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.

Share This