DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> What do you think of the whole Steve McCurry thing
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 23 of 23, (reverse)
AuthorThread
06/20/2016 04:08:35 PM · #1
A take on the Steve McCurry thing

It just seems like many examples I've seen were pretty much straight forward processing. I can't believe that National Geo doesn't do simple processing stuff on their photos. Yes, cloning out things might be questionable for photojournalism, but just processing and bring out certain things?

And the whole bit about the afghan girls eyes? Hmmm.
06/20/2016 04:53:17 PM · #2
For me, the most damning thing is his reaction. He acts like someone trying to get away with as much as possible instead of someone trying to clear the air and explain how much of work is processed and staged.

The question that interests me most is if there is a larger culture of Magnum and street photographers staging shots, or if it was considered a violation of trust to do so.
06/20/2016 05:03:26 PM · #3
Photojournalism needs strict processing guidelines in order to maintain the viewer's trust. Global adjustments in white balance, contrast, etc. seem fine to me. Local adjustments should be out and cloning should never be done. Staging scenes should not be done if you are presenting it as a candid moment caught on camera. National Geographic is a journalistic publication. If it was a periodical of fine art images that would be another story. McCurry's iconic "Afghan Girl" is a striking portrait either way, but I have to look at it a little differently knowing the processing went beyond general National Geographic standards.
06/20/2016 06:18:30 PM · #4
It intrigues me that it's allowed, even encouraged, to photograph scenes and events that are entirely staged FOR journalist/photographers (think "photo ops"), but it's apparently NOT allowed for the photographers to do any staging of their own. Like Don, I'm annoyed by McCurry's steadfast misrepresentation of himself and his work when confronted. OWN what you've done, for Pete's sake; don't be a Donald!
06/20/2016 06:21:24 PM · #5
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

... don't be a Donald!


Bwa-ha-ha! Quote of the week, IMO.
06/20/2016 07:33:15 PM · #6
I was extremely surprised to hear that Matthew Brady staged some of his civil war photographs -- dragging bodies around at Gettysburg.
06/20/2016 07:54:42 PM · #7
It's a bit like DPC: different rules apply depending where you enter. You break those rules, you get DQd. "Staging" shots - especially in combat (who the heck wants to risk their lives if they don't want to) is as old as photojournalism itself. The problem is passing it off as candid. In publications such as NG, altered images should be stated as such, which they've started to do with the covers.

Message edited by author 2016-06-20 20:00:57.
06/20/2016 08:02:28 PM · #8
Originally posted by vawendy:

I was extremely surprised to hear that Matthew Brady staged some of his civil war photographs -- dragging bodies around at Gettysburg.
he was inventing photojournalism. there was no culture, no standards, no rules, no photojournalism at the time.
06/20/2016 08:10:24 PM · #9
Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by vawendy:

I was extremely surprised to hear that Matthew Brady staged some of his civil war photographs -- dragging bodies around at Gettysburg.
he was inventing photojournalism. there was no culture, no standards, no rules, no photojournalism at the time.


Agreed. It was just surprising. I would have thought there were enough horrific photos to go around that you wouldn't need to drag bodies. But I guess you just get in a different state of mind when doing photojournalism. I remember being horrified when I saw an obviously fatal car accident, and the first thought in my mind was "where's my camera". It made me feel slightly sick that I thought it kind of photographically interesting...
06/20/2016 10:47:49 PM · #10
Originally posted by vawendy:

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by vawendy:

I was extremely surprised to hear that Matthew Brady staged some of his civil war photographs -- dragging bodies around at Gettysburg.
he was inventing photojournalism. there was no culture, no standards, no rules, no photojournalism at the time.


Agreed. It was just surprising. I would have thought there were enough horrific photos to go around that you wouldn't need to drag bodies. But I guess you just get in a different state of mind when doing photojournalism. I remember being horrified when I saw an obviously fatal car accident, and the first thought in my mind was "where's my camera". It made me feel slightly sick that I thought it kind of photographically interesting...
Matthew must have been a perfectionist. They're dangerous... ;)
06/20/2016 10:56:09 PM · #11
I think, since you ask... Ha!

That... if he was hired to photograph real life in any area... and he altered the photos in any means other than our old "minimal"... "Can't do anything to the image unless it's done to the ENTIRE image"... then... I'm not a fan.

I do think that every edit that he did... removing extra children from a water scene... removing dirt from an eye... removing a "photobomber" and some poles and stuff... totally enhanced every image that that article showed me.

It's all about "the gig" (music talent term... but I have NO musical talent).

For WHAT were you hired?

What were you hired to perform?

If there was to be no alteration other than brightness, etc... then...

I'd never hire him. Even to babysit my children.

(They're quite old and don't need babysitting. Oh! Well... maybe... one... Ha! Just kidding!)

I think that if it's for a "real life" photo journalism place" like National Geographic... then, that "photo journalism place" should require the original in addition to the edit... before they publish.

Much like DPC does.

I think it's National Geographic's butt that needs to be chewed if it's found out that he edited his images to delete or add stuff.

Contracts... Contracts... Contracts.

You either buy it... or... you don't.

But, if you've bought it... published it... then you're responsible.

Due diligence. This means that you know you can't prove that you didn't do bad stuff... but... you've hired a person to make sure you're not held accountable if the person you hired to do good stuff... does... bad stuff... like... photoshop out some eye euk.

Everyone has a lawyer these days...

*rolleyes*
06/20/2016 11:36:00 PM · #12
Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by vawendy:

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by vawendy:

I was extremely surprised to hear that Matthew Brady staged some of his civil war photographs -- dragging bodies around at Gettysburg.
he was inventing photojournalism. there was no culture, no standards, no rules, no photojournalism at the time.


Agreed. It was just surprising. I would have thought there were enough horrific photos to go around that you wouldn't need to drag bodies. But I guess you just get in a different state of mind when doing photojournalism. I remember being horrified when I saw an obviously fatal car accident, and the first thought in my mind was "where's my camera". It made me feel slightly sick that I thought it kind of photographically interesting...
Matthew must have been a perfectionist. They're dangerous... ;)

06/21/2016 10:41:38 AM · #13
WOW! I actually had that magazine with the Afghan girl. I thought it was so haunting and really never had a second thought of it being altered. I'm sure that's the reaction he was counting on and instantly made a big name for himself. He certainly won the interest of anyone who saw that photo. Glad to know it was chopped and shopped. HA!!!

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

It intrigues me that it's allowed, even encouraged, to photograph scenes and events that are entirely staged FOR journalist/photographers (think "photo ops"), but it's apparently NOT allowed for the photographers to do any staging of their own. Like Don, I'm annoyed by McCurry's steadfast misrepresentation of himself and his work when confronted. OWN what you've done, for Pete's sake; don't be a Donald!
06/21/2016 12:49:55 PM · #14
Originally posted by Cyrilda:

WOW! I actually had that magazine with the Afghan girl. I thought it was so haunting and really never had a second thought of it being altered. I'm sure that's the reaction he was counting on and instantly made a big name for himself. He certainly won the interest of anyone who saw that photo. Glad to know it was chopped and shopped. HA!!!

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

It intrigues me that it's allowed, even encouraged, to photograph scenes and events that are entirely staged FOR journalist/photographers (think "photo ops"), but it's apparently NOT allowed for the photographers to do any staging of their own. Like Don, I'm annoyed by McCurry's steadfast misrepresentation of himself and his work when confronted. OWN what you've done, for Pete's sake; don't be a Donald!


Actually, I do not find the before and after images of the Afghan girl to be THAT different. Did he fiddle with the saturation and color temperature? Sure. Maybe even sharpened a bit. But doesn't that fall within acceptable processing, even for photojournalism? The other stuff in other images (cloning, etc.), maybe.
06/21/2016 01:46:21 PM · #15
Originally posted by tanguera:

Originally posted by Cyrilda:

WOW! I actually had that magazine with the Afghan girl. I thought it was so haunting and really never had a second thought of it being altered. I'm sure that's the reaction he was counting on and instantly made a big name for himself. He certainly won the interest of anyone who saw that photo. Glad to know it was chopped and shopped. HA!!!

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

It intrigues me that it's allowed, even encouraged, to photograph scenes and events that are entirely staged FOR journalist/photographers (think "photo ops"), but it's apparently NOT allowed for the photographers to do any staging of their own. Like Don, I'm annoyed by McCurry's steadfast misrepresentation of himself and his work when confronted. OWN what you've done, for Pete's sake; don't be a Donald!


Actually, I do not find the before and after images of the Afghan girl to be THAT different. Did he fiddle with the saturation and color temperature? Sure. Maybe even sharpened a bit. But doesn't that fall within acceptable processing, even for photojournalism? The other stuff in other images (cloning, etc.), maybe.

Plus, I'm pretty sure the Afghan Girl was Kodachrome, which means in all likelihood it's NatGeo that did the editing. And look closely at the girl's right eye, the corner of the eye nearest the nose; that's where the editing took place. And in later version's, NatGeo has reverted to the original. Remember, these are the folks that even way back before Photoshop "squished" a view of the pyramids to make them fit on the cover :-)
06/21/2016 02:00:19 PM · #16
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Remember, these are the folks that even way back before Photoshop "squished" a view of the pyramids to make them fit on the cover :-)

In one of the links the NG editors refer to the use of "Scitex" for processing images -- this was software associated with the large commercial drum scanners used to scan film for eventual printing ... Photoshop originally came bundled with a medium-end "desktop" scanner (Barneyscan) before Adobe bought it and released it as a standalone program.

Relating to the McCurry issue, it might be interesting to review Errol Morris' 3-part exploration of Roger Fenton's iconic photograph from the Crimean War (the "Charge of the Light Brigade" one, not the more recent "annexation") ...

Article at NY Times, Part 1.
06/21/2016 03:04:17 PM · #17
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Remember, these are the folks that even way back before Photoshop "squished" a view of the pyramids to make them fit on the cover :-)

In one of the links the NG editors refer to the use of "Scitex" for processing images -- this was software associated with the large commercial drum scanners used to scan film for eventual printing ... Photoshop originally came bundled with a medium-end "desktop" scanner (Barneyscan) before Adobe bought it and released it as a standalone program.

Relating to the McCurry issue, it might be interesting to review Errol Morris' 3-part exploration of Roger Fenton's iconic photograph from the Crimean War (the "Charge of the Light Brigade" one, not the more recent "annexation") ...

Article at NY Times, Part 1.

Interesting excerpt from that piece, regarding Susan Sontag's discussion of the "Shadow of Death" images. She believed that the no-cannonballs version was first, and that cannonballs were ADDED to the second image for greater impact (emphasis mine):

Originally posted by Earl Morris:

"She mentions how one of the Fenton photographs was posed or staged. That we’re always disappointed when we learn that a photograph has been posed. Then she goes on to talk about the difference between fake paintings and fake photographs. Namely, a fake painting is a painting with faulty provenance— say, a painting that is purportedly by Vermeer, but turns out to be painted by somebody else. But according to Sontag, a fake photograph is a photograph that’s been posed. A perfect illustration of what she’s talking about would be the purportedly posed photograph by Fenton, what she takes to be the second photograph [ON] in the Valley of the Shadow of Death."
06/21/2016 05:01:30 PM · #18
Maybe we can do a challenge about this long winded article.

"STAGED CANDID MOMENTS"

It wasn't like the images McCurry shot never happened or couldn't happen they just weren't candid. Really no biggie.
06/21/2016 07:08:55 PM · #19
'OMFG he removed a speck of dirt from Afghan Girl's eye. O.M.G. what a fraud!'

Frankly, what a whole lot of BS over nothing.

Now, had he changed the actual colours in AG's eyes, then I'd be po'd. But removing dirt from tear duct section of eye...oh come on. There were blemishes aplenty on AG and he didn't remove them. Unlike nowadays where everyone is skin-smoothed to perfection. bad enough to see that kind of crap on the cover of People magazine and its ilk, apparently even Teen People covers now sport celebs with flawless skin/teeth etc...guess you can't start too young!!!

ETA: Bear, I am also old enough to remember the huge kerfuffle over the pyramids being squished to fit on the NG cover. Also when Vogue took HUGE flack for daring to - *gasp* - clone out a stray blonde hair on the shoulder of a red dress worn by Michelle Pfeiffer.

*thunk as faints to floor*

Message edited by author 2016-06-21 19:14:06.
06/22/2016 04:05:22 AM · #20
Originally posted by snaffles:

'OMFG he removed a speck of dirt from Afghan Girl's eye. O.M.G. what a fraud!'

Frankly, what a whole lot of BS over nothing.


I don't think the Afgan Girl retouching is the major accustation here though. I'd say shots like the staging of the rail traveller with the suitcases is far more damaging and unworthy of being called photojournalism. To get a a friend's wife and child to pose and then use some empty suitcases just to create a shot that's in your head - particularly when the image might reinforce certain stereotypes because, hey, that's what sells right? - is way beyond the remit of journalism i'd say.

Mind you, i've never been much of a fan of Steve McCurry as he's always seemed such an instigator of the 'dirty faced foreign kid' brand of travel photography which I find quite demeaning and exploitative.

But then, i'm a huge fan of Roger Ballen and his semi-staged almost abstract brand of documentary photography so what the hell do I know?
06/22/2016 05:39:12 PM · #21
I admire McCurry's photography but this Photoshop scandal has destroyed his reputation, just completely trashed it. It's also interesting to see the reaction because there has been a bit of "Lance Armstrong syndrome" where McCurry fans want to ignore the whole thing, even going so far as to claim that it doesn't matter in photojournalism if you remove things from a photo as long as you do not change the essence.

McCurry's handling of the whole thing is also really crummy. He EVENTUALLY admitted that he had been altering photos for years but only after first claiming an employee did it and he knew nothing about it (extremely hard to believe).

There are two interesting videos of McCurry turned up after the scandal broke, interviews where he claimed to never alter his photos and warned others against altering photos through Photoshop. And they're very recent also! The sections where he is asked about altering photos are worth watching for anyone interested in this issue. Both can be found on YouTube.

#FanChat wFamed Photojournalist Steve Mccurry
32:30- Where do you draw the line with Photoshop?

An Interview with Steve McCurry TedxAmsterdamWomen
7:00- How do you feel about adjusting your pictures?
06/23/2016 09:06:48 AM · #22
This is one (of many) reasons I sucked at challenges here: I can't really set up shots.

I got absolutely hammered on my first real newspaper assignment because I arranged some furniture in order to get a better photo. When I told the photo editor what I had done, he let me know in no uncertain terms that would be the last time I ever did that for his newspaper. I was hired to capture what was there, with absolute integrity, an image that would survive any concern over its legitimacy.

I could apply basic edits - color balance, exposure, shadows and highlights, and reasonable cropping - but no more. Cloning? Seriously? Absolutely out of the question. Today, I don't even post-process my photos, other than slight cropping/rotation. Why? If the publication has something in mind, or an automated system in place, I leave it up to them. It removes me from any editorial question (other than maybe explaining why I submitted a particular image).

A year or so later, I discovered magazine photography. Unless it was an *editorial* magazine, almost anything was allowable. It was more a question of money: how much was the magazine willing to spend and how much time was I willing to invest before the return wasn't worth the effort.

Then I discovered corporate photography where again, it always came down to money. This is where my photojournalistic background carried me. I was able to be a visual storyteller, capturing interesting images as they were, producing more usable catch-as-catch-can images than the client would get if paying for a handful of set-up, staged shots. Not always ideal situations, but far more economical.

So, to this day, I shoot what I see, what I find, rarely - very rarely - giving direction or touching anything. It's a matter of what I can get right and capture in camera, not thinking about how it will need to be processed. Editing is kept to a minimum - unless the client has something particular in mind and is willing to pay for it.

I can understand McCurry getting caught up in his own myth and legend, and like many things in the past, his issues and NatGeo's issues, among others, will be the source of endless debate and discussion. In the end, though, it is up to us as collective viewers as to what we are willing to accept. Do we want to be entertained, or educated?
06/23/2016 03:13:00 PM · #23
The unintended consequence (or perhaps irony) of this sort of discovery is that citizens with smartphone (observers taking snap shots) are likely to become the most reliable source of so-called "truth" in images. I'm guessing he's not the only one doing the setups and tweaking. Hard to believe in the world of photo-journalism that an artful eye doesn't sometimes trump what people want / require to see as truth.

Message edited by author 2016-06-23 15:13:34.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 10:22:40 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 10:22:40 AM EDT.