Steve McCurry and post processing

[newsgrunt]

So this is kind of big news. Is he a photojournalist or is he an artist ? Are they mutually exclusive ?

http://petapixel.com/2016/05/06/botched-steve-mccurry-print-leads-photoshop-scandal/

 

[rybolt]

What was Gene Smith? Darkroom work; dodging and burning were as important to him as the moment he pushed the button. There's a huge difference between a photojournalist manipulating an image and an editorial photographer making the photograph his statement.
Just my opinion, of course.
Here's a Petapixel article about Smith and his views.

http://petapixel.com/2015/01/26/w-eugene-smith-considered-darkroom-work-90-photos-creation-process/

 

[newsgrunt]

What news photographers and photojournalists did back in the day would just not fly today. Moving elements is pretty well it and is a fireable offence (Brian WalskBrian Walski, LA Times). As well, you will rarely, if ever, see The Hand of God anymore, even though it was common darkroom practice.

I think what many find egregious was his excuse that this was art and that staff did the work. He distanced himself from the issue. If it was indeed art (which has different parameters) and it's ok, he should have just said so explicitly and this would probably be over.

 

[newsgrunt]

How is it not news ? That he is a photojournalist and a member of Magnum, I think deserves some discussion. Again, if he had just said that this is 'art' and some liberties are allowed, then it would be over. But he didn't. Instead, he threw someone else under the bus.

As expected, many colleagues who work in the trenches of photojournalism are not happy about this. ymmv

 

[bonatto]

I feel a bit upset when I crop a picture. It bothers me if I have to "darken something away". It's questionable to introduce clarity and shadow detail like a World Press Photo winner of a few years ago.

Read here (graphic): http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...gaza-burial-not-faked-pictures_n_3277080.html

But this pertains to photojournalism, which is a branch of documentary photography.

A photographic illustration or directed photograph, on the other hand, can fall within a host of other rules and expectations. They are generally labeled as such, and passing them off as otherwise is generally frowned upon.

Read here:http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/arts/design/world-press-photo-revokes-prize.html

If a photographer is photojournalist who then decides to become a fashion photographer, or a photo illustrator, or whatever, he or she are free to roam. They're also free be all at once if they wish. But if it's not something explicit and open, it would be like buying a new Black Sabbath album and finding Justin Bieber style pop inside.

I never much cared for Steve McCurry's work, I never really put much thought into it though.

Someone else has: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/03/magazine/a-too-perfect-picture.html

And then there are photographers like Alex Webb: http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/apr/07/alex-webb-best-photograph-children-mexico-ball

So - while one can argue that the photographer already deliberately frames a shot and leaves things out, one can also argue that those rules are part of the game. Four edges of a circle for as long as photography has been photography. Deleting elements for the sake of poor composition or deliberate alteration of purpose - hard to argue for it - (within!) the fields of documentary photography and photojournalism.

 

[bonatto]

And may I suggest changing the title from "and post processing" to "and image alteration". The former risks tangling up the matter at hand with contrast, color correction etc.

 

[stompyq]

Why is this a issue or big news? Heck even HCB post processed (or whatever you want to call manipulation in the darkroom)

 

[bonatto]

Why is this a issue or big news? Heck even HCB post processed (or whatever you want to call manipulation in the darkroom)

Please excuse the ignorance, but apart from Derriere la Gare Saint-Lazare having been cropped (most of the cropping done to remove dead space), I'm not familiar with any other pictures which were manipulated in the same way as the McCurry ones. I'd be curious to learn of more examples, from Bresson or any other established photojournalists/documentary photographers.

 

[newsgrunt]

Photojournalism has many shades and the photographs in question don't fit the 'art' peg as I see it. We all see work differently obviously but his reputation was staked on photojournalism so that's where he'll be judged regardless of how much he may spin the story imo.


That the work in question was removed from Magnum's site says something, caution at the least, until this is explained to the members.

 

[KM-25]

News or not, it is a bull**** move.

And with the world already full of millions of people who otherwise have not a lick of talent inventing "art" with photoshop just so they can imagine they are "good", the fact that McCurry is doing this just leads the whole idea of what makes a great photograph right into the trash can even further.

I don't pull this crap in any genre I shoot, photojournalism, commercial work, fine art or personal documentary projects, I either got the effing shot or I didn't. Period.

If he wants to now be known to the public as the travel photographer version of Thomas Kincaide , well that is indeed his choice, but Magnum should dump him entirely then.

 

[newsgrunt]

This is a continuing battle that we have and it's hard enough that people don't always trust what they see and this is just another fire that needs to be put out.

 

[fireblade]

Today Photoshopped, Yesteryear Staged.
Who cares. Reminds me of the song..."it's my party and i'll cry if i want to" 😀

 

[Huss]

I'm offended that people are offended at other people's offense.

 

[farlymac]

If he gave the darkroom folks free reign, then he has no one to blame but himself. Reading his explanation about what happened, and what he is doing about it, it sounds like someone trying to cover his backside as quickly as possible. It set my opinion of him down a few notches. Especially after seeing the other work that was modified, for what reason I can't fathom unless he is OCD about balance in the scenes.

PF

 

[Nigel Meaby]

The changes in the cycle rickshaw photo's are considerable. Two men removed from the rickshaw. Lamp post removed, fruit cart removed, diagonal pole removed behind men. Another cart removed from behind rickshaw, young person in centre of frame at the back removed, apart from a red section that has been made to look like an object for sale in the shop. Man rear right of the frame changed colour from the distracting white clothing to brown and grey. Litter removed from ground in the background. A few other bits and pieces I can see the more I look at it. 😱

 

[Kent]

Difficult issue.

You know the saying that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".
To a certain extend also "reality is in the eye of the beholder".
What I mean is that what I think I see often is not exactly what is really there.

And if someone sees a scene and perhaps ignores a lamp post etc. which is not important, really, and then removes that post from the image, is that too much "image alteration" already? Or is it just processing the image to what he/she had seen that very moment?

Interesting question, isn't it?

 

[jarski]

Always respected and thought highly of McCurry. Sad to see him in such news. Communicating "do not alter elements in photos" to photo editors should not be too complex task. Wonder what has happened.

 

[Nigel Meaby]

It's an interesting question as he wouldn't have been manipulating his images in such a way pre- scanning and digital imaging. I'd be interested to know if the Rickshaw image was one shot on Kodachrome and the top image was the original and the bottom one altered due to the availability of Photoshop, etc.

 

[jojoman2]

Someone else has: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/03/magazine/a-too-perfect-picture.html


I really appreciate this article. Also love the photographer the author mentioned in comparison to McCurry. Night and Day. McCurry's image seems sterile in compared to the glorious mess of Singh's images.

 

[leicapixie]

I never cropped in my PJ film days.
As consequence, used viewfinders that were accurate.
My M3, Pentax SP and later the Nikon-F.
I also forbade cropping of my images by users.
Digital arrived, all ethics were deleted.
It matters little if S.M. was there or not.
He is the one with reputation and getting both honor and payment.

Sadly, I see it all the time.
I do use some Photoshop (Picasa) .
Contrast, sharpness and fill light mainly.
Seeing prints and Genesis book by Salgado,
had me worrying of last essay with reindeer in Lapland.
Appear to be "pasted" there..
Maybe it's look of digital, the "comic illustration" look.
I enjoy using digital, but love film.