Steve McCurry and post processing

[Archlich]

Not quite a problem with digital vs film - the later you still manipulate - as manipulation is intrinsic to photography. It's too much aesthetics.

If you pursue the absolute beauty and perfection through "documenting" (so it was advertised) the inherently not beautiful and perfect enough reality, it will eventually come to this - to the siren song from the tools that offer you the perfection.

And one will have to listen...

 

[lynnb]

When one is as internationally well known and respected as McCurry, reputation is the most valuable commodity. Hard to see how this hasn't diminished his. It would've been different if he'd clearly communicated that his pictures were digitally "improved". His credibility now rests on whether people believe he had no knowledge of the actions of those doing the altering.

 

[lynnb]

A friend of mine belongs to an amateur camera club, self-labelled a "Photographic Society". Like all camera clubs they hold regular competitions. Visiting judges and guest speakers often remark "(to make this picture better) you could drop in some clouds/birds" or "remove that unwanted power line".

Heaven forbid a Magnum photographer would do such a thing!

 

[KM-25]

Aware of his current client list? Do you really believe that Valentino, or Perelli care about photoshop manipulation? Think Valentino will sell less if a pole is removed from a travel ad?

This recent occurrence could very well affect those kinds of clients deciding to use him or not. It's not likely they hired him for his photoshop skills but rather his stature as a editorial shooter.

If that cachet is now tarnished, what is the value in hiring him over a younger, cheaper and likely more talented shooter?

 

[gns]

I'm not really understanding the outcry. What is it that people think McCurry's work is, that makes this so damaging?

 

[Colin Corneau]

His (hard-won) name and reputation rests on the integrity of his images.

I find it very, very hard to believe he'd give complete autonomy to technicians over his photographs. But as has been noted, he threw those techs under the bus...it's someone else's fault. Yeah, right.

 

[Michael Markey]

A friend of mine belongs to an amateur camera club, self-labelled a "Photographic Society". Like all camera clubs they hold regular competitions. Visiting judges and guest speakers often remark "(to make this picture better) you could drop in some clouds/birds" or "remove that unwanted power line".

Heaven forbid a Magnum photographer would do such a thing!

Same with the club I attend Lynn .
They trade elements of pictures between themselves .
A favorite method is to go out and shoot various backgrounds ,faces etc and store them for future use .
They never go out and take a complete shot .

Never cared much for Curry`s work .

 

[David_Manning]

I think a Magnum photographer known for his documentary and PJ work has just destroyed his reputation (as a documentary photographer and photojournalist).

His only move now is to clearly state via Magnum that he no longer works in realism, but is an art and commercial photographer, which has lower standards of post-production.

I really loved his work. But seeing that he isn't just working harder than everyone else, but just improving image elements in the computer, leaves me turned off. I have lots of pictures that are good, but not great, because there are elements I didn't exclude (other people, power lines, etc.).

Now when I leaf through my McCurry book collection, I have to wonder whether the credit goes solely to Steve or one of his "retouchers."

 

[nobbylon]

I think a Magnum photographer known for his documentary and PJ work has just destroyed his reputation (as a documentary photographer and photojournalist).

His only move now is to clearly state via Magnum that he no longer works in realism, but is an art and commercial photographer, which has lower standards of post-production.

I really loved his work. But seeing that he isn't just working harder than everyone else, but just improving image elements in the computer, leaves me turned off. I have lots of pictures that are good, but not great, because there are elements I didn't exclude (other people, power lines, etc.).

Now when I leaf through my McCurry book collection, I have to wonder whether the credit goes solely to Steve or one of his "retouchers."

well said. The tricycle pic has put me off no end because I really liked that pic. Knowing that it was actually like any shot i've taken in a similar setting ie busy and cluttered and that it's been retouched for effect turns me off no end. How many more of his seemingly amazing pics have been manufactured. I'm sure he's not alone.

 

[nobbylon]

just a thought, maybe his Afghan girl pic really had a tribesman holding up bunny fingers behind her head doing an early photobomb 😉

 

[Huss]

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. 😱

Yeah, and the white sky in the top left corner removed and filled in. It goes on and on.

Initially I thought what's the big deal? But now I see an image that has been essentially fabricated, it is a big deal. Before 'we' were in awe as to how McCurry had such talent to capture such perfectly timed scenes of Indian life.
While now it seems that he took ok pics, thousands upon thousands of them, and the editing staff worked through them seeing which ones could be used as the basis for a 'decent' image.
Essentially cosmetic surgery for photographs.

That incredibly captured scene was not captured. Nor incredible. It was created later.

Is McCurry more Kinkade or Norman Rockwell for the depiction of Indian life?

 

[Brian Atherton]

If you're gonna alter an image at least do it competently.

Not Mr McCurry's finest hour.

 

[KM-25]

Agreed, these are not minor omissions for these images. Instead they have been taken from being decent images to being cleansed to look like a wax museum...what in the hell is he thinking????

The thing about McCurry is that a good portion of his early work on Kodachrome is actually good all on its own, like the well regarded Afghan Girl and those images for the most part, were likely to have not been retouched.

So here we have a photographer who has money, teaches workshops, has accolades, plenty of resources and to top it off, is a member of Magnum. That means he has the ability to stay in the field for as long as we wants to make really amazing imagery......and he pulls this crap.

The world of photography, the broad social perception of it all....we need less of this stuff happening, not more.

Yeah, and the white sky in the top left corner removed and filled in. It goes on and on.

Initially I thought what's the big deal? But now I see an image that has been essentially fabricated, it is a big deal. Before 'we' were in awe as to how McCurry had such talent to capture such perfectly timed scenes of Indian life.
While now it seems that he took ok pics, thousands upon thousands of them, and the editing staff worked through them seeing which ones could be used as the basis for a 'decent' image.
Essentially cosmetic surgery for photographs.

That incredibly captured scene was not captured. Nor incredible. It was created later.

Is McCurry more Kinkade or Norman Rockwell for the depiction of Indian life?

 

[stompyq]

So much sour grapes on this thread...

 

[OurManInTangier]

I'm not overly aware of much of his work, bar the obvious Afghan girl shot and a few others, but looking at the first shot with the boys I'd have thought the tweaks made to colour and contrast etc, whilst refraining from any cloning, would still make a strong image and perhaps its the sheer pull of Photoshop perfection that has made him (or his staff 🙂 ) take out the boy and turn the spare arm into a completed one. The bicycle shot has had significant changes made and has surprised me greatly at the difference between what was recorded and what has been presented.

I feel some sympathy for him in the pigeon-holeing of a forty year career and the way some seem to expect him to stay on the same course he started throughout those forty years and no doubt into the future too. However, I can't help feeling if you've come from a background of editorial and documentary photography, even if you move into a new direction, you must be fully aware that people will expect the level of integrity that went with that earlier work until it's made clear that this is no longer a standard to which you are working.

Art may play with reality, expectation and presentation and Commerce may demand perfection now and I personally have no real problem with that as audiences should, by now, have an understanding of how reality can be represented but the flip side of this is the need for Editorial and true documentary to demand the stringent levels of integrity that do seem to be expected from those people involved, photographers and media outlets alike.

The blurring of these two areas is no doubt very dangerous to the perceived reliability of current and future editorial work. Whilst people like me who provide a 'documentary' style wedding photography service may need to shoulder some responsibility for muddying the waters all too much in the minds of the public of what is expected from something using adjectives like editorial, reportage and documentary (when it is infact a service led industry with all of the expectations that go with that) a long standing professional photojournalist must surely understand the potential furore around such significant changes to their work and accept some backlash from peers.

 

[KM-25]

So much sour grapes on this thread...

Sour grapes usually implies those who are sour are envious or jealous of who they are hurling the grapes at.

I am a successful photographer who pretty much gets to do what I want when I want. And visually speaking, I have this life because I hold my own.

But I also mentor photographers and teach them about the ethics of actually getting a great shot that might stand the test of time rather than inventing a fallacy just to gain traction.

So tell me....how is that sour grapes?

 

[zauhar]

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. 😱

Excellent use of the clone-stamp tool!

I don't agree with the blithe comparisons to darkroom work. I won't say it would be impossible to make convincing manipulations in the darkroom along the lines of the rickshaw photo, but I could not imagine anyone actually trying to do it.

The problem here is the context. He is not making images that are obviously disconnected from daily life, e.g. a surrealistic composite image, or featuring clearly unnatural colors. The images look like photojournalism.

He has not peddled these as examples of photojournalism or documentary work, but why would anyone see them as 'art'? They appear to document street scenes - are they 'art' just because of the HDR look? People expect street photos to more or less reproduce what was in front of the camera, at least so far as the actual subjects and stuff that were there.

That said, I personally don't care what he manages to sell to the world, people can buy whatever they want. There is the 'richest photographer in the world' (Prince) who made a small fortune printing other peoples' instagrams - now that's real balls!

Randy

 

[David_Manning]

No sour grapes from me...but I think he just turned his reputation from Magnum-caliber into Photoshop hack.

The other thing to consider is that he's a multiple PJ award winner, and now those same award-presenting organizations are rejecting high percentages of images entered into contests for this same garbage.

 

[maggieo]

I've never seen a problem with cropping a shot- the photo I see in my head is a 50 frame, but I've got a 35 on the camera, so I just print the 50 portion. I used a filed-out negative carrier, so it was clear which shots used the entire frame and which ones were cropped.

Now, retouching entire elements out of a photo; that's not only bringing the integrity of the photograph into question, it's too damn much work. One of the first lessons I learned was knowing when to shoot above the garbage and when to leave it in. Move you feet and your camera at the time of the shot and none of this jiggery-pokery is needed.

 

[Huss]

I think what we have here is two Steve McCurrys. The Nat Geo photojournalist of the past, who went into Afghanistan in the Taliban era, and took those incredible Kodachrome shots.
The photojournalist.

While now we have Steve McCurry, the imager. More power to him that he is making a good living. But they are two very different creatures.