A Commentary on Photo Legitimacy

tom60634 wrote:

I think your choice of the word "legitimacy" leads us astray.

I believe that word(s) such as truthful, honest would be more indicative of what you are seeking.

Legitimate normally refers to the ability of a statement, condition etc.etc. to be be proven by reason, logic, scientific fact etc.etc. as in "Joe was found to be the legitimate father of ..." or " the so called prince of comedy was found not to have a legitimate claim to the throne..."

Basically all photographs are legitimate if they can be proven to be created by the processes available at the time they were taken.

Once legitimacy is established then we can address whether the photograph is a truthful or honest representation of the scene, item or person. This leads us to question when a beautiful (and truthful) rendition of a person is transposed to a different background, is the portrayal of the person truthful, dishonest, misleading etc. etc.? With green/blue screen photography an accepted technique, does the background matter if the person portrayed is truthfully represented (warts and all)?

I believe that your focus is too wide set. For instance advertising photography is deliberately misleading, most of the time. Police booking photos are for the most part honest, if harsh and unflattering. You should set up parameters, or else be prepared for responses that will lead your research on an unending quest.