Less deferential to authority or finding out that authority confers no authenticity?
The photo was taken in 1934. The gynaecologist who supposedly took it refused to put his name to it. It therefore became known as "the surgeon's photograph".
It was then widely accepted as genuine for approximately 60 years.
For those 60 years, there was no reason to connect the common name of the photo with our modern understanding that social or professional authority in one area does not automatically confer authority in other areas.
For much of those 60 years, it is likely that many people with only a passing interest might see the photo, hear the name that it was given, and assume that its supposed source made it more likely to be genuine.
As I understand it, the "surgeon" was not directly involved in taking the photo, but was the person who handed it in to the chemist for development, so there may be an element of deliberately using the surgeon's respectable status to add some credibility to part of the story.
Argument from status, or authority, or reputation, is still something that happens, and probably always will be. On the internet, we see memes attributing various worthy made up "quotes" to supposed authority figures. On the news, we see entertainers and sports stars "adding their weight" to political campaigns. There are several "trade certification bodies" that recommend tradesmen on the basis of irrelevant celebrity endorsement. The social media "influencer" is an extreme example: a self-appointed generally young and attractive person who is good in front of the camera, using nothing but their assumption of authority to promote one brand or another.
Deference to authority on matters to which that authority is irrelevant is a normal part of human behaviour. It is probably even helpful for social cohesion when dealing with matters of opinion, fashion, and social interaction. All that has changed is that we are now
less deferential to the doctor, solicitor, magistrate, or MP, and
more deferential to the entertainer, the influencer, and the sports person.
On matters of objective truth (Is this a genuine photograph of a cryptid? Is the Earth flat? Does this vaccine cause this syndrome?) then we ought to be considerably more careful about
the relevance of the person's authority.
However, when "good faith" is at issue, there is some justification for considering what the person may be risking in terms of reputation. If an eminent and respectable person reports an anomalous experience, or claims to have taken a photo of an anomaly, the risk to their reputation is at least an indicator that they are likely to be sincere.
Unfortunately, it is too easy to go the other way, and dismiss the evidence of those who have nothing to lose, especially if they have something to gain. The factory worker who is having a day fishing alone and takes a photo of "Nessie" and gets his 15 minutes of fame in the local press may be unfairly seen as more likely to be making it up than someone of higher status with a reputation to risk. That is unfair.