Steve McCurry's Photoshop Pitfall: an ethical case?

<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>

<blockquote>

<p>it's an issue when you do photojournalism.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Which he wasn't doing.</p>

<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>

<blockquote>

<p>Magnum does still do photojournalism unless I missed the announcement that they have given it up.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Nobody said they gave it up. Where did you read that on here? Please cite a reference.<br>

<br>

Magnum does say on their website in the section that tells you what they do:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Magnum Photos is a photographic co-operative of great diversity and distinction owned by its photographer-members. With powerful individual vision, Magnum photographers chronicle the world and interpret its peoples, events, issues and personalities. <br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>"Interpret" is probably the key word here. It does not say anything about strict photojournalism.</p>

<p>It seems that the analysis of the issue underlying this thread moved on quite a bit.<br /> <br /> While journalistic rules are quite clear about manipulation - Reuters fired some of their staff because of that - overall things are much less clear-cut and the borders very blurred.<br /> <br /> SMC was an excellent photojournalist once and is probably an industry now. The difference should be clear to everybody, as well as what it means. This does not make SMC less responsible for what happens in his "organisation" but still the responsibility rules are more ethical than juridical.<br /> <br /> That said, manipulating might be acceptable to many, lying not.<br /> <br /> Who shall hold SMC responsible for what happens under him? The market? The publishers of his books? The buyers of his books?<br /> The buyers of his pictures? Those organizing his exhibitions? Those visiting his exhibitions (No, I'm not going to pay to watch all this manipulated stuff)? Magnum, who has never asked an associate to leave since its foundation?<br /> <br /> I don't know.<br /> <br /> I can only make decisions for myself, purely subjective.<br>

<br /> That is what Barry Fisher also said on May 9, 2016.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> Yep, Just a mere hobbyist, but I am somewhat familiar with the photojournalistic standards as I referred to them on May 9.<br /> I just don't know if I would consider the photos in question strict photojournalism. I think what I said remains accurate. I recall photographer was canned for merging two images for the LA Times. But again, I think this is a different situation.</p>