View single post by Eric

Posted: Sun Mar 3rd, 2024 15:25

Joined:	Thu Apr 19th, 2012
Location:	United Kingdom
Posts:	4424
Status:	Offline

I think Novicious was eluding to the understanding that digital manipulation for documentaries and reportage image, certainly was a no no at the start of digital photography. There was a US sports reporter that was sacked because he airbrushed out a person walking in front of a pitch side advertising hoarding. ( whether the advertiser paid him was unclear)

That said, I was watching a tv documentary last week about coastal erosion where I was able to say “that’s not been filmed there”. They had cut in a section of footage from another UK location to better emphasise the point. And many wildlife documentaries have cut aways to different occasions and even a different bird…that they were able to capture close up. I suppose it depends how far people are prepared to go to stretch the general understanding …that documentary evidence should be unsullied.

There is no doubt with AI it’s a lot easier and more convincing to do what they want….and who is there to argue authenticity anymore. o.O

Last edited on Sun Mar 3rd, 2024 15:25 by

____________________
Eric