Response to Errol Morris' Photography as a Weapon

Found here: http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/11/photography-as-a-weapon/?scp=3&sq=photography&st=cse

Errol Morris interviews Hany Farid, an expert on digital photography and photography fraud, and Charles Johnson, of little green footballs.

A question that I wondered the whole time I read this article, and which was echoed by a commenter on the article, was that isn't each photographer essentially altering a photograph by taking it? I suppose one could argue that by what angle the photographer is taking the photo in, how focused they want the picture to be, and what is being taken is a form of manipulation. One could also argue that it is art, showing the artist's point of view. So, when does it become art and when is it altered reality? Is it more so with photoshop? Does simply changing the format change what we see?

I found Hany Farid's comments on the brain's acceptance of the visual and language most interesting. It's important to understand that our eyes accept a lot of truth, maybe because we are used to it. Visual = truth; Language (i.e. gossip) = faith. The idea that "seeing is believing" has penetrated what we understand as truth. It's also fascinating to see that humans are able to believe things that are concrete (i.e. bones, ancient remains, etc). Perhaps the idea "seeing is believing" will witness a more negative turn now that technology is able to manipulate our eyes? Maybe by understanding that most things in the media are doctored will help us to understand that we can't take things on face value. It means doing more work, more research, more skepticism in a world where things are becoming more convenient and accessible and humans are getting lazier.