Fake news is much in the news these days and a new study from the University of Warwick has some disheartening, if not surprising, survey results showing that the public often has difficulty sorting real images from manipulated ones.
Researchers led by Sophie Nightingale from the Department of Psychology asked 659 people aged 13-70 to view a set of images of ordinary scenes. The researchers digitally altered the photographs in subtle, plausible ways. They airbrushed faces, whitened teeth, and added or removed items from the frame. Thirty five percent of the manipulated images passed unnoticed. Half of the original, unaltered images were correctly identified.
According to the researchers, the results “are not very much above what the participants would have achieved had they chosen entirely randomly.”
Even when participants thought an image had been altered, they couldn’t always locate what was changed.
This isn’t surprising. As we detailed in a 2015 story, it can be particularly tough to spot manipulations, particularly if you don’t have access to an original image or RAW file. Services like Izittru allow you to upload JPEGs to verify that they’re legit but that can be cumbersome for a casual newsreader or someone skimming through their social media feeds.
Think you’d fare better than the general public in spotting a fake? You can take the University of Warwick’s test right here.
A professor of photojournalism ethics wrestles with the question of whether the media should run images of carnage following gun violence. More ›
There's something rotten in the state of landscape photography. More ›
Magnus Wennman, staff photographer at the Swedish daily newspaper Aftonbladet, has won Newspaper Photographer of the Year honors at the 75th annual Pictures of the Year International competition. German photographer Matthias Hangst of Getty Images won Sports Photographer of the Year. The POYi competition is run by the University of Missouri School of Journalism. Other... More ›