'That's Photoshopped!' Yeah, so Does That Mean All Our Photos Are Fake?

'That's Photoshopped!' Yeah, so Does That Mean All Our Photos Are Fake?

If someone indignantly snorts that your image has been Photoshopped, it's a rather unsubtle way of them telling you they think your image is fake. But really, aren't all our images to a certain degree?

Photoshop has become such a common part of our everyday vernacular that it's morphed its way into becoming a verb, much like Google. When you want some quick information, you "Google it," and when someone wants to tell you in no uncertain terms that they doubt the legitimacy of your image, they tell you it's been "Photoshopped." Even my dear old mum, who, at 73, doesn't actually know what Photoshop is, nor what it does, is never afraid of telling me "I like it Iain, but you've Photoshopped it, haven't you?" When I try to tell her that Photoshop (or other similar software) is to modern photography what a grease and oil change is to a mechanic, her eyes glaze over and she starts playing with the dog again. Her dismissal of my futile pleas are along the lines that it's cheating to use Photoshop and doing so is somehow not real, and therefore not worthy of her full attention or admiration. But this got me thinking, and I have to ask the question, has the finished image of a photographer ever been real? Or has it always been fake?

Was Ansel Adams' Work Fake?

Let's go into one of, if not the most famous photographer across the decades, Ansel Adams. His name pops up in every corner of the globe whenever you hear a photographer talking about their influences, or inspirational heroes. Herein lies our first issue with the debate over what's real, and what's not. Now forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that Ansel Adams didn't see the world, literally, in black and white. I mean, I know of people who are colorblind and don't see colors the way most people see them, but I've never heard of a person, much less Ansel Adams, seeing the world through grayscale glasses. But aren't Ansel Adams' most famous works in black and white, like this image below?

This image is "The Tetons and the Snake River," taken in 1942, and I'm going to hazard a guess and say that this isn't how Ansel Adams saw it with his own eyes, at the time he took this shot. Of course, the natural response to that might be that color wasn't available back in his day and he was only able to work with black and white. In fact, color film became available in the 1930s, so it might well have been available to Adams. I can't be sure, but perhaps it was his deliberate choice to develop his images in black and white?

Adams was known for his incredible ability to work with shadows, blacks, whites, and highlights when he was developing an image. He was the darkroom equivalent of a modern day Photoshop wizard, if you will. So the upshot of it all is that Ansel Adams' images were black and white, even though the original scene he saw was in color. And he pushed and pulled the contrasts and lights and darks better than almost anyone else to get his signature look, even though he might well have had access to color film options. Surely, then, under the criteria of "real" used by my mum (and those of many other non-photographers), you'd have to say Ansel Adams' work was fake, wouldn't you, as painful as that is to even utter?

Is Long Exposure Photography Fake?

Modern cameras and equipment help us to do incredible things. One of my favorites is long exposure photography. It's not to everyone's taste, and as you might expect, my dear old mum hates it, but I fell in love with the dreamy, wispy clouds and the ghostly appearance of water the first time I saw it. Since then, whenever I go to waterfalls or see interesting patterns in the sky, the first thing I check in my camera bag is my Lee Filters Big Stopper. There's nothing I find more enjoyable than setting my camera to Bulb mode and then opening up the shutter for minutes and waiting patiently for that ethereal smoothness to find its way onto my screen. This image below gives you an idea about the effect long exposures can have on moving things such as clouds.

But we have to ask the question again: is it real? The clouds didn't look like that when I was at this location. And the scene certainly wasn't black and white. I mean, I was there, and this is just one, single exposure and not a composite or anything, but it's not what I saw with my own eyes at the time. Does that automatically make it fake? Does that mean if I set the shutter speed to 1/1000th of a second and took a quick snapshot, it would be more real than if I used the same camera and the same lens, but simply opened up the shutter to a minute, or longer? Does the introduction of a filter automatically expel me from the real club and banish me into the hellfire of the fakers?

Is Panning Fake, Too?

So now we come to some other interesting conundrums. I love the effect of panning, where you open the shutter to something like 1/10th of a second and then intentionally move your camera from side to side (or whatever direction you please) so that you get blurry, streaky lines from the scene in front of you. Much like the effect of long exposure photography, I love the soft, smooth, flowing lines that panning can give you. For a better idea of what I'm talking about, check out this image below.

But is it real? I mean the issue here is that if I stood perfectly still and shot the scene in front of me with a shutter speed of, say, 1/200th of a second and then uploaded it to Instagram and used the hashtag #nofilter, then people would most likely accept it as real. But if I stand in the same position, with the same camera, and the same lens, yet just slow down the shutter speed and swivel my hips in a groovy, disco, side to side fashion and get my smooth, streaky panning lines, I have to accept that it's no longer classified as real? And Lord heaven help me here because as you can see, I've actually added a surfer into the scene to really muddy the waters. Panning and blending? Banish me to eternal purgatory now. Watch me double down.

I now have the golden trifecta: panning, blending, and black and white. Of course, I'm not trying to pass this off as "real" but where do you draw the line? Both of these shots (of sea and surfer) were taken seconds apart, with the same camera, the same lens, and with my feet barely changing position. This guy was holding his board like that and he was entering the ocean before him. I just used a bit of camera movement and Photoshop to present a different take. Does different take equal fake, and who sets the criteria?

Summing Up

To me, all art, including photography, is about creativity, imagination, and producing something that your mind's eye sees, or what your client wants. I don't care if someone says something's fake or not, or if they think something's been "Photoshopped" because I have no limits. As long as we are honest if someone asks us about how we created an image, what does it matter? As long as I like my finished images and they represent accurately my feelings and my artistic ambitions, then I am happy. And it seems others feel the same way, judging by some comments on my Instagram feed when I uploaded this black and white image you see above.

However, it seems to some people that any image not accurately representing exactly what we saw with our very own eyes at the precise time we hit that shutter button must be fake. So any black and white image is fake, any retouched image is fake, anything with even the slightest bit of change, no matter how infinitesimal, is fake. Or is it? Is there a line that's acceptable as real, even though it's not actually real?

Please leave your thoughts in the comments below.

Ansel Adams image used via Wikimedia Commons

Iain Stanley's picture

Iain Stanley is an Associate Professor teaching photography and composition in Japan. Fstoppers is where he writes about photography, but he's also a 5x Top Writer on Medium, where he writes about his expat (mis)adventures in Japan and other things not related to photography. To view his writing, click the link above.

Log in or register to post comments
127 Comments
Previous comments

how can we trust the bird's eyes were the same as Fred's eyes? BamBam might have gone to town on the bird with his little club behind the scenes....

Yeah, it's fake, altered, manipulated. The thing is, we shouldn't care. The emotion and feeling felt when people see your images cab be the only real you need. We could never convince everyone they're real, so be concerned about being happy with our own results, and what we want to create. Let the real people create real images.

The only time one should concern themselves with the "fakeness" of a photograph is in photojournalism. Otherwise, it's art. Enjoy yourself.

my thoughts exactly

The only things that annoy me are when people add objects to make up for poor composition or do replacement sky etc.. just keep practising and get better instead of trying to wing it.

Removing stuff I have no issue with, you didn’t ask or want a company sticking that pylon in your nice image so why keep it there.

this is an interesting one for me coz I have absolutely no problem with adding elements to a sky. As long as they are modest and subtle and don't overpower the image or make it ridiculously unreal like a milky added during lunchtime then I'm fine with that. You might only have one chance in life at shooting something (like when you're travelling abroad) and on that particular day the sky gave you blank, dull blue. In that case, add a few clouds to give the sky some life and interest - to me that's not even a debate.

Regarding your last sentence, that could come back to composition. Were you able to shoot from a position that didn't have the pylon? So many questions and what if scenarios to consider.....

Fair points Iain.

My only issue with the sky thing, there are techniques to shooting scenes in all different kinds of light and weather so id rather see a photographer use his skills to work the conditions, its a personal preference though. I still enjoy looking at the actual end product (even with replacement sky) if its a good picture but i just feel the door is open for too many people to con their audience. Your reference to Milky Way is an interesting one because ive seen a few lately and when i looked on Photopils the shot is literally impossible yet the photographer was claiming it was genuine, which again comes back to the conning an audience.

as far as good sky replacements go, to me the key is precisely NOT conning the audience. By that I mean putting in elements that are subtle and add a little bit of interest that are not in any way offensively ridiculous. To me, good blending or composite work is when the audience has absolutely no idea that something's been added. Of course, if they ask, I have no hesitation in telling them everything. It's neither here nor there to me to keep things a secret.

Yeah fully on board with that, that style of editing is almost a whole genre within itself and shouldnt be dismissed, but yes it definitely shouldnt be abused either.

The main things i do with my edits are removing birds/litter/signs etc that are distracting then sometimes some telephone cables or the odd pylon if its really in your face.

Ive also been known to leave the pylon in the shot too ;)

https://500px.com/photo/1005409119/The-Power-by-Stuart-Carver?ctx_page=1...

That’s a great shot. Awesome symmetry

Thanks Iain, took me about 10-15 shots before i got the lines in the right place, was more difficult than i thought it would be, handheld in the wind.

Your 73 year old mom hit the nail on the head. Nobody believes any image they see anymore. That’s because the vast majority of photographers are now illustrationists, not photographers. Most relying on software to make their images rather than hard work, patience and vision in the field. As you said, as long as the photographer is honest what’s the harm. But that should extend to a caption, on the image, stating it’s been created as an illustration rather than a photograph. The current most exciting tool for those who love fakery is Luminar with its collection of fake skies. This is why I now use hashtags on all my social media images of #realphtoto, #nophotoshop and recently added #noluminar. We now live in a world where almost all photographers are willing to take the shortcut. And yes, I’m as much of a curmudgeon as I sound and proud of it.

Like most things "technology" the race to dumb things down for the masses is the race the companies are trying most to win.

That 73-year-old mom was wrong. Nobody should EVER have believed the images they saw. Photographers were commonly faking photographic images over 100 years ago in an effort to make photography more art-like and less mechanistic.

That's why photographs entered as evidence in court have always required sworn depositions from the photographer...courts never relied on what was shown in the picture alone, but the sworn statement that what was shown by the picture was, indeed, what the photographer saw.

This idea that "a photograph never lies" was simply never, ever the truth. The pity is that anyone ever thought otherwise.

It's not a shame that people are finally realizing it.

How about adding clouds that were not there or as in many cases probably would never be there? That goes for digital or film actually, but much easier in digital.

For me? No problem, as long as the clouds match the scene

The question references the title- is it fake? You may not have a problem, but is it fake? And let me add, "Is that ok?". Maybe it is..

SOOC translates to "I do not know how to use Photoshop". "Change it to what I saw" is probably only true to those with photographic brains, Very few of us fall in that category. Photo journalism is but one genre in photography and cannot be used as a yard stick for all photography. Anybody saying images cannot be believed should stick to news papers and news forums.

Photography as an art form needs and can only be appreciated and judged in it's final form. All the hype about how we get to the final product generally come from people who cannot appreciate photography for what it is: "Art". I read a comment on one of these forums were the author said that photography is not art due to the camera creating the image. That sounds like SOOC to me.

In my dealings with other photographers those with the most years of experience are generally still clinging to the photo journalism outlook. We need to embrace the younger generation who are growing up with digital art, digitally manipulated movies and special effects.

My personal opinion is that there is a place for all types of photography, manipulated and SOOC. We should embrace every photographer's talent.

Hi there, after 55 years of love affair with photography I have come to giving up on most specific definitions. In the early 2000's, I got into the arts and crafts shows business. I had to somewhat define my photography for my visitors and clients (and my business cards). I went for "fine art" because, by generally accepted definition, it has no implied functional goal, included realism, just admiration and enjoyment. I capture whatever subject attracts my attention and develop my captures in Photoshop to make prints that come as close as possible to my perception of the original scene (all of my senses, not just sight). Above and beyond what you want to call realistic (or not) in the entire process of photography, the first thing that is not realistic is human visual perception. After sensation is captured by eyes and optical nerves, the electric signals reach the brain and at that point all bets are off. It is very interesting to explore how the human brain interprets these signals (perception) being influenced by a bunch of staff that has nothing to do with photography. As one example of the "creativity" of the brain, consider the fact that color does not exist, it's a convenient creation of our brain firstly developed to increase primitive Man's chances of survival (visible light is just electromagnetic radiation within a range of frequencies/wavelengths that tickle your photoreceptors). So, as a photographer I do what I want. As a selling photographer, I have no qualm being open and honest about how I get to my final images. Full point. Period. :-)

I'm amazed by how many people seems to be so confident about what art is. I wonder how many of these people know the history of art. How many of them read about pictorialism and thought that was enough to justify the monstrosity that we see today on Instagram, Flickr, 500px and so on (and then there's Ansel Adams, give me a break).
Easy to call it art, easy to find shelter in the old, over abused, eye of the beholder. Anyone is free to do whatever they please, sure, and I'm not here to judge other people's action. But just be honest and use appropriate names. If these people feel so fine about what they do, why can't they be honest and just call their stuff compositing ?
You just learned a few Photoshop tricks from a tutorial on YouTube. The followers praise your result and you feel good. So miserable.
They want to ignore the history, pretend they figure it out with their logic and limited understanding, what art is, and then they want to be called artists. Very convenient.

"fake" pictures (graphic art) can still be art. I would suggest that if you add elements that were not there or remove significant (some may say any) elements, it could be viewed as graphic arts or illustration rather than "photography", but there are significant grey areas to be sure, and in the digital age, we need to realize that image manipulation can be very significant. I would propose that a "real" picture is one that is close to what was captured WITHIN THE LIMITATIONS of the medium used for the capture, and is not intended to misrepresent. That changes with technology, but we do not have inexpensive or any full 3D holographic imaging devices that also incorporate smell, taste, etc. So monochrome with B&W film is not "fake" because that is the medium you used. Converting RAW to a monochrome JPG (I would say) is not "fake" because it is clear to everyone that only the grey tones are being presented (non one is fooled by the lack of color). 2D is not "fake", because the medium used is naturally 2D. If you "Photoshop" it, and add clouds that were not there, change the color of a car, add a UFO, and remove telephone lines- it may make a better image, but I would say that it may become a work of graphic art. In some cases, it may not be clear to the viewer that those elements were not there originally (nor that the deleted ones were). A real photo presented within the limitations of the media used can be called "honest", while a work of graphic arts may not be. Of course may portrait photographers may not be "honest" ;), but they may be flattering and "in business". I put "honest" in quotes because I state without moral value, rather meaning "straight forward" or "as representative to the capture as captured within the limitations of the medium used". In the end we are talking semantics, but artists do distinguish between "painting" and "sculpture", even between "acrylic" and "oil", so words do convey meaning. "fake" pictures can portray things which are not real, and that can be ok within the world of art, but I would argue that it is worthwhile to have some word or words to describe a capture that is as close to what was captured within the limitations of the medium used, just to remove some doubt (was that shark really behind the surfer? I have never seen those type of clouds in this area. I wonder when that picture was "taken").

This subject is so infuriating. The absolute dismissal of your art with that word, now used as a verb: “Photoshopped”. Its so condescending, as if they discovered that you didn’t really pull that rabbit out of your hat. Its just magic tricks, that “Photoshop”. Buttons pushed, mouse clicked and Voila! a photograph that is beautiful, interesting, unique. “But its not real” they say. What I say is “it’s Art”. It is an expression of what I saw in my mind and heart. There is emotion and depth, both in its creation and in its viewing.
The trouble is that photographs can look so much like reality that we are accustomed to thinking that they are truth. Actually photographs are never reality and its not only photoshop that changes a photograph. Lighting, different lenses and different perspectives are just a few ways to alter the same scene. The thing people don’t realize is that photographs have always been manipulated when developed. In the darkroom, the master photographers used techniques to make the most of their photographs. Why was that accepted and using Photoshop, a version of a darkroom, is so belittled? I work constantly to improve my skills in Photoshop and Lightroom. To me, its like having an art store in my house. All the tools, brushes and paints I could ever need!
I believe that an art photograph is never fake. If I painted a painting, would that be fake? Art should not be dissected- how was it made? If it moves you, captures you and stays with you- who cares how it was done? I think as photographers we can help ourselves to go beyond this shallow thinking and dismissive judgement of our work by using different words to describe ourselves, our work and process. I don’t use the word Photoshop anymore, I “develop the images”. I call myself an artist or digital artist. Its a bit sad because I love being a photographer but everyone thinks they could make beautiful photos today, especially if they just had Photoshop and hit a few buttons. We will never convince them what skill and talent is necessary to take a RAW file and create your vision, your reality, your truth.

Wow. Just wow. Here's another art master who knows everything about art. And what photography is. Well done. This world is hopeless.

Well said Mary. Agree with absolutely everything

Try walking into a fast food restaurant and upon placing an order, telling the person behind the counter " I want mine to look just like the one in the picture "

The world nowadays seems to be full of artists. What a solid self-esteem!
And yet, only a few of them have some knowledge of what happened before they were born.
For the majority what matters is their "imagination", their feelings. They do art!
Then I wonder with so many artists around how come what we see is always the usual trite, banal sequence of beautiful landscapes, sexy women, perfect skins, crisp eyes, over-saturated colors, over-processed images?
Art was (and I use "was" not by a coincidence) meant to overthrow established ideas, cliches. It was meant to challenge societies. And what we see here? Art understood as a mannerism good only to produce apathetic work that can serve magazines for a hair salon at best.

If people were at least more humble, more modest and they would start using the right words. Maybe it would be more appropriate to say "craftsman" or simply professionals, as that's what it is. And leave art to where it belongs.
And then there's this idea of photography as a mix of all possible techniques. Because ART!
As a photographer, if people really are such, you would have the responsibility to respect that word. To respect the work of others before you have done. Because when we start changing the meaning then everything is upside down and our politics sell us the idea of doing peacekeeping when they're actually annihilating a population.
The author of this article should feel ashamed for perpetrating such trivial, banal cliche' about what photography is.

Re: Ansel Adams and black and white film. I recently found a book of Adam's photographs in color, titled, unsurprisingly, "Ansel Adams in Color", published in 1993. According to the editor of the book, Adams shot over 3,000 color transparencies, mostly Kodachrome, and even had an exhibit of his color photographs in 1950 at the Museum of modern Art.