Steve McCurry wins Leica award?

[semilog]

To anyone who isn't spending too much of their time in a photo forum, they would have no idea McCurry didn't use a Leica for any of those images. No clue. Some would say this is a matter of splitting hairs, but c'mon. This is a calculated move. I know- i'm in the same industry (marketing/advertising).

So, should Cartier-Bresson, Friedlander, Frank, Meiselas, Nan Goldin, Koudelka et al. have declined and/or returned their Hasselblad Awards?

 

[Turtle]

I did not think Hasselblad tagged the award to a contribution to the brand by virtue of using their cameras? Leica has, hence the objections.

So, should Cartier-Bresson, Friedlander, Frank, Meiselas, Nan Goldin, Koudelka et al. have declined and/or returned their Hasselblad Awards?

 

[jsrockit]

So, should Cartier-Bresson, Friedlander, Frank, Meiselas, Nan Goldin, Koudelka et al. have declined and/or returned their Hasselblad Awards?

Friedlander uses a hasselblad at least... 😉

 

[Phantomas]

Ummm, McCurry has recently hired an assistant (there was even some sh*t storm on the internets becasue people were comparing his "you get nothing" conditions with Chase Jarvis' "you'll get paid decently" conditions that poped up at the same time).

 

[Turtle]

Naturally you are confident of your deductions from the information you have processed, but others conclude differently when looking at the same information (i.e the images). I guess thats only natural. We all have our perspectives. However, your firm belief that you are right is still based on conjecture/supposition, rather than fact. You assume that because the explanation for the image and the image match, that there cannot be foul play. All it means is the explanation matches the images (correlation), not that the latter was the product of the former (causality).

While the detractors might be making things up and lying, how can you be so sure this is the case? Some have worked with him and have put their names behind their comments. This might all seem to be negativity to you, but I think its a somewhat interesting discussion. Sure, some consider Ansel Adam's work 'stiff' and others think Salgado's work is 'too pretty' - I dont agree with either, personally - but because someone dares to question the legendary McCurry's working practices, its negative, rather than earnest? Surely this is important to understanding photography. if McCurry did stage some images, plenty don't care (fine) others care a lot (fine). Its all good!

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

The Nobel prize winners should return their prizes if they've never been Swedish. Or Norwegian. Whatever the case may be.


What's important is that people don't get confused by details and facts. Much easier.

 

[Nigel Meaby]

This from an interview post receiving the award makes interesting reading:

Q: In your career as photographer you have been honored with many awards; now you have received the Leica Hall of Fame Award 2011. What is your experience with Leica?

A: Well, in all my years as a photographer I was fascinated by the mystique all Leica Cameras have. The photographers I admire the most all used Leicas. So to me Leica is producing legendary cameras and to receive an M9-P with my name on it was a great honor. Leica is a finely crafted tool which is simply the best. Many of those iconic pictures we spoke about were taken with a Leica. That’s impressive.

Interview in full here http://blog.leica-camera.com/interviews/steve-mccurry-in-the-middle-of-extremes/

I'm an admirer of much of his work and his use of light and colour but a story I heard from an NGO worker, in 2006 in Ladakh, who had met him a month or so previous in Gujarat, who was not a photographer and with no previous knowledge of who he was or how successful he is, but just saw him at work, made me a little uncomfortable. I don't have time now to re-count the story but happy to do next time I'm online.

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

So, should Cartier-Bresson, Friedlander, Frank, Meiselas, Nan Goldin, Koudelka et al. have declined and/or returned their Hasselblad Awards?

I'm not making my point very well, i suppose.

It's fine (to me, at least) for ANY company to give anyone an award on whatever basis they choose. What's NOT cool is representing the work as having been created with their products if it hasn't been.

From what i've seen of the Hasselblad awards, they're pretty clear about things.

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

Personnally I do not mind too much about this mistake. In my point of view a Leica M is the best suited camera for the kind of images Steve McCurry is taking. That would be my camera of choice. Obviously he thinks differently. His images are great but his tool does not appeal to me.

Regards,
Steve

1. It wasn't a "mistake." It's a marketing ploy. Deceptive but effective. They're not humanitarians. They're businesspeople.

2. I don't think you meant this to be funny.... It's kinda like: "Yes, your pictures are marvelous, but you used the wrong camera." So, they would be better with a rangefinder? He would somehow be more prolific with a rangefinder? Either of those arguments is flawed. You simply aren't going to be as productive and efficient without AF, a fast motor, and a quicker-loading cameras. Unless, of course, you want to shoot with hyperfocal all the time.... But, then, you don't get these types of images. Do it with a rangefinder and you get stuff like Cartier-Bresson, and half of HCB's stuff is out of focus. The other half would be a black transparency.

It's amazing - the brainwashing job Leica has done. "Mechanical perfection!" "The Decisive Moment!"

 

[Dektol Dan]

I just reviewed McCurry's Portfolio

I just reviewed McCurry's Portfolio

I recognized his now Famous Images. I should be so lucky. My M9 is in the mail.

 

[Steve Ash]

2. I don't think you meant this to be funny.... It's kinda like: "Yes, your pictures are marvelous, but you used the wrong camera."

No, it means "Yes, your pictures are marvelous, but a (D)SLR would not be the tool I would use."

There is no wrong camera. It a tool and there are many options, likes and dislikes.

I interpret from your words that you have never worked with a rangefinder or you simply did not like it. That is ok for me as the tool you prefer is a very personal thing. But I claim to be more effective with a Leica M than with an auto everthing camera. I also enjoy shooting with it much more.

BTW, I haven't yet met any Leica user who bought it to waste money or to show off.

Regards,
Steve

 

[dreilly]

Definitely two issues here and we're talking about both in parallel: one is Leica's choice in McCurry with some seaming inconsistencies. If McCurry thought Leicas were the best, wouldn't he shoot with them? I mean, money is no object. I'm with CK Dexter Haven...this is a marketing ploy. Would McCurry have said they were the best without that engraved baby in the mail to him?

Second is McCurry's work and working process.

Both are interesting conversations.

On the second discussion, I would say that I consider photography published in National Geographic to be some of the best documentary work around. And unless it's a specialized essay (like the guy that shot tin-types in the modern American west) I assume they are done as documentary photos, that is, with minimal manipulation and interference. McCurry doesn't present it as art photography and neither does National Geographic. McCurry's work has appeared for years there as pure journalism. I won't look at his work in the same way from now on. I still might like it, but I'll take it more as interpretive art.

 

[Roger Hicks]

No, it means "Yes, your pictures are marvelous, but a (D)SLR would not be the tool I would use."

There is no wrong camera. It a tool and there are many options, likes and dislikes.

I interpret from your words that you have never worked with a rangefinder or you simply did not like it. That is ok for me as the tool you prefer is a very personal thing. But I claim to be more effective with a Leica M than with an auto everthing camera. I also enjoy shooting with it much more.

BTW, I haven't yet met any Leica user who bought it to waste money or to show off.

Regards,
Steve

Dear Steve,

No, but you've been TOLD about lots! Whom do you believe: your own experience, or the chronically embittered?

This thread puzzles me. Why are people so upset? Would they rather Leica gave a prize to an RFF member who took pictures of coffee cups and cats, but ALWAYS used Leicas? Or would they rather they gave the prize to someone who takes good pictures of the sort that the people at Leica (among others) believe their cameras are good for? Even if he didn't use a Leica? It's about PHOTOGRAPHY, not cameras. But many seem unable to draw the distinction.

Cheers,

R.

 

[dreilly]

This thread puzzles me. Why are people so upset? Would they rather Leica gave a prize to an RFF member who took pictures of coffee cups and cats, but ALWAYS used Leicas? Or would they rather they gave the prize to someone who takes good pictures of the sort that the people at Leica (among others) believe their cameras are good for? Even if he didn't use a Leica? It's about PHOTOGRAPHY, not cameras. But many seem unable to draw the distinction.

Roger, you're offering a false choice, unless you are suggesting there are no talented photographers doing good, even important work, with Leicas. David Alan Harvey comes to mind.

You are right of course, photography is not about cameras. Unless you're a camera company. In which case it most certainly is.

On second thought Gabriel's mention of the Nobel prize has additional relevance. The Peace Prize was awarded to Obama because...he might someday do something worthy of it? Maybe someone should give him an M9 to document his cross-country barnstorm! 🙂

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger, you're offering a false choice, unless you are suggesting there are no talented photographers doing good, even important work, with Leicas. David Alan Harvey comes to mind.

You are right of course, photography is not about cameras. Unless you're a camera company. In which case it most certainly is.

On second thought Gabriel's mention of the Nobel prize has additional relevance. The Peace Prize was awarded to Obama because...he might someday do something worthy of it? Maybe someone should give him an M9 to document his cross-country barnstorm! 🙂

Sorry, I don't quite see your argument. I'd say the false choice was yours. Consider this argument:

There are good photographers who use Leicas as well as good photographers who use other cameras. Of course there are bad photographers in both camps too.

This is a prize given to a good photographer, whether or not he uses a Leica. The camera is irrelevant. Leica is to be commended for wishing to be associated with good photography, rather than with insisting it be done with a Leica.

Cheers,

R.

 

[semilog]

Leica is to be commended for wishing to be associated with good photography, rather than with insisting it be done with a Leica.

Whack.

Roger drives the nail home.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Leica is to be commended for wishing to be associated with good photography, rather than with insisting it be done with a Leica.

Yes, and that's a bit of marketing too. (It's a public thing...) But I don't feel it's a bad marketing decision. Not against ethics in any way either...

And about the camera he received, for size and IQ, it's hard to beat in its field, and might really help McCurrry... Why wouldn't it? I guess he really received the best tool...

A great prize/honor, and a great camera, for a great photographer who never used Leica: if I had to choose between saying it's very good or very bad behavior from Leica, I'd say it's been a really fine act.

Cheers,

Juan

 

[dreilly]

I guess I rarely ascribe commendable actions to corporations, beyond perhaps making a good product and supporting it. The core mission of the corporation is to sell something (not a bad thing in and of itself)...anything else they do is in one way shape or form done to augment the core mission.

This award is no different. Leica had two choices: choose someone whose photography they respected who didn't use their brand (and then hope that he says nice things about it or actually does use it) or reward someone who has honored the tools that they proudly craft and sell by using them to produce great work over a long career.

To me the first choice strikes me as more self-serving and transparent. The second choice strikes me as more honest and maybe more helpful to the brand. I mean, if you do that, you can actually say: shot with a Leica at the end of the slideshow. It would be a specious argument because we know the mantra that the camera doesn't really matter, but at least we know that they make a solid enough product that a pro can build her career on it.

I'd then commend Leica for wishing to be associated with people who produce amazing photography with the tools that they have so carefully designed, produced and refined since the birth of 35mm photography.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Yes, and that's a bit of marketing too. (It's a public thing...) But I don't feel it's a bad marketing decision. Not against ethics in any way either...

And about the camera he received, for size and IQ, it's hard to beat in its field, and might really help McCurrry... Why wouldn't it? I guess he really received the best tool...

A great prize/honor, and a great camera, for a great photographer who never used Leica: if I had to choose between saying it's very good or very bad behavior from Leica, I'd say it's been a really fine act.

Cheers,

Juan

Dear Juan,

Exactly. Too many people want Leica to preach only to the choir.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Nigel Meaby]

I was thinking. Did they give him just a camera or a lens as well? If he's only got Nikon gear he's going to need an adaptor to use his lenses as he'll have to wait months to buy a new Leica lens! 😀
Or maybe after seeing my 35mm lens comparison thread he'll get himself a Zeiss 35mm C-Biogon to use on it! 😉 lol