On the little value images holds today

[Ctrl Alt Del]

We've got more than a couple of softwares that promises - and delivers - amazing image editing capabilities for the average user. More than just pimples and red eyes effects removal, it offers the editor the possibility to change just about anything.

 

Aside from the obvious leisure uses, it also has a play on more serious issues. And that's older than you'd imagine. A known case is that of Lenin picture. Stalin, after taking over the Soviet Union, eliminated all traces of his political rival, Trotsky, from the official pictures with Lenin. That, according to historians, was a measure to distance him from the people. It can be seen below:

 

 

On this fairly old scenario wherein what you see doesn't always pass for truth, images should have less value on the trust department. On this case, because they can be closely inspected for discrepancies, words by themselves would be much more reliable. One could object that images can be investigated too, however, as seen on the sample images, even techniques that are more that half a century old leaves little to no clues.

 

Therefore, an individual, when reading, has his own mind at a state of absolute attention, ready to idetify mistakes, be them deliberate or unintentional. Unlike when this same person is just glancing through an image among many others, with his/her mind set for automatic swalloing of anything thrown at them.

[The Betrayer]

A very thought-provoking post, if I would say so myself. I do believe that when shown the second pics from those, I would not be able to believe that there was a Trotsky edited out of them.

[Sabretooth]

A very thought-provoking post, if I would say so myself. I do believe that when shown the second pics from those, I would not be able to believe that there was a Trotsky edited out of them.

 

Kind of makes you think that if you ever saw a photo in Soviet Russia, you'd wonder if Trotsky could somehow fit into it. Trotsky could have been a great meme if there were a 4chan in Soviet Russia.

[Litofsky]

Kind of makes you think that if you ever saw a photo in Soviet Russia, you'd wonder if Trotsky could somehow fit into it. Trotsky could have been a great meme if there were a 4chan in Soviet Russia.

 

Sorry, Sabre. All improper pieces of paper are to be delivered to the conveniently-located furnaces, no matter the circumstances.

[Darth Avlectus]

Actually, while I'm not sure exactly of how long the art of rotoscoping has been around, I do know it had been around for a long long time before it was employed in SW:ANH back in the 70's. (The original lighsaber special effect.) IIRC it was first made in the late nineteen-twenties.

 

I do know that not only in films but in photography this sort of collage or cut and paste refinishing has been employed many times. The effects took considerably more effort and care on the part of the manipulator. Back in the early daysone had to be particularly clever due to the lack of tools and resources in those times. Though in the B&W/grayscale era everything might also have been easier to change overall. So perhaps the difficulty is relative to the time and availability of things. As well as techniques originally used in the un-edited piece.

 

Yes I do suppose investigative tactics of testimony and words would yield better results.

 

Photographic manipulation now no longer requires much talent or ingenuity that it once did. Or having the great complex mind of old times. Probably why so much shoddy work to this end has surfaced lately as the ability to basically do this has become easier and more commonly available.

 

Indeed it is a powerful yet subtle form of deception. Or lately, advertising.

[Qui-Gon Glenn]

Sorry to resurrect an oldie, but this is actually in my wheelhouse, if I have one. Reminds me a lot of the Barn Facade case.... or even the Meditations. This type of deception is taken to a whole new level, in that our eyes see everything in the image/photo correctly, and yet do not see what is really there. Our eyes in this case are not what is deceiving us, however. An evil geniu... a jerk is deceiving us, using our most trusted sensory perception against us - seeing is believing, correctly or no.

 

In summary - images cannot be trusted when seen live with your own eyes, far less so when seen in print.

 

This is a different conclusion though, than what your thread title suggests. As GTA:SWcity noted, advertising makes great use of images/imagery, and so in that sense images hold tremendous value today, perhaps more value than ever, even if the image is a construct.

[Ctrl Alt Del]

This is a different conclusion though, than what your thread title suggests. As GTA:SWcity noted, advertising makes great use of images/imagery, and so in that sense images hold tremendous value today, perhaps more value than ever, even if the image is a construct.

It does has an unhealthy value indeed, but it shouldn't. And that's what my title refers to. I also present an alternative - words - to the currently mostly accepted, once full of factual value, pictures.

[Jae Onasi]

More of our brain is devoted to vision than any other single process. It comes as no surprise to me that images are very powerful tools for use and abuse.