It used to be said that the camera cannot lie, but we all know that this is untrue. Indeed, photography is often a valuable adjunct to mendacity. In such a creative medium one must expect some distortion of reality - it is inherent in the photographic process. However, a line must be drawn between artistic license and fraudulent endeavor.

In order to meet the demands of Art Directors and other creative visionaries it has sometimes been necessary for commercial photographers to produce images that appear to record transient events, but which are, in reality, static illusions. Such images are rarely claimed to be high-speed photography. Indeed, their creator is usually so pleased with his ingenuity that he publishes an account of how the shot was made. Creating an effective fake actually proves to be far more difficult and demanding than capturing a genuine high-speed image!

Even among high-speed experts there is sometimes an irresistible temptation to improve on an already masterful image. In the digital darkroom there is no limit to the manipulations that can be used to enhance the original shot. Although perhaps misleading (and discouraging to those who lack such facilities) such deception is generally acceptable in the name of creativity.

More insidious, and far more serious, is when faked images are passed off as real for monetary gain and supported with spurious technical data. This is not only faking but fraud! Some years ago an English photographer of Indian descent, who shall remain nameless, intent on trying to create a reputation for himself as a high-speed photographer, foolishly stooped to such deceit and was found out. One does not see his work around any more!

It began innocently enough, combining suspended teacups and saucers with genuine splashes to create the illusion that they had been dropped. It was an ingenious idea, because lacking any genuine high-speed equipment, the photographer made use of the fact that a cupful of liquid thrown upward will, at the highest point of its trajectory appear to hang motionless in space for a moment before falling. Indeed, the trick would probably have gone unnoticed and been accepted as genuine if the photographerhad not been greedy and published his images simultaneously in several different magazines. In each published picture, the static elements - cups and saucers - remained in exactly the same relationship to one another and in exactly the same orientation, but the pattern of "falling" liquid was different every time. To the astute observer it was also apparent that the camera position had been moved slightly between shots, presumably to allow the mess to be cleared up.

His final undoing, the outcome of greed and pride, came when he tried to re-create Doc Edgerton's famous shot of a bullet cutting a playing card. It is an interesting exercise to examine the many clues that the faked image provides - the list that follows is not exhaustive!.

Suspicion is immediately aroused by the strangely elongated proportions of the cut card and the wholly inappropriate and improbable vegetated background. Closer examination reveals a lack of rifling on the bullet, meaning it never traveled down a gun barrel. Moreover, it is pin sharp, showing no sign of blurring.  This would suggest the use of an exceptionally fast strobe. Had he possessed such a specialized piece of equipment one might expect the photographer to have used it in other shots - but he has not. Moreover, had such a short pulse been used it would be almost impossible  to maintain proper color balance.

The most telling evidence of deceit comes from the purported card "fragments". In Edgerton's original shot there are numerous torn shreds of card. These are of all sizes, and clearly show their fibrous nature. They also lie, as one would expect, in different focal planes, some being in focus, others out in varying degrees. How different in the fake! Here the fragments, apart from a few obvious bits of torn card, are not fibrous, occur in only two size classes and lie all in the same focal plane as the card and bullet. They resemble grains of sugar. Moreover, some of the "fragments" appear to precede the bullet by several inches, which would mean they were travelling faster than the bullet itself!

It would have been instructive to publish the shot here, but that would involve a breach of copyright and have identified the photgrapher, giving him grounds to sue. Regretably even fraudulent photographers are so protected under the law!