I write this as an author who has written six books on the ET&WNC narrow gauge, and rely very heavily on the photographic record. It is also an observation about the newer forms of historical research.
To a large degree, for me, an old photo does not lie. It may be simply a snapshot in time, and the building in the shot can be torn down the following month, or the locomotive scrapped. But as a snapshot in time, it does not lie. The greatest problem is the photos that have been traded around by the photo collectors over the years, and the original documentation is long gone, and it takes an expert to tell that the photo was taken in 1935 rather than 1940, and be able to prove that by other research. Instances abound of mislabeled photos, even those in the collections of renowned railroad photo collectors. I will not name names.
But hey, that is what research is for, and it separates the researcher from the arm chair reader.
Now fast forward all this to the 21st century. I lived in a college town for 25 years, and while I was looking at old newspapers on microfilm, students were using the Internet for all of their research. It boggled one gals mind to have to find information on some rock stars suicide in 1969 by some means other than the internet.
Anyway, we are less than a generation from people who will not know how to look up anything without Google. I even use it to get started these days. Unfortunately, the Internet is the ultimate expression of the idea of no absolute truth. For on the internet, every one's opinion is equally valid. Qualifications go out the window. But that is a discussion for another day.
In regard to photographs. With Google Images now, if it has ever been posted on the web, someone can down load the image. With windows XP, you simply put the cursor over an image, and it asks you if you want to save it to your hard drive. Every chat group wants people who spend hard earned dollars to go a thousand miles to be at a convention or an event to post the pictures as quickly as possible, so they can download them for free. And yes, three fingers are pointing back at me as I point that finger, so no flaming please. Just an observation.
Anyway, the capability exists now for the explanation to be separated from the image within days of it being posted somewhere. A month or a year or a decade later, that photo becomes yet another "where and when is this photo" question. The experts will gather round, and by using deduction, knowledge, and intuition, will establish a circa date for the photo.
Now throw in the manipulated photo. 50 years from now, someone will swear that the Durango photo had to be taken in the 60s because McDs is not in the photo. Unfortunately that will be the guy who is writing the 1001st book on the D& Silverton, and that photo (for they will all be digital then) will make just as good a cover as any of the rest. Then hundreds or thousands of people will believe that photo.
I am not advocating any policy here, just thinking out loud. I almost wish that it be a legal requirement that digitally manipulated photos be coded like movies and TV programs. The rating changes the more it is changed. And if you get up to CCC (equavalent to XXX), then the naked gal on the locomotive was not originally there.LOL.
I'm just saying it will be a lot harder for future generations to be able to look at an old photo, and believe what they see.
I applaud those who have the time to add color to photos. I just know that I have resolved to not use a photo in a book that has been manipulated more than what an average guy could have done developing his 616s in a closet darkroom. Would rather have a poor picture in the book than one where someone would doubt its validity. A generation from now, someone else might be less stringent.
I guess we just need some way to tell real from Memorex.
Johnny Graybeal
