Botched McCurry print and Photoshop scandal

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"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. Fred.</p>

<p>The planet earth to Fred.</p>

<p>Steve McCurry a photojournalist.</p>

<p>That what he is... and as the world percieves him. The Afghan girl etc. Call us plebs or the great unwashed...but that is how he is percieved.</p>

<p>"definitions of documentary and insist that for everyone it means a strict adherence to the "truth," which would make it no different from photojournalism "Fred.</p>

<p>Its about not hiding reality...and creating a fairytale of so called Artist impression. Or, just propaganda lies.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Little footsteps<br>

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

<p>Perhaps you should listen.</p>

<p>Monster are not born...their mums loved them...just like your mum loved you, Fred...its all about those little footsteps and then bigger and bigger footsteps....</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>So, getting down to brass tacks, instead of talking in hyperbole and generalities, what did McCurry do in these pictures to perpetrate supposed propaganda and lies, since that's what you're associating his name with now? Do you think cloning out a lamppost was done to propagandize? If so, what propaganda was he selling that would have a negative effect on the world.</p>

<p>Allen, you can keep repeating the word photojournalist until you have a stroke, for all I care. Your repetitiousness isn't terribly convincing. SHOW ME. SHOW ME articles that refer to him exclusively as a photojournalist, that specifically mention that he doesn't do other types of photography. Show me someone making the case that all photos of McCurry are photojournalistic or should be looked at as such. You can't keep making stuff up and get away with it.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Okay, Steve is a landscape photographer. Happy.</p>

<p>Hello, everyone ,Steve McCurry is a landscape photographer...perish the thought that anyone would think of him as a photojournalist.</p>

<p>All evidence is to the contrary my mate Fred told me so....so there.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>He has made his fame and fortune from his photojournalism and percieved honesty of his images...that is how he has placed himself in the world of photography. Who would like to think the Afghan Girl was taken in the Bronx of New York? or,of the girl next door.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>Who would like to think the Afghan Girl was taken in the Bronx of New York?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Now you're thinking creatively. I think it would be fabulous if he pulled that off. Imagine Warhol's reaction! Get out of your moralistic comfort zone for once.<br /> <br /> And, though you get an A in sarcasm about McCurry being a landscape photographer, you get an F in being able to stand behind what you've claimed about McCurry. I note with amusement your inability to find any backup for your claims about McCurry, other than turning your sarcasm on me, which rings pretty hollow when you're using it to avoid answering my question with any degree of seriousness.<br /> <br /> You've been taken in by false notions of both truth and honesty and you're blaming that on McCurry. You've also lost any sense of proportion in speaking of what he did in the same breath as speaking of falsified holocaust photos and you want to pin that on McCurry, too. It's time you stood up and took responsibility for the things you say instead of continuing to blurt them out like a baby in the throes of projectile vomiting.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>Hello, everyone ,Steve McCurry is a landscape photographer...perish the thought that anyone would think of him as a photojournalist.<br /> All evidence is to the contrary my mate Fred told me so....so there.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You've got it backwards, as usual. You're the one who's claiming McCurry is only a photojournalist and only seen that way by the world with nothing but your word to back you up. I, on the other hand, posted his bio from National Geographic to show you he's NOT first and foremost only considered a photojournalist. Because you don't like that truth, you get sarcastic, avoid answering my question, and try making it sound like I'm asking you to accept what I said just because I said it, when in fact, I offered backup for what I said, in print!</p>

<p>You may not manipulate your photos, but you sure know how to manipulate your thinking and the things you say by wiggling in and out through falsehoods, statements you can't back up, resorting to cutesy sarcasm, and applying pithy little aphorisms instead of any sort of consistent or logical train of thought.</p>

<p>Yours is a fact free zone demanding facts only in someone's photos.</p>

[DickArnold]

" 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, " Robin, it is one thing for you to

believe on your own through unsupported deduction and another to vet a story for publication. What are your

independently verifiable sources for your belief? Can you identify them to lend credence or proof to what you

say ? Is your belief newsworthy? If one does not actually have facts assumptions are just that, assumptions.

As a long term pilot I learned that truth is in the laws of physics. Exceed limits and you may hurt yourself. I

worked professionally in R&D in aviation. Truth there has to be rigorously proven, peer reviewed, and tested

as ultimately lives depend upon it . I see assumptions here about McCurry's methods motives or intents

without much backing. My newspaper experience came after I retired. My assumption today is that a lot of

news today is unsupported speculation that is not properly sourced so I am just morally flying into a strong

headwind.

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"You may not manipulate your photos, but you sure know how to manipulate your thinking and the things you say by wiggling in and out through falsehoods, statements you can't back up, resorting to cutesy sarcasm, and applying pithy little aphorisms instead of any sort of consistent or logical train of thought". Fred.</p>

<p>You are manipulating your thinking and are only reading your own words. You are wriggling in supposition and clouding the discussion with smoke and mirrors.</p>

<p>Sarcasm is a part of our language .....is it evil should it be banned...ask Shakespeare or any of the great wordsmiths. It is used when empty shell arguments need to be exposed to reveal the empty kernel within.</p>

<p>Okay, lets put my thoughts as simple as possible starting with !.</p>

<p>1.Steve McCurry is percieved rightly or wrongly as a photojournalist whatever he claims.<br /> 2. If we look at his work we like to think it is honest.<br /> 3.We do not like the thought he has manipulated images regardless of the whys and wherefores....we like to think of him as a honest concerned photograph.<br /> 3. All his images will be subjected to scrutiny...that simple to understand.<br /> 4. We would not like to think Steve has not P/S any lies in his images.<br /> 5. His work is honest and worthy of his name without falsehoods.<br /> 6. Like all celebrities there is a responsibility towards society. <br /> 7. We want to respect him as a great photojournalist....free of all falsehoods.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>That's a start, now all you have to do is back up the notion that all his photos should be judged with photojournalistic standards. Point me to someplace other than your own thinking where all his work is considered to be photojournalism and should be judged with the same scrutiny as photojournalism.</p>

<p>In other words, give me some back up from any source you choose to support #1.</p>

<p>Boy, oh, boy, if no photojournalist was allowed to break free of the constraints of photojournalism and take off his photojournalist cap in other photos he makes, the world would be kind of a dictatorship and a very limiting place.</p>

<p>Do you really think no non-fiction writers have been allowed to write fiction, no journalists have ever written worthwhile novels, no photojournalists have ever taken important documentary, travel, or storytelling photos?</p>

<p>If McCurry didn't think of these when he was making them or presenting them as photojournalistic, then I should believe you over him? I think I'll stick with him, thanks.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>And, by the way, it's not just McCurry talking about himself as other than a photojournalist. It's the major, world-reknowned magazine he works for. So, I've given two pretty reputable sources for the claim that he's not just a photojournalist, the man himself and a major magazine. You've given one source for the claim that everybody thinks of him as a photojournalist (and is therefore entitled to hold him to photojournalistic standards in all his work), and that source is yourself. </p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>This is simple to undestand without writing a thousand word.</p>

<p>In the world of photojournalism manipulating photographs is a big NO.</p>

<p>If you start manipulating your photographs, as a respected photojournalist, it casts a shadow on all your work...rightly or wrongly. Were your documentry photos also manipulated?</p>

<p>The real world Fred that comes with fame and fortune....you cannot have your cake and eat it.</p>

<p>Repeat for Fred....</p>

<p>In the world of photojournalism manipulating photographs is a big NO...And so it should.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Allen, you're spreading lies as much as you're accusing McCurry of doing.</p>

<p>McCurry has cloned out a lamppost and you're claiming that's a photographic lie.</p>

<p>You're claiming all McCurry's photos are journalistic, and that's a lie. The reason it's a lie and not just a mistake on your part, is that you keep repeating it without being able to back it up by any source whatsoever, which means you know it can't be backed up and yet you keep repeating it. That's a classic lie.</p>

<p>So it turns out you're expecting much more of McCurry than yourself. And it turns out McCurry's done nothing wrong and you are spreading lies about him.</p>

<p>But continue, by now I think your posts have said everything anyone needs to make a judgment on your claims. I'm happy to leave you to it . . . alone.</p>

[cyanatic]

<blockquote>In <em>nothing really related to </em>the finest documentary tradition, McCurry <s>captures</s> <em>gives his personal interpretation of</em> the essence of human struggle and joy."</blockquote>

<p> </p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>" You've given one source for the claim that everybody thinks of him as a photojournalist (and is therefore entitled to hold him to photojournalistic standards in all his work), and that source is yourself".Fred.</p>

<p>Methinks not Fred...ask anyone who is not as well read as you, and has not a biased to win a discussion.</p>

<p>If as you claim he is not a photojournalist, and all understanding is otherwise.. particularly from his work, then what is he...perhaps he would like to claim to the world he is not a photojournalist... but just a happy snapper like us all...too please, Fred.</p>

<p>Steve McCurry just a happy snapper...nothing else.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Bottom line, at the very least, he is a Documentry Photography....but most of us would think of him as a Photojournalist. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Allen, your simplistic response notwithstanding, the fact that he's not ONLY a photojournalist does not mean he's not a photojournalist. If you can't even understand that difference, you're in worse shape than I thought.</p>

<p>What are we, in kindergarten? "Ask anyone." That's your best shot? I have asked anyone. I asked McCurry and I asked the National Geographic. And I've asked most anything I've read about McCurry's work.</p>

<p>You keep telling us what everybody thinks and I keep providing you specific counterexamples. And you don't care because you don't care about the facts, as you claim. You just care about asserting your moralistic high ground over McCurry. Well, I hope you feel better about yourself.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"So it turns out you're expecting much more of McCurry than yourself. And it turns out McCurry's done nothing wrong and you are spreading lies about him "Fred.</p>

<p>There you go Fred putting words into folks mouths....so, you can argue they are wrong. Weak.</p>

<p>I don't expect anything just joining the discussion and helping you to understand the real world of photojournalism as opposed to the fairy tale in your mind.</p>

<p>There's a real world outside your flat, Fred....and photojournalists who manipulate photographs are very quickly unemployed and looking to be supported by welfare...their career gone for ever...</p>

<p>.</p>

<p>.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>There you go Fred putting words into folks mouths....so, you can argue they are wrong. Weak.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>We now officially have met the Donald Trump of PN. I knew it was only a matter of time.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>helping you to understand the real world of photojournalism</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, you are slandering McCurry. But I'm sure that's a fact you prefer to manipulate to your own subjective intent.<br>

<br>

It will be interesting to see how soon McCurry becomes unemployed and on welfare. Get back to us when that happens and you can prove it, not just think it.</p>

[Supriyo]

<blockquote>

<p>We now officially have met the Donald Trump of PN.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> Godwin's Law has changed :-). I saw Trump mentioned in another thread also.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>helping you to understand the real world of photojournalism<br>

photojournalists who manipulate photographs</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's baffling to me that you could read this thread for so long and not understand the most basic thing I've said. I know it's not OK for photojournalists to manipulate photographs. We agree on that. Again, we agree on that. And again, we agree on that. You really don't need to help me understand that since I already do. That's just the straw man in your head and has nothing to do with the honest reality you claim to love.<br>

<br>

What we disagree about are two main things: I don't think McCurry necessarily ordered these changes (and there's no evidence that he did). And I don't think McCurry should be considered a photojournalist when he makes photos that aren't part of his journalistic career.</p>

 

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"photojournalists who manipulate photographs are very quickly unemployed and looking to be supported by welfare...their career gone for ever"...</p>

<p>That's a reality.</p>

<p>"We now officially have met the Donald Trump of PN. I knew it was only a matter of time"Fred.</p>

<p>Bless you Fred....I cannot believe you folks are voting for him...scary.</p>

<p>"Actually, you are slandering McCurry "Fred.</p>

<p>Words in folks mouths the story of Fred.</p>

<p>My thoughts are Steve...who wears long trousers... is a grown up and can do as he wants....as he will; why would he care a monkeys about my thoughts...he might tumble over with Fred trying to grasp his coat tail...but hey.</p>

<p>.</p>

<p>.</p>

[Supriyo]

<p>Allen,<br>

Even if we assume Steve McCurry is a photojournalist, does it have to be that whatever photo he publishes should confirm to the photojournalistic code of ethics? He should have the freedom to work outside the realm of photojournalism, right? From his statement in the posted link, I have the feeling that the photos in question were not meant to be photojournalistic.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p> "And I don't think McCurry should be considered a photojournalist when he makes photos that aren't part of his journalistic career".</p>

<p>Fame and fortune comes with a price tag...manipulation of any image casts doubt on all images. Rightly or wrongly. Just the way it is.</p>