In this blog I make the case that debates over the acceptable limits of cloning and image manipulation more generally need to take into consideration the complexities of human experience. I argue for two main claims: 1) That the visual experiences that we use as the basis for our judgments about the authenticity or otherwise of an image is nothing like a camera sensor recording light, and 2) that the central aspect of our experience relevant in this debate is our aesthetic response to the world. I further argue that whilst many such aspects of our experience may be shared in common with others, they are always conditioned by our circumstances and histories.

One of the perennial questions that photographers face is whether or to what extent they may manipulate their image or clone elements into or out of their image before it becomes “fake”. This question has become especially pressing now we have entered an era where AI tools give us the power to seamlessly change or remove anything, even entire skies, at the click of a button.

This is, fairly obviously, an ethical question, but in this blog I look at the more metaphysical question that lies behind it, especially as it applies to landscape or nature photography: Given that we have a duty not to avoid “fake” images, what is the reality against which we should judge the image. I argue that it is an inner reality that is the legitimate ground for judgments of fakery or authenticity, not the external reality we naively presuppose.