Steve McCurry: "How do you feel about adjusting your pictures?"

[JahnG]

...is reframing to create a certain impression really that different from removing something after the fact?

It wasn't PP removal, but significant alteration/enhancement/editing all the same, just a different time in the overall scheme.

All true and well, but the photojournalism bottom line remains "This is what was in the shot when I took it."

A good point, Brad.

If the final picture essentially differs from "what was in front of the lens" , then a normal consumer would, IMO, not consider it as "photojournalism" any longer, but something else, (art or even sometimes propaganda). Not many would consider it in any way wrong, or less valuable, but it's something quite different from "photojournalism".

Jahn

 

[Brad Bohland]

...is reframing to create a certain impression really that different from removing something after the fact?

It wasn't PP removal, but significant alteration/enhancement/editing all the same, just a different time in the overall scheme.

All true and well, but the photojournalism bottom line remains "This is what was in the shot when I took it."

A good point, Brad.

If the final picture essentially differs from "what was in front of the lens" , then a normal consumer would, IMO, not consider it as "photojournalism" any longer, but something else, (art or even sometimes propaganda). Not many would consider it in any way wrong, or less valuable, but it's something quite different from "photojournalism".

Yes.

In everyday life, we tend to believe what people say until they prove themselves untrustworthy, and then we don't believe anything they say.

Unless McCurry can re-establish public trust in his word, people aren't going to believe what he says any more. And his photography will lose credibility, too.

We're not talking about processing here, we're talking about adding and subtracting content.

 

[Dennis]

It's not purity so much as a connection to the real world adding to my appreciation of the photo.

I certainly see what you mean. I am also definitely no fan of heavily altered content.

But I guess I have a slightly looser tolerance of 'the connection to reality'.

Take that shot of McCurrys with the boys playing football. Does the version with the boy removed really have less of a connection with reality?

I would even go so far as to say that the version without the boy has a certain better connection with reality, as the boy somehow made the image and the situation more difficult to see. He obstructed the view, without adding anything.

It's funny - someone (another site) commented that the removal of the boy was a big deal from a photojournalism point of view. Given that I'm just looking at them to enjoy them, I'm not as bothered by that ... someone else posted a link to before & after pictures of the famous Kent State shot, showing a flag pole in the background that looks like it's coming out of the young woman's head. That doesn't bother me so much, either. The rickshaw shot bothers me more because the changes don't just tidy up the scene, they change my whole interpretation of what I'm looking at.

Had McCurry on the other hand added/removed a soldier/police officer/guarddog to/from the picture, then he would have created a radically different impression of reality.

Agreed. And I'm not entirely sure why I'm ok with photographers creating their impressions by choosing their point of view and crop ... I guess I just consider that part of the power and challenge of photography, where doing the same through compositing is a different art form. How you see the world or can see the world via selectivity versus a made up view of the world via adding or removing from what was there.

• Dennis
  --
  Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

 

[tko]

Had McCurry on the other hand added/removed a soldier/police officer/guarddog to/from the picture, then he would have created a radically different impression of reality.

Suppose photographer A crops out the officer after the photo is taken.

Photographer B zooms and find an angle that doesn't show the officer in the first place.

Is one less deceptive than the other?

 

[doady]

Found this 2015 interview of Steve McCurry where he's asked, "How do you feel about adjusting your pictures?" His response? "I believe that pictures should exactly reflect what you saw and experienced when you took the picture."

Yup!

Here's the video (this conversation from 7:00 - 7:32):

I agree with him. Photos should reflect exactly what we see. So:

- subject of the photo should be the same size in the photo as it is in real life

- no wide angle focal lengths (exaggerate distance compared to the human eye)

- no telephoto focal lengths (compress distance compared to the human eye)

- no black and white or sepia (unless photographer is colourblind)

- colourblind photographer can use black and white or sepia toning but they must refrain from using the channel mixer

- no macro (especially older people who cannot see clearly up close without glasses)

- fast shutter speeds only (no motion blur allowed, unless photographer has consumed a lot of alcohol)

- any hallucinations experienced by the photographer (e.g. due to drugs, insomnia, etc.) must be added into the photograph in post-processing

- no shallow depth of field

- no extremely large depth of field

- lenses with chromatic aberrations are not allowed

- photos must be taken with two different lenses/cameras unless photographer is blind in one eye or at least closes one eye while photographing

- no noise (no high ISOs allowed)

- HDR is mandatory

- no composite photos

- aspect ratio should be approximately 16:9

- no vertically-oriented photos

- no square photos

- no panoramas

- lots of vignetting and soft corners mandatory

- no flash

- no filters such as polarizers and IR filters

In other words, REAL photography only.

 

[Great Bustard]

Had McCurry on the other hand added/removed a soldier/police officer/guarddog to/from the picture, then he would have created a radically different impression of reality.

Suppose photographer A crops out the officer after the photo is taken.

Photographer B zooms and find an angle that doesn't show the officer in the first place.

Is one less deceptive than the other?

...depends on the intent. If the police officer were important to the message the photo was attempting to convey, then both would be deceptive. If the police officer were an unwanted distraction from what the photographer was trying to convey, then no foul in either.

For example, if a forensic photographer edited out a zit on a dead body, that would be a crime (or, at least, should be). If a model photographer edited out a zit on a model, it would be expected (and appreciated).

 

[Mike CH]

Had McCurry on the other hand added/removed a soldier/police officer/guarddog to/from the picture, then he would have created a radically different impression of reality.

Suppose photographer A crops out the officer after the photo is taken.

Photographer B zooms and find an angle that doesn't show the officer in the first place.

Is one less deceptive than the other?

Both have the potential to be equally deceptive.

If the officer is important to the situation, e.g. he is actually guarding a prison gang of boys instead of just passing by, then removing him is dexecutive.

On the other hand, leaving him in - when he is actually just passing by and watching some kids playing ball - is just as deceptive. Even more, perhaps.

For photojournalism, perhaps the best way is to leave it as it is - both pre- and post-shot. But that is difficult. Because never mind what he does, he is caught in the (wrong) expectation that images show something close to absolute reality.

Regards, Mike

 

[cookedraw]

Had McCurry on the other hand added/removed a soldier/police officer/guarddog to/from the picture, then he would have created a radically different impression of reality.

Suppose photographer A crops out the officer after the photo is taken.

Photographer B zooms and find an angle that doesn't show the officer in the first place.

Is one less deceptive than the other?

The problem here is that McCurry has become lazy and sloppy, maybe he is bored at work or something. He should take his time and find the scene, angle etc. and wait for the moment instead of taking snapshots and hire a team of image editors.

No doubt it is tempting to take shortcuts when expectations (and payments) are high but it is not impressive. He should retire to the academy if he is bored at work. It is not about being deceptive or not, it is about respect towards his own profession.

 

[Hen3ry]

Found this 2015 interview of Steve McCurry where he's asked, "How do you feel about adjusting your pictures?" His response? "I believe that pictures should exactly reflect what you saw and experienced when you took the picture."

Yup!

Here's the video (this conversation from 7:00 - 7:32):

…NOT what the camera recorded.

I keep things pretty straight for photojournalism, but feel free to have my wicked way with everything else.

 

[cookedraw]

Found this 2015 interview of Steve McCurry where he's asked, "How do you feel about adjusting your pictures?" His response? "I believe that pictures should exactly reflect what you saw and experienced when you took the picture."

Yup!

Here's the video (this conversation from 7:00 - 7:32):

…NOT what the camera recorded.

"I believe that the picture should reflect exactly what you saw and experienced when you took the picture. I don't think you should have any adjustments in terms of photoshop kind of garnish colors and I want to just capture life as it is, without really interfering and I want to reflect reality actually."









Lance Armstrong is one of my idols and I can respect a cheater. Good luck McCurry !

 

[Mike CH]

Had McCurry on the other hand added/removed a soldier/police officer/guarddog to/from the picture, then he would have created a radically different impression of reality.

Suppose photographer A crops out the officer after the photo is taken.

Photographer B zooms and find an angle that doesn't show the officer in the first place.

Is one less deceptive than the other?

The problem here is that McCurry has become lazy and sloppy, maybe he is bored at work or something. He should take his time and find the scene, angle etc. and wait for the moment instead of taking snapshots and hire a team of image editors.

No doubt it is tempting to take shortcuts when expectations (and payments) are high but it is not impressive. He should retire to the academy if he is bored at work. It is not about being deceptive or not, it is about respect towards his own profession.

Hold your horses, 'master photographer'!

The above is not an answer to the question, what is more deceptive?

And what exactly are your qualifications to judge McCurry's approach to and relationship with his profession?

Your foodies for which you need a very sharp lens, perhaps?

Hohum, you armchair quarterback, I mean armchair photographer...

Regards, Mike

 

[cookedraw]

Had McCurry on the other hand added/removed a soldier/police officer/guarddog to/from the picture, then he would have created a radically different impression of reality.

Suppose photographer A crops out the officer after the photo is taken.

Photographer B zooms and find an angle that doesn't show the officer in the first place.

Is one less deceptive than the other?

The problem here is that McCurry has become lazy and sloppy, maybe he is bored at work or something. He should take his time and find the scene, angle etc. and wait for the moment instead of taking snapshots and hire a team of image editors.

No doubt it is tempting to take shortcuts when expectations (and payments) are high but it is not impressive. He should retire to the academy if he is bored at work. It is not about being deceptive or not, it is about respect towards his own profession.

Hold your horses, 'master photographer'!

The above is not an answer to the question, what is more deceptive?

And what exactly are your qualifications to judge McCurry's approach to and relationship with his profession?

Your foodies for which you need a very sharp lens, perhaps?

Hohum, you armchair quarterback, I mean armchair photographer...

Regards, Mike

 

[tcg550]

Thanks for this timely addition to the current discussion about this guy and his recent fall from grace.

The interview portrays him as an honest person who has the proper respect for reality which we expect from a photojournalist.

For me, it provides the context for a full and satisfying disclosure of what went wrong. "If you're the person you appear to be, then how could this possibly happen?"

And if he is indeed the person he appears to be, he will give a complete account.

Kind of wish I heard of this photo god before. Still don't care about him or his pictures and I still have no idea why I should require some sort of complete account from him.

 

[tcg550]

Found this 2015 interview of Steve McCurry where he's asked, "How do you feel about adjusting your pictures?" His response? "I believe that pictures should exactly reflect what you saw and experienced when you took the picture."

Why follow HIS beliefs?

Do what YOU want...if you want a scene where there's Purple Rain Under a Blood Red Sky Under a Blanket of Blue snow, DO IT!

But that's not fair to the viewer who might believe there is purple rain, blood red skies and blue snow because most photo viewers believe everything they see in a photo is real.

Or at least it seems many DPR posters have never heard of manipulating photos to create a better image. You're just supposed to push the button and print the jpg.

 

[Mike CH]

I don't care if one is more deceptive than the other. Did McCurry do both or why is that question important ?

You are setting applying (EDIT: of course) the standard of photojournalism. Which sets the standard of 'no changes after the fact' to avoid deception and manipulation. I am pointing out that 'manipulation before the fact' can be just as deceptive. Even more so actually, as it gets in under the radar by not having been manipulated.

In other words, that the standard is not quite as useful as expected; potentially even hypocritical. And people who bring it up should perhaps reflect a bit more on why the standard is there, and less on judging how exactly it is adhered to.

The issue is that Steve McCurry is defining his work as to "capture life as is" and then he photo-chop crop the head, the arms and the legs of a woman leaving the torso on the bar disk in the name of "art" .

I wonder what you do to your photos

Very little, actually. But it seems that I have quite a bit better understanding of what that means.

since you feel the need to defend him with verbal attacks.

Ahem - who was the first with the verbal attack? Hmm?

I don't judge him but he is not honest when he talk about his profession.

You don't judge him? What on Earth were doing but judging him? Let me give a couple of choice quotes:

• "McCurry has become lazy and sloppy" - clearly a judgement, you are judging him to have become lazy
• "No doubt it is tempting to take shortcuts when expectations (and payments) are high" - again clearly judging him, you are claiming he is tempted by mammon
• "it is about respect towards his own profession" - and again, you are claiming he has no respect towards his profession

Do you actually notice what you write? Or does it just spew out of you in in your righteous indignation?

A donkey understand that.

So you claim to understand less than a donkey?

Well, well, well...

Regards, Mike

--
Wait and see...
I hardly ever speak for anybody but myself. In the cases where I do mean to speak generally the statements are likely to be marked as such.

 

[Mike CH]

Found this 2015 interview of Steve McCurry where he's asked, "How do you feel about adjusting your pictures?" His response? "I believe that pictures should exactly reflect what you saw and experienced when you took the picture."

Yup!

Here's the video (this conversation from 7:00 - 7:32):

No problem editing your photos to reflect the subjective reality that prompted you to take the photo in the first place. The problem I have with it all is that if other people are editing the photos, then they should also be given credit for the photo. In other words, if the final photo was a team effort, the team should be given credit.

Now, some might take this to an extreme, saying something like, "If an aide carried your equipment which you might not have carried if you had to carry everything by yourself, should not your 'photo caddy' also be given credit?" I would argue, no, that is not necessary.

The list of people involved in the latest Star Wars offering was 10 minutes long. That's definitely taking it to far. I have absolutely no interest in knowing who was the secondary grips right hand cupholder. I don't even care about who the grip was.

But I would argue that the people editing your photo should be given credit if the editing is creative in nature and not merely global "developing".

Just my opinion, of course, keeping in mind that you get what you pay for, and sometimes, not even that. ;-)

There is a long, long tradition in the arts for famous artists to have had assistants that actually did quite a lot of the work.

The difference lies, I think, in the freedom the assistants have. Are they working under the direction of the artist, and only under his direction, then I am not quite sure how much credit they should be given.

On the other hand, if they have freedom to follow their own artistic vision and goals (like the one with the chopped off leg and traffic sign ), then they probably should be given credit for a collaborative work.

Regards, Mike

 

[Mike CH]

...is reframing to create a certain impression really that different from removing something after the fact?

It wasn't PP removal, but significant alteration/enhancement/editing all the same, just a different time in the overall scheme.

All true and well, but the photojournalism bottom line remains "This is what was in the shot when I took it."

Then a random person who walks in and out of frame in a long exposure is destroying the essence of photojournalism, by not being visible at the point where the shutter was open. Fine by me.

If Steve McCurry claimed to be nothing other than an artist, no one would expect him to be a reporter. But he claims to be a reporter and that creates expectations, which he is obligated to honor.

This would of course imply that a journalist should never be allowed to write a book of fiction. Talk about 'Berufsverbot'

Regards, Mike

 

[Mike CH]

Found this 2015 interview of Steve McCurry where he's asked, "How do you feel about adjusting your pictures?" His response? "I believe that pictures should exactly reflect what you saw and experienced when you took the picture."

Yup!

Here's the video (this conversation from 7:00 - 7:32):

…NOT what the camera recorded.

Isn't it amazing how people keep not noticing that little, but very important, part of the quote?

Regards, Mike

 

[cookedraw]

Found this 2015 interview of Steve McCurry where he's asked, "How do you feel about adjusting your pictures?" His response? "I believe that pictures should exactly reflect what you saw and experienced when you took the picture."

Yup!

Here's the video (this conversation from 7:00 - 7:32):

…NOT what the camera recorded.

Isn't it amazing how people keep not noticing that little, but very important, part of the quote?

Can you please specify the part you are talking about ?

"I believe that the picture should reflect exactly what you saw and experienced when you took the picture. I don't think you should have any adjustments in terms of photoshop kind of garnish colors and I want to just capture life as it is, without really interfering and I want to reflect reality actually."

 

[Mike CH]

Found this 2015 interview of Steve McCurry where he's asked, "How do you feel about adjusting your pictures?" His response? "I believe that pictures should exactly reflect what you saw and experienced when you took the picture."

Yup!

Here's the video (this conversation from 7:00 - 7:32):

…NOT what the camera recorded.

Isn't it amazing how people keep not noticing that little, but very important, part of the quote?

Can you please specify the part you are talking about ?

Most certainly. See bold part.

"I believe that the picture should reflect exactly what you saw and experienced when you took the picture. I don't think you should have any adjustments in terms of photoshop kind of garnish colors and I want to just capture life as it is, without really interfering and I want to reflect reality actually."

He talks about what you, in other words the photographer, saw and experienced. Not what the camera recorded. And there is a heck of a difference, as human beings are notoriously bad witnesses of reality.

Does that help?

I read that quote as saying that he wants to faithfully reproduce what he saw and, notably, experienced. Life as it was, when he experienced it.

Regards, Mike