The Truth About Photos

Photographs are the most deceiving form of media because everyone expects them to be completely true. And how could they not be true when they are literally a snapshot of life? Well, there’s multiple ways that photos can be false. The way that most people know about is airbrushing. Everybody has heard about some airbrushing incident where the model on a magazine cover or in an advertisement has been slimmed or otherwise perfected by that magical airbrush function in photoshop. Most people’s knowledge of falsified images stops there, but there’s more ways. Photos have the ability to show bias, and through that bias make a point, without the viewer even noticing. Bias can be anything from making the white male in the photo seem higher (therefore more powerful, important, etc.) than the native female by having him stand further up a hill, to choosing to feature a salad on the table instead of a burger (to push healthy eating). Both of these seem small, but they can have a pretty large effect on the unsuspecting mind. Bias can also be seen – or not seen – in what the photographer chooses to leave out of the photo. This can be done by cropping the edges to leave only what the photographer wants you to see, or by deliberately placing or not placing certain items or people in the shot. The photographer can also use contrast to make certain items or people stand out more than others.

This is only a brief list of some of the ways photos can be false despite seeming truthful. In this blog we will be exploring some of these methods as they apply to specific photos. Hopefully we can take some of the deception out of photography.

Photo source

NatGeo: On Stage or Just Staged?

Recently, I have been thinking about the staging of photos. Obviously, it can be argued that every photograph is staged. Most photos are framed a certain way in order to convey a point. Even more so, more often than not, photos are manipulated to convey a particular point. But, are all photographs staged? Can this be argued that every single photo is the product of a certain motive to manipulate what is real? Even more so, how important is it for photos to be more beautiful versus more accurate. If photographs are intended to be more visually pleasing, is it true then that their reliability is up to question?

Take some of the following National Geographic Photographs, for example:

All of these photographs are beautiful. The colors are incredible, the quality is fantastic, and they entrance you to continue looking at them for extended amounts of time. If the colors are enhanced, does that mean they are staged and not factual? If they are edited to improve their quality or "beauty," are the photos inaccurate? How does this affect archaeology and how archaeological findings are enhanced in attempt to obtain a larger audience... Things to think about going further.

Browns & Tans

Because the work associated with archaeology is often done in the dirt or sand, there is a trend in photography where tan-toned images rule.

Here are the top images when searching "archaeology." There is very little color involved and a serious lack of anything to entice the viewer. Even in cartoons, archaeology is portrayed in shades of brown and tan. 

This color scheme may have evolved from the brown hats, boots and button ups of archeologists in cinema and television. This bland, stereotypical outfit of an archeologist contributes to the mental image of the discipline of archeology which is further fortified by photography.

It is human nature to be attracted to images of beauty, and though often the subject matter is not something to be considered "beautiful," it is important for photographers to make an effort to convey images in a way that will attract attention of the viewer. By including colorful, bright or more visually appealing images of artifacts, dig sites or real-life archeologists, photography has the potential of capturing the interest of the public.

Whole Bodies! 100% intact!

These images below are very similar to many of the photos you first come across when you look at archeology photos on the web.When I stopped to look at what these photos had in common I saw that they were all of mostly intact structures. Do you think finding artifacts this well preserved is common? Do most finds look like this? 

(Link to Photo source)


Do archaeologists find entire bodies? Entire pots? This skull looks perfectly intact!

( link to photo source)




These bodies also don't look like they are missing a thing. Oh just some fat and skin!









(link to photo source)
Looks like it...

Photographs can present any angle or idea that the photographer wants to portray. If they want archaeology to be exciting and eye catching they only focus on the big finds. This was so frustrating when looking at photos. I assume the archaeologists more often find shards and pieces not entire structures. This seems just like lying. 

Choosing what to photograph is just another way to lie.