Pictures… they’re all fake now
p.1 #1Pictures… they’re all fake now
Just that really
I’ve reached the stage where I believe nothing I see online, be it SM, Forums or gallery websites.
Everything now looks fake..Everything.
Everyone is tweaking, adjusting, adding etc etc etc.
Every single shot I view these days now I automatically assume it never really existed as the picture portrays.
The camera never lied, but the photographer did.
Do you agree or disagree??
I’ve reached the stage where I believe nothing I see online, be it SM, Forums or gallery websites.
Everything now looks fake..Everything.
Everyone is tweaking, adjusting, adding etc etc etc.
Every single shot I view these days now I automatically assume it never really existed as the picture portrays.
The camera never lied, but the photographer did.
Do you agree or disagree??
Aug 21, 2026 at 02:32 PM
p.1 #2Pictures… they’re all fake now
News for you, photographers tweaked, adjusted and added / subtracted for hundreds of years. Nothing new here.
As far as cameras not lying…that’s totally false. Even in the film days, the photos were totally different depending if one shot with Velvia or Agfa. And try as I might…I’ve never seen a b&w scene with my eyes…yet many famous photographers made their living making “fake” b&w photos.
As far as cameras not lying…that’s totally false. Even in the film days, the photos were totally different depending if one shot with Velvia or Agfa. And try as I might…I’ve never seen a b&w scene with my eyes…yet many famous photographers made their living making “fake” b&w photos.
Aug 21, 2026 at 03:24 PM
p.1 #3Pictures… they’re all fake now
Oh no, the Whiner is back with another whining thread.
Oh no, wait, it is just a fake AI Whiner.
Damn lying photographers all over the place. I just can't cope with all of them.
Oh no, wait, it is just a fake AI Whiner.
Damn lying photographers all over the place. I just can't cope with all of them.
Aug 21, 2026 at 03:46 PM
p.1 #4Pictures… they’re all fake now
Go out and take your own "real" photos, rather than being concerned about whatever has questionable sources.
EBH
EBH
Aug 21, 2026 at 04:54 PM
p.1 #5Pictures… they’re all fake now
Congratulations OP, you win the award for being the most vocal Debbie Downer on FM. Seems almost everything you post is a complaint about something. Stop whining and go take some pictures! 
Aug 21, 2026 at 09:31 PM
p.1 #6Pictures… they’re all fake now
Joan Crawford by George Hurrell, about 1937. Hurrell didn't retouch. He hired others to do the airbrushing.
 |
||
 |
||
|
Aug 21, 2026 at 10:17 PM
p.1 #7Pictures… they’re all fake now
Fred Amico wrote:
Congratulations OP, you win the award for being the most vocal Debbie Downer on FM. Seems almost everything you post is a complaint about something. Stop whining and go take some pictures!
Not so much a complaint but more trying to start a discussion. But I appreciate we are all different .
There’s no hiding away from the fact that digital has taken away a sense of honesty in images. The post processing tools now available mean almost any camera or lens can probably deliver an image that can be altered to make it pop.
That was all I was saying. I question every picture I now see.. if it looks too perfect I’ll naturally assume it’s fake and never really existed
I’ve read and discussed returning to film and I’m actually now on the cusp of doing exactly that.
All these super sharp, super saturated denoised images remind me of women trapped in the quest to be seen as the most beautiful..yet they all look the same, they’re all plastic and filled out…. Just tragic
It’s actually quite sad
It’s gotten to the stage where I now only notice pictures with slight imperfections and a sense of realism- they’re the ones that grab my attention and stop me
The rest are just too polished…too contrived?? and so so cliche.
But you do you.
Now off you go and join the herd… !! 🤣👍🏻
Edited on Aug 22, 2026 at 08:06 AM · View previous versions
Congratulations OP, you win the award for being the most vocal Debbie Downer on FM. Seems almost everything you post is a complaint about something. Stop whining and go take some pictures!
Not so much a complaint but more trying to start a discussion. But I appreciate we are all different .
There’s no hiding away from the fact that digital has taken away a sense of honesty in images. The post processing tools now available mean almost any camera or lens can probably deliver an image that can be altered to make it pop.
That was all I was saying. I question every picture I now see.. if it looks too perfect I’ll naturally assume it’s fake and never really existed
I’ve read and discussed returning to film and I’m actually now on the cusp of doing exactly that.
All these super sharp, super saturated denoised images remind me of women trapped in the quest to be seen as the most beautiful..yet they all look the same, they’re all plastic and filled out…. Just tragic
It’s actually quite sad
It’s gotten to the stage where I now only notice pictures with slight imperfections and a sense of realism- they’re the ones that grab my attention and stop me
The rest are just too polished…too contrived?? and so so cliche.
But you do you.
Now off you go and join the herd… !! 🤣👍🏻
Edited on Aug 22, 2026 at 08:06 AM · View previous versions
Aug 21, 2026 at 11:54 PM
p.1 #8Pictures… they’re all fake now
Long before the current crop of potentially AI-created or manipulated images, I tuned out to the often over-saturated feed of images online. Just not my thing.
That, plus now AI, is why I spend less time with stuff I don’t trust as genuine or that’s in no way curated or edited before being published.
However, for my own photography it doesn’t make one iota of a difference. Why would it?
That, plus now AI, is why I spend less time with stuff I don’t trust as genuine or that’s in no way curated or edited before being published.
However, for my own photography it doesn’t make one iota of a difference. Why would it?
Aug 22, 2026 at 01:27 AM
p.1 #9Pictures… they’re all fake now
Film images are faked just as much as digital. Ever seen an Ansel Adams negative? Looks nothing like the final print.
Aug 22, 2026 at 07:34 AM
p.1 #10Pictures… they’re all fake now
jwpstl wrote:
Film images are faked just as much as digital. Ever seen an Ansel Adams negative? Looks nothing like the final print.
Oh please!!
If you really believe that then there’s little point in responding.
You know damn well what I’m getting at, but you’re just being pedantic
Aug 22, 2026 at 07:56 AM
|
p.1 #11Pictures… they’re all fake now
The story of Ansel Adams removing letters "LP" off the hillside in his famous 1944 photograph, in "post processing".
https://focusonphotography.blogspot.com/2008/07/ansel-adams-and-lone-pine-photograph.html
Oh, wait! It's on the internet and so it has to be fake too!
https://focusonphotography.blogspot.com/2008/07/ansel-adams-and-lone-pine-photograph.html
Oh, wait! It's on the internet and so it has to be fake too!
Aug 22, 2026 at 09:03 AM
p.1 #12Pictures… they’re all fake now
Pixelpuffin wrote:
I’ve read and discussed returning to film and I’m actually now on the cusp of doing exactly that.
Go ahead and shoot with your film, then see if you can figure out that you have to convert it to a digital format for anyone to see your film photos on a monitor.
All these super sharp, super saturated denoised images remind me of women trapped in the quest to be seen as the most beautiful..yet they all look the same, they’re all plastic and filled out…. Just tragic
It’s actually quite sad
It’s gotten to the stage where I now only notice pictures with slight imperfections and a sense of realism- they’re the ones that grab my attention and stop me
The rest are just too polished…too contrived?? and so so cliche.
But you do you.
Now off you go and join the herd… !! 🤣👍🏻
Just so you can cope with all the pictures that have no imperfections, we will all use our post-processing skills to add imperfections so you don't have to live in a tragic world.
I’ve read and discussed returning to film and I’m actually now on the cusp of doing exactly that.
Go ahead and shoot with your film, then see if you can figure out that you have to convert it to a digital format for anyone to see your film photos on a monitor.
All these super sharp, super saturated denoised images remind me of women trapped in the quest to be seen as the most beautiful..yet they all look the same, they’re all plastic and filled out…. Just tragic
It’s actually quite sad
It’s gotten to the stage where I now only notice pictures with slight imperfections and a sense of realism- they’re the ones that grab my attention and stop me
The rest are just too polished…too contrived?? and so so cliche.
But you do you.
Now off you go and join the herd… !! 🤣👍🏻
Just so you can cope with all the pictures that have no imperfections, we will all use our post-processing skills to add imperfections so you don't have to live in a tragic world.
Aug 22, 2026 at 09:04 AM
p.1 #13Pictures… they’re all fake now
Pixelpuffin wrote:
Oh please!!
If you really believe that then there’s little point in responding.
You know damn well what I’m getting at, but you’re just being pedantic
You wanted people’s opinions and yet when you get an opinion that does not line up with your views…you turn off. Do you really want to hear people’s views or do you just want to stand on your box and tell the rest of the world they are all wrong?
jwpstl wrote
Film images are faked just as much as digital. Ever seen an Ansel Adams negative? Looks nothing like the final print.If you really believe that then there’s little point in responding.
You know damn well what I’m getting at, but you’re just being pedantic
You wanted people’s opinions and yet when you get an opinion that does not line up with your views…you turn off. Do you really want to hear people’s views or do you just want to stand on your box and tell the rest of the world they are all wrong?
Aug 22, 2026 at 09:47 AM
p.1 #14Pictures… they’re all fake now
johnvanr wrote:
Long before the current crop of potentially AI-created or manipulated images, I tuned out to the often over-saturated feed of images online. Just not my thing.
That, plus now AI, is why I spend less time with stuff I don’t trust as genuine or that’s in no way curated or edited before being published.
However, for my own photography it doesn’t make one iota of a difference. Why would it?
You could alwys shoot in B&W like they did in the 1800-1900s.
I think many times the color spaces are not correct online, so I would not take the internet as representative of what output would be in the final print.
Am I the only one not usually viewing images online unless there is a purpose?
EBH
Long before the current crop of potentially AI-created or manipulated images, I tuned out to the often over-saturated feed of images online. Just not my thing.
That, plus now AI, is why I spend less time with stuff I don’t trust as genuine or that’s in no way curated or edited before being published.
However, for my own photography it doesn’t make one iota of a difference. Why would it?
You could alwys shoot in B&W like they did in the 1800-1900s.
I think many times the color spaces are not correct online, so I would not take the internet as representative of what output would be in the final print.
Am I the only one not usually viewing images online unless there is a purpose?
EBH
Aug 22, 2026 at 11:53 AM
p.1 #15Pictures… they’re all fake now
EB-1 wrote:
That, plus now AI, is why I spend less time with stuff I don’t trust as genuine or that’s in no way curated or edited before being published.
However, for my own photography it doesn’t make one iota of a difference. Why would it?You could alwys shoot in B&W like they did in the 1800-1900s.
I think many times the color spaces are not correct online, so I would not take the internet as representative of what output would be in the final print.
Am I the only one not usually viewing images online unless there is a purpose?
EBH
I hardly watch images online. Too much crap, lots of noise, no signal.
johnvanr wrote
Long before the current crop of potentially AI-created or manipulated images, I tuned out to the often over-saturated feed of images online. Just not my thing.That, plus now AI, is why I spend less time with stuff I don’t trust as genuine or that’s in no way curated or edited before being published.
However, for my own photography it doesn’t make one iota of a difference. Why would it?
I think many times the color spaces are not correct online, so I would not take the internet as representative of what output would be in the final print.
Am I the only one not usually viewing images online unless there is a purpose?
EBH
I hardly watch images online. Too much crap, lots of noise, no signal.
Aug 22, 2026 at 11:58 AM
p.1 #16Pictures… they’re all fake now
Every member on this site is viewing every image posted on this site online.
Aug 22, 2026 at 01:11 PM
p.1 #17Pictures… they’re all fake now
Imagemaster wrote:
Every member on this site is viewing every image posted on this site online.
I avoid the presentation boards like a plague. I also avoid the image threads although people post some images in the gear threads here and there. I mostly would be looking at for diagnostic purposes. Very little is posted at 100% other than a few crops here and there, so the most noticeble are the borkahs or some gross aberrations.
I'm not obsessed with whatever PP was done. Unless for PJ or forensic purposes I assume everything is for art and varying degrees of image processing are done. OP should accept art vs. PJ and forensic/legal evidence.
EBH
Every member on this site is viewing every image posted on this site online.
I avoid the presentation boards like a plague. I also avoid the image threads although people post some images in the gear threads here and there. I mostly would be looking at for diagnostic purposes. Very little is posted at 100% other than a few crops here and there, so the most noticeble are the borkahs or some gross aberrations.
I'm not obsessed with whatever PP was done. Unless for PJ or forensic purposes I assume everything is for art and varying degrees of image processing are done. OP should accept art vs. PJ and forensic/legal evidence.
EBH
Aug 22, 2026 at 01:30 PM
p.1 #18Pictures… they’re all fake now
Pixelpuffin wrote:
All these super sharp, super saturated denoised images remind me of women trapped in the quest to be seen as the most beautiful..yet they all look the same, they’re all plastic and filled out…. Just tragic
It’s actually quite sad
The main difference is that skill level required to do this has become quite available to the average person via software tools / AI / etc.
I recall nearly 40 years ago, watching a retoucher friend of my dad show me how he did it for Playboy, et al. Back then it was a very small, very skilled discipline, that took years of training to develop a mastery of it. Now ... it's a one-click proposition to varying degrees. The fact that painters would "represent" people in a "flattering" manner ... has been around for longer than photography.
So, your point regarding its prevalence is of some validity, that it has reached into a realm of commonplace ... but the "NEWS FLASH" aspect of it ... Yawn, Meh.
All these super sharp, super saturated denoised images remind me of women trapped in the quest to be seen as the most beautiful..yet they all look the same, they’re all plastic and filled out…. Just tragic
It’s actually quite sad
The main difference is that skill level required to do this has become quite available to the average person via software tools / AI / etc.
I recall nearly 40 years ago, watching a retoucher friend of my dad show me how he did it for Playboy, et al. Back then it was a very small, very skilled discipline, that took years of training to develop a mastery of it. Now ... it's a one-click proposition to varying degrees. The fact that painters would "represent" people in a "flattering" manner ... has been around for longer than photography.
So, your point regarding its prevalence is of some validity, that it has reached into a realm of commonplace ... but the "NEWS FLASH" aspect of it ... Yawn, Meh.
Aug 22, 2026 at 05:14 PM
p.1 #19Pictures… they’re all fake now
RustyBug wrote:
Pixelpuffin wrote
All these super sharp, super saturated denoised images remind me of women trapped in the quest to be seen as the most beautiful..yet they all look the same, they’re all plastic and filled out…. Just tragicIt’s actually quite sad
I recall nearly 40 years ago, watching a retoucher friend of my dad show me how he did it for Playboy, et al. Back then it was a very small, very skilled discipline, that took years of training to develop a mastery of it. Now ... it's a one-click proposition to varying degrees. The fact that painters would "represent" people in a "flattering" manner ... has been around for longer than photography.
So, your point regarding...Show more →
That’s fair enough 👍🏻
Sorry
Aug 23, 2026 at 04:55 AM
p.1 #20Pictures… they’re all fake now
redcrown wrote:
Joan Crawford by George Hurrell, about 1937. Hurrell didn't retouch. He hired others to do the airbrushing.
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-MjZSDK9/0/M3gX8ftG6NzCGGpSnhd7bx3P2wzFsmz7BVJ599fkr/O/i-MjZSDK9.jpg
And of course the woman in that photograph probably did not have grey skin.
Joan Crawford by George Hurrell, about 1937. Hurrell didn't retouch. He hired others to do the airbrushing.
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-MjZSDK9/0/M3gX8ftG6NzCGGpSnhd7bx3P2wzFsmz7BVJ599fkr/O/i-MjZSDK9.jpg
And of course the woman in that photograph probably did not have grey skin.
Aug 27, 2026 at 08:55 PM