The Truth About Images That Lie

Illustration for article titled The Truth About Images That Lie

Susannah Frankel writes in today's Independent: "The adage that 'the camera never lies' is as unreliable now as it ever was." Sure, there's PhotoShop and other means of digital manipulation, but even unretouched pictures often do not tell the complete story. Nick Knight is responsible for dozens of global advertising campaigns and fashion editorials. "People say I'm a photographer, but that doesn't sound correct to me any more," he says. "Manipulation is a slightly charged word, though, because it implies deceit. A skilled photographer totally manipulates the reality they have around them." Frankel points out that even Marilyn Monroe was airbrushed. So since when have we ever believed what we see?


The truth is, we love a pretty image. And Vogue (and other magazines) render celebrities practically unrecognizable because they know that humans are attracted to a thing of beauty. (In fact, early covers of Vogue were literally art.) Even in the early days of photography, a photograph never told the whole truth: It was black and white. Then there's the context and baggage we bring to images. Did anyone ever see the London police ads that pictured a black guy running and a white police officer running behind him? In today's cultural context, it was easy to assume the cop was chasing the black guy. But copy at the bottom of the ad told the true story: Both men are police officers, chasing a suspect who was cropped out of the picture. The black guy was undercover.

Not only do photographs lie — captions and descriptions often lie as well. Joel Stein has a story today in the LA Times about the paparazzi in the City Of Angels. He notes how, when interviewing Jason Bateman, he and Jason stopped at a car wash. Stein writes: "As we were leaving, we spotted a guy hiding behind an SUV taking photos with a telephoto lens. Of Jason Bateman. At a car wash. The next day, a blog ran photos of us under the provocative headline, 'Guess Who Sneezed?' The sad thing is, he was actually blowing his nose." Sneezing, blowing your nose, who cares, right? The point is that we're living in a world where the truth is more blurred than ever, and we're used to it. And, Susannah Frankel says, we're guilty of it:

We may not, like Elizabeth Hurley, go to the trouble of using Photoshop to tidy up our holiday snaps. But which of us is not guilty of editing them, of casting aside the pictures showing extra chins, blotchy skin and wobbly bits? Of making sure that only the loveliest, happiest, glossiest versions of reality are left behind for posterity?

If we're so interested in the truth, why don't we start with ourselves?

Pixel Perfect: Why You Shouldn't Believe Your Eyes When It Comes To Those Glossy Images [Independent]

Paparazzi Avoidance Behavior [LA Times]

Related: Vogue Covers [Cover Browser]

Earlier: French (Photo Retouchers) Don't Let Famous Women Get Fat

Here's Our Winner! 'Redbook' Shatters Our 'Faith' In Well, Not Publishing, But Maybe God



I put every picture that I take through the iPhoto treatment. And, yes, I prefer to take pics myself for the purpose of quality control. You almost have to in jour digital world, in order to keep horribly unflattering pictures from being all over the internet. Pictures aren't usually about reality. They're about capturing moments the way that we want to remember them. No one wants to remember that time that you got too drunk to stay on the barstool and your friends snapped a pic just as you tumbled to the ground, covering yourself in bourbon and Diet Coke (not that I, uh I mean one, could remember that moment anyway). And THEN have that less-than-graceful moment documented on Facebook. I don't think there is anything wrong with trying to control the way that your image is presented to the world.