Steve McCurry's Photoshop Pitfall: an ethical case?

<p>Steve McCurry exhibited recently near Turin (Italy). A photographer carefully watched one of his 6-foot prints from a recent documentary of Cuba and noticed some evident rearrangements of the background with obvious mistakes, for example a yellow pole coming out of the leg of a passer-by, which was not cleaned up properly or other cloning faults.</p>

<p>A more careful analysis ensued and it became clear that good Steve, or more probably his printing team, had messed up with the original photo, with the intent to rearrange some details beyond control of the photographer at the moment of the take.</p>

<p>Some questions arise:</p>

<ul>

<li>is it just an unprofessional processing of digitale images?</li>

<li>should McCurry have kept a stricter control over the details of the final production of his images?</li>

<li>should McCurry have briefed his technical crew more accurately?</li>

<li>should McCurry have made a clear public statement about the degree of post processing his images undergo?</li>

<li>is there a breach of trust between McCurry and the statements he makes and his viewers? Can he, as the ultimate responsible for his images, be accused of faking? Does this behaviour become an ethical case?</li>

</ul>

<p>I sense from your questions a sense of outrage that Mr McCurry is having his pictures manipulated . I don't share it. If the product is a print that you see before you buy it, it really doesn't matter whether the original is exactly the same or not. No- one is being misled if a piece of insignificant background is cloned in or out. It is fair I think to suggest that as the author of the print Mr McCurry should satisfy himself that post processing gas been carried out to a high standard - but that's because he should want not to look bad, not because of an ethical issue. </p>

<p>There are some circumstances in which post-processing amendments should be spelled out- but if as you suggest this is nothing more than a clumsy attempt to tidy up a distracting background , I don't think this is one of them.</p>

 

<p>Just to clarify: I have no sense of outrage at all, on the contrary.</p>

<p>All I have is a genuine interest in knowing people's opinions on this issue, comparing it to the clamor it has raised in some environments.</p>

<p>Just food for thought. Thank you for responding.</p>

Without having all or really any facts, only a heresay accusation thrown like s sloppily tossed hand grenade, it is hard to

know what to pass judgement in any way that is fair or reasoned.

<p>In a sense, I think there are two questions here, unrelated to McCurry as such, and apart from the actual facts which seem a bit unclear:</p>

<ol>

<li>Supposing a photographer uses a printer who decides, without clear directions and sign-off from the photographer, to alter the photo, is that ethical and how much does this reflect back on the photographer and hist art and craft?</li>

<li>How much does an artist need to state that images can be altered, and in how much are those alterations potentially perceived as faking?</li>

</ol>

<p>Excuse me Luca, if I read you wrong, but I feel it boils down to these 2 questions?</p>

<p>Question 2 has been beaten to death, resurrected and then again beaten to death. A hundred times. No need to go through that again.</p>

<p>Question 1 is more interesting - replication and manipulation of photos is arguably simpler than with any other art, so keeping the process under control end-to-end is harder and possibly more important to the artist, to ensure his/her viewers get to see exactly what (s)he wanted them to see. If the story on this McCurry exhibition is true, and your assumption that the printer was too liberal (which sounds feasible enough), I think it reflects badly on all involved. The printing team should make sure they understand the artist; the artist should instruct the printing team properly. It's a shared responsibility, though the printer's name usually doesn't show on the exhibition publicity materials.<br>

This is all assuming of course the facts are as presumed in the OP.</p>

<p>Again, it is not an accusation, but a matter of reasoning on a relationship between an author and his audience.<br>

I will try to post a picture.</p>

<p><img src="http://www.lastampa.it/rf/image_lowres/Pub/p4/2016/04/29/Cultura/Foto/RitagliWeb/Schermata-kP3H-U108010222823zfC-1024x576@LaStampa.it.png" alt="" /><br>

<br /> This is not my image, but an image taken from an Italian newspaper. But if my bona-fide report of the news is questioned, I need to quote the sources.<br>

In a <a href="http://www.lastampa.it/2016/05/01/cultura/steve-mccurry-la-foto-ritoccata-devo-controllare-di-pi-le-mostre-MLKqGXsE9twzWptJMoEUTL/pagina.html">follow-up to the article</a>, McCurry says that he needs to have a stricter control over his exhibitions and that he has no clue on what has happened.</p>

<p>I just would add that I wouldn't see this as an ethical case. In the relationship between viewer and artist, I think the importance is in whether the version the viewer sees is exactly as the artists would want. Anything preventing that, within the control of the artist and his collaborators, is a screw-up, until it's proven to be intentional (at which point ethics do creep in).</p>

<p>Wouter, thank you for summarizing my questions, it is all-right. Since I recall you live in Italy, it might be easy for you to check the news I report.</p>

<p>In certain environments question 2 still stands and is brought up to an ethics issue, influencing the relationship between the author and his audience.</p>

<p>My response reflects yours, Wouter, I was just interested to hear other voices.</p>

<p>I have no comment on the McCurry situation but I do have a few thoughts regarding the general "relationship between an author and his audience" and whether or not photographic manipulation matters.</p>

<ul>

<li>First off, it doesn't matter whether or not this issue has been beaten to death in months or years passed. Times and technology change. New faces enter the photography fold. To dismiss a legitimate question because it's been discussed before is, at the very least, unfair. If the discussion bores you, just don't participate.</li>

<li>I agree that it doesn't matter that a particular photo has been manipulated and no longer reflects exactly what the photographer saw through the viewfinder ... as long as the photographer discloses this fact! We all tweak simple aspects of photos (contrast, etc ...) But many photographers go well beyond basic adjustments to remove trees, add objects, change colors and alter countless other things. If you're going to do that, I believe you should tell people. It is not honest to present a photograph to the public and to allow an unsuspecting admirer and/or buyer to think, "Wow! What an amazing photo!" when all along they should be thinking, "Wow! What great use of PhotoShop!" At some point, a manipulated photograph becomes something else and we should all be up front about it.</li>

</ul>

<p>I think some ethics will be involved when we are talking <em>documentary</em> work. I'd have to see the photos in the context presented in order to assess that for myself. Documentary is different from art or entertainment but is also different (especially these days) from photojournalism. I agree there are cases of art photos where I'd want to know if a photo was a composite or had been radically altered, and that info could affect how I view a photo, but I won't necessarily have that chance.</p>

I agree with Fred. I used to work for a paper. We did not manipulate photos. If I do my own stuff not for

publication as news then I manipulate most pictures to a degree mainly by using the clarity slider in Lightroom to

make them look better or more realistic. That is my business. I am sure NatGeo has standards for publication.

Generally publishers like reuters publish those internally imposed standards for the public to see. As I remember Reuters allow for very

limited processing to make pictures technically acceptable for publication. There is no law or canon that compels

any photographer to certain ethical standards relative photo manipulation unless a distortion represents a

commercial fraud. I do believe that a photographer should have a set of ethical standards that guide his or her

actions. What constitutes a violation of ethics is highly subjective. I have sold a couple of photos that were

obviously manipulated because a customer liked them. He knew. We love Van Gogh and Rembrandt and Peter

Breughel for doing it their way. We don't need to close this off in photography with too much self righteousness.

<p>Remember the kerfluffle over John Filo's Kent State photo? As original and the what won the Pulitzer prize--there is a post appearing directly behind Mary Vecchio's head. Someone later removed that post--and it was reproduced for 20 years without the post--and nobody noticed.</p>

<p>Did Joe Rosenthal's Pulitzer Prize photo have anything to do with the actual taking of island after the battle--or was it a second thought days later and staged? Whatever the case, this is the image of victory that was seen around the world.</p>

<p>What is a photograph? Like Fred notes, documentary and forensic photography ethically should be unsullied by manipulation. But what of the post at Kent State? Is that an historic artifact that contributes to the meaning--or simply a distraction to a powerful photograph. Numerous other photos of the same scene exist--yet it is this one by virtue of the angle is the one we know about.</p>

<p>For whatever reason, McCurry seems to raise a lot of aesthetic and philosophical hackles on the backs of other photographers--large and small. Let's be honest here. Even in the hoary old days of thiosulphate floating in ones nostrils--photographs were manipulated. Things were burnt in or dodged out. Adams did this--and we can little argue his premise that the vision for the print is the art of the photographer.</p>

<p>In the case of the "Italian Idiocy" seen here, I cannot believe that such sloppy work could escape those that ran the presentation. Mayhaps just another statement of the mediocrity to which the world is hell bent on refining to an art form of its own. To me, there are only two questions here that all of the others conflate into.</p>

<p>First, SOMEONE really dropped the ball on the handling of the image. So yes, the photographer in any instance--unless they have totally sold the rights to use the image--should maintain creative control and monitoring of how their images are displayed.</p>

<p>Second, unless the image is a complete digital fabrication--thus shifting to the genre of digital art--I feel there is little onus on the photographer to let us know what Nik filter they used--nor what distracting element they blitzed out. There is a big difference between removing a "no parking" sign and Stalinizing a documentary photograph. For 'art' it is the vision the photographer wishes to render--not so much how he got to that image.</p>

<p>For the record, on the back of each of my framed photos is an info plaque. It tells the title, equipment used, and if anything besides basic sharpening and curve adjustments--that it has been 'creatively' processed in PhotoShop. Back to being honest--a majority of the work any serious photographer does has seen PS--this place would be pretty bland with a full complement of RAW stock images...</p>

Now that I have seen the photo in question , that is really sloppy. I am very surprised. If the prints were produced by

McCurry's studio as part of a solo exhibition instead of being prepared by someone else as part of a group exhibition

organized and printed by that oganization, someone at his studio -his studio manager specifically - has a lot to answer for

as they have embarrassed McCurry and made him look stupid. McCurry is taking public responsibility but someone

needs to be shown the door.

Somebody tell me who makes the ethical rules for manipulating photographs outside of publications who do their

best to accurately report the truth? Who is the judge? There are laws against misrepresentation in business.

Who controls this if no law is broken? There are a lot of "shoulds" stated above based upon individual moralistic

judgments. We still do not now the details. As one who in another professions has lost partial control of rather

extensive activities that I held under my control I am sympathetic to McCurry. The real answer for him IMO is to

correct the process. Remember Murphy's law. Anything that can go wrong, will. We are all human. S***

happens. In the mean time if I want to take some telephone lines or a yellow post out of one of my pictures, I will.

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=17942">Ellis Vener</a><a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Hero" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/hero.gif" alt="" /></a>, May 01, 2016; 04:50 p.m.</p>

 

<p>McCurry is taking public responsibility but someone needs to be shown the door.</p>

 

</blockquote>

 

<p>I guess that both have already happened.<br>

The exhibition organiser, for what it matters, has confirmed that the prints came from McCurry's lab.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2372607">Dick Arnold</a><a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10.gif" alt="" /></a>, May 01, 2016; 05:47 p.m.</p>

 

<p>Somebody tell me who makes the ethical rules for manipulating photographs outside of publications who do their best to accurately report the truth? Who is the judge? There are laws against misrepresentation in business. Who controls this if no law is broken?</p>

 

</blockquote>

 

<p>I certainly can't tell you. Your arguments about misrepresentation and breach of law are exactly the ones I proposed in certain environments.</p>

 

<blockquote>

 

<p>There are a lot of "shoulds" stated above based upon individual moralistic judgments.</p>

 

</blockquote>

 

<p>My shoulds have no judgments embedded. As I said above, they are genuine questions. McCurry has already taken public responsibility, moved the team member in charge "to other projects", and confirmed that he will be more in control of exhibition material in the future.</p>

 

<blockquote>

 

<p>We still do not now the details. As one who in another professions has lost partial control of rather extensive activities that I held under my control I am sympathetic to McCurry. The real answer for him IMO is to correct the process. Remember Murphy's law. Anything that can go wrong, will. We are all human. S*** happens. In the mean time if I want to take some telephone lines or a yellow post out of one of my pictures, I will.</p>

 

</blockquote>

 

<p>I think you mix up things here. Sure, s*** happens, but this post processing, which I have not questioned, is just sloppy and unprofessional work. Nothing to do with chance of mis-fortune, just a badly done job.</p>

 

<p>Documentry should have elements of truth as much as a photograph can reveal such truths.</p>

<p>Manipulation, is manipulation and hides truths. </p>

<p>Hiding truths is photographic cowardliness' and in documentry photography is a act of crowdedness at best and could really be something much deeper...</p>

<p>"J"ust because a photograph is manipulated - beyond the manipulation that already happens during the framing - doesn't mean that the photographer is "hiding" something".Phil.</p>

<p>No it does not. But neither does it mean that they are not hiding something.</p>

<p>Documentry should be as near the truth as possible...manipulating the final images ,other than the basic, is a cause for suspicion. Why manipulate?</p>

Lucas.From Photonet Terms of Use. " Photo.net includes information, images, photos, commentary, content,

opinions and material that our users upload ("User Content"). You agree to upload and post only User Content

that you have created yourself". Just to let you know. When you get involved with people working for you under

contract or directly sometimes they do things that get you in trouble. You then, normally, like the janitor behind the

elephant, you have to clean up after them.

<p>I think of McCurry as an editorial photographer. Editorial comes with opinion.</p>

<p>Documentary is often editorial in nature and does not provide so-called "truth." To even approach truth, it is probably wise to look at several documentaries on the same subject from different people and different points of view.(Often the same is true of photojournalism, even though it tends to have and ought to have stricter guidelines.)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>cowardliness</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Let's see now . . .</p>

<p>On the one hand, we have a photographer who has traveled the world, was one of the first to photograph the war between Afghanistan and Pakistan, just around the time of the Russian invasion, sewing his film into the lining of his clothing to get it into the public's view, confronting armed conflict and much personal danger to get his pictures. </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.</p>

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

 

My conclusion

"Much ado about nothing"

<p>TL:DR<br>

The photos are in an exhibit, not a newspaper. As such they are on display as art and commentary. Any manipulation he has done is his prerogative.<br>

Photojournalism is not an indifferent recording of facts. It is imagery with impact and the greater the impact the bette. Impact IS manipulation of emotion and information.<br>

News agencies are very sensitive about manipulation precisely because they want you to be affected by the image knowing that what is portrayed really happened. Of course if you have ever been in the field you know that so much of what was photographed has been staged or recreated.<br>

Sadly, McCurry was victimized by sloppy print prep.</p>

<p>TL:DR<br>

The photos are in an exhibit, not a newspaper. As such they are on display as art and commentary. Any manipulation he has done is his prerogative.<br>

Photojournalism is not an indifferent recording of facts. It is imagery with impact and the greater the impact the bette. Impact IS manipulation of emotion and information.<br>

News agencies are very sensitive about manipulation precisely because they want you to be affected by the image knowing that what is portrayed really happened. Of course if you have ever been in the field you know that so much of what was photographed has been staged or recreated.<br>

Sadly, McCurry was victimized by sloppy print prep.</p>

<p>"Documentary, if it's any good and even if the photographs are as unmanipulated as possible, is subjective ( unlike what photojournalism should be, as objective as possible ) and assumes the point of view of the maker. Documentary is less about 'truth' and more about a point of view being taken and shown". Phil.</p>

<p>All photography is subjective, and in that sense, are manipulated this is a basic assumption...but there are degrees of manipulation....</p>

<p>'photojournalism should be, as objective as possible' Phil.</p>

<p>I would agree, however, documentry should also try to emulate that path.</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.</p>