Episode 2: The Crisis of Authenticity

When Digital Manipulation Shook Reality

Prologue: November 2023, Garosu-gil

November 2023, Garosu-gil.

In front of a massive fashion billboard. A model in a green halter-neck dress. Before it, a woman taking a photo. Beige jacket, white pants, casual attire.

An ordinary autumn afternoon scene.

But I need to confess something about this photograph.

This image has already been edited by me.

• I adjusted the exposure

• I tweaked the contrast

• I corrected the colors

So, is this still 'truth'?

In Episode 1, we explored the indexicality of photography. Roland Barthes' "ça-a-été" (that-has-been). Photography was evidence of reality, a trace that maintains a physical causal relationship with its subject.

But now we live in an era where "that-has-been" is no longer certain.

Because: Every digital photograph has been 'manipulated' to some degree.

Part 1: Traces of Time - What Photography Remembers

The Promise of the 20th Century

Folding Camera

A folding camera from the early-to-mid 20th century. This camera, resting on a wooden table, represents an entire era.

The promise of that era:

• Photographs don't lie

• Cameras record reality as it is

• "Seeing is believing"

Technical limitations created trust.

Manipulation in the film era:

• Took a long time

• Required expert skills

• Left traces

• Cost significant money

Therefore, most photographs were 'truth'. Because there was neither reason nor capability to manipulate.

Evidence in Court

Film photographs were absolute evidence in courtrooms.

• Crime scene photos

• Signatures on contracts

• Faces on ID cards

• Records of accident scenes

"The photograph proves it" was beyond question.

A photograph wasn't merely an image, but a trace of time and a guarantee of truth.

Part 2: The Spectrum of Manipulation - Where Is the Boundary?

Experimenting with the November 2023 Photo

I edited my original Garosu-gil photo in stages.

Compare these 4 versions:

Stage 1: ORIGINAL

Status:

• As recorded by the camera

• Natural colors

• Neutral tone

• Somewhat flat

Question: Is this the 'truth'?

Fact: The camera itself already 'interpreted' it.

• Compressed 3D into 2D

• Adjusted dynamic range

• Applied automatic noise reduction

• Corrected lens distortion

Conclusion: A pure 'original' doesn't exist.

Stage 2: LIGHT EDIT

Work done:

• Exposure +0.3 stops

• Slightly increased contrast

• Minor color temperature adjustment

• Sharpness +10

Change: The image became slightly warmer. The green appears more vibrant.

Comparison: Equivalent to darkroom work in the film era.

Dodging and burning were traditionally acceptable.

Consensus: Mostly acceptable ✅

• Personal photos: Completely OK

• Documentary: OK

• News photos: OK (minimal adjustment)

• Commercial photos: Naturally OK

Stage 3: MODERATE EDIT

Work done:

• Saturation +25

• Contrast +20

• Selective enhancement of billboard colors

• Sky made bluer

• Overall more vivid

Change: The image became 'Instagram-like'. It catches the eye more. It looks 'better'.

The debate begins:

• Fashion/commercial photographers: "This is essential work"

• Photojournalists: "It depends on context"

• General public: "I didn't know this was manipulation"

Paradox: Nearly every Instagram photo is at this level.

Filters = popularized manipulation. Yet no one calls it 'manipulation'.

Evaluation:

• Personal photos: ✅ OK

• Documentary: ⚠️ Borderline

• News photos: ❌ Excessive

• Commercial photos: ✅ Standard

Stage 4: HEAVY MANIPULATION

Work done:

• Extreme saturation and contrast

• Complete color transformation

• Dramatic mood creation

• Almost surreal feel

• Sunset effect added

• Background color altered

Change: Completely different from the original. Surreal and dramatic.

Looks like a work of art.

Problem:

• Is this still 'photography'?

• Or is it 'digital art'?

• Does it 'record' reality or 'create' it?

Evaluation:

• Personal photos: ⚠️ Creative but questionable

• Documentary: ❌ Absolutely not

• News photos: ❌ Completely inappropriate

• Commercial/art photos: ✅ Creative freedom

Where Does 'Photography' End?

When you place all 4 versions side by side:

Left (Original) → Right (Heavy Manipulation)

At what point does 'photography' become 'digital art'? There's no clear boundary.

It's a spectrum:

Pure documentation ←————————————→ Complete creation

Every photograph exists somewhere on this spectrum.

Part 3: An Extreme Case - Suspicious Night Street

Look at this photograph.

A European street at night. "TAVERNE" neon sign. Stone buildings. Red light reflected on cobblestones.

It's too perfect. Too dramatic. Too... suspicious.

Suspicion Checklist

1. Colors unrealistically saturated

• Red excessively emphasized

• Sky too dark and dramatic

• Shadows extremely deep

Verdict: ⚠️ Suspicious

2. Physics of light

• Only neon sign as light source, yet everything tinted red

• Reflection too perfect

• Shadow directions inconsistent

Verdict: ⚠️ Suspicious

3. Atmosphere overly 'cinematic'

• Film noir-like feeling

• 'Too beautiful' scene

• Difficult composition to capture by chance

Verdict: ⚠️ Suspicious

Truth: This Is Also 'Photography'

However:

• Extreme HDR use

• Extreme per-channel color adjustments

• Selective color enhancement

• Excessive vignetting applied

• Texture maximized

Time spent: Probably over 2 hours

Question: Does this capture the 'truth' of that night street? Or did it project the artist's 'imagination'?

The 2015 World Press Photo Controversy

Similar case: Giovanni Troilo's 'La Ville Noire'

The incident:

• Documentary series of Charleroi, Belgium

• Beautiful light and colors

• Won World Press Photo award

Problem:

• Extreme HDR use

• Dramatic color adjustments

• Criticized for "crossing journalism's boundaries"

Troilo's defense: "I am an artist. I merely expressed the emotions I saw."

Critics: "Documentary must show reality. Not fantasy."

Result:

• Enormous controversy

• Necessity for new guidelines

• Question: What is acceptable?

Contrast: Reuters/AP's Strict Standards

Allowed:

• Minimal exposure/contrast adjustments

• Cropping

Prohibited:

• Color manipulation

• Adding/removing elements

• Excessive filters

Real case (2015): A photojournalist removed power lines and was immediately fired. "Minor edit" but violated principles.

Message: News photography demands absolute authenticity.

Part 4: What Time Changed - October 2025

October 2025, the same Garosu-gil.

I stood there again. With my Leica SL.

Something had changed.

November 2023:

• Female model in green halter-neck dress

• Woman taking a photo

• Beige jacket, autumn atmosphere

• Warm and soft feeling

• 
  

October 2025:

• Male model with platinum blonde hair

• Futuristic design glasses

• Woman posing

• Checkered sweater, pleated skirt

• Cold and modern feeling

Same things:

• Location (Garosu-gil)

• Road marking ("SLOW")

• TAMBURINS brand

• Giant billboard

• One person standing in front composition

Different things:

• Season (autumn → autumn, but 2 years apart)

• Model (female → male)

• Tourist (different person)

• Atmosphere (warmth → coldness)

• Camera (unknown → Leica SL)

Question: What Is Real?

Both photographs:

• Actually shot at that location ✅

• Actually different tourists ✅

• Billboard actually changed ✅

• Edited ✅

But:

If I hadn't told you? If I had lied saying "same day, same person"? Could you have known?

Experiment: Manipulation Possibility Test

What can be done with Photoshop:

Task 1: Billboard replacement

• Change billboard in 2023 photo to male model

• Time required: 30 minutes

• Result: Nearly perfect, average person can't tell

Task 2: Tourist replacement

• Change woman in 2025 photo to different person

• Time required: 1 hour

• Result: Slight shadow inconsistency, but hard to notice

Task 3: Complete reconstruction

• Combine both photos

• Manipulate billboard + tourist + weather + lighting

• Time required: 2 hours

• Result: Even experts struggle without metadata

Part 5: Verification of Authenticity - What Can We Trust?

Expert's 4 Verification Methods

Let's analyze the October 2025 photo.

1. Metadata Check

Camera: Leica SL

Lens: Vario-Elmarit-SL 24-70mm

Date taken: October 28, 2025

Location: Sinsa-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul

ISO: 200

Shutter: 1/250s

Aperture: f/5.6

Verdict: Exists ✅

However: Metadata can also be manipulated. Professional software can change all information.

2. Light and Shadow Analysis

Light sources:

• Afternoon sunlight: From upper right

• Shadows: To lower left (consistent)

• Billboard reflection: Natural

• Road shadows: Accurate

Verdict: Consistent ✅

Score: 95/100

3. Detail Inspection

Edges:

• Woman's outline: Clean

• Separation from background: Natural

• Hair details: Perfect

Texture:

• Road surface: Continuous

• Building walls: Natural

• Billboard edges: No issues

Verdict: No issues ✅

Score: 92/100

4. Context Plausibility

Scene logic:

• Tourist standing in front of billboard: Common ✅

• Checkered sweater + pleated skirt: Seasonally appropriate ✅

• Road marking "SLOW": Garosu-gil characteristic ✅

• Weather: Natural for clear autumn day ✅

Verdict: Completely plausible ✅

Score: 98/100

Final Verdict: This Photo Is Real

Overall score: 95/100

This photo is real. It was actually taken at that moment, at that place.

However:

If I had manipulated it precisely, If I had invested 2 hours, If I were a professional,

I could have passed all these tests.

Part 6: Confession - What I Did to These Photos

November 2023 Photo

Actual edits:

• Exposure +0.3 stops

• Highlights -10, Shadows +15

• Sharpness +20, Saturation +5

• Color temperature slightly warmer

• Selective enhancement of billboard green

What I didn't do:

• Add/remove elements ❌

• Replace background ❌

• Replace person ❌

• Composite ❌

Time spent: 10 minutes

October 2025 Photo

Actual edits:

• Exposure +0.5 stops

• Highlights -15, Shadows +20

• Sharpness +25, Saturation +10

• Color temperature slightly cooler (urban feel)

• Selective enhancement of billboard colors

• Contrast +15

What I didn't do:

• Add/remove elements ❌

• Replace background ❌

• Replace person ❌

• Composite ❌

• Change billboard content ❌

Time spent: 15 minutes

Question

Is this level of editing acceptable?

The answer depends on context:

Context	2023 Photo	2025 Photo
Personal blog	✅ OK	✅ OK
Documentary	⚠️ Borderline	⚠️ Borderline
News article	❌ Excessive	❌ Excessive
Commercial/advertising	✅ Standard	✅ Standard
Art photography	✅ OK	✅ OK

Part 7: Collapse of Trust - An Era of Paradox

Past: Film Era (The era represented by vintage cameras)

Belief:

• "Photographs don't lie"

• "Seeing is believing"

• Absolute trust as court evidence

Reasons:

• Manipulation was difficult

• Cost was high

• Left traces

• Required expert skills

Present: Digital Era

Suspicion:

• "Photos are probably manipulated"

• "Seeing is NOT believing"

• Doubt every image

Reasons:

• Manipulation is easy

• Virtually no cost

• Leaves no trace

• Anyone can do it

Paradox

As technology advances, trust declines

Better cameras → Easier manipulation More powerful software → More sophisticated lies

The more perfect it looks, the more we suspect manipulation

Too perfect photo: "Must be Photoshopped" Natural flaws: "Is it real?"

The most 'realistic' images are hardest to believe

AI-created "perfect" reality Fake that looks more real than reality

Part 8: New Questions

Cameras Already 'Manipulate'

What Leica SL does automatically:

• 3D → 2D compression

• Dynamic range compression

• Automatic noise reduction

• Automatic sharpness adjustment

• Automatic white balance

• Lens distortion correction

• Chromatic aberration correction

Conclusion: 'Unmanipulated photographs' don't exist.

Human Eyes Also 'Manipulate'

What our brain does:

• Focus only on what interests us

• Filter out unnecessary things

• Beautify memories

• Perceive differently based on emotion

• Fill missing information with imagination

• Exaggerate or diminish colors

What I saw when taking the 2023 photo: Vivid green, urban sophistication, autumn warmth

What I saw when taking the 2025 photo: Futuristic feel, cold modernism, urban change

What I emphasized through editing: Exactly those emotions I felt.

So: Is editing manipulation, or reproduction of human perception?

Part 9: How Should We Respond?

1. Transparency

Principle:

• Disclose editing history

• "This photo has been retouched" label

• Maintain metadata

Example: The New York Times specifies the degree of editing for all photos.

Suggestion:

Photo description:

October 2025, Garosu-gil TAMBURINS billboard

Camera: Leica SL

Editing: Exposure/color adjustments (+0.5 stops, saturation +10)

Manipulation: No elements added/removed

2. Education

Necessity:

• Image literacy education

• Develop critical vision

• Most don't even understand the concept of editing

Curriculum suggestions:

• Understanding basic editing tools

• Manipulation detection techniques

• Context analysis skills

• Source verification methods

• Understanding the 4-stage editing spectrum

3. New Norms

Acceptance: Accept that all photos are edited to some degree

Standard shift: It's not the degree of editing that matters, but the intent

Questions:

• Is it trying to deceive? ❌

• Is it trying to express? ✅

• Is it trying to convey information? ✅

• Is it trying to evoke emotion? ✅

Conclusion: Authenticity Is Attitude, Not Technology

The Authenticity of Examined Photos Is:

❌ Not determined by whether they were edited 

❌ Not judged by technical perfection 

❌ Not proven by RAW files 

❌ Not guaranteed by equipment price

✅ That I was actually there 

✅ That I witnessed that moment 

✅ That I tried to honestly convey the meaning of that scene 

✅ That I didn't distort what I saw and felt

Shifting the Core Question

What not to ask: "Was this photo manipulated?" ❌

What to ask: "What is this photo trying to say?" ✅

             "Is this photo honest?" ✅ 

"What does this photo show me?" ✅ 

"Did this photo distort reality?" ✅

What I Want to Say with These Photos

1. The passage of time November 2023 Female model warmth

→ October 2025 Male model coldness. Trends keep changing.

2. What doesn't change People still stand in front of it. Take photos.

Record their moments. Billboards change, but desires don't.

3. Urban daily life Garosu-gil keeps flowing. Fashion flows, people flow.

But the place remains.

4. From past to present The truth promised by vintage cameras.

Trust shaken by digital. But still, we record.

5. Me as observer I see all of this. Over 2 years. I record. I search for meaning.

This is authenticity.

Epilogue: The Next Crisis

The crisis of authenticity is just the beginning.

In the next Episode 3:

What if the model on the billboard is a deepfake? 

What if the tourist doesn't actually exist? 

What if Garosu-gil itself is an AI-generated place?

So far, we've discussed 'manipulation'. Digital editing, color adjustments, composites.

But all of this had an 'original'. Even when edited, composited, transformed, the starting point was reality.

The next stage is different.

Deepfakes create reality without originals. 

AI generates people who don't exist. 

The boundary between fact and fiction completely disappears.

Was that woman in November 2023 a real person?

Could that woman in October 2025 be an AI-created being?

Is the male model on the billboard an actually existing person?

In that world, what can we trust?

Next episode: "Deepfake - When the Boundary Between Fact and Fiction Disappears"

[Episode 1: Jennie of Garosu-gil] ← [Episode 2: The Crisis of Authenticity] → [Episode 3: Coming]