CCC Forum

Unposed photography is hard. Other than setting the camera controls and pressing the shutter, the photographer has little say in the final result and the positioning of all the components in the image. Photoshop, of course, makes it easy to apply amendments after the fact, although it went on in the days of film as well. Many a time in club competitions judges will see something they do not like and want it removed. Fair enough you might say, but what about when the photographer is Steve McCurry? He is a photojournalist by trade, a profession where alterations are definitely not OK, however minor. Unfortunately for him, someone spotted a poorly Photoshopped print in an exhibition, blogged about it and that led to some other examples being discovered where his images have been manipulated through the removal of unwanted elements.

http://petapixel.com/2016/05/06/botched ... p-scandal/

Quite clearly, as McCurry himself acknowledges, the botched print in the Italian exhibition should never have been put on display. It shows a lack of care on the part of several individuals at different stages during the curation of the show, not just the inept technician who produced it. I am less concerned about the other examples if they are to be considered at the artistic level where the adjustments add rather than detract. The problem for Steve McCurry is that if some of his published work has been changed after the fact, it throws doubt on those images when it is not acceptable. Striking a balance between his personal and professional work is not easy and there will always be those who will be critical regardless. It is a stop digging moment and I am not surprised that he has declined to comment.

Mike Farley wrote:.... that led to some other examples being discovered where his images have been manipulated through the removal of unwanted elements.

A further thought. What sort of person is it who has nothing better to do in life than trawl through a photographer's work and post inconsistencies on the net?

For an average, run of the mill photographer it would be a surprise. Not counting the work the guys over at Photo Stealers do though, spotting frauds/thieves.

For someone who is extremely well known and very well paid for his work it's a different story. It doesn't surprise me one bit - the only thing that does surprise me is the slack QC the team that edits those photos seems to have.

The Steve McCurry debate has been rumbling on for a while and many more examples of his work where there has been maniplulation have been discovered. McCurry has also responded to the criticisms and now claims to be a "visual storyteller" rather than a photojournalist, albeit one who in future will use the application in a "minimal way".

There is an article at The Online Photographer which discusses this further.

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.co ... rt-of.html

The problem for McCurry is that it is not clear when he stopped being a photojournalist and he has been forced to admit this is no longer the case after the fact. It remains to be seen what sort of work he will produce without extensive use of Photoshop and how it will differ from his earlier output.

A further update about Steve McCurry in this post at The Online Photographer. The implication is that, far from being a photojournalist, McCurry might have been manipulating his images in one way or another for years. And to think that all this has come to light due to a sharp eyed visitor at an exhibition spotting a poorly* Photoshopped image which somehow all those involved in creating the show had missed. The question which comes to mind is that although it could be that McCurry has been misrepresenting the genre of photography in which he operates, does that devalue his work? True, he might not be showing us the world as it really is, but is that what we want to see? Answers on a postcard. Or even a forum response, maybe?

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.co ... oting.html

The rest of the post talks about influences and how artists take inspiration from the work of others to make it into their own, which is a fascinating topic in its own right.

* I nearly wrote "amateurish", but that unfairly denigrates the high standards which many hobbyists achieve. You have to look no further than the sloppy work undertaken by the so called professionals which has been the cause of the "McCurry Kefluffle" for an example of how we can be so much better than those who are paid for their efforts.

More on the story from PetaPixel. It seems that even McCurry's best known image, Afghan Girl, exists in two versions with one showing signs of some minor digital tweaking.

http://petapixel.com/2016/06/07/eyes-af ... y-scandal/

Now National Geographic in its latest issue and online describes how it checks the veracity of the photos it publishes. Michael Johnston at The Online Photographer wonders whether this is a coincidence.

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.co ... dence.html