RE: The Steve McCurry "Scandal"

[wogears]

<p>Here is a <a href="http://www.nearbycafe.com/artandphoto/photocritic/2016/06/09/guest-post-23-robert-dannin-on-steve-mccurry/">rational, thoughtful article</a> which pulls no punches in explaining the reality of the supposed "Photoshopping (<em>sic</em>) Scandal" in which Steve McCurry is currently embroiled.</p>

[William Kahn]

<p>As far as I'm concerned, McCurry's "Afghan Girl" photo is the photographic equivalent of Vermeer's "Girl With The Pearl Earring" painting. Forget the rest of the BS...</p>

[craigd]

<p>Assuming his statements are factual, that's devastating... and it makes me glad I kept photography in my life as a personal pleasure and exploration rather than a profession.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Once when I was about ten years old, my little sister and I were in K-Mart standing, in open-mouthed awe, in front of the fishing-lure display. We liked to pond-fish, and there was one lure in particular that seemed to both of us, to be simply mesmerizing. It was probably larger than the fish we usually caught, had at least fifteen enormous hooks dangling from every end, and was dressed in multiple gleaming 'spoons' and feathers.</p>

<p>A passing salesman, who knew something about fishing, noted dryly that we were supposed to be trying to <em>catch</em> the fish, not mate with it.</p>

<p>Les Berkley's linked article and his own characterization of that article as "rational" and "thoughtful" have even less subtlety than the fishing lure in question. I think I'll pass.</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>Do you mean to say there are more complexities to a story other than the heated pronouncements of internet pundits and excitable, verbose onlookers?....Shocking! </p>

[andylynn]

<p>Am I alone in not caring whether a Nat Geo photographer shops out clutter from his images? We're talking about publications that trade in impactful, visually appealing travel photos. We don't go to Nat Geo for the true story of whether that one guy was standing behind a sign post.</p>

[Palouse]

<p>For the type of work he did, his pictures are still factually accurate.<br>

Moving the location of pyramids, on the other hand, is an example of distorted reality, as is cloning in/out of North Korean dignitaries, soldiers in battle, etc. in pictures at are purported to be complete and accurate records of events. <br>

Yawn.</p>

[wogears]

<p>I remember Herbert Keppler writing about Gene Smith, "...that ferricyanided cigarette..." Honestly, who gives a damn about non-essential details being removed to strengthen an image?</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

I have just enough experience with high end photo agencies, publications, and some of the photographers involved to

believe what Magnum's former Director of Sales writes. It is a very cut throat competive business from all angles. That

does not mean ALL of the work done, and published is suspect but it os a very hard way to make a living.

[Damon DAmato]

<p>Andy L, you are probably not alone in not caring.<br />There are people who don't care if a "nature" photograph was taken at a zoo, too. Doesn't mean they have an opinion about nature photography that nature photographers would respect.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Damon, I can see why photographers might question shooting nature photography in a zoo. Can you explain what it is about cloning out a sign in a National Geographic photo that would cause you to lose respect for a photographer who does so?</p>

[donald_miller5]

Regardless of where the ultimate responsibility lies if you want to call a journalistic photo or documentary then it comes

with the territory. Otherwise it is fine to remove clutter and call it whatever you want.

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>A little bit more than a sign was altered here, including people removed from central areas of the frame:</p>

<p>http://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2016/05/13061970_10209300783099507_8328500818408060987_n.jpg<br /> vs.<br /> http://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2016/05/13062201_10209300783219510_4123666415850551493_n.jpg</p>

<p>Also staging scenes has been reported:</p>

<p>http://petapixel.com/2016/06/07/eyes-afghan-girl-critical-take-steve-mccurry-scandal/</p>

<p>In my view, these activities are fine as long as a reasonably accurate disclosure of the methods that were used is given, so that the viewers know that the image is not a projection of a real moment that took place spontaneously. </p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"cloning out a sign in a National Geographic photo that would cause you to lose respect for a photographer who does so?"Fred.</p>

<p>We are talking about photojournalism not about a National Geographic photographer removing a sign...read the above posts.</p>

<p>Photography is not always about artistic impression but about factual moments. Photojounalism, is not photographic play time,but about real life happenings portrayed in the most honest unbiased way that a photograph can achieve. In those photographic moments, the photojournalists is at risk from death and injury, as are the subjects they are photographing...</p>

<p>We expect a honesty from these photographs as the moment was seen, not a photographer expressing their artistic license...their take, as if it was some theatre production.</p>

<p>I really don't understand why you struggle with that truth, Fred.</p>

[DickArnold]

I am an old man. I long ago stopped making high sounding moral judgements about almost anything

concerning the arts. I reserve my judgements to those things I experienced during war, particularly the Viet

Nam war where 58,000 of my comrades died. That was immoral. McCurry's pictures are arresting. Almost all

of mine are not. He is certainly several cuts above me edited or not. I just viewed an exhibition from Holland

at a US museum. I make no moral judgements about those that produced that art. It is simply enough for me

to bask or lose myself in the exhibition itself. It is simply enough to appreciate viscerally what I see. Dorothea

Lange moves me. I simply don't want any picture ruined by someone's so called version of the truth about

hers or any other art or photography. .

[Richard Williams]

I think Julie H has the right take on this article, which seems only tangentially relevant to the discussion. I imagine the industry wasn't a bed of roses during his tenure at Magnum, but Dannin sounds like he has a five foot double-headed battleaxe to grind here.

[Robin Smith]

<p>"Politically, she fed the pornographic dreams of the White House neocon criminals prosecuting an illegal, stupid, treasonous, perpetual war."<br /> Oh boy - right on comrade. A rather ridiculous embarrassing rant and no service to McCurry.<br /> McCurry is, perhaps, a symptom of a disease, but his weaselly explanations don't help him get back respect. As to being thoughtful, I feel the poor author was about to burst a blood vessel in extreme rage that anyone should dare to "call out" his friend.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>If you will compare Lange's negative of the Migrant Madonna with the published photograph you will see some not-so-subtle changes.<br>

And don't forget Rothstein's cow skull, or the corpse moved at Gettysburg battlefield, or ...<br>

Reality is so over-rated. <br>

Forensic photography is one thing, but tourist photography for magazine publication is hardly the same thing.</p>

 

[andylynn]

Has he been accused of altering the content or meaning of any photojournalism or only of the travel photography?

[AlanKlein]

<p>When did NatGeo become a travel magazine?</p>

[andylynn]

I'm exaggerating that point but the photos I've seen that he was accused of altering are in the travel genre, not journalism.

[david_henderson]

<p>The article referred to in the OP has nothing to do with any supposed transgressions by Mr McCurry. It seems to have been written by someone with an altogether different bee in his bonnet who is opportunistically and purely notionally linking his article to McCurry to increase its exposure. You can't successfully defend McCurry by demonstrating that others have done worse. </p>

<p>For me, McCurry has the right to present his images as he sees fit, unless to states or implies that no PP alterations have occurred. Where I get concerned is when I see conflicts in his own arguments, as if he's trying to ride two horses at the same time; or maybe trying to change his story whilst denying that one set of utterances was wrong.</p>

 

[Damon DAmato]

<blockquote>

<p>And don't forget Rothstein's cow skull, or the corpse moved at Gettysburg battlefield, or ...<br /> Reality is so over-rated.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>If it was really overrated, we wouldn't still be talking about this stuff 150 or so years later. <br /><br /></p>

[steve_mareno1]

<p>The whole thing is ridiculous. Only someone very naive would suppose that a photograph is actual reality, and that there has been no editing of the image along the way. Besides, why is this coming out? Who ratted? It's like the magician who's a genius until someone explains how the trick is performed, and then the genius becomes a charlatan. He's the same guy, nothing has changed, and yet.</p>

<p>It's hardly up to a Vermeer anyway, and will be forgotten long before anything by Vermeer is. Never thought much about the photograph to tell the truth, nor did I think it was a great photo at the time. It looked like your usual crappy digital colour shot, and was obviously posed and unrealistic.</p>

<p>The only reason I'm commentating on this is that I'm surprised that someone is posting about it. Trust me, I have no remembrance of how long ago the photo was taken, nor have I given it one second of thought since I first saw it (whenever that was) and now. The photo didn't strike me in any other way than what I mentioned...phony and not very good. I'm a B&W film photographer, that's my interest, and journalistic photography has gone into the dirt a long, long time ago anyway.</p>

[wogears]

<blockquote>

<p>It looked like your usual crappy digital colour shot, and was obviously posed and unrealistic.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Huh? Try Kodachrome (prob. Nikon FM, 105 f2.5). And portraits <em>are</em> posed.</p>