. Cropping is the equivalent of a zoom lens. You change how a scene is depicted, but you don’t change the scene.
Which kind of editing turns a photograph into a pixelgraph or a collage?
Removing or adding elements of a scene is a process which creates a different scene, a scene which never existed. It changes what we see. The result can not be called a photograph anymore. It hasn’t been done very often in analog photography, because it requires technical skills and a lot of time. Now, a software does this in split seconds and therefore nowadays it is done regularly. All the new tools advertised in current photo editing software version adds are to be used to alter the scene recorded as a photograph. It is becoming easier to add or to remove elements or to change a midday scene into a sunset scene or a blue hour scene. Their business has a huge impact on what people consider as being real or fake. We should all keep an eye on these developments. The image created using such tools still looks like a photograph and it will be seen as a moment in time. If such editing processes aren’t pointed out to the viewers, a lie is created. Lying has always been the purpose of such editing processes. Most often for political reasons. Numerous examples of fake analog photos have been published. My favorites are those with some imperfections, like this group photo of soviet leaders, in which one person’s head had been removed, but not his feet.
Editing processes, which do not alter the entire image alter the scene selectively and thus create a new scene which never existed. Increasing the contrast of selected areas for example, thereby darkening a selected shadow so that what is in the shadow can’t be seen anymore, changes what can be seen selectively. It has the same effect as cloning something out. The image doesn’t fulfill the definition of a photograph anymore. If all shadows in an image are darkened in the same way by increasing the contrast, a viewer is able to understand, that what might be hidden in the shadows should not be recognizable. Viewers might wonder, but they are able to understand that this is the way the photographer shows the scene. Viewers are not purposely mislead.
Manipulation in photography
The use and meaning of the term manipulation has been changed in the past centuries. Originally, it had been used to describe activities using a hand; latin ‚manus‘ means hand. However, nowadays, the term is used to describe methods which alter a persons perception for the benefit of another person. Therefore, the term should not be used to describe the editing processes of photographs. Describing photo editing processes which alter a scene as a manipulation, hides what is really the goal of the type of such editing processes. It is the purposeful alteration of messages to alter peoples perception in a specific way. This is a dangerous development for any society.
The points I am discussing don’t cover everything the technology of photography can be used for, especially by artists. Several artists used and still use the power of photography for their art. The work of A. Gursky, a photo painter, is a perfect example. His images appear to be photographs, but are in fact pixelgraphs. He exaggerates and he creates scenes and views no human eye has ever seen, but what if…
Share this post:
Comments
Bob Janes on Editing, manipulating, lying, fake – towards an agreement of the meaning of words
Comment posted: 13/11/2025
A photograph is a two-dimensional, static depiction, often in monochrome of a three dimensional scene which exists in time and has colour and depth. Simply by positioning the camera and pointing the lens in a particular direction, photographers ‘edit’ what appears in the final photograph. Reality has already been left at the door.
Manipulation is an essential part of photography and has been since the beginning – we need to manipulate the latent image to make it visible and we need to fix it to make it permanent. Manipulation of an image to affect what is seen has long been a part of analogue photography – some of it did take great technical skills and time, but some if it was quite heavy handed (the same can be said of modern ‘photoshopped’ pictures).
We accept that the model in Man Ray’s ‘Le Violon d’Ingres’ did not really have sound holes in her back, and it doesn’t really matter if they were painted onto the model or added to the negative after the fact. It’s not a lie and it is still a photograph, as well as a work of art.
While I admire the wish for clarity, I’m afraid none of us can redefine the meaning of a word like photography. I would point out that, in writing this piece, you are attempting to manipulate the attitudes of your readers, just as I, in turn, am attempting to counter to manipulate your view and that of other readers.
Many thanks for the mental stimulation though :-)
Comment posted: 13/11/2025
Comment posted: 13/11/2025
Comment posted: 13/11/2025
Comment posted: 13/11/2025
Comment posted: 13/11/2025
Comment posted: 13/11/2025
Roger on Editing, manipulating, lying, fake – towards an agreement of the meaning of words
Comment posted: 13/11/2025
An additional complication is that the human eye may not see scenes in the same way as either film or a digital sensor. Perhaps a manipulated HDR image could be closer to what a human would see looking at the scene, because the eye would adjust when moving from light to dark areas. Also, film and sensors differ in ways that include dynamic range and the rendering of colours. How should we view taking a digital image and darkening shadows (and maybe adding grain) etc to make it look identical to how the image would have been if shot on film?
Comment posted: 13/11/2025
Comment posted: 13/11/2025
Stewart Waller on Editing, manipulating, lying, fake – towards an agreement of the meaning of words
Comment posted: 13/11/2025
The general rule was anything you could easily do in a darkroom, such as burning, dodging, cropping, contrast, to make the image look more like it looked to the photographer at the time, but maybe not exactly how the film recorded it with its limitations (dynamic range, for example). However, something overly wrought, with something added or removed, or a double exposure, even, to achieve the desired dynamic range of say, a lighted building at night, would have to be called a photo illustration. Removing something like a stray bird from the sky in the distance was absolutely unacceptable, but digitally removing a spot where dust had spoiled the image was at least a subject of debate. Many American photographers lost their jobs at papers doing more, like changing the color of the sky for drama, without alerting the editors to this alteration.
I went on to work mostly in marketing, ironically, where no such ethical constraints apply. At 63, I still work in a product studio 40 hours a week, and nothing I photograph could be considered, IMO, a photograph by the end of the editing process. I work in photo illustration, making everything look better than real, and increasingly faker than real because that's what viewers are becoming used to. And everything is also a collaboration, so I can't really even call what I make art.
In my free time, I continue practicing photography as I was trained, producing images in-camera digitally and on film with minimal post processing work outside of sharpening, exposure and contrast and sometimes a little cropping. Not because there's a moral imperative, but because that's what I enjoy most about photography.
Comment posted: 13/11/2025
David Pauley on Editing, manipulating, lying, fake – towards an agreement of the meaning of words
Comment posted: 13/11/2025
The idea that a photograph must represent an untouched moment seems too narrow for a medium that has always balanced documentation and expression. Transparency about editing is crucial, yes — but art and communication thrive on nuance, not rigid definitions. Photography’s strength lies precisely in that gray area between truth and interpretation.
NOTE TO READERS: the above 2 paragraphs were written not by me but by chatGTP in about 2 seconds. I include them here to point out what a strange new world we've entered into. Thanks for your provocative piece, Peter. - David Pauley
Comment posted: 13/11/2025
Jalan on Editing, manipulating, lying, fake – towards an agreement of the meaning of words
Comment posted: 13/11/2025
Comment posted: 13/11/2025
Comment posted: 13/11/2025
Neal Wellons on Editing, manipulating, lying, fake – towards an agreement of the meaning of words
Comment posted: 13/11/2025
Comment posted: 13/11/2025
Gary Smith on Editing, manipulating, lying, fake – towards an agreement of the meaning of words
Comment posted: 13/11/2025
Comment posted: 13/11/2025
Comment posted: 13/11/2025
Gordon Ownby on Editing, manipulating, lying, fake – towards an agreement of the meaning of words
Comment posted: 13/11/2025
"Some Words on Digital Technology:
"After starting photography using film and a traditional darkroom, I now use digital workflow tools to assist in creating impactful photographs. For both film and digital captures, I use photography software to shade, highlight, and tone images, adjust exposure, colors, contrast, and sharpness, adjust digital 'noise" and 'grain,' correct lens distortion, remove dust and scratches, and upscale digital files. No element within my photographs has been added, moved, diminished, or removed (other than incident to cropping or shading) using digital technology."
In practice, I have taken this approach to leave in my photos even a bird's small unwanted speck in the sky.
Comment posted: 13/11/2025
Comment posted: 13/11/2025
Ibraar Hussain on Editing, manipulating, lying, fake – towards an agreement of the meaning of words
Comment posted: 13/11/2025
Comment posted: 13/11/2025
Comment posted: 13/11/2025
Jeffery Luhn on Editing, manipulating, lying, fake – towards an agreement of the meaning of words
Comment posted: 13/11/2025
This is a very provocative subject. Thanks for your perspective. I do agree that the 'purity' of an image, especially when it's being presented as a real moment in time, is important. The main examples that comes to mind are photojournalistic photos that should be depended upon for realism. The need for honesty in this regard should be obvious, but most viewers either cannot or will not object to altered photojournalistic images. It takes effort. The cure for that, and this will never happen, is to certify unaltered photos in the same way that 'organic' and 'non-GMO' foods are labeled.
I'm a film guy, but I teach two digital classes at the college in addition to the film class. I say right up front, "There is no photograph that cannot be improved by Photoshop. I grant all of you free reign to manipulate your submissions, but if they look overdone or technically awful, your grades will reflect the shortcomings. There are a couple of assignments of a photojournalistic goal where alterations will not be accepted. It's my hope that students will gain a lasting appreciation between the two kinds of assignments."
In the end, Peter, the genie is out of the bottle and people are becoming distrustful of all photos. That's sad, but predictable.
Jeffery
Comment posted: 13/11/2025
Scott Ferguson on Editing, manipulating, lying, fake – towards an agreement of the meaning of words
Comment posted: 13/11/2025
I enjoyed thinking about the meaning of the word ‘photograph’ and while I don’t think your definition and accompanying restrictions are unreasonable or indefensible, I’m not sure I’m that fussed about it when a manipulation is done for creative reasons in the production of a piece of art or for that matter, commercial illustration. If an artist retouches a photograph in a way that colors outside of the lines that you define here, I’m ok if you don’t want to call it a photograph, but I’ll confess that I’m not bothered and calling it something like a pixel graph feels a bit fussier than useful or interesting. I rarely paint anything out of my photos, partly because I’m not very good at it, but I once removed the logo of a corporate hotel chain from a photo of an ice castle on Lake Louise, and still think of the resultant image as a photograph. I am fussed when a manipulation is done to deceive as propaganda or to hurt someone such as a deepfake or revenge porn and the like. I think the rules you suggest and others have commented on make total sense for anyone who is presents a photograph as photojournalism. I also think there are legit issues where people should retain certain rights to approve of any deceptive retouching of their images — I’ve had actress friends who complain if they see images where they feel their body type has been improved too much because of the pressure that might put on their young fans. I think there are many really interesting issues to dig into in this conversation, but I’m not sure that the definition of the word ‘photograph’ is as important to me as the meaning, impact and intent of the kinds of manipulations you note in the piece. But thanks for making me think, the conversation itself has been quite interesting.
Comment posted: 13/11/2025
Comment posted: 13/11/2025
Comment posted: 13/11/2025
Comment posted: 13/11/2025
Comment posted: 13/11/2025
Comment posted: 13/11/2025
Keith Shearon on Editing, manipulating, lying, fake – towards an agreement of the meaning of words
Comment posted: 14/11/2025
I do not believe the word photograph is so sacred. But I am not opposed to using “photograph” for unretouched images from a camera, and “imaginaph” for retouched images.
Photographs have always been manipulated. David Hurn and Garry Winogrand both said where you stand and when you release the shutter are not only the choices you have in making a photograph, but because the choice is yours, the resulting image is your version of how the thing looked.
I do agree that changing the entire meaning of a photograph that has already been captured to something different than what was intended by the photographer is at least kin to propaganda.
Comment posted: 14/11/2025
LASousa on Editing, manipulating, lying, fake – towards an agreement of the meaning of words
Comment posted: 14/11/2025
Comment posted: 14/11/2025
Comment posted: 14/11/2025
Geoff Chaplin on Editing, manipulating, lying, fake – towards an agreement of the meaning of words
Comment posted: 14/11/2025
Comment posted: 14/11/2025
Comment posted: 14/11/2025
Alexandre Kreisman on Editing, manipulating, lying, fake – towards an agreement of the meaning of words
Comment posted: 14/11/2025
Remember that a negative is just a raw image, and that all negatives were worked on at some point: in front of an enlarger, in the minilab machines,...
I shoot 99% film, and thus process my images as I would do in front of an enlarger : change the contrast to have more detail, have a clear palette of shades of grey and some pure black and white, burning and dodging.
If I would take a digital photography, the image is worked in the camera directly has the sensor and modern lenses do not correct parralelism or other artefact due to the glass in the lenses, also the color is also changed in the camera before making the raw file (every camera uses an integrated software). Add to that some minor correction or reframing and if I understood your article well it shouldn't be considered photography but something else ?
Anyway, though subject!
Cheers
Alex
Comment posted: 14/11/2025
Bill Brown on Editing, manipulating, lying, fake – towards an agreement of the meaning of words
Comment posted: 14/11/2025
David Hume on Editing, manipulating, lying, fake – towards an agreement of the meaning of words
Comment posted: 14/11/2025
At the same time, these questions have a very long history, and it might help your argument to recognise and acknowledge how many photographers and thinkers have already wrestled with them. Geoffrey Batchen, Rosalind Krauss, and Roland Barthes, to name only three, all looked closely at the tension between photography’s indexical trace and our desire to treat the photograph as a transparent slice of reality. When a bunch of big hitters have turned their minds to the question, it's good to bring them to the party. Even in the darkroom era the boundaries were never simple: dodging, burning, bleaching, masking, even combination printing were all used to shape a scene into something it never quite was. The idea that a photograph is a neutral transcription has been questioned for over a century.
Where your piece is strongest, I think, is in asking us to keep an eye on the communicative stakes. Viewers rely on certain conventions, and if we break those conventions without signalling it, trust erodes. That’s a fair concern, and one worth returning to. But the line between “editing” and “creating a new scene” has always been porous, and defining it as a simple binary risks flattening the richness of photographic practice—both documentary and artistic.
Rather than drawing the boundary once and for all, the more helpful task might be to stay attentive to context, intention, and audience. The same action—a removed object, a shifted tone—can be an artistic gesture in one setting and a deception in another. Photography has always lived in that tension.
Still, I appreciate your attempt to bring clarity, and I think the conversation becomes more interesting once we place today’s tools within that longer continuum rather than treating them as a break from a previously “pure” medium. Cheers, David
Comment posted: 14/11/2025
Comment posted: 14/11/2025
Comment posted: 14/11/2025
Stefan Wilde on Editing, manipulating, lying, fake – towards an agreement of the meaning of words
Comment posted: 17/11/2025
Sorry for being late to the party, I only discovered your post Yesterday night. I have spent the last two weeks disputing and discussing single words in a large contract and by profession I very much sympathize with the concept that words should have a specific meaning.
I sympathize even more with the concept of evoking correct expectations in the viewer of a picture. It would be fantastic to find an accepted term to describe what a viewer is looking at, with (possibly) a representation of the physical scene as it presented itself in a specified moment of time (within the limitations of the medium) as one extreme and (possibly) a picture composed of colors and forms that is totally unrelated to any physical scene as the other extreme.
Finding these terms in a legal framework, or better still, as an accepted part of public discourse might go a long way to help societies being more rational and safer.
So, while I am a supporter of the ideas above, I'd like to offer a challenge to the definition as I understand it which is that a photograph is a representation of a scene that did physically exist.
The challenge is the subjective context of the creator of the picture.
Can an edited picture still be called a photograph if it is a representation of a physically existing scene, if it was edited with any other intent than making the representation truer to the creator's perception of the scene? If the mere thought "... and it also looks better that way" even so much as crossed the mind of the creator can we still call it a photograph?
And what if the photograph depicts a physically existing scene that was itself created to support a falsehood? I witnessed that in my days at school where a specific issue of a fashion and interior design magazine made a big splash among us students. It featured a supposed home story depicting a "Mrs. Xxxx Yyyy", a lady with style".
The lady in question was a student in our school whose real name was completely different from that in the magazine and she certainly didn't live in the home in which the picture was created. Yet, the scene physically existed and the representation of it, though edited to look attractive, was true enough to life that the viewer would have recognized it would she or he have been present.
So, does this not fit the definition of a photograph as suggested?
I believe that in the comments above the term "photographic illustration" was suggested, but this term was meant for a situation where the factual statements that the image supports were meant to be true. So, here it doesn't quite seem to exactly fit the context. Here, the photograph was an illustration of a statement that itself wasn't intended to be factually true, but create the illusion that it was.
I am not saying we should abandon the attempt to find agreed terms, I'm merely challenging the proposal of a specific definition to make progress.
Which in all likelihood will be quite slow, but it's worth it. After all, AI might turn out to be a new Gutenberg moment. It took centuries to come to terms with that one...
Comment posted: 17/11/2025