In the digital era with AI, what is a fake photograph?

Is the “realness” of a photograph purely down to how one chooses to define what a photograph is?

All kinds of media have become diluted by digital consumption. There is no tangible value in the files I receive when I stream something on Netflix or YouTube, or as an eBook. When I look at an image on an online gallery it is a copy of a copy on a server somewhere, transmitted through the same exact screen that I complete my taxes on, teach my webinars from, and am writing this article on now.

However, I derive “real” enjoyment from the media I take in through this screen, “real” emotional responses, as well as real utility from those more practical functions I mentioned. The fact that all of it takes place as an ephemeral, unfixed process of pixels doesn’t make any of that less “real” in the abstract sense.

The more ambiguously we mark out the edges of a discussion the harder it can be to achieve a mutual resolution. Without specifying which aspect of screen based media I was examining for “realness” above I was able to claim that the emotions produced, or tasks accomplished were real. If I changed my criteria then I could argue that my taxes aren’t “real” because they aren’t paper forms, the image on the online gallery isn’t really a sculpture but a depiction or rendering of it.

Determining whether a photograph is a “real photograph” there does need to be some shared understanding of what that means in the first place, which means that if someone chooses to define it in terms outside of that shared understanding their results may not be accepted in the mainstream. I think most people would agree that a photograph is the result (or reproduction) of light recorded onto a surface – although there are some other clarifying steps which guide an understanding.

I don’t really consider a negative to be “a photograph” until it has been printed from or scanned – but I understand if someone did see a negative as being a photograph. I understand when someone calls a postcard sized 6×4 print of an image a photograph, even when it was printed using ink from a digital file rather than exposed from light directly as a C-type. The further you get from “traditional” expressions of photography as a process of:

light->lens->surface->data on negative/digital file->traditional 2D output,

the harder it can be to justify designating the term “photography”.

For one of my projects I have been researching the possibility to have a selection of photographs embroidered into fabric – but I don’t find it fitting to call these embroidered works photographs in and of themselves. They are thread through cloth, printed with a machine, but despite this similarity to ink on paper via machine I just don’t see them as photographs. If I called such an object a photograph would I be lying? Would I need to be specific that it is a rendition of a photograph using non-traditional materials?

Despite this nuance it is easier to demark the “real” aspects of photography as a medium/process than it may be to examine the legitimacy of what a photograph contains. A hyper-realistic pencil drawing is not itself a photograph, and neither is a CGI rendering. Even though you may be able to put a printed CGI render next to a printed photograph and not be able to tell the difference the observed output is not the only thing that matters – just as a 3D printed ceramic vase and a handmade one may be indistinguishable as a finished product it would be dishonest to say they came to be in the same way. Viewing photography in terms of the process rather than what the finished result looks like solves the question of photographs via alternate process, and is deeply inclusionary while still setting clear boundaries.

This is also why there are specific terms like composite photograph to refer to things like stitched panoramas, where multiple photographs have been used to create something greater than the sum of their parts. A double exposure in camera can be seen as more “real” than an image made with a continuously open shutter and multiple flash firings, as even though they are both technically multiple exposures one is actually a single exposure. A darkroom double exposure using sequential or overlaid negatives is seen as different from an exposure through only one negative stencil.

Painting watercolour over a darkroom print certainly doesn’t change the fact that it’s a photograph, but it’s not only a photograph anymore, it’s something more than that. The same can be said about technology that “interjects” via software in between light hitting a sensor and an image being viewable; for example “AI moon replacement.”

The result is something that uses, or maybe includes a photograph/photography, but is not “fully” a photograph. On a purely workflow level, I think this kind of interjection takes away from the potential for the authorial responsibility of the photographer. If your camera is doing it, you are not.

 The legitimacy of what a photograph contains is far more contextual, and distinct from the more semantic/taxonomical determination of whether something “is” or “is not” a photograph. A “Photograph” as a container of symbols and meaning can contain information that is misrepresentative or fraudulent, which means that even though the photograph is a “real photograph”, the “contents” of that photograph are not.

For example someone may point to a photograph made using flash and say it is “fake” because it is not a representation of the light available at the time the image was taken. Similarly a photographer who directs and poses people they make portraits of may be accused of faking their result, as the image contains a manipulated version of reality. Again these can be “real” photographs made with traditional methods via lens and camera, but at the same time can be understood as “fake” photographs due to the influence of more than just technical photographic aspects.

Some may see a studio set up with lights, models, and concept all dictated by the photographer as entirely unreal when compared to an image made without a plan, or peripheral controls, but that doesn’t mean that picture can’t have a “real” effect, or fulfill the real agenda the photographer may have intended.

The studio image would only be considered fake when in relationship with a reality that does not include those staged aspects. Figuring out “in relation to what” when it comes to fakery in photography is perhaps the best way to really determine whether an accusation of such is meaningful.

Perhaps the scenario in the photograph is “fake” in the form of elaborately set up events, characters, and conditions. However Gregory Crewdson, whose work certainly involves this kind of intricate stagecraft and production, is not seriously criticized for being a fraud. Why? Because Crewdson does not claim that his photographs are anything that they are not. He does not pass them off as street photographs or any other genre. The photographs are “real” in relation to the honesty of the photographer. They are not things that never happened being passed off as something that happened.

Honest photography comes from honest photographers. What the photographer claims and what people see depicted in the work make for a significant pairing. The value of something ought to be intrinsic, not in pretending that that thing has value only because it passes as something else. This is an idea I’ve discussed in my article on film photography being antithetical to AI.

Fake “claims” can also include cases of straight up fraud. Someone selling a Xerox print of one of my photographs while claiming it is an original fiber print is not only selling a “fake photograph” but specifically a counterfeit photograph. The depicted image may be a “real photograph”, but taken as a product it is not what the seller is claiming, which is why it can be assigned as fake.

If someone is particularly “invested” in a definition of what photography means to them then it’s much easier to dismiss what photography may mean to someone else. If that investment in their definition also includes elements used for marketing and sales then there are real stakes for their definition to be definitive. However just caring deeply about their use of the word doesn’t make that use correct. Language is shared, and requires broad collective consensus, which means that if you want to use a word in a new or unorthodox it ought to be backed up with clarification if you want to be understood outside of your possible niche.

---