Assignment 5: Photoshop and Perceptions

I've just completed Assignment 5 - it's all ready to be printed and sent off. Creating twelve images for the theme 'altering reality' was challenging, and has been a great learning experience. I don't intend to discuss all twelve images here, as I have included written details with my assignment paperwork. However, I'd like to look at just one of the twelve - the process I went through to create it, and what I have learned about people's perceptions.

Here is an image of a fireworks display in London:

What are your thoughts? Pretty fireworks, okay composition, not too bad as far as photos go?

From the nature of this blog entry, you would probably already be aware that this is a Photoshop composite. Westminster was photographed with a clear sky behind it, the fireworks were added from photographs taken 200 miles away, at a different time of the year. Now look at the picture again - do your perceptions change? Are you looking for discrepancies to indicate that it has been 'Photoshopped'? Do you find yourself questioning whether the fireworks should be reflected in the water?

I uploaded an earlier version to Flickr. I stated right away that it was a composite, and asked people to give their opinions. I can see now that the reflections I have included are completely wrong - they are too bright, the colours are off and they are positioned far too low down in the sky. In short, it's full of glaring errors. Here it is:

So - people started commenting, and as is very often the way with Flickr, people were complimentary and reluctant to criticise. I should say here, in case any of those who commented are reading this - I am grateful for each and every comment received on my Flickr uploads, so thank you!

I received some well-worded comments that pointed to tiny errors, and a few private messages pointing out more significant problems in a very apologetic manner. I thanked the respondents, and altered the image accordingly. Here is my second version:

Subtler reflections, but still not right. More comments and private messages followed. The reflections were still an issue. I also started receiving comments such as "initially it's a stunning shot, but then the more I look at it, the more artificial or photoshopped it looks." So - had I not pointed out that it was Photoshopped, it would possibly not have been detected by the majority of people who didn't look too closely. Indeed, there were many comments that suggested people had just glanced quickly, not read my explanation, and typed a quick compliment. Very kind of them, and lovely for my ego! I'm grateful for each and every comment I get.

Then a friend sent me a message saying that she liked the latest version, but that the reflections still looked to be in the wrong place. I was puzzled, and didn't really know how to determine where they should be. Then I hit upon the idea of duplicating the top half of the image, flipping it vertically and stretching it out so that the lights on the building overlaid those in the reflection.


This showed me something surprising - the fireworks, save for the teeny-tiniest spark right next to St. Stephen's Tower, were not visible at all. All of those reflections I'd painstakingly added, and spent ages trying to perfect, were not needed! So I removed them and reposted to Flickr.

The compliments kept coming, but I'd forgotten to change the wording of the information at the top. So people were still scrutinising the reflections as 'd requested. As a result, I started getting comments such as "the more you look at it the more obvious it is that it has been manipulated. the building reflections work well for me, but I think you some how need to add a small amount of reflections for the fireworks" and "along the right side where the reflections blend with the shadowed part of water seem a bit too deep and could be blended a bit better". Interesting stuff - this last comment refers to reflections that were there in reality, when I took the photo.

I'm still not sure that I've got it perfect, and - whether it's because I worked so hard on those damned reflections, or whether it's because they're still wrong, I don't know - it still seems odd to me that there are no reflections from the fireworks. But what I've learned from all this is that, unless you tell people that something is Photoshopped, they're not likely to scrutinise an image closely enough to be able to tell. On the other hand, if you point out that an image is a composite, people will find real or perceived discrepancies.

I believe that's one reason why there are so many examples of doctored images in the media that remain undetected for so long. People just take them as fact, which emphasises to me the unethical side of such practices. I wonder how many manipulations have passed by wihtout comment in the press?

Here's the link to the Flickr post, and comments.

Now, confession time - and apologies and reassurances to my Flickr friends. This was purely for experimental purposes, and not something I make a habit of: this image is also Photoshopped. Because I didn't state either way whether or not it was a composite, no one was looking for the evidence, and just accepted it as an accurate record. Rest assured it procked my conscience to do this, but I wanted to see whether not stating that it was Photoshopped would make a difference!