This story is a supplement to the feature "Digital Forensics: How Experts Uncover Doctored Images" which was printed in the June 2008 issue of Scientific American.
Photography lost its innocence not long after it was born. As early as the 1860s photos were already being manipulated—only a few decades after Joseph Nicéphore Niépce created the first photograph in 1826. With the advent of high-resolution digital cameras, powerful personal computers and sophisticated photo-editing software, the manipulation of digital images has proliferated. Here, I have collected some examples of tampering throughout photography's over 180-year history.
See what we're tweeting about
19 Comments
Add CommentThis is great stuff! I've long known that despotic regimes have used photography to deceive their populations, but I didn't know how widespread the tactics were till now. Lends new meaning to the "seeing is believing" slogan.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't believe the before and after photos for the third set (Stalin) are the same photos. The background is not the same and I believe the man with the hat behind and to the left of Stalin is in a slightly different pose in the two photos (look at the position of his head). In addition, the commissar that was supposedly airbrushed out looks actually as if he was added in. His pose seems unnatural and he does not have the same depth as Stalin. It also looks to me as if the sun angle on Stalin is not the same as the commissar; Stalin's face is much more shaded.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlthough not technically of the same kind of doctoring, it is known that all regimes build myth by falsifying photographs. Check in American history for example: the 4 Marines putting the flag on top of that hill is a mise en scène :-)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this--
Edited by vinnie2k at 06/03/2008 12:00 AM
Not only despotic regimes ;-)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe last one is interesting, even the Swiss do such nonsense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisImage # 8, the missing bottles, is not the same photo. Look at the facial expressions and head orientations. It is possible that the bottles were physically removed before the another photo was taken.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding Image #5 -- Goebbels never really "fell out of favor" with Hitler. I think he was deleted from the picture because the woman he's standing next to in the picture is not his wife, but rather Czech actress Lida Baarová. Goebbels was engaged in an extramarital affair with her at the time, but later broke it off at Hitler's insistance to avoid a public scandal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is excellent proof of the sentence: "History is written by the winners"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDr. J. Semo
Interesting lack of examples from the '06 Lebanese conflict.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, we Americans didn't doctor any photographs beyond the Civil War for political reasons ? Only Nazis, Commies, and whoever we don't like at the moment ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this#8 does not appear tampered with. they are different pictures which look to be taken at two different times... Also, the images in #2 seem to be taken at a slightly different angles, and there are many other very subtle differences between the two photos, such as expressions on faces. This article is a on a fascinating topic, but extremely poorly done.... no sources, no explainations or details regarding how the photos were doctored, and what methods of forensics were used to arrive at the conclusions. I certainly would expect much better from Scientific American...like some science, for instance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy favorite is the altered satellite photos George Bush Sr. gave to the Saudi King showing fake Iraqi military buildup on the Saudi border, to scare the hell out of the King/dictator so he would let the US use Saudi Air bases during Gulf War I. I'll bet the unaltered satellite photos of the areas involved on 9/11 would reveal some interesting facts also.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEscaapeFromBushistan, Ara Kotchian... it's called Scientific AMERICAN... do not expect a publication like this to offer anything other than the correct line ideology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGoebells and Stalin would be proud of the etent to which their maxims have been absorbed by the NeoTrots...
Cheerio
GT
France
EscaapeFromBushistan, Ara Kotchian... it's called Scientific AMERICAN... do not expect a publication like this to offer anything other than the correct line ideology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGoebells and Stalin would be proud of the extent to which their maxims have been absorbed by the NeoTrots...
Cheerio
GT
France
I appears to me, user of PhotoShop, that the lower picture is the modified one.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe neat background, the face of Brandt, the bottles facing the reader and the neat arrangement of items on the table indicate this is the false image.
Thank God you're in France. Please stay there.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI found interesting that the study only shows photos from the "evil" ones. As somebody said before, Americans NEVER make fake photos? The article seems a little chauvinistic and tendentious to me. Good examples anyways.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI found interesting that the study only shows photos from the "evil" ones. As somebody said before, Americans only make fake photos to show Lincoln? The article seems a little chauvinistic and tendentious to me. Good examples anyways.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have two photographs which have definitely been tampered with. A name tag seems to be blocked out as well as an extra A been added in both the pictures. Can the name tag be identified at all?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this