The Candy Store Giveth, The Camera Taketh Away

Oh My Gosh!! I would never believe this if I didn't see it for myself. You know all the fuss we've been having lately about photographers altering photos to suit their message? We've concluded that's a bad thing, right (the altering, not the fussing)? Well, maybe that only applies to photojournalism, because Hewlett Packard has added photo alteration as a feature to some of their digital cameras. The thing that HP digital cameras are making it possible for you to fix is how much you weigh. That's right, if you don't like how you look in HP images, the software in that HP camera can slim you right down.

I find this baffling. I admit that I don't have a problem with my weight, so maybe I'm just not being sympathetic enough, but don't people want the image to be real? I guess not. Now that I think of it, I have family who love having lots of pictures, but always complain about how they look, and stand behind one another to hide the parts of themselves they don't want showing, so they'll probably love this new camera option. It still amazes me though, that such a thing would be a setting on the camera, an official part of the camera's function. How much longer will photographic evidence be admissible in court, when all you have to do is adjust a setting and the original photo is different from reality? We're going to have to have an entire profession built around detecting fauxtography, or such evidence will always be called into question.

Actually, I've been reading lately about how our perceptions are built by our brains anyway, and how our perceptions don't necessarily coincide with reality, so I suppose this photography thing is only one more step down the rabbit hole. Heck, the way things are going with virtual reality, eventually everything will have to be called into question. Welcome to the twenty-first century. It's a good thing I believe in an Ultimate Reality. That's what's keeping me sane as I ponder all of this illusion.

Hat tip: Futurismic

Update: What was I thinking? I said, "We're going to have to have an entire profession built around detecting fauxtography, or such evidence will always be called into question." What we're really going to need, of course, is fauxtography detection software. Silly me. Although, to be fair to myself (fairness, after all, begins at home), we're going to need people who know how to use the software, which amounts to about the same thing.

Hat tip: Hot Air