barry_niles

<p>Actually he was doing photojournalism. Who said he was? Well, he did actually in multiple interviews and also where he described his work as photojournalism- even going so far as to state in interviews that his work was following the Associated Press standards. And he also told people he was a photojournalist- not a "visual storyteller." I'm not sure why this is not clear. <br> And the manipulated photos were being sold by his webpage and also Magnum. Magnum does still do photojournalism unless I missed the announcement that they have given it up.</p>

<p>Barry,<br> I'm assuming you're just a hobbyist and are not familiar with the NPPA and how photo manipulation in photojournalism is actual a serious issue. It still seems more likely to be the opposite situation and McCurry will get a pass because he is an older photojournalist with a long career. If the same thing had been done by a photojournalist in his late 20s with perhaps five years of experience, would the reaction have been different? It actually would have been much harsher. Look up some of the recent incidents such as the photographer in Iraq who duplicated some people in a photo. <br> And this progression sadly continues:<br> 6) People who worked with McCurry in India described how he staged some of his photos for National Geographic. <br> An article by Kshitij Nagar called Eyes of the Afghan Girl was published on Petapixel. He tracked down some people who worked with McCurry. Yes, most people won't care that he was staging photos but again, it's an issue when you do photojournalism. </p>

<p>To elaborate on my last point, if Steve McCurry was a fairly new photographer with only a few years of experience and not someone with decades of experience and fame, would his career now be over? <br> Here's another one of these interviews from a few years ago in which McCurry said he never manipulates photos:<br> Steve McCurry at Chautauqua Institution Photo Week<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaKaJhsdndo<br />41:15- McCurry: "We don't go beyond dodging and burning....."</p>

<p>The Steve McCurry Photoshop scandal seems to be going through an interesting progression.<br> <br />1) First photo revealed at exhibition to obviously be manipulated.<br> 2) A couple other photos surface afterward that are clearly manipulated with people being removed from the frame.<br> 3) McCurry gives a press conference in Montreal in which he says he had no idea these things were happening and blames it on someone in his studio who made the changes in his absence while he was out of the country.<br> 4) A half dozen more photos surface that have obivously been manipulated. Objects and people have been removed from different versions of the photos.<br> 5) McCurry changes his position and explains that he has been manipulating photos for years because he felt he had the right as a "visual storyteller" and those who believed he was a photojournalist were confused.<br> It doesn't look very good for McCurry in terms of his photographic ethics, especially his dishonesty on the issue- first denying any knowledge and then changing his story.<br> Now there are older interviews surfacing where he told interviewers none of his photos were manipulated and any photographer that does such a thing is crossing an ethical line. While he has done some great photography, does the fact that he has been dishonest on the issue damage his reputation or will he get a pass because of his Afghan girl photograph?<br> #FanChat wFamed Photojournalist Steve Mccurry<br /> />32:30- Where do you draw the line with Photoshop?</p> <p>An Interview with Steve McCurry TedxAmsterdamWomen<br /> />7:00- How do you feel about adjusting your pictures?</p> <p> </p>

<p>A half dozen more of McCurry's photos turned out to be altered. And who knows? Maybe there are a dozen more that were changed in Photoshop. The new altered photos have things removed and things added. Does this change anyone's opinion?</p> <p>http://petapixel.com/2016/05/26/photoshopped-photos-emerge-steve-mccurry-scandal/</p>