I wish that every journalist would tell whether a photo is merely enhanced for better printing or is a photo of a reenactment or is a patchwork.

Even before digital enhancement, photos have been faked. Not all fakes have been so crude as the Cottingley Fairies which did fool hardly anybody except Conan Doyle. UFO photo fakes are a great fun and easily made (example; example) by double exposure and several other methods. Right at this time, in Germany there is a competition for the best UFO photo fake (and you are only admitted if you document how you have done it, that is photos of real UFOs are not admitted). The methods of detection are more difficult now, but it is not impossible for to get all details correct is still extremely difficult.

Fibula has made a very good point: There could be no 'enhancement' of the photo at all (that is the photo shows the scene as it was at the time of the photo) and it still could tell a lie.

Example 1: Loch Ness Monster The photo is not enhanced and it shows an animal, but it is an elephant bathing in another lake. The fake here was not in the photo but in the legend to it.

Example 2: Loch Ness Monster Here too the photo is not enhanced and it shows what it is, but what is it? A small play submarine (invisible) carrying a wood replica of Nessie.

Example 3: A UFO Again, the picture is not enhanced at all. A small replica of a UFO has been thrown into the air by someone behind the house a couple of times and the best photo has been chosen.

To repeat John: Photographic evidence is just that. Not very reliable and it never was and never will be. Not much change.

Wolfgang

Wolfgang