Steve McCurry's Photoshop Pitfall: an ethical case?

<blockquote>

<p>documentry should also try to emulate that path</p>

</blockquote>

<p>IMO, it shouldn't. Some documentary may want to. I think other documentary work importantly shows a point of view and a subjective take on whatever is being dealt with.<br>

<br>

I don't think anyone here is lost in fairy stories, nor do I think it's fair to accuse others of that just because they happen to disagree with some of what you say.</p>

<p>Hi all. Longtime member, almost equally longtime hermit here. Glad to be back.</p>

<p>There are a lot of kinds of photography McCurry could make that are all closely related: editorial, documentary, and photojournalism as mentioned, but also just wandering around with a camera. Before we even start talking about the ethics of Photoshopping trivial stuff, we need to first figure out what McCurry's intentions are. Once we do that, the ethical answers come a lot easier.</p>

<p>We tend to assume that McCurry's photos are editorial(or documentary, if you agree with his opinions), because HE makes them. But in many ways, that is the same as assuming that a David Lynch-directed Spongebob film will be about drugs, insomnia, amnesia, and repressed sexual desires. Those might be the films Lynch makes, but this time around it's a Spongebob movie. We'll debate endlessly the symbolism of the Krabby Patty, but chances are that a Krabby Patty is just a Krabby Patty.</p>

<p>I think it's fair to say that most of the response to McCurry's poorly-doctored images has nothing to do with the images themselves. I think most of the response comes from the fact that McCurry has a certain reputation, and as such we assume that any images that he produces will be the same quality and style as his previous images.</p>

<p>Granted, I like to mess with people. Anyone that challenges the status quo with any sort of talent to back it up is a champ in my book - those that are willing to risk alienating their own audience are absolute heroes.</p>

<p>McCurry is in a unique place. There aren't a lot of people who are old enough to have a reputation as a master from the good old days of The Establishment, but that are still young enough to have lots of good, relevant work left in their future. That's important, because it means that young AND old people respect him, as do MFA students AND commercial shooters and wannabees. Offhand, I can't think or more than two or three other people in his position.</p>

<p>Which is why this whole thing makes me sad. Not because of what happened, but because of what could have happened.</p>

<p>So McCurry showed these images which came from a highly respected artist who presumably knows his stuff, printed huge(which usually means a lot of attention), and with clear, but not-quite-glaring Photoshop mistakes.</p>

<p>Could you imagine how the conversation *could* have gone?</p>

<p>"Mr. McCurry, we've noticed a lot of Photoshopping in your recent show."<br>

"Yeah, what of it?"<br>

"Well, that hardly seems like ethical documentary process."<br>

"Why? These aren't for NewsWeek or NatGeo. These are just photos I like."<br>

"Well, don't you think someone of your reputation should be held to a higher standard?"<br>

"Um .... why?"</p>

<p>I think that based on McCurry's response, the conversation that we can have about these images pales in comparison to the one that we could have.</p>

<p>Yes.<br>

But the photoshop techie has lost his job.</p>

<p>There is a canon in photojournalism that requires un-manipulated photos. For everything else there are no rules as to manipulation. There may be quality standards and guidelines, but If these photos are not reportage, the discussion as to whether the cloning was done well or not is more relevant to me than whether or not it was done in the first place. So to the OP, no NOT an ethical question unless this is a parsonage and not a photography forum.<br>

+1 Mark Davidson.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>NOT an ethical question unless this is a parsonage and not a photography forum.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Makes sense.</p>

<p>"I don't think anyone here is lost in fairy stories, nor do I think it's fair to accuse others of that just because they happen to disagree with some of what you say". Fred.</p>

<p>There you go Fred putting words in other folks mouths.</p>

<p>Its all about thoughts and all are equally valid and interesting whether I/we agree or not....I have not had any messages from above (although in a past post you expressed you might have;) and I have yet to sit on the" font of all knowledge".....</p>

<p>Maybe you have Fred and are not telling...bless you.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have not had any messages from above (although in a past post you expressed you might have;)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's just a lie.<br /> <br /> I quoted you and everyone can see right here on the page that you used the words fairy stories. <br /> <br /> You, on the other hand, are trading in innuendo, making something up out of thin air and claiming I said it without referencing when or where I supposedly said it.</p>

<p>"Lets not be lost in fairy stories, when the photographer, is also lost in a fairy story...lets call it expressing their artistic license "Allen.</p>

<p>I did...but read it in context....I implied that thought not claiming posters were lost in it...</p>

<p>I have not had any messages from above (although in a past post you expressed you might have;)<br>

That's just a lie. Fred.</p>

<p>That's how your post read....do I need to dig it up? I even asked you if you had any messages for me.</p>

 

<p>ethical case?</p>

<p>The bottom line is, that unfortunately, there are those who hide truths to please their masters.</p>

<p>Fairy tales come to mind to please....</p>

<blockquote>

<p>That's just a lie.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I applaud your directness, Fred. Allen's line of attack was getting positively weird.</p>

<p>I shall offer a hypothesis: the likelihood (L) that a thread will devolve to something less than constructive argumentation (SLTCA) is directly proportional to the duration of the thread (DT) measured in number of posts.</p>

<p>I have not tested this hypothesis empirically. For all I know the relationship might be cubic (or something else) and not quadratic, but there sure as heck is a direct relationship. I am pretty sure that it is not linear. It's got to be exponential.</p>

<p>I would also like to offer an upper limit on the number of posts possible before a critical mass is achieved leading to a runaway nuclear reaction and subsequent blast. I have been unable to test this hypothesis since all threads to this point have blown up by more conventional mechanisms long before any such theoretical limit can be approached.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p><em>Documentary, if it's any good and even if the photographs are as unmanipulated as possible, is subjective</em></p>

<p>I don't agree with that. Documenting is the recording of facts in an objective way. Journalism is documenting/recording facts and disseminating them to the public via the media. If it is subjective, then it is just part of the story and not that good a document, perhaps it is closer to activism or propaganda, but those are not genuine documentaries. While it can be difficult for an individual to see their subjective biases, that is where collaborating with others can help as it can help cover differ points of view and to make the document more objective and accurate. Subjectivity is an imperfection, not a merit, in a document or documentary.</p>

<p>The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the word "documentary" in the following way:<br /> 1. being or consisting of documents : contained or certified in writing <br /><br />2. of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art; broadly : factual, objective</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>

<blockquote>

<p>Does this change anyone's opinion?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. I now think he should be burned at the stake instead of being hanged.</p>

<p>No, I don't think he should feel remotely guilty about making changes to his work in post processing , unless he's said that he hasn't . I think that maybe he should feel embarrassed that through lack of control he allowed substandard work to go out under his name. </p>

<p>"On the other hand, we have a guy sitting behind the safety of his computer keyboard calling such a photographer a coward for possibly manipulating an image here and there.<br>

One has to ask . . . who's the coward? "Fred.</p>

<p>Indeed, you sit behind a computer screen, offering words of wisdom about photojournalism which you have never practiced. To my mind your idea of photojournalism is about a theatre production expressing the ideas and thoughts of the writer...a stage play.<br>

In the real world, not in a fairy tale theatre production, photojournist are expected to be objective and unbiased, and their images to be as honest and not manipulated other than the basics.</p>

<p>If a photojournalist is adding/taking away information in his/her photographs they at the very least will loose respect...it is that simple.</p>

<p>In their private work that's different...but in the real world any serious manipulation of photos is treated with suspicion if the photographer is a respected photojournalist.</p>

 

<p>Hence his reaction...</p>

<p>In Fred's theatre production, photographs would be manipulation to show Russian tanks rolling through Venice beach...</p>

<p>Hey, its only a theatre production...but I would like to think our photojournalist would be more objective and honest with their images..</p>

<p>Sorry, Fred...just could not resist..</p>

 

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Just for the record I think Steve is a superb photojournalist; and like others put themselves in extreme danger....to offer a real world reality in combat zones.</p>

<p>Dear Steve, </p>

<p>I personally feel that the best images are caught in the moment. One frame speaks volumes. <br>

D.G.DeFabritis</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>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>I think lying is unethical. What I've seen in terms of alterations to McCurry's original shots don't bother me as much as his lies if they are, in fact, lies.</p>

<p>Steve McCurry is a seasoned photographer with a body of work that has been well received and my guess is that a lot of people who are not photographers won't give a damn that his photos have been manipulated in the way they have, though they may well give a damn that he lied about it. <br /> <br /> None of the instances of manipulation I've seen seem to me anything like propaganda or material changes that would alter the truth of a story to the extent it would have political ramiifications, which I imagine a lot of people would be put off by. It's usually only photographers that get into snits about the sorts of manipulations made here, which seem to me to have been made simply to, in the photographer's mind, better articulate a vision as opposed to materially altering the photos in a propagandistic way. <br /> <br /> Again, though, if he lied about what he did, shame on him.</p>

<p>If you were expecting him to be a journalist and were expecting him to conform to journalistic standards, you have learned that he was not and did not, at least with regard to these photos. I don't know that your expectations are his responsibility, if he wasn't acting as a hired, professional journalist at the time these changes were being made.</p>

<p>I've never been a big fan of McCurry's work, but I know many people are. I look at Afghan Girl and TRUTH does not come to mind. Afghan Girl is striking and stylistic, colorful and sharp, and the eyes are more in the tradition of a Keane painting than journalistic truth. So I've always seen his stuff as personalized and overly sanitized and ordered. I didn't need a few examples of cloning to understand that what he was portraying wasn't some sort of unvarnished truth or objectivity. Just look at the work. You don't need to know some cloning went on to understand that the work is very subjective and more stylized than neutral or factual.</p>

<p>I'm hearing a lot of sour grapes in these posts. </p>