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

Actually, both are lying by omission. The only difference is the point in time where they omit something.
I disagree. Failure to show everything isn't lying by omission, because it's never expected,
And here I heavily disagree. Failure, conscious failure, to tell everything known is pretty much the definition of lying by omission. And reframing to exclude something is
  1. a conscious decision
  2. to omit something that was known at the time the shot was taken.
Why should a different standard be applied to photography than to speech? Can you argue why, because I certainly don't see it?

Regards, Mike
 
g.

Who says you have to do this (and don't say Steve McCurry)? I understand if you're in journalism and HAVE to report what was shown, but I don't do that...for my PERSONAL photographs I CAN DO WHAT I WANT! I can create what MY artistic vision wants!
yes you can do what you want and there is no need to shout .

but equally I can reject your work along with the rest of the public who deem it not to be a photograph but graphic art
Anyway, it's not like photo manipulation is a new thing, it's been done since the dawn of photography. For instance the first HDR was done in the 1850's.
a technique to breach limitations of the camera for a truer representation of the scene
Go to the following link and see some famous prints that were manipulated, including Abraham Lincoln from 1860, General Ulysses S. Grant from 1864, and other famous examples:

http://twistedsifter.com/2012/02/famously-doctored-photographs/
please enlighten us to when fake photography become honest . ?
 
Last edited:
By looking at this image of sharbat gula, can you tell what is missing and why this image by itself is crossing the borders of photojournalism and political propaganda ?

Do you know how why this image is not a good reflection of reality and why it should be complemented by text to be good photojournalism ?

29c28178-ccdd-452c-88ee-222992b4a86c.jpg


--

" Use the shutter button on the headset cord " - Leonardo Da Vinci
 
Last edited:
By looking at this image of sharbat gula, can you tell what is missing and why this image by itself is crossing the borders of photojournalism and political propaganda ?

Do you know how why this image is not a good reflection of reality and why it should be complemented by text to be good photojournalism ?
I suggest that you do that.

As I simply don't know what you are getting at?!?

Regards, Mike
 
...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.
I'm still waiting for someone to prove that McCurry writes fiction.
 
...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.
I'm still waiting for someone to prove that McCurry writes fiction.
Huh? There seems to be about two trillion people in this thread alone claiming that what he does is fiction? And severely ragging him for it.

Unless of course your point of contention is 'write' instead of 'take picture' - in which case I should like to point out that you apparently missed the analogy between write/journalist and take pictures/photojournalist...

Regards, Mike
 
And - drum roll - we are baaaack to the strict interpretation of the commandment, including the necessary witch hunts, as given by the guardian of the holy grail of the real (TM) photograph.

But we have been there before, haven't we? :-)
and a fanfare for those that are so skilled at cheating an deceiving that they have even convinced themselves
 
Last edited:
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.
I'm still waiting for someone to prove that McCurry writes fiction.
Huh?
Show us where he says he believes in adding or subtracting content in any of his photography.
 
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.
I'm still waiting for someone to prove that McCurry writes fiction.
Huh?
Show us where he says he believes in adding or subtracting content in any of his photography.
He says that he believes in showing us what he saw and experienced. The last part, that one about experienced, leaves quite a bit of wiggle-room for some changes. Not all kind of changes, but some.

I have absolutely no idea idea if it was intended to interpreted in that way. But then, neither has you.

And I would still like to know about the journalist that also write fiction - is he, or is he not, allowed to do that according to your standards?

Regards, Mike
 
And - drum roll - we are baaaack to the strict interpretation of the commandment, including the necessary witch hunts, as given by the guardian of the holy grail of the real (TM) photograph.

But we have been there before, haven't we? :-)
and a fanfare for those that are so skilled at cheating an deceiving that they have even convinced themselves
Another sermon from the pulpit by the true and only defender of The Real Photograph (TM).

Preach it, brother, preach it.

Oh, and should you wonder - you are getting this kind of response because you are obviously not willing to debate.

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.
 
Last edited:
By looking at this image of sharbat gula, can you tell what is missing and why this image by itself is crossing the borders of photojournalism and political propaganda ?

Do you know how why this image is not a good reflection of reality and why it should be complemented by text to be good photojournalism ?
I suggest that you do that.

As I simply don't know what you are getting at?!?
AfghanGirl-Found.jpg


US support of the taliban jihadists in afghanistan, her wasted life is a direct result of Carter & Nixons foreign politics, and that is probably true for her children and grand children too.

The context of the image is that she now lives under strict religious laws. She is a house and sex slave and was forced to "marry" a man soon after McCurry photographed her the first time.

I don't know how McCurry managed to photograph her without the burqa but a good guess is that he bribed her husband.

"

"At the age of 13, Yusufzai, the journalist, explained, she would have gone into purdah, the secluded existence followed by many Islamic women once they reach puberty.

“Women vanish from the public eye,” he said. In the street she wears a plum-colored burka, which walls her off from the world and from the eyes of any man other than her husband. “It is a beautiful thing to wear, not a curse,” she says.

Faced by questions, she retreats into the black shawl wrapped around her face, as if by doing so she might will herself to evaporate. The eyes flash anger. It is not her custom to subject herself to the questions of strangers.

Had she ever felt safe?

”No. But life under the Taliban was better. At least there was peace and order.”

Had she ever seen the photograph of herself as a girl?

“No.”

She can write her name, but cannot read. She harbors the hope of education for her children. “I want my daughters to have skills,” she said. “I wanted to finish school but could not. I was sorry when I had to leave.”

Education, it is said, is the light in the eye. There is no such light for her. It is possibly too late for her 13-year-old daughter as well, Sharbat Gula said. The two younger daughters still have a chance.

The reunion between the woman with green eyes and the photographer was quiet. On the subject of married women, cultural tradition is strict. She must not look—and certainly must not smile—at a man who is not her husband. She did not smile at McCurry. Her expression, he said, was flat. She cannot understand how her picture has touched so many. She does not know the power of those eyes.

Such knife-thin odds. That she would be alive. That she could be found. That she could endure such loss. Surely, in the face of such bitterness the spirit could atrophy. How, she was asked, had she survived?

The answer came wrapped in unshakable certitude.

“It was,” said Sharbat Gula, “the will of God.”

"

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2002/04/afghan-girl/index-text
 
Last edited:
The photo that omits by perspective simply says nothing about what's outside the frame, while the photo that omits by manipulation is explicitly lying about what's in the frame.
That's why the universal photojournalism standard prohibits adding/subtracting content, and I'm not aware of McCurry having departed from that standard in any area of his photography.
 
He says that he believes in showing us what he saw and experienced.

I have absolutely no idea idea if it was intended to interpreted in that way. But then, neither do you.
If he believes it's OK to add/subtract content, he would say so. I'm not aware of his having said so.
And I would still like to know about the journalist that also write fiction - is he, or is he not, allowed to do that according to your standards?
Journalists certainly can and do write fiction, but they don't call it journalism.

The one standard which the photojournalism profession is very strict about is adding/subtracting content, and McCurry has not said anything I'm aware of which is inconsistent with that standard.

The question here is whether he has violated his own principles.
 
Last edited:
By looking at this image of sharbat gula, can you tell what is missing and why this image by itself is crossing the borders of photojournalism and political propaganda ?

Do you know how why this image is not a good reflection of reality and why it should be complemented by text to be good photojournalism ?
I suggest that you do that.

As I simply don't know what you are getting at?!?
US support of the taliban jihadists in afghanistan, her wasted life is a direct result of Carter & Nixons foreign politics, and that is probably true for her children and grand children too.

The context of the image is that she now lives under strict religious laws. She is a house and sex slave and was forced to "marry" a man soon after McCurry photographed her the first time.

I don't know how McCurry managed to photograph her without the burka but a good guess is that he bribed her husband.

[rest elided]
OK, now I see what you are getting at.

But nothing of that, nothing at all, is present in the snap of her. Unless you have an extremely vivid imagination - and then it's not present in the snap, now is it? Or if you have read the text before and it is now indelibly associated with the image. I had only seen the snap before, and not the text.

The political propaganda (if any - I won't touch that subject as I asked for politics to be kept out of the thread :-) ) is in the text. Which could be taken as apropos of my question about whether the writing journalist is allowed to write fiction, when the photojournalist cannot be tolerated to show any thing but the unadulterated 'truth'.

Regards, Mike
 
He says that he believes in showing us what he saw and experienced.

I have absolutely no idea idea if it was intended to interpreted in that way. But then, neither do you.
If he believes it's OK to add/subtract content, he would say so. I'm not aware of his having said so.
And I would still like to know about the journalist that also write fiction - is he, or is he not, allowed to do that according to your standards?
Journalists certainly can and do write fiction, but they don't call it journalism.

The one standard which the photojournalism profession is very strict about is adding/subtracting content, and McCurry has not said anything I'm aware of which is inconsistent with that standard.

The question here is whether he has violated his own principles.
The question here could very easily also be whether he is being taken to task for something which he considered outside of photojournalism.

Regards, Mike
 
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.
When journalists lie, it affects all of us. Other than that, no reason to be concerned.
 
The question here is whether he has violated his own principles.
The question here could very easily also be whether he is being taken to task for something which he considered outside of photojournalism.
If he has abandoned the photojournalism standard in his personal photography, then that would be his business, not ours. But I'm not aware of his having done that.

What I want to see is a quote from McCurry that he has looser standards in his personal life than he has in his professional life. Then this will all go away.
 
If he has abandoned the photojournalism standard in his personal photography, then that would be his business, not ours. But I'm not aware of his having done that.
Neither am I.
What I want to see is a quote from McCurry that he has looser standards in his personal life than he has in his professional life. Then this will all go away.
Does he have a fair chance to that, now? I doubt it. The hounds have smelled blood and will not cease before the prey is brought to heel.

Oh, and it is not personal and professional life. It's two different sides of a professional life.

Regards, Mike
 
And - drum roll - we are baaaack to the strict interpretation of the commandment, including the necessary witch hunts, as given by the guardian of the holy grail of the real (TM) photograph.

But we have been there before, haven't we? :-)
and a fanfare for those that are so skilled at cheating an deceiving that they have even convinced themselves
Another sermon from the pulpit by the true and only defender of The Real Photograph (TM).

Preach it, brother, preach it.

Oh, and should you wonder - you are getting this kind of response because you are obviously not willing to debate.
because there is no debate . either you create fake photographs and pass them off as photographs or you use photography as a medium to create graphic art.

obviously you produce the former hence the attitude.
 
Last edited:

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top