-
Myth #1: Viewers ask whether the photo they’re seeing is “real” because they want to know whether the photo is “an equivalent to reality.”
Reality: 21st-century viewers know that no two-dimensional photo is equivalent to a three-dimensional reality.
Viewers ask whether the photo they’re seeing is “real” because they want to know whether the photo is undoctored.
They want to know whether they can read (and trust) it as a record.
-
Myth #2: Since photographs can never be equivalent to reality, “it doesn’t matter” when photographs are doctored or aigmented.
Reality: Actually, it matters a lot, because doctoring or aigmenting any record always ruins its value AS a record—
— and whether a photograph has value as a record is one of the first things that 21st-century viewers want to know when they see any image that looks like a remarkable photograph (it’s why they ask “Is this real?”).
Doctored | Aigmented
-
Myth #3: Viewers don’t care whether a “Wow” photograph is undoctored unless it’s in a “news” setting.
Reality: Viewers are plenty curious about “Wow” photographs outside of “news” settings (people don’t ask “Wow! Is it real?” only about newsphotos).
In the age of AI, when viewers see any impressive image that looks like an undoctored photograph, they will often be curious about whether it is an undoctored photograph.
(Viewers won’t be as curious when they’re not impressed, but the TTG label is not only for impressive pictures; see FAQ #430.)
“The greatest challenge of 21st-century photography”
-
Myth #4: The biggest threat is from photo-like AI-generated images (plaigis) that are made without a camera.
Reality: Viewers are at least as likely to be deceived by camera-generated photos that have been aigmented by adding AI-generated elements into them, as millions of photographers are already inserting into their photos.
plaigis | aigmented photos
-
Myth #5: The most effective response to the threat of AI-generated deception is to require disclosure labels on AI-generated images.
Reality: It is highly unrealistic to expect to labels to be put on the millions of unlabeled images with AI-generated elements that are already online, let alone on the billions more to come.
See #20 of the Welcome FAQ and see its subpage
-
Myth #6: It is possible to reliably detect the use of AI-GC.
Reality: Very rare is the person who can repeatedly score 10 out of 10 in quizzes challenging them “Can you tell which of these images are photos and which are AI-generated images?”
Failing to detect AI-GC only 10 or 20% of the time — that is, missing only 1 or 2 out of every 10 instances — may sound like a fairly good percentage until it is multiplied by millions of images.
More on those quizzes
-
Myth #7: Even major manipulations won’t bother viewers who don’t detect those manipulations on their own.
Reality: More than 40 years after the first high-profile photo-manipulation controversy that proved this myth wrong, there aren’t many people who still believe this.
-
Myth #8: The manipulations being done now are no different from what has been done to photos since photography was invented.
Reality: The scope, quality, and nature of photo manipulation is worlds different than it was in the pre-digital era.
Disagree? Try this simple test
-
Myth #9: As long as the simulation of any aspect of a scene looks as convincing as an undoctored photo of that aspect would look, it’s fine with the viewer.
Reality: Viewers want to know whether they’re seeing an undoctored record of what the camera lens actually saw instead of a simulation of what the camera could have seen.
For more, see this brief
-
Myth #10: It is possible to assess a photo’s trustworthiness just by looking at the photo.
Reality: There is no longer any reliable connection between a photo’s appearance and its trustworthiness.
This reality is expressed in many different ways across this website.
-
Myth #11: The image that looks most like the scene depicted is the most trustworthy portrayal of that scene.
Reality: If viewers know — or even suspect — that a photo-like image is doctored, aigmented, or AI-generated, they will trust it less than an undoctored record of the same scene...
. . . even if the undoctored version doesn’t “look as much like the scene depicted” as the doctored version looks.
See questions #321 and following for more on “accuracy”
-
Myth #12: If it was a manipulation or effect that could be done in the film era, then it doesn’t make a photo less trustworthy when used in a photo today.
Reality:
• It is easy to make untrustworthy photographs using film-era manipulations
• It is easy to make trustworthy photographs using digital technologies
• Almost all of the most-widely trusted photos in the world have been made digitally for two decades now
TTG makes no distinction between “darkroom” vs. “digital” manipulations
-
Myth #13: All manipulations are equivalent. For example, cropping is no different from deleting something, and changing color balance is no different from cloning something in.
Reality: Viewers and publishers alike see enormous differences in the significance of different kinds of manipulations.
The biggest distinction is between “light”-related vs. non-“light”-related manipulations, a difference that underpins TTG.
“Cropping vs. deleting” is discussed in FAQ #872.
-
Myth #14: Images are undoctored if they’re “straight-out-of-the-camera” (or smartphone)
Reality: A remarkable array of manipulations are now performed instantly, inside the camera or device.
See #3–5 on this page and see the Key entry on SOOC.
-
Myth #15: Viewers are fine with manipulations that affect only a tiny part of the image.
Reality: making changes to even tiny non-“light”-related aspects can radically change the meaning of a photo.
An example would be a photo of the New York City skyline taken from miles away on September 11, 2001, in which the depiction of an approaching airplane was deleted because it was just a tiny speck.
-
Myth #16: Photography is a “subtractive” medium, so viewers don’t mind if the photographer deletes things as long as nothing is added.
Reality: There is no valid distinction between “deleting” and “adding,” because one cannot be done without the other.
Unless a hole is left in the photograph, “deleting” the depiction of something requires “adding” the depiction of something in its place.
-
Myth #17: The photographer’s credibility shouldn’t suffer just because they doctor a photo to show the scene the way it looked at a different time than when they took the picture.
Reality: Photographers can show any scene any way they want — but their credibility will suffer if they publish in a trusted context a doctored photo that is labeled as TTG, regardless of their rationale for doctoring it.
See FAQ #408.
-
Myth #18: Photographs can be “objective.”
Reality: Every photograph (including every news photograph) is subjective, thanks to the number of variables and choices involved in the creation of any photo.
(Those who disagree are encouraged to post online what they consider to be an “objective” photograph and invite comments.)
For more, see FAQ questions #314–317.
-
Myth #19: Photographs never lie. | All photographs are lies.
Reality: Many photographs lie. | Many do not.
See FAQ #325 for more.
-
Myth #20: There’s no reason to have a “Nonfiction”-like label for photographs, because all photographs are fiction.
Reality: “Fiction” typically depicts something that is invented or imagined and not “real”—
— but billions of photographs made every day depict something that is “real.”
See FAQ #326 for more.
20 myths about photography in the digital age
Many “myths” in the digital age were formerly truisms in the film era.