Jump to content

Botched McCurry print and Photoshop scandal


Recommended Posts

<p>I found this article interesting and frustrating. We had a discussion on this board not long ago about an article comparing McCurry to Singh. How ironic. I do believe that someone of McCurry's talent and notoriety would not intentionally deceive his viewers, but he has to bear some responsibility for those who sought to "improve" his photographs. It actually kind of shocked me that his photos needed improving, or that someone thought they did. That's the interesting part to me.</p>

<p>The frustrating part is that what occurred with these McCurry photographs exemplifies what I call the National Geographic aesthetic (rampant among a lot of photographers) which is a seeking after a highly polished vision of perfection. But these are not a fashion shoot or a Gregory Crewdson creation. They are documentary photos so leave them the hell alone and let the viewer see them without alteration.</p>

<p>That's it. End of rant. Have at it.<br>

</p>

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 125
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>http://www.photo.net/philosophy-of-photography-forum/00dubF</p>

<p>While I agree with you that the cloning was unnecessary and obviously quite badly done, what exactly do you think was the "deception?"</p>

<p>For me, an example of deception would be removing an offensive tee-shirt from a photo of a man because you want to show him in a better light or removing a stop sign from a photo of a car accident to make it seem like the fault lay other than where it was. Cloning bricks on pillars or removing a "distracting" light post or a couple of extra heads from a background or a disembodied arm from the edge of a photo of a group of kids playing ball wouldn't qualify for me as deceptions in documentary work. McCurry himself makes clear he doesn't necessarily think of this work as documentary though he also makes clear he wouldn't have sanctioned such alterations. I think he strikes a good balance in his statement, but I think much of this is personal choice and not a matter of really deceiving viewers.</p>

<p>In a lot of journalism, there are professional standards about not manipulating images, period, which is understandable and warranted. But my understanding is that documentary doesn't necessarily adhere to those sorts of guidelines and, besides, this is not so much documentary photography as it is personal photography or travel photography. Again, I think the photoshopping is botched and unwarranted, but don't find it deceptive. There are so many more deceptive things going on in news and documentary work that cleaning up a photo by removing benign distracting elements that really have no bearing on the story itself isn't going to worry me too much.</p>

<p>I'm more amused that such bad photoshopping often gets by without notice than I am concerned with being deceived in this particular case.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The three pics aren't that good

with, or without the photo

botching imo. Personally, I

don't mind the first botch, but

I do find the other two

objectable, especially the last

one. Finally, I never really

been a McCurry fan, most his

doc. work just doesn't do much

for me, except maybe for some

of his straight on

portraitures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Mom always said "If you want something done right, do it yourself." This is why I do my own processing and printing. Of course I'm no McCurry but you get my point. I have no clue as to how this got passed him and into the public realm. I often hear other photographers say "I'll take of it later in photoshop." It makes me wonder how much of a crutch photoshop is for some photographers and if one can look to that as a reason for their lazy approach which at times can be manifest in their pictures. I mean why not make the picture the best it can be right there in the moment? Whatever the case, altered photographs are now the norm and we will be seeing more of it from Magnum which seems to be re-inventing itself these days as more of a fine art agency. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>It's not about the photographer. That's the point. In this one tiny corner of photography, there is an aspiration to stand aside; to simply shut up and get out of the way.</p>

<p>[Addendum: I am aware that what Michael Darnton has written above is true; I'm speaking to the OP's second paragraph, McCurry aside.]</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Understand that I have an immense amount of respect for W. Eugene Smith and his ethos of "let truth be your prejudice"

but over the past couple of decades it has come to light that his commentment to revealing truth as he experienced it did

not exclude his "building" a photograph completely in the darkroom through combining negatives to create a master print

which he would then rephotograph so he did not have to redo the entire process for each print sold or sent to his agency.

Most notably, there is his portrait of humanitarian Dr. Albert Schweitzer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Not sure why this would be an argument. Yes, there's a little corner of the photography universe where photographers "get out of the way." No, I'm not going to demand that any particular photographer stand in that corner, especially a photographer who identifies himself as someone who is currently standing outside that corner.</p>

<p>_____________________________________________________</p>

<p>I've found one of the more fascinating aspects of making a photo is how much it is about what I don't allow to be seen in addition, of course, to what I do allow to be seen. IMO, to make a photo is to <strong>frame</strong> which, by definition, is also to leave out. To create photos, I very often choose what NOT to include in the frame, what I DON'T want to see or want the viewer to see (explicitly). Sometimes not allowing a photo to show what's outside the frame explicitly allows it to show something significant implicitly.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I don't care anymore if people do it in their own work, fake it out, manufacture their own un-realities, it's all just so sad and rampant now, the photoshop BS and it is to me, quite pathetic.<br>

But no matter what I am doing or who it is for, be it advertising, fine art commissions, photojournalism pieces or personal documentary projects...I just won't do this kind of alteration to a photograph, ever.<br>

So I have photographs that others would likely say "just remove that power line and it would be much better" that I simply reject, they don't make the edit. For me, it's the only way to work and live my life as a photographer.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Generally if these are his own personal photos outside of his journalism, who cares? Cropping/cloning anyway you want to do it, is the artists prerogative as long as you aren't presenting it as something its not.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>I don't care anymore if people do it in their own work, fake it out, manufacture their own un-realities, it's all just so sad and rampant now, the photoshop BS and it is to me, quite pathetic.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It sounds like you do care. You actually sound quite passionate about those who aren't you who do things you won't do yourself? By the way, I respect the choices you've made for yourself and your photography. But your contradictory statement leads me to wonder about two things. Why are you so passionate about others using photoshop? And why would you claim not to care in the same breath that you show you care so very much?</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>It makes me wonder how much of a crutch photoshop is for some photographers</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Marc, I use photoshop as an expressive tool.<br>

<br /> I'm sure it is used as a crutch by many photographers and I can often assess whether it seems that way to me or not just by looking at the photo.</p>

<p>But let's talk about photoshop and crutches for a minute. Sometimes relying on the use of photoshop after the fact is the easier way to go. Not sure exactly what the problem is with that. Crutches really do often help those who use them. I've never found anything inherently wrong with a crutch, and especially not in certain circumstances. I suppose I could look at lots of things as crutches . . . auto exposure settings, auto focus settings, sending one's prints out to a lab rather than printing oneself, using a light meter, using various filters, driving your car up the mountain to take the picture instead of hiking up the mountain, drinking bottled water on your way up instead of digging a well first and getting your own . . . That kind of characterization of what others do is only one way to look at the world.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Let me get this straight, these images were hanging in a gallery or museum, not published in a newspaper or news magazine, wren't they? If so, then they're "art", are they not? The artist should feel free to interpret the images as he see fit, IMO. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Phil S: Not every documentary photographer should strictly follow or aspires to the Cartier Bresson ethos of the 'decisive moment' in which everything that's in the scene and final photograph has aligned perfectly at the moment of taking the picture.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Phil, I think you make some thoughtful observations, but here you're ascribing an opinion to me that I did not, and do not, express. "The Decisive Moment" is a compositional cousin to the "Nat Geo Aesthetic", and I personally dislike both of them. <em>In my opinion,</em> they both often lead to a kind of soulless, homogenized "McDonald's" kind of photography. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>If there are any complaints about this than it's nearly always complaints from photographers who want to impose their own method of working unto other photographers ( if I play by the "rules" then you should to ).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>"If you complain about X, then you must be, or believe, Y." I see this kind of argumentation more often in political discussions than in aesthetic discussions. My opinion on the type of Photoshop alterations shown in the article is, again, quite opposite to what you are ascribing to me. The photographers who do this sort of thing in "documentary" (personal or not -- whatever the heck "personal documentary" is -- "artistic fiction" then?) are the ones following "rules". "If I add or remove this element then I am meeting a perceived aesthetic need which improves the photograph". I think Marc Todd hits the nail on the head in regard to what's really going on here:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Marc Todd -- ...altered photographs are now the norm and we will be seeing more of it from Magnum which seems to be re-inventing itself these days as more of a fine art agency.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly. This type of after the fact manipulation creates fine art. Depending on how something is marketed or presented it makes a great deal of difference in terms of whether "it's done in the moment of taking the picture or after the picture was already taken."</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>He is no longer a journalist doing documentary and specifically rejects being assigned that title</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I must have missed that announcement. I suspect that a lot of people who viewed some of the photographs shown in the original article did as well. But that's not really what I'm trying to get at, anyway. It's the underlying aesthetic which may be at play here, the thought process which thinks this is necessary, that I'm talking about. I am not fond of titles and strict categories, so good for McCurry for rejecting them.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Fred G: Cloning bricks on pillars or removing a "distracting" light post or a couple of extra heads from a background or a disembodied arm from the edge of a photo of a group of kids playing ball wouldn't qualify for me as deceptions in documentary work.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Fred, I would be shocked if you did something like this in your Plowshare series: <br>

http://www.fredgoldsmithphotography.com/gallery/PlowshareFarm/<br>

Depending upon what the alteration is, Fred, I think it does matter a great deal. I find it hard to believe that you would add or remove, a person, a pillar, or a post in "Plowshare". Maybe deception is the wrong word to use. I don't think it is done to intentionally mislead, but it is probably done to make the photo "better". Within the confines of documentary, I don't think it makes the photo "better", it diminishes it by having altered what was there. I know we could engage in lengthy metaphysical discussions about the nature of reality and how a photograph is not "real" anyway. Of course. But there is a common sense, down to earth understanding of the difference between what was in front of the lense at the time, and what was not. We each have to make our own choices (in documentary) as to what is fair game for removal, and what is not. It's a gray area and subject to many interpretations. It's only my opinion, but if there is a lamppost, a power line, or an errant arm at the edge of the frame, remove it by cropping, if you can, or let it ride. What is served by "removing extra heads in the background"? A perceived aesthetic which says such removal makes the photograph better. </p>

<p>But whether or not there is deception is not really what I care about. What I question is the notion that there is some aesthetic need or requirement to make these kinds of alterations. As if there is some sort of aesthetic rule or guideline which must be followed. "What I photographed is not quite good enough, I must make it better." That's an admirable goal in the sense that we should never be satisfied and always seek to improve our work. But there is also the courage to not follow the Nat Geo aesthetic (for lack of a better way to categorize the aesthetic mindset I'm talking about) and have the courage to show the world warts and all, the imperfections in a moment, the slight imperfections in a given photograph. Not as a catch all to allow an "every photo is great" mentality. There must be rigorous and careful editing to seek such photographs, I am not promoting a "everything is great, we are all winners!" mentality. But there is such a thing as trusting the moment to speak for itself. </p>

<p>I am probably not doing a good job of explaining what I mean.</p>

<p>Going back to the original article, and the sample photographs, Leslie Cheung alludes to what I'm trying to get at: "The three pics aren't that good with, or without the photo botching"</p>

<p>Yes. Yet the individuals working in the studio who chose to make the alterations that they did must have believed that they were necessary. In so doing, they were serving some kind of aesthetic, call it what you will, that caused them to believe that it was necessary. I don't object to PS manipulation, per se. This isn't a "photoshop is cheating" rant. It's about having the courage to trust what was really there, and not serving some false populist notion that there is a higher perfection to be achieved. I'm not saying that there are rules they should have followed, or that they must agree with my position. I would only point out that the adjustments they made appear to have achieved little, if anything. So why were they compelled to do it? </p>

<p>Big picture? None of this matters. They do what they do. I do what I do. You do what you do. But the point of this board is to have casual conversations related to photography and I thought this article might spark an interesting discussion. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Michael - He is no longer a journalist doing documentary and specifically rejects being assigned that title.</p>

<p>Steve - I must have missed that announcement.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Steve, here's what McCurry said in the article to which you linked:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Today I would define my work as visual storytelling, because the pictures have been shot in many places, for many reasons, and in many situations. Much of my recent work has been shot for my own enjoyment in places I wanted to visit to satisfy my curiosity about the people and the culture. For example, my Cuba work was taken during four personal trips.</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em>My photography is my art, and it’s gratifying when people enjoy and appreciate it. I have been fortunate to be able to share my work with people around the world."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em> </em></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Fred, I would be shocked if you did something like this in your Plowshare series:</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's not something I would do. But, as I said above, I don't expect other photographers to work the same way as me.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Maybe deception is the wrong word to use. I don't think it is done to intentionally mislead, but it is probably done to make the photo "better".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I think deception is the wrong word to use. I don't know about "better" either. When such cloning takes place, it could just be a matter of the cloning helping to convey the vision or story the photographer wants to tell. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Within the confines of documentary, I don't think it makes the photo "better"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Two things. First, McCurry does clearly state he doesn't consider this documentary. Second, I see documentary as different from journalism and agree with Phil that much documentary has a fairly distinct point of view and isn't necessarily as objective or as subject to guidelines against manipulation as good photojournalism.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I know we could engage in lengthy metaphysical discussions about the nature of reality and how a photograph is not "real" anyway.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Definitely not necessary. You and I both know about the "reality" of photos. We're talking about degrees of accuracy here. Reality can be left out of it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What is served by "removing extra heads in the background"? A perceived aesthetic which says such removal makes the photograph better.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Certainly, that's a possibility. I try not to adhere to some ideal aesthetic that would supposedly tell me what makes a photo better, though I find it's not a bad idea to have some historical perspective on where aesthetics have taken artists and photographers historically.<br>

<br>

Another possibility is not that the photographer, by cloning out heads, is trying to adhere to some universal aesthetic, but instead seeks to simplify what was in front of him at the time to zero in or focus on where he feels the story he's telling might be. An alternative would be to wait for another vehicle to come along with fewer people or a more orderly arrangement of heads that might feel more "right" to the photographer to tell his story. I would generally opt for the latter but, again, won't be expecting other photographers to want to do it only that way.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What I question is the notion that there is some aesthetic need or requirement to make these kinds of alterations. As if there is some sort of aesthetic rule or guideline which must be followed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Steve, again, I try not to adhere to aesthetics I feel are being imposed on me by some generic notion of what makes a better photo. But I don't assume that all these types of more radical cloning decisions are made from that place. Any choice I make at any point in the photographic process could be framed as you're framing it. Example: <em>Why did Photographer X take two steps to the left to take that shot?</em> Photographer X could say that it simplified the composition and avoided some background elements that weren't aiding the story. Another photographer could say the composition with those background elements would have had a looser and more spontaneous feel. And Photographer X could say, great, but I wanted a more orderly and deliberate feel. And a third photographer could come along and accuse each of them of making their different choices because they wanted their photos to be better by conforming to some given notion of a "better photo." <br>

<br>

I worry that the third photographer might be generalizing and not giving each of the other two photographers credit for possibly just wanting to create a photo that tells the story he wants to tell. <br>

<br>

I said I didn't find the cloning done to McCurry's photos to accomplish much with regard to the photos, and it seems McCurry agrees. But that doesn't get me to then second-guess that the people who decided to do the cloning were doing so out of some perceived obedience to aesthetic rules in play. They may simply have been aesthetic decisions much like all the aesthetic decisions we all make with each photo we take. Whether any of these decisions turn what we do into an effective or good or engaging or memorable photo is a different matter.</p>

<p> </p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Phil, I was basing what I said about McCurry on the article Steve linked to in the OP. Here are the relevant passages, to which I've added bold for emphasis. It starts with McCurry writing . . .</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I try to be as involved as much as I can in reviewing and supervising the printing of my work, but <strong>many times the prints are printed and shipped when I am away. That is what happened in this case</strong>. It goes without saying that what happened with this image was a mistake for which I have to take responsibility.</p>

<p>I have taken steps to change procedures at my studio which will prevent something like this from happening again."</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

The article then continues . . .</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The statement tracks with much of what we read in two Italian interviews with Mr. McCurry about the incident. He said the issue in the Cuba image was, <strong>“a change that I would have never authorized,”</strong> and “the lab technician who made the mistake does not work with me anymore.”</p>

</blockquote>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A PR damage control, I too

seriously doubt McCurry knew

nothing about the creative

editing, as implied per. If I

were a printer, Id have serious

nerve to "creative edit" world

famous magnum/natural geo

mcCurry w/o his knowledge.

 

As for the aesthetic

discussion, the 3 linkedphotos

do not deserve the time. They imo

aren't worth photobotching,

period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Leslie, it wasn't "implied per." It was stated straightforwardly, clearly, and outright. I don't know McCurry or about McCurry well enough to feel comfortable making the determination that he's lying. Until I have reason to, I will take his comments at face value. It doesn't change much if anything of what I've said here.</p>
We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Phil, I interpreted his statement differently. Your interpretation seems plausible as well. That's all fine. For me, both our discussions with Steve are more interesting than whether McCurry approved of these changes or not, so I'll continue those and bow out of what McCurry knew and didn't and what he approved and didn't.</p>
We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fred, there is no way to know for

sure. However, I'm don't care

much either one way or another.

What I meant was he knew about

the editing, and he was playing

the PR card, especially for his

section of fans that disapprove

of creative editings. I'm not

sure how many fans he turned out.

It's not a big deal, whether he

actually lied or not, to me.

Maybe there is an agreed protocol

between McCurry and his

printer that was botched?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be more clear on my

view...either way, whether he

knew and approved or knew and

disapproved, he's in damage

control with regards to the

section of fans that disapprove

of creative editing, does that

make more sense? His fans that do

not disapprove don't matter and

wouldn't stop liking mccurry...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"He's in damage control" is your spin. If I were an objective journalist, for example (apropos of this thread), reporting on

the contents of the article, that's not how I'd put it. I'd report what he said and I'd show the photos and I'd report what

others say about it. I wouldn't speculate as to his motivations. If I had the opportunity, I might ask him. I would assume

that it's possible it's about damage control and I'd also assume the possibility he was being completely sincere. I would

find it regrettable for myself to think that this particular statements he's making is a sure sign of PR strategy.

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...