Photoshop is an incredibly powerful program. From creating the illusion of old and worn images to restoring and reconstructing destroyed objects to presenting historical images in a pleasing and consistent fashion, it quickly becomes apparent how with time and effort an old photograph or print can can be remade into a different document
This seems to raise a number of issues for historians who are as interested in context and provenance as they are material, especially when one considers how images can be culturally constructive in both their original and recrafted iterations.
A careful documentation of altered images seems most important, given the way the web works. Since there is a strong possibility someone else might not only find, but republish your image, identifying the original work, as well as the changes you might have made upon it could be very helpful. For example, this image of the Boston Massacre had an incorrect caption the first time I encountered it (the information for which apparently came from here). Now, in this case, an incorrect citation made its way into what is likely becoming the most prevalent singular work cited by students. If one imagines that the original image had been modified in some way, it becomes clear how quickly the disinformation can spiral out of control. Because of this, the responsibility to record one’s transformations and make the process transparent to the audience are ethically important for the historian.
Ken, Bravo! I’m still very skittish about the Photoshop techniques. Think about how carefully we scrutinize pictures as historians. We can spend hours looking at a picture, trying to understand it. Now, we can find out that it was manipulated, changed, colorized, etc? Pictures as Art? OK. Pictures on a history site? Un-huh. Disclaimer needs to be up front, and not in a footnote lest we give the wrong impression. Unintentional or not!
Ken,
I’m in agreement with you on this. Restoring, clarifying, rejunevinating — whatever you want to call it – images to make them clearer and easier to share on the web is one thing – altering them to a point where they lead to a misinterpretation of reality is quite another. It’s a little like going to the movies — only to find out that half the actors were “0s and 1s” and there was little, if any, interaction between the human actors.
I showed an example of a technically perfect job of colorization on my Blog – that’s all wrong. Check it out -
The provenance thing is an issue with anything on the internet.
Although I have to admit, I’m kind of amused by the fact that, with images, it’s really not much worse than most archives and libraries. Our culture really neglects the provenance of images– I’d guess it’s because they seem so self apparent… even though that’s really far from the truth.
Images are simulations, in the Baudrillardian sense. They actually present us with that “impossible exchange” of reality and seeming-reality. So why bother thinking about their origin?
At any rate, yeah– if you ever have a craving for a headache, go to the LC, find an old photo of some random guy– nobody famous– from the Print and Photograph Reading Room, and try to figure out some information about who, or where, or when, it is. So often, the info the library has is limited to, “it was given to us in 1962, and it looks like it was taken 1880-1900.” Infuriating.
(That said, that reading room is a BLESSING, I love it, and I recommend it whenever possible. It is an amazing resource. That was meant as a general comment on the culture’s neglect of image provenance, not in any way meant to comment on the LC or the librarians in that reading room, who I have found to be some of the most helpful and friendly people in the entire LC.)
[...] the big talk around the block. Ken started it out with the top blog on the left side of the page. I commented that we can spend hours looking at a picture, trying to understand it, but can’t trust it’s [...]
So far, with my lack of skills, I won’t be able to change any images, or currency unfortunately, to make a difference. However, I really had to question the retouched photos of wedding couples that take separate images, poses, etc. from different photos in order to have a perfect one of the happy couple. This definitely gives me incentive to become more proficient in Photoshop so I can re-do all of my pictures before I die and become tall and blonde in everyone’s memory.
Joking aside, Ken, you and the other commenters address an important point. What becomes of the historical context when a photo or any other image is changed? And, since this is common, how do we go about solving the problem for historical research?
Ken, I’m curious about how the care we must take with citations of images (and no arguments from me on its importance!) is any different from the citations of words or sources or people. It would seem to me that the disinformation spiral is just as deadly to all forms of source material in the information age. Is the collective feeling of the class so fired up about images because we’re learning how to doctor them? Or is this a case of the bias historians have against image that Professor P has commented upon?