Brad Bohland
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 5,810
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 2,566
There are plenty of people willing to cut him slack if he gives them half a chance.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Steve McCurry: "How do you feel about adjusting your pictures?"
- Thread starter Tribhuz
- Start date
cookedraw
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,629
- Reaction score
- 645
At first McCurry was not allowed to visit her, but he had a woman in the team that could.
Then suddenly they managed to make her "unveil" and I am not talking about playboy magazine..
It is a sick culture and without the text that very important detail is omitted, and the viewer don't see the "reality as is" but a flattering portrait of slavery.
It is deep political propaganda without the context provided in the text.
The use of jihadists as soldiers in a proxy war against russia was used by Hitler and he was not the first. When Germany lost the WW2 , US continued the business. Politics got everything to do with it as this foreign policy proved to be devastating. Worst thing is that this was well expected as europe has a well documented history of islamic slavery enforced by the Ottoman empire and can be traced back well beyond WW1.
In the context of history, this little detail is very important and I personally think McCurry should have used this image only :
Such a coincidence that McCurry witnessed the 9/11 some years later. That is a story yet to be "unveiled" within the context of US foreign politics.
--
" Use the shutter button on the headset cord " - Leonardo Da Vinci
Then suddenly they managed to make her "unveil" and I am not talking about playboy magazine..
It is a sick culture and without the text that very important detail is omitted, and the viewer don't see the "reality as is" but a flattering portrait of slavery.
It is deep political propaganda without the context provided in the text.
The use of jihadists as soldiers in a proxy war against russia was used by Hitler and he was not the first. When Germany lost the WW2 , US continued the business. Politics got everything to do with it as this foreign policy proved to be devastating. Worst thing is that this was well expected as europe has a well documented history of islamic slavery enforced by the Ottoman empire and can be traced back well beyond WW1.
In the context of history, this little detail is very important and I personally think McCurry should have used this image only :
Such a coincidence that McCurry witnessed the 9/11 some years later. That is a story yet to be "unveiled" within the context of US foreign politics.
--
" Use the shutter button on the headset cord " - Leonardo Da Vinci
Last edited:
AmbleYonder
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,680
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 1,341
actually i see him now as a production rather than an individual photographer . not really his own work if he farms it out for others to finish.
rather like those understudies who did all the work and the artist just signs his name on the finished product .
Brad Bohland
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 5,810
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 2,566
This is an excellent opportunity for a famous professional photographer to weigh in on a topic of great interest to many photographers.
When does lying by omission matter ? In legal cases ? News ? I'd agree that, ethically and maybe legally, they're the same thing. But I'm not talking about ethics or legality - I'm talking about photographs that I view for pleasure. I'm happy to be fooled by my own preconceptions and by the cleverness of the photographer. I don't want to be fooled by an outright lie.
I don't believe there's any "should" at play. I'm just not interested in photography that involves outright lies. Lying by omission is only an issue when there's some consequence to the deception. Some legal or ethical issue. I'm talking about a more general case - what I like to look at (and show) in photographs. And there, perspective, field of view, timing are all tools used by the photographer to show what he or she wants. Photoshop is, too. But to me, there's a difference between a selective view of the real world and a fabrication based on the real world. (As I've pointed out in previous posts ... you don't have to show me the slum surrounding the quaint portion of the city street ... I appreciate that the quaint portion of the city street exists, whether or not I wrongly make assumptions about what else is there. But I don't want to go on thinking this quaint city street exists when it doesn't, outside the imagination of the photographer).
- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
Mike CH
Veteran Member
Mike CH
Veteran Member
Yeah, yeah - the RamblingWonder displays it's usual whatever.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.Another sermon from the pulpit by the true and only defender of The Real Photograph (TM).and a fanfare for those that are so skilled at cheating an deceiving that they have even convinced themselvesAnd - 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?
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.
obviously you produce the former hence the attitude.
Regards, Mike
Brad Bohland
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 5,810
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 2,566
There are a surprising number of people on this thread who seem to belong to the Anything Goes school of photo journalism.
Mike CH
Veteran Member
Which I guess supports my concept of framing to exclude being equally as deceptive as later removal/addition of material?
But apart from that - please, please keep the politics over in the cesspit otherwise known as the Off Topic forum.
Regards, Mike
Mike CH
Veteran Member
That's funny. I see mostly two groups, the baying hounds, and those that say Anything Goes outside photo journalism?
Regards, Mike
Mike CH
Veteran Member
Ah - there is the catch. I am mostly talking about the ethical and philosophical side. And there lying by omission absolutely matters.
And you are more talking about the aesthetic and appreciation side.
No wonder we seem to be talking past each other
Regards, Mike
edispics
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 4,087
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 3,273
Let's take a simple example. We have a protest, lots of those these days. 5,432 people are in the street holding signs, chanting slogans, obeying organizers and public security. In front you have one person, in your face with a cop. Immediately you have 19 photographers encircling the two and taking photos of the protester, photos of the cop, photos of the two. Hoping for action, for a grimace, for extreme expressions. What appears all on the web sites and papers? Not a single photo of the 5,432 peaceful protester but endless shots of the one protester and the one cop. Accurate reflection of the event? Not all the photoshoping in the world could do as much to completely alter viewers' perceptions of this event as the exclusion of all other photos with emphasis on the money shot, the confrontation, the display of raw emotion.
We have seen this kind of editorial on-the-fly decision making by photographers and their editors for decades.
So tell me, which is more deceptive?
AmbleYonder
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,680
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 1,341
name calling how imaginative all you got when dont have a leg to stand on isn't it .Yeah, yeah - the RamblingWonder displays it's usual whatever.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.Another sermon from the pulpit by the true and only defender of The Real Photograph (TM).and a fanfare for those that are so skilled at cheating an deceiving that they have even convinced themselvesAnd - 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?
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.
obviously you produce the former hence the attitude.
Mike CH
Veteran Member
I am only following your lead, you know? It's just that subtlety is wasted on you.
Regards, Mike
AmbleYonder
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,680
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 1,341
no idea as i pay very little attention to photographs in mainstream news . i just read the articles and take a large dose of salt to accompany it .
i prefer news channels such as "live-leak" raw and uncensored .
Last edited:
AmbleYonder
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,680
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 1,341
I hope your just as subtle when cloning in a pointy horn on that horse because you thought a unicorn would be more interesting .
Dan Hudson
Senior Member
Just incase that someone or everyone will leave this thread with a guilty conscience, feeling that photography is a lie, I submit this...If you present a documentary image that has been manipulated in such a way as to fool someone into taking a contrary action or to actually believe you have presented reality, then I would say it is a lie. Often your purpose is the culprit. If your purpose is to present an image of beauty or interest, then in my book, anything goes.
Don't feel guilty if your purpose in post processing is not to "mislead" the viewer into taking some sort of action he would not ordinarily take. Let's don't squelch creativity in this genre over whether it presents reality or not. Even a documentary may need some post processing to enhance the viewing experience, just be careful to not be misleading.
As a Christian I have to consider honesty in documentaries, but in my artwork...the sky is the limit, so to speak. I want to hear my viewers say, WOW, I sure do like the way Dan takes photos. That reminds me of a much greater issue of hearing Jesus say, "well done my good and faithful servant" on judgment day. I want to hear both replies, one about my art and the other of eternal importance, but much more rather hear, the eternal one.
Peace to all participating in this controversy.....Dan
--
Christian Amateur Photographer
Choose life's involvements carefully with an eye toward eternity.
Don't feel guilty if your purpose in post processing is not to "mislead" the viewer into taking some sort of action he would not ordinarily take. Let's don't squelch creativity in this genre over whether it presents reality or not. Even a documentary may need some post processing to enhance the viewing experience, just be careful to not be misleading.
As a Christian I have to consider honesty in documentaries, but in my artwork...the sky is the limit, so to speak. I want to hear my viewers say, WOW, I sure do like the way Dan takes photos. That reminds me of a much greater issue of hearing Jesus say, "well done my good and faithful servant" on judgment day. I want to hear both replies, one about my art and the other of eternal importance, but much more rather hear, the eternal one.
Peace to all participating in this controversy.....Dan
--
Christian Amateur Photographer
Choose life's involvements carefully with an eye toward eternity.
Last edited:
Makes sense !And you are more talking about the aesthetic and appreciation side.
No wonder we seem to be talking past each other
So I think lying by omission depends on intent ... and you'd have to know whether the photographer intended to mislead. Same as with writing, I guess; you'd need to know if an omission was intentional. And then the severity depends on the importance of what was omitted (I looked up a def'm of lying by omission after reading your post).
I've had a number of photos published in our local paper - photos of school events, mostly. I compose shots to come up with an aesthetically pleasing image, framing/zooming to include some group and exclude others. The exclusion is intentional, but strictly for aesthetic purposes. I don't think anyone is fooled into thinking that there aren't other kids present in the band, or the play, or that the band is playing without a conductor, just because I don't include everyone. On the other hand, I don't think it would be okay to show a photo from a point of view that included the conductor, but in which the conductor was removed in post, even if that, too, was done for aesthetic purposes. It gets pretty gray pretty quickly ... what if a microphone stand was partly blocking someone ? It seems pretty harmless to remove that. Is it one step too far ? That Kent State shot comes to mind, with the flag pole that was removed. I was a little surprised to learn about that. I'm not overly bothered by it because it doesn't change the context or my reaction (except that I'm not thinking - wow, too bad that flag pole is there).
But anyway, my commentary on McCurry has been about my (changed) appreciation for his picutres, strictly as a viewer of them in an "artistic" setting (like a book or gallery), not as a viewer in a photojournalistic setting.
- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
cookedraw
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,629
- Reaction score
- 645
Yes you are right. McCurry used framing as war propaganda by omitting images of females older than Sharbat Gula and the removal of the 30 year old Sharbat Gulas burqa was very deceptive.
I did not bring politics into the thread. McCurry and National Geographic did.
Here is the original article that made McCurry famous with the image of the "afghan girl".
Loading…
ngm.nationalgeographic.com
Sharbat Gula 12 year old
It is very supportive of the US backed slave traders and the journalist Debra Denker paints a romantic image of "freedom fighters" defending themself against a soviet invasion that is a false description of the soviet intervention in afghanistan.
As far as I see, the whole image of the "afghan girl" is war propaganda. I doubt McCurry did not notice that all females older than the "afghan girl" was covered by a burqa and enslaved by the " freedom fighters ". Here National Geographic journalist Debra Denker describes the training of US backed child soldiers , combined with the image of Sharbat Gula 12 years old, less than a year before she was forced to wear a burqa and "married".
"
MOST OF THE TRAINEES in this camp are little more than boys. Enthusiastically they run through the dusty obstacle course, climb swinging ladders, rappel down cliffs, scale sheer walls, and run through fire, their plastic shoes falling off as they leap. They are laughing, enjoying this game, but in a moment of quiet they gather round to talk and become serious, speaking of families left behind in Afghanistan and of their commitment to the jihad.
On another occasion, I visit this rugged spot with Ishaq Gailani. At 32, this charismatic young leader is revered by his followers as much for his reputation for honesty and bravery in battle as for his membership in a family of hereditary religious leaders.
Ishaq Gailani has spent much time at many fronts and tells me he hopes to go back again soon. As we watch the men receiving instruction on captured Soviet weapons, I ask him the meaning of the black flag that flies over the camp.
“When the Prophet and his companions used to go to jihad, they carried black flags, because war is not a good thing,” he explains. “When we go to jihad today, it’s not because we want to fight, but because we are compelled to fight for the sake of Islam, and for the freedom of Afghanistan.”
As a heavy dusk deepens over the craggy hills, a muezzin’s voice calls the men to prayer, and once again the mujahidin put aside their study of war. The holy warriors, Ishaq among them, spread their pattu on the ground, their weapons before them, and stand and bow and stand again. In the silence I feel their strong and quiet faith, and wish only for a swift and happy end to the struggle forced upon them.
"
Sharbat Gula 30 year old
Mike CH
Veteran Member
As neither McCurry nor National Geographic have posted in this thread, you were decidedly the one to bring politics into the thread. Not necessarily into the topic, but decidedly into the thread.
And I get the nagging impression that your real beef with McCurry is a political one...
I think it's good that this thread is almost over. It was dirty enough without the political aspect being brought in.
Regards, Mike
Similar threads
- Question
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum