Photographic fraud denotes the criminal use or production of ‘counterfeit’ photographs for unjust gain or advantage; photographic forgery the creation of photographs that are intended to convey a misleading impression either of their own provenance or of what they depict. Excluded are aesthetic manipulations, e.g. selective enlargement, cropping, common since the beginnings of the negative-positive process, and techniques like photomontage where the manipulations are intended to be obvious.
Unlike a drawing or painting, the photographic image is made by light acting directly on a surface, without intervention by the maker's hand. As a result, photographs were at first believed to be objects that, by their very nature, represented ‘the truth’; hence the popular expression ‘the camera never lies’. Although critics such as Walter Benjamin, Roland Barthes, Susan Sontag, and others have challenged the assumption of veracity, it has died hard, at least until digital manipulation became widespread towards the end of the 20th century.
In fact, the perceived veracity of photographic images invites alteration in the service of untruth. Early tampering might have been as crude as rubbing someone's image off a daguerreotype plate or cutting someone out of a paper print. Methods of manipulation became more sophisticated as the medium itself evolved. The same methods of using multiple negatives and/or staged scenes to create fictional scenes like Henry Peach Robinson's Fading Away (1858) have been employed to produce images of supposedly real events that either never occurred or were never photographed: Eugène Appert's (1830-91) Crimes of the Commune (1871) are a classic early example. In 20th-century totalitarian propaganda, various techniques were used to alter photographs of important scenes by removing or inserting key personalities. Crucial in every case is the intention to deceive. An image produced for another reason might become fraudulent when used in a secondary way. For example, a manipulated photograph showing a politician in a compromising but fictitious situation, originally intended as a private joke, could be treated as fraudulent if used in an election campaign as evidence of misbehaviour.
Famous photographic forgeries of the past, such as William Mumler's ‘spirit photographs’, the Cottingley fairy photographs, or the ‘peppered moth’ evolutionary fraud might seem laughable now, given the relatively primitive techniques used. But digital technology has entirely altered the situation. In February 1982 the National Geographic set alarm bells ringing when it used digital means to move the Pyramids closer together to fit a cover, even though the motive was purely technical. The ever-growing sophistication of image manipulation (and generation) tools since that time poses fundamental problems in relation to the veracity of the image.
The rising monetary value of art and classic photographs over the past 50 years has encouraged photographic fraud. In particular, the (usually) much higher value of vintage prints by comparison with the rest of a photographer's oeuvre has created a strong incentive either to forge them using suitable materials or, more frequently, to pass off later prints as vintage. Other kinds of forgeries endeavour to create new images that mimic a photographer's style, technique, and subject matter. The revival of interest in historic processes and materials has made it possible to recreate such archaic products as daguerreotypes, tintypes, and cartes de visite; and examples made, for example, during American Civil War re-enactments have been passed off as genuine period photographs. However, a particularly imaginative case of forgery involved a series of salt prints, supposedly of Victorian child prostitutes, by “Francis Hetling”. These were exposed as modern fakes, using old materials, not long after some of them had appeared at an exhibition, “The Camera and Dr Barnardo”, at London's National Portrait Gallery in 1974
Proving that a particular photograph is fraudulent can be difficult and sometimes impossible. Most often authenticity is determined by a combination of approaches: visual examination, including scrutiny of costumes and other objects visible in the picture, reference to documents that may illuminate the historical context, and scientific analysis of the support and other materials. However, some skilled forgeries may escape detection altogether.
— M. Susan Barger
See also occultism and photography.Bibliography
- Bennett, S., How to Buy Photographs (1987).
- Mitchell, W. J., The Reconfigured Eye: Visual Truth in the Post-Photographic Era (1994).
- Hooper, J., Of Moths and Men: An Evolutionary Tale (2002)
