Botched McCurry print and Photoshop scandal

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I posted it in this one to respond to Steve's having brought it into this thread, which I thought was appropriate. You can look a few posts up to see what Oliver was talking about and why Steve brought it into this conversation as relevant. Oliver, Steve, and I were talking about criterion for things like good composition. That's very different from how to categorize photos. I merely said I was uninterested in continuing the categorization conversation as a courtesy to you.</p>

<p>Don't tell me where to post what.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Yes. And you and I have agreed on that for the entire thread, so I'm not sure why you were creating an argument with me where none existed.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>And out of respect to Steve, I want to add something at this point.</p>

<p>I have great admiration for his street work and for many of his ideas. I get the sense he would prefer not to see much cloning and manipulation in street work as well as photojournalism and documentary work. While I don't subscribe to that aesthetic myself, I understand it and respect it. Sometimes limits are as important as freedoms in art. I shy away from imposing onto others whatever limits I put on myself, but putting limits on myself can actually be part of my own freedom of expression. That's why Hitchcock made <em>Rope</em>, a movie made in real time to emulate being done all in one take. </p>

<p>It's not hard for me to understand what's behind the preference for "straight" photography or for setting limits on what one will do to manipulate a photo. While I often remind people that adopting a perspective and choosing certain lighting can be as manipulative and even sometimes more manipulative than cloning out a lamppost, I also agree there's a difference and understand why people would want to draw that line.</p>

<p>I don't like it when purists dismiss outright those who use photography differently and I don't like it when non-purists dismiss purists (or those who lean more toward a "straight" aesthetic). But neither do I think one has to determine their opinions as a viewer based solely on what the photographer is trying to accomplish and accept every photographer's photographic viewpoint. If I don't like what you're doing, even if I think you're doing what you're doing quite well, I'm entitled to say that.</p>

<p>In this case, McCurry has a double burden in that some people don't like the idea of the cloning being done and most of us agree that what he (or his printers) have done is not done well at all.</p>

[Supriyo]

I think, the knowledge that the photo is "straight" is one of the aesthetic principles by which Steve M's works are judged

by many of his viewers (whether we agree with that aesthetic or not). To some I suspect, the knowledge that the photo is

a moment capture works in a certain way. In such photos, the traditional technical 'flaws' such as distracting lamp posts

may actually add to the charm of a moment capture and hence contribute to the aesthetics. Removal of the lamp post

would not make a difference to them, but a blotched removal may have a more detrimental effect than the mere visual

ugliness.

 

BTW, I suggest we distinguish the two Steves as Steve M and Steve G, or some other way, else it may be confusing as to

who is being referred to.

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't find it all that stimulating to approach a work and its aesthetic on the basis of what I like or don't like or what and how I would have photographed it </p>

</blockquote>

<p>"Approach[ing] a work and its aesthetic on the basis of what [one] likes or doesn't" is very different from having preferences in terms of how one works and from not liking or liking particular results or thinking that certain ways of working undermine one's photographic or aesthetic values. Not liking something can be a result of looking at and doesn't necessarily mean one approached the photo only with one's own aesthetic in mind. <br>

<br>

Nevertheless, just because Mr. X thinks it's photographically aesthetic and personally pleasing to use a small camera on his shoe to photograph up women's skirts, and just because he's perfected that art, doesn't mean I have to like it or approve of it. It's perfectly OK not to approve of certain techniques, though I would only ban those that are illegal.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Just as I questioned Steve for seeing these specific photos of McCurry's as part of a bigger picture in which he believes photographers are falling prey to adopting some pre-conceived aesthetic doctrine, I'd question you, Phil, for seeing Steve's and others' criticism of these photos as "approaching a work and its aesthetic on the basis of what I like or don't like or what and how I would have photographed it." I think in their cases, as I understand what they're saying, it's not as simplistic as just "how they would have photographed it." I've certainly known Steve to be open to very many different types of photographic vision and I suspect the same of others who've given their opinions here. I think, though I may disagree with them to some extent, it's a fairly well thought-out assessment of certain techniques and methodologies.</p>

[cyanatic]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>lkka Nissila</strong> – 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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ilkka's comments in this regard echo my own feeling toward manipulation of photos in which the fact that manipulation took place is not clearly disclosed or evident. This is an extreme example, but imagine looking at Russell Sorgi's photo, Genessee Hotel Suicide, and then finding out that the figure of the falling woman was inserted from a photo of a model jumping on a trampoline.<br>

<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZpW_yMZ-oeg/Uxil5e5USqI/AAAAAAAAATA/OtlpsUc1gYg/s1600/SorgiSuicidePhoto.jpg">http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZpW_yMZ-oeg/Uxil5e5USqI/AAAAAAAAATA/OtlpsUc1gYg/s1600/SorgiSuicidePhoto.jpg</a></p>

<p>"But McCurry clearly stated that his photos were not bla bla bla!"</p>

<p>That's not the point. I'm not bashing McCurry for what he did, or for what he allowed his studio team to do. I'm just trying to elaborate on Ikka's personal feelings (which I happen to share), that manipulations which alter the scene for the sake of symmetry or "prettiness" make the photo less interesting. But that's all it is: a personal feeling. It's not an ironclad law by which I think judgment should be passed. </p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Dick Arnold</strong>: 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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dick, this is the Casual Conversation forum and we are having a discussion. No one here is trying to equate the importance of what we're talking about with the deaths of 58,000 soldiers. Nor do I think anyone here is trying to change anything. You don't care? In the big picture, neither do I. But it's a topic related to photography and we're having a conversation about it. Who are you to judge what it is that we choose to discuss? I don't think anyone here is morally outraged. I am aware of the fact that many people find discussions like this one lengthy, boring, repetitive, and pointless. And they are free to ignore it or join in. Unless it involves a purchase that I plan to make, I find technical discussions (this lens vs that lens, this brand vs that brand, which 3 lenses would you bring to a desert island, etc.) boring and repetitive. So I don't take part in them.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Fred G</strong>: Steve's and others' criticism of these photos as "approaching a work and its aesthetic on the basis of what I like or don't like or what and how I would have photographed it." I think in their cases, as I understand what they're saying, it's not as simplistic as just "how they would have photographed it."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>True, thank you Fred. Again, I expressed a momentary irritation with what I thought was the underlying motivation for the manipulations in question. That does not mean I approach all photographs based upon whether I like the aesthetic approach that was used. Different photos, styles, and genres require different approaches. This is not an anti-manipulation, "Photoshop is cheating!" rant.</p>

<p>It would require a whole other discussion (Lord help us!), but I do have my own personal standards for what I consider documentary to be. And basically they roughly follow the same Reuters guidelines that Dick Arnold posted. There's nothing wrong with personal photographic expressions of a place, society, or culture. But I do not put them in the same category as documentary. Picasso's "Guernica" is a powerful artistic expression of a historical event, but it is not a documentary of that event. The movie "Fur" is a (poorly done) expression of Diane Arbus' life, but it is not a documentary of that life. But that doesn't mean someone else can't disagree and say that documentary does, and should, allow for manipulation as a means of personal expression. If someone posts or exhibits a photo that has added or removed a major element and calls it "documentary", I'm not going to descend into an apoplectic fit of rage and indignation. </p>

 

[DickArnold]

Steve. I take your point. My post was a bit of an over reaction for a photo forum. What got me going was the

indignation of a few in judging McCurry's motives without substantiating facts. I just got through reading a post

on the worlds ten best photos. McCurry, of course was included. The NatGeo Pakistan shoto was shown

along with high praise for McCurry. I think it appropriate to believe that he is human and should be forgiven

mistakes. So yeah this is just photography and we are supposed to have fun, aren't we? I wonder how

Dorothea Lange has been judged as she is also in that list. That list, of course, is just someone's opinion.

[Robin Smith]

<p>Dick. I was a little surprised, as you are an ex-newsman (?), at your lack of concern about truth. Yes, everything can be wordsmithed and McCurry can manipulate the hell out of his shots if he likes, but everything about him, up until now, said that he was documenting the scenes he saw. His photos are striking, but (arguably) the most striking about them is that they purported to represent reality in some direct way. This is clearly not true. I find it impossible to believe that McCurry did not tell his Photoshopping team what to do - if you worked for him why would you suddenly decide to remove people from a rickshaw photo, for example, unless you were explicitly told to do so? I do not believe McCurry would not have noticed when the image was published that it had been changed without him sanctioning it. I think he has been rumbled, which means that the documentary truth component of his photography is damaged, probably beyond repair.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>but everything about him, up until now, said that he was documenting the scenes he saw</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not everything about him. Just your expectations for him. He clearly states that he's not doing documentary work in these instances and when I've looked at his work over the years I never perceived him as being concerned about "truth" or of strictly documenting things. His most famous Afghan Girl, to me, has nothing to do with truth. People simply don't look like that. So I always felt I was seeing as much McCurry as whatever was "really there." There's an enhanced quality to much of his work. I don't mind enhancement per se in photography, but his never particularly spoke to me.<br /> <br /> It's not uncommon that we have unrealistic expectations of people and then are surprised when they inevitably fail to fulfill them.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"While I don't subscribe to that aesthetic myself, I understand it and respect it. Sometimes limits are as important as freedoms in art. I shy away from imposing onto others whatever limits" Fred.</p>

<p>Photojournalism and to a lesser extend Documentry is not art in the sense of the word. It is trying to represent some truths, in a neutral way, as much as that can be achieved with photographs.</p>

<p>Manipulation of the photograph why?</p>

<p>http://popchassid.com/photos-holocaust-narrative/</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Freedom of Art is a very naïve thought....</p>

<p>Freedom of the honesty of the photographer, in the real world, walks tall above any Art. </p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p>McCurry was doing neither photojournalism nor documentary. Had he made claims that he didn't alter his photos, he'd be a liar. But he didn't make such claims and, as a matter of fact, referred to himself as a travel storyteller on these photos. So, he's not a liar. He's a photographer. One who's entitled to clone a lamppost out of a photo. Trying to equate the importance of the truth of holocaust photos with the importance of not cloning out a lamppost does a disservice to those who experienced the holocaust and to logic and proportion. Get a grip.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Art and Photojournalism are two different things.....one has no license, the other does have a license....</p>

<p>A license of truth and honesty...for the photojournalist.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"McCurry was doing neither photojournalism nor docum and all that entary "Fred</p>

<p>But, a big but....he caries the label of a photojournalist and all that implies.<br>

.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Right, and we're talking about McCurry here, who was not shooting as a photojournalist. So what's your point as it related to McCurry and this thread? And do you understand how bizarre it is to compare the kind of truth we're seeking in holocaust photos to the kind of truth that might be undermined by a photographer cloning out a lamppost? Show me a sign, Allen. Please, just a sign.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>he caries the label of a photojournalist</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's only in your head, outside of which there's a big world.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Its a creeping thing....Fred..</p>

<p>.you understand. Small things/little things that grow....</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>he caries the label of a photojournalist. Allen...he's fame and fortune.</p>

<p>That's only in your head, outside of which there's a big world. Fred</p>

<p>Hmm ,most folks would consider him as a photojournalist..with all it implies...but in your head, his just what?</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>His a celebratory, a icon of photojournalism, a guru for many.<br>

<br /> Have a think.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I'm not a big believer in slippery slopes. The Vietnam War was sold to us on the basis of the the whole world becoming Communist if Vietnam were to fall. That didn't exactly work out. The idea that we would slide from McCurry cloning out a lamppost to something as significant and impactful as falsification of holocaust photos isn't a concern to me.</p>

<p>People have been manipulating photos from the time photos first started being made and yet we've kept a good balance between knowing how art functions and knowing how journalism functions. There have always been journalistic infractions and we have to be vigilant, but that doesn't mean suggesting that what McCurry's done here will undermine all accuracy in photojournalism.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"People have been manipulating photos from the time photos first started"</p>

<p>Its that supposed to be a good thing? that's what you are saying. Hey, we have stolen from this shop for a long time...so, its alright...a given.</p>

<p>"but that doesn't mean suggesting that what McCurry's done here will undermine all accuracy in photojournalism". Fred.</p>

<p>Little footsteps.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Here's the opening paragraph from National Geographic's bio of McCurry. I don't see the word photojournalist, so I'm not sure who these "most people" are that you're talking about and how they got the ideas they got about labeling McCurry.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Steve McCurry, recognized universally as one of today's finest image-makers, is best known for his evocative color photography. In the finest documentary tradition, McCurry captures the essence of human struggle and joy."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As has been stated in this thread, there's a difference between documentary and photojournalism. Documentary quite often comes from a distinct point of view and offers opinions. While both documentary and photojournalism are non-fiction, the approach to each can be very different.<br>

<br>

Early Scottish documentarian and author John Grierson defined documentary, in part, as <em>"creative treatment of actuality."</em> Russian documentarian Dziga Vertov, on the other hand, defines it as <em>"life as it is"</em> so he was much more into catching people unawares and not stagning anything.<br>

<br>

Pare Lorentz defines documentary <em>"a factual film which is dramatic."</em> Larry Ward suggests that <em>"documentary stands out from the other types of non-fiction films for providing an opinion, and a specific message, along with the facts it presents."</em><br>

<br>

Now, of course, anyone who wants is free to adopt only one of the foregoing definitions of documentary and insist that for everyone it means a strict adherence to the "truth," which would make it no different from photojournalism. But, while insisting on one's own chosen definition, it would at least be wise to recognize that other very respectable documentarians think differently and maintain an awareness that the world of documentary, like it or not, is broader than one's own narrow scope.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>Little footsteps</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. That's what babies make.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>"People have been manipulating photos from the time photos first started"<br>

Its that supposed to be a good thing? that's what you are saying.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If that's what I'd wanted to say, I would have said it. It's not what I'm saying. I'm saying people have been manipulating photos from the time photos first started. Most of the time, it's artists and storytellers like McCurry. When photojournalists do it, what I said was we have to be vigilant against that. Unfortunately, you're choosing to only read portions of what I write, to prove a point, but you're missing the bigger picture by not actually having a dialogue and reading to get the full picture of what I'm saying. </p>