Botched McCurry print and Photoshop scandal

[leslie_cheung]

yes, he 's in damage control is

my assessment, opinion. There

may or may not be much damage, I

don't know as I don't follow fine

art or photography anymore, or

have inside info. In the realm

of philosophy, people explore

possibilities, converse and

debate. In the realm of athletes ,

celebrities, politicians and

artists scandals, PR comes first...

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>In the realm of philosophy, people explore possibilities, converse and debate.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Absolutely! <br>

<br>

One of the most important things I've learned in all my Philosophy endeavors is to explore multiple possibilities. That's why I think your opinion is not unreasonable though, for me, it's only one of many that I'd consider. <br>

<br>

In any case, I'm not willing to adopt for myself your conclusion about his PR coming first and I'm not willing to adopt Steve's take that whoever made the decision was following some generalized imposed "rule" on what makes a good photo.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

PR or damage control doesn't

preclude ones innocent or guilt.

It's just being cautious, like

shooting a third or fourth extra

frame. And Fred, if you take all

things at face value, you would

not make much of an objective

journalist, if you believe in

such...

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Leslie, I didn't say I would or do take all things at face value. I said that, not having further info about McCurry on this matter specifically or in general as a person, I wouldn't presume to conclude anything about his motivations specifically.</p>

<p>I think considering possibilities is a good thing, but I also try to be extra careful when attributing possible motivations especially to people I don't know or don't know much about. I'm very wary about seeing someone as a member of class X (artists, athletes, celebrities), generalizing motivations about class X, and then attributing motivations to individual A because he's a member of class X.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

Fwiw, the title of this very

thread and Steve's original link

both have "scandal" in it. My bad

if they are just clickbait. I

really thought it is a huge

scandal. My apoligies, as I

said, I don't follow photo

forums/news these days...

[Norma Desmond]

<p>No apology necessary. Maybe it is a big scandal for some. It's not a big scandal to me. And I think it could be a big scandal without there necessarily being scandalous motivations behind it.</p>

[Supriyo]

<p>I have been following this discussion, since the issue is very contemporary and also future looking. Heavy post processing will become more prevalent in photography as computers become more powerful in future.</p>

<p>If one accepts photography as art, then whatever tools a photographer uses to present his art to his satisfaction should not be a problem. It is a valid argument. However I think the issue with digital image editing is not just philosophical, but practical as well. A lot of viewers (and potential buyers) of photography treat this genre as a form of moment capture. To them, a talented photographer like McCurry can do magic with his camera, and most importantly all the magic happened when the photo was captured. When they find out the truth, the fan and buyer base can get into potential jeopardy, along with magazine readership. As a photographer, I believe in artistic freedom. However if the value of the photo to the viewer is connected with its unmanipulated nature, then a disclaimer would not be a bad idea, if nothing else, to make average viewers more aware of different viewpoints of evaluating art.</p>

<p>Photographers digitally alter their images with different intents. Most photographers do this to improve the presentation of their viewpoint. Some alter images for political purposes. I will not be referring to them. Alterations that are done to solely improve presentation can again be subtle or heavy-handed. While removal of a pole or a lamp post can direct focus to the main subject by removing clutter, I question the heavy-handed alteration to make a photo compositionally pristine, and blemish free. We have seen Cartier-Bresson mentioned here - that his perfect 'decisive moment' images seem lifeless. While I don't consider myself at a level to critic Cartier-Bresson's images, I think the potential argument here is, when photos are too perfect that everything 'falls in place', they seem too good to be true and hence lifeless. This is the reason I am wary of the heavy-handed manipulation to make a documentary photo pristine. Photos originate from real life, with all its imperfections, its blemishes. It is the difference between one's real GF/BF and fairytale princess or prince charming. If the original scene inspired the photographer, then it should inspire the viewer with minor alterations.</p>

<p>Contradicting my last paragraph, here is another thought. Paintings are usually compositionally pristine, then why aren't all paintings lifeless? I think the answer is in the awareness of the art genre that matters to the viewer.</p>

<p>On a different note, here is a good reference to how famous documentary photos have been altered through decades: <a href="http://www.alteredimagesbdc.org">http://www.alteredimagesbdc.org</a></p>

[Julie H]

<p>Considering (not attacking) Phil's position, I'm thinking of these bits, from various sources, on mapping vs tracing (the former for Phil; the latter for Steve):<br>

.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"The function of mapping is less to do with re-shaping the world" than with making it anew: "its agency lies in neither reproduction nor imposition [a means of projecting power or knowledge] but rather in uncovering realities previously unseen or unimagined."</p>

<p>"What distinguishes the map from the tracing is that it is entirely oriented toward an experimentation in contact with the real." ... "The map does not reproduce ... it constructs. ... The map has to do with <em>performance</em>, whereas the tracing always involves 'alleged competence.'"</p>

<p>Exposing, relating, connecting, and structuring, the act of mapping both establishes and puts into effect complex sets of relationships -- and thereby returns to its origins as a process of exploration, discovery, and enablement rather than a means to assert authority, stability, and control.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>.<br>

What <em>is</em> a map?</p>

[Julie H]

<p>It's not the "less true or a lie" that matters. What matters is the starting assumption that motivates the changes made to a picture. Photographers who change pictures have a reason for doing whatever they do -- they feel that they <em>know</em> what the picture should be. The photographer is the authority.</p>

<p>Scientific of criminal or strictly documentary photographers makes no such starting assumption: they don't claim to know what the picture should be; rather they say, "here is the picture, I think it may be X, or Y, I can <em>tell</em> you why I think that is what it <em>may be</em>, but the picture stands <em>as it is</em>: what do you think?" The picture is the authority.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>I agree.</p>

<p>The crime scene photographer photographs the crime scene. The scientist photographs his scientific scene. The documentarist photographs whatever he is documenting.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>The photographer is the authority.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. Only in the case of documentary, it seems some <em>other</em> photographer becomes the authority on what should be shown and how it should be shown instead of the photographer who took the picture. <em>Everyone</em> wants to get into the act!</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>My position isn't about one method vs the other but about the faulty premise that a photograph can show 'The Truth' to begin with, if one views the McCurry alterations as being less true or a lie.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I never took Steve's initial or main premise to be about "truth" or "lies." I understood his premise to be that it's unnecessary to make photos more pristine by cloning out so-called distractions. I disagree with Steve to the extent that I don't assume the reasoning behind such cloning is necessarily to present a polished view that fulfills an accepted Natl. Geo type standard. I think it's as likely that the reasoning behind such cloning is to more effectively focus (at least in the photographer's or post processor's opinion) on the story being told. <br>

<br>

__________________________________________________________<br>

<br>

[The following is not in response to Phil's posts but rather in sympathy with them.]<br>

<br>

If there's a story being told or shown, it should no more belong to the viewer than to the photographer. Who made the viewer the authority?</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>I find it rather incredible that McCurry said he didn't sanction these changes. Not sure I believe him really - it reflects poorly on him as a craftsman in my opinion. He clearly feels embarrassed about this which rather indicates to me that he does see himself as much a documenter as an artist, otherwise he could attempt to justify it in the name of "art" (not the first shot, obviously, which is just plain shoddy).</p>

[DickArnold]

O lord deliver me from being overly judgmental for I have sinned supervising large projects and by scaring

the crap out of myself several times in over forty years of military and civiian flying. I cannot read McCurry's mind.

I ran major aviation facilities acquisitions in my work career and I certainly had things done by well meaning people that I

oversaw that got out of my control and like the proverbial guy following the circus parade who had to clean

up behind the elephants I had to go in and clean things up. That was my job. I have no opinion on McCurry's

motives as as I think he is too good and too successful, however, to resort to deception. He doesn't need to.

.

 

What follows is an excerpt from Reuters standards for photo editing in their publications;

 

"Downsize photos on their longest side to 3500 pixels, when necessary.

 

Do minor brightness and contrast adjustments in Levels, using only the extreme left and right sliders without

clipping or removing detail from highlight and shadow areas.

 

Crop, providing the crop does not remove information with journalistic value. Use the crop tool to straighten a

slightly slanted horizon, but not add a tilt to an otherwise level photo or flip a picture upside down or left to

right.

 

Minor use of Levels and Curves to fix the color balance of a photo to its natural state.

 

Editors in the Berlin Desk, London Desk, Paris Desk, Toronto Desk and Global Pictures Desk and direct

injectors working in controlled conditions on calibrated, high quality screens

 

Use all of the above processes listed above in the photographer section.

 

Use the Levels and Curves tools.

 

Use the Burn tool.

 

Use the Shadow Highlights tool.

 

The Eye Dropper may only be used on a neutral gray area to set color.

 

Use the Saturation tool.

Cloning or Healing Tools may only be used for sensor dust removal.

 

In rare and exceptional cases where an important photo has been improperly exposed, make significant

adjustments using a variety of tools to 'rescue' a photo that would otherwise be unsuitable for publication"

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>It seems likely, since several images where elements were found removed were discovered, that this is common in McCurry's work that distracting objects are removed in retouching and what is new that an explicit error in the photoshopping made it obvious. Previously one could only wonder how it is that the images are so clean, now we have some insight to the process. I think it's pretty unlikely that someone working on "printing" his images would have the permission to remove objects or move them in the frame and replace the affected areas with something that may or may not have been there (this is the part where the authenticity is lost since stuff that was not there is inserted by essentially what can be seen as painting the unknown parts of the image to make a coherent image space), without McCurry generally sanctioning what is being done. If the "photoshop artist" works on the substantial content of the image without explicit instructions from the photographer, his or her name should be displayed next to McCurry's since they clearly contributed to the image creatively. I used to like McCurry's images, now I understand why all the junk that is normally seen in the real India (the one that a person who is actually there would see) is missing from his images. It was always too good to be true, I guess. It is a pity as the interest I have for a photograph of a person or street life is towards the person and the life itself, and the moment in time. When objects or people are removed (and replaced with something from the imagination of the person doing the changes) in order to make it look cleaner and prettier it loses its authenticity and becomes less interesting. After seeing the original we <em>know</em> that's not what happened and how the situation was. This makes his whole body of work questionable, now whenever I see a McCurry image I start thinking what must have been removed to make it so pretty and why it looks so different from when I visited that place. Too sweet, too pretty, lacking authenticity and information about the people, the place and the moment in time. It's not something I could have seen if I had been in the right place at the right time. In a word the work lives in a fantasy world of its own and that to me is disappointing. I always find the fascination in photography to be intimately tied to its connection with the real world i.e. light shines on the subjects, is reflected and projected by a lens on the sensor, drawing the 2D rendering of a moment in time and space. When people mess with that by removing objects and drawing something in the place where the objects were it just isn't interesting any more, to me. It's just another lie dressed up as fact and in the modern internet world there is all too much fiction written as if it were fact, as if it made no difference whether something is true or false. If there were no difference, the artist would not feel any need to show the work in a way that it looks like a photograph, but be honest and paint the work of fiction from scratch truly true to their imagination instead of trying to ride with the connection between photography and reality and then alter it if the moment wasn't "good enough". Then there would be no deception as the viewer would see it is a painting and it would be obvious that such a moment probably never existed in time or space quite like that, but is the artist's rendering of what is in their mind. To me there is a large difference between fiction and fact and I would prefer the two be clearly kept separate.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>I agree with you Ilkka. His status is diminished by this revelation and I think he knows it.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I'm glad I never thought he was that great to begin with, so for me he's not diminished, just the same way I always felt about him.</p>

<p>Plenty of photographers pretty things up without actually using the clone tool. They do it through their perspective, what they include in the frame, the lighting they choose for their shots, how they post process or what film they use.</p>

<p>Giving viewers an enhanced sense of beauty in the world was not something invented by the clone tool.</p>

<p>For me, there was that enhanced sense about a lot of McCurry's work long before I discovered he was having things cloned into and out of his pictures. Had he not had the clone tool as an option, his pictures would still lean toward the "pretty."</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

I don't mind photographers selecting the vantage point, time of exposure etc. When looking at the image I realize that I'm looking at a moment of the photographer's choosing but I don't want the content within the frame to be substantially altered by removing, adding, moving of objects within the image. If such things are done I lose interest since the coupling between the image and reality is broken

and the image no longer informs me what was there. Similarly I don't want to read a newspaper article where e.g. some

facts were altered, a scientific article where data points have been changed to achieve a more pleasing result, and so on.

I'm interested in understanding the world. I understand that I can never fully understand it but I want to look at the

evidence and make my own interpretations, knowing how that evidence was gathered. With a photograph I need the

integrity of the projection that the camera makes to be unaltered by fudging with the projections of the objects in the

image. Otherwise it could be anything and has no informative value. Disclosure of the process is essential for a reader of

the image understand what it tells about the world (if anything). Of course, if the image is not presented as documentary or representing a real moment then the process is no longer relevant to know in order to read the image, it is understood only to be what the artist wanted it to be.

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Ilkka, I understand what you're saying and think that photography's relationship to reality is an important and unique one in the arts. So I will often look at photos the way you do, depending on the photo and the situation in which I encounter it. Certainly, I have certain expectations of photos I see in newspapers, magazines, and in journalistic settings where, as you say, I am seeking information. Much of my photo viewing isn't about getting information and, as you note, there are photo instances where we know the photo is not being presented for its accuracy or information.</p>

<p>A couple of thoughts, I'm always careful even in photojournalism situations, to remember that everything comes with a perspective and no photographer is completely free of bias (or perspective). I just think it's good practice to be aware of how much one's perspective and framing, when taking a picture, can intentionally or non-intentionally affect the information being presented. And second, McCurry does state in the article that he doesn't consider these photos documentary or photojournalism but rather a form of art storytelling. </p>

<p>Some photography, of course, is meant very much not to represent the world around us and involves realms of the imagination, and even that type of photography can be very "straight" in terms of perspective and post processing.</p>

<p>There's no one-size fits all here and all photographs won't accomplish the same things in terms of the view of the world presented. And, yet, I am glad that you remind us of photography's unique place with regard to the world and the things in it.</p>

[DickArnold]

I did about a six year stint with a newspaper. We did film and contact sheets and never had time to alter

photographs but I used harsh direct flash to capture politicians I did not like and as the one who selected

photographs for the paper I did some editorializing in those selections. So did my editor. I go back to my point.

Who the hell am I to judge and if I did judge who the hell would care? As long as a photographer does not

break the law i.e. misrepresent to the point of fraud all you all are expressing is self-righteous moral outrage.

As a combat veteran I save that for my 58,000 comrades on the Wall or the doctors that just got bombed. You

all are not going to change anything. As I said, I do not know whether McCurry was careless or whether his

altering of pictures was deliberate and, all things considered, I don't care.

[cyanatic]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Phil S</strong> -- So now you're describing HCB - the quintessence of the unmanipulated and of what you see in the photograph is exactly what was framed at the moment of taking the picture - as "soulles" and "McDonald's"?<br>

Funnily, a lot of the reasons that many call HCB's pictures as being "soulless" have to do with the fact that they are processed very neutral and without heavy image manipulation ( like dodging and burning ). Any HCB picture can be made "edgy" by using a different processing technique ( for example, slap on a Daido Moriyama processing on a HCB and you can see what I mean ).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Phil & Fred – To be honest, I have done a poor job of explaining what I mean, or of what it is that I find irritating. (I don't want to use the term "objectionable" because that implies some overarching "rule" that must be satisfied, and it is precisely the notion of there being any "rules" that irritates me.)</p>

<p> "Irritating". What a word to use. How depressingly petty, judgemental, and possibly snobbish, I am being. I am also being very fuzzy in trying to explain what it is that irritates me. I'm like an extremely myopic man tilting at windmills that may not even be there. Or if they are there, I constructed them myself and they are made of straw. </p>

<p>[specifically in regard to HCB and the "Decisive Moment" -- It is not Bresson's work itself that I find soulless, it is what I believe to be a popular, and incorrect, interpretation of "The Decisive Moment" that leads to a McDonalds-like homogeneity. A rigid and one-dimensional interpretation which, in its own way, seeks to reduce the concept to an application as simplistic as viewing a given photograph to see if it meets, for example, the "Rule of Thirds" criteria. A "checklist" approach so to speak. It is the checklist approach itself which I object to based upon its severe limitations.]</p>

<p>What helped bring this more in focus for me was actually a post on a different thread that was recently started on this board. This was Oliver Racz's thread entitled, "Annoying aesthetic trend in photography"</p>

<p><a href="/casual-conversations-forum/00dvMQ">http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00dvMQ</a></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Oliver Racz</strong>: The way I see it is I might not see what the criteria are, but they are there. For example, compositionally, leading lines work. The rule of thirds works. The human brain perceives it as balanced. And when you break the rule of thirds, and put your subject in the dead center, it might still work because there is symmetry, and for that particular picture symmetry might work. It doesn't mean you need to take pictures by a rulebook, but these "rules" are based on experience. If you can invent a wheel that is not round, yet is more efficient than than those that are, more power to you. However, wheels aren't made round because a book says they need to be, but because that's what has worked for ages, and if you want to design wheels, the knowledge that wheels should be round probably helps you in the process. I think the "rules" of photography should be interpreted in a similar way.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I understand what Oliver is saying, and I think that the type of rules he mentions are good general guidelines and starting points, but they fail when used as the primary criteria by which we judge the merits of a given photograph. They are rudimentary starting points only. </p>

<p>What does this have to do with McCurry's photos and the type of post-processing that was done on them? I interpreted the manipulation as expressing the belief that there were objective criteria that had to be met in order to fulfill a perceived aesthetic: color and light must be a certain way, balance and placement of subjects must be a certain way, etc. (As opposed to letting the beauty of what actually transpired come through, despite its lack of classic symmetry.) </p>

<p>Now here's the rub -- What I've just said implies that I believe that imperfection, lack of symmetry, and a "warts and all" approach can appeal to a more sophisticated aesthetic and requires greater skill and intuition because it does not allow for there being a simplistic checklist of criteria which needs to be met. It implies that you must go beyond the comfort zone of leading lines, straight horizons, rule of thirds, tack sharp resolution, color balance, etc. This is not actually what I am saying, I am just making the point that someone reading my comments could just as easily assume that I am coming from that standpoint, could just as easily be "irritated" by it, and just as easily make the claim that such a loose guideline is just another kind of "checklist", albeit a more loosely structured one.</p>

<p>The point is that my initial post was actually based on a momentary irritation with what I perceived to be a "checklist" mindset. (A perception that could very easily be incorrect.) Such a "drive-by" posting hardly merits much discussion except for that fact that other people have successfully gone beyond that simplistic irritation and expanded the discussion into more interesting areas.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Steve, interesting that you bring Oliver's post into this. I had responded to something he said and then further wrote the following but never posted it because he hadn't come back to the thread and I wasn't sure of his interest level or time availability for discussion. But I'll post it here because it's in sync with some of what you've said and helped me clarify how I felt about his so-called "criteria."</p>

<p>_____________________________________________</p>

<p>Oliver, I'm with you to the extent that there are historical and cultural aesthetic traditions that have both mathematical and scientific foundations . . . what humans will respond to in various ways. Where I differ is that I don't think of them as criteria. I think they are tools.</p>

<p>A criterion is a standard by which something is judged. And I don't think art is judged on any particular set of criteria or at least I think art shouldn't be judged according to such specific standards. Rather I think these aesthetic tools, such as the so-called "rule of thirds", are pieces of information the artist uses OR AVOIDS for various reasons.</p>

<p>I don't think there are criteria for a good photo. I think there are various reasons why photos are considered good, a lot of those having to do with an aesthetic language that is really an ongoing conversation among artists over time. I think there are aesthetic <em>principles</em> that are put to various uses.</p>

<p>If the "rule of thirds" were an aesthetic criterion, then beauty would demand that the rule of thirds be put to use in the visual arts if one wants a beautiful picture. And yet we all recognize how often that principle is flouted/disregarded in making beautiful pictures. It can be flouted because it's a principle and not a criterion.</p>

<p>A criterion for legally drinking alcohol in California is that one be 21 years of age. You can't legally flout that criterion. A good artist will understand the principle of the "rule of thirds" well enough to be able to have a gut sense of when to use it and when not to use it. A good photo may very well not employ the rule of thirds, so the rule of thirds is not a criterion for a good photo, even though it's a worthwhile principle to understand.</p>

<p>_____________________________________________</p>

<p>In any case, my main point in this discussion is that I don't know McCurry or his printers well enough and don't get a sense from the finished photos themselves that they were necessarily manipulated in order to adhere to some criteria to fulfill a perceived aesthetic. That's possible. But another possibility is that the printer felt getting rid of some elements focused on the subject in a way that worked for him and that he felt would reach the viewer effectively.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Phil, Oliver seemed to be suggesting (in that other thread) that there were certain criteria by which all photos should be judged. Now, I do agree with you that if a critic is going to judge a photo (and Oliver wasn't talking about critics, he was talking about himself as a viewer), he should certainly consider not only the style but the era and probably many other things about the photo.</p>

<p>But I still don't think there are universal criteria on which to judge a photo even within a given school or style. So, for instance, I don't think you could name one specific and particular criterion that all Pictorial photos MUST have in order to be good.</p>

<p>We can speak generally about Pictorial photos as often being soft focused, as being painterly, etc. But there's no single criterion that they would all have to have to pass a critique test. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>Well, isn't Pictorialism itself the single criterion in and by which the photograph is made</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think of Pictorialism as a school or style, not a criterion.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the one specific and particular criterion that all Pictorial photos MUST have is to not be recognizable as Straight Photography</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I disagree. I've seen plenty of straight photos about which I might use the word pictorial. Again, for me, pictorial is a description, not a criterion. And, IMO, no style or category ever must completely exclude all other styles or categories.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Phil, the conversation started with a premise from Oliver that there were criteria (such as the rule of thirds) for beauty. That's what I was arguing against and still would. It's now about whether there are criteria for different categorizations of art. Oliver was talking about specific photos, which I thought was interesting. I generally find talk of categories in the absence of specific photos somewhat futile so I'll leave you to it. </p>