 |
| Fishing, Poquoson, Virginia (click to enlarge) Olympus E-M1, Olympus 50-200mm f/3.5 lens @ 200mm; 1/2500th sec. @ f/5.6; ISO 200 |
For years, I've been an admirer of his and have followed his work throughout his career in National Geographic Magazine, other publications as well as him being a member of Magnum. Let me say at the outset, in my opinion, his is one of the very best.
If you are not familiar with the current controversy, all you have to do is search the internet (as of this week, internet is no longer considered a proper noun and doesn't have to capitalized) with terms such as "Steve McCurry Photoshopped Images." That should bring up many, many sites.
The essence of the controversy is that Mr. McCurry has posted images on his website, also picked up by many other sites due to his reputation and excellence as a leading photographer, as well as having gallery exhibits and prints for sale of his excellent work. Many of these images, it turns out, have been heavily Photoshopped. This fact was accidentally discovered by an Italian photographer and made public. The controversy arises in the fact that no one knew some of his images have been Photoshopped and McCurry's reputation is one of a photojournalist and documentary photographer of the highest order.
When asked, at first he was silent. His responses now have been very limited. One comment in May at an art show in Canada was that the Photoshopped images are his personal work and not photojournalism or documentary in nature. Fair enough. Personal work can be altered as much as the photographer wants. But nobody knew that. He complicates the issue by saying (and I'll give you the essence of one of his statements as I don't have the direct quote) that Photoshop is only for adjusting color balance, contrast, saturation, luminance, etc. and not for adding and removing things. But that is what has happened with many of his iconic images. There were many major changes to his images including items that have been removed, such as people, items added such as an arm on a child and things changed such as buildings made to stand upright, colors changed, etc. Not insignificant minor changes. Furthermore, and sadly in my oponion, initially he blamed a lab technician who made these alterations without permission. However, could you imagine a lab technician altering images from one of the world's most famous photographers without permission or specific direction? I can't. In any case, the photographer is ultimately responsible for his work.
I've been following him for almost his entire career and when seeing the images that have been Photoshopped, my assumption is that these images are either part of his overall body of work or a part of his photojournalistic endeavors. There is no way to distinguish as the the subject matter, nature and character of the images are exactly as the same as those he made for Nat Geo and other publications. There is no way to tell the difference unless he tells us.
Petapixel has examples of the original plus altered images that you can view here. There are many, many other examples you can easily find on the Internet as well. Again, Google finds the images and displays them upon searching.
I still like McCurry and admire his work. I Photoshop my images but I've never portrayed myself as a documentarian, photojournalist or anything similar. I have always portrayed my images as my art and I visualize, either before or at the time I press the shutter, how I want the final image to appear. If that requires some Photoshopping, I don't hesitate. Again, my work is not documentary nor journalistic. There should never be any confusion about my work. If someone asks me if I have altered an image by taking out a piece of trash, a pole, an extraneous person or such, I'll readily admit it as I had visualized that change or alteration at the time of exposure. Art is art, journalism is journalism.
Lately, Mr. McCurry has been calling himself a "visual storyteller." That is okay but he needs to make the distinction as to which of his images are photojournalism, documentary, art or visual storytelling in some way, shape or form before putting them out to the public for consumption. The sad part of all of this is now his entire body of work has come under suspicion and, personally, I don't believe that is called for. I have not seen any indication that his Nat Geo or other work has ever been altered. But...
This controversy is not too different than those by famous actors, business people, politicians who are photographed using certain products, eating at restaurants or driving a particular make of car. If the image is commercial in nature, in other words, if the person is being compensated or rewarded in some way for doing one of those activities, there should be a clear disclaimer that the individual is being paid, in some manner, for eating, being seen or using a particular product. Otherwise, we in the general public, may assume that the individual is doing these activities because they prefer them. Not many famous people do anything without being paid any more. Buyer beware!
I'll repeat here that I buy all my own equipment and all of my opinions are my own. I'm not beholding to anyone for anything. No advertising, no discounts, no free stuff, nothing. I present my images as they are—my art. Nothing more, nothing less.
It is important how you portray yourself, your art, your body of work and be clear as to the parameters you use to create the final product. You have to find someway to let people know the nature of your art and allow them to distinguish between various intents with what you create. Otherwise, your motives and reputation may come into question as well. Once it does, as we all know even if false, the doubt remains with the public.
Thanks for looking. Enjoy!
Dennis A. Mook
All content on this blog is © 2013-2016 Dennis A. Mook. All Rights Reserved. Feel free to point to this blog from your website with full attribution. Permission may be granted for commercial use. Please contact Mr. Mook to discuss permission to reproduce the blog posts and/or images.
Dennis,
ReplyDeleteThanks for this article. Personally, I find all images tell a partial story, edited by the photographer. A famous Vietnam era image comes to mind of a general and vietcong about to be executed. It one of the striking images that evoked the emotional (and physical) pain of the war. Only recently did the photographer come out with the whole story... the vietcong was guilty of many horrific deaths, and had been captured engaged in yet another massacre. My sense is that the Vietcong had historically been portrayed as the victim. Turns out, he was the victimizer. Images are like that...even photojournalistic images only tell part of the story.
If that is true, I have to wonder about two ideas. First, is the image less or more "truthful" as a result of the post processing. Is it an intentional deception, mis-representing "reality" in an effort to defraud the viewer? Second, is the image any less powerful, does it evoke any less emotion, as a result of the post-processing technique? or is it that the average viewer of the image actually does not care about the accuracy and power of the image, and the merits of Mr. McCurry's work rests solely on the gap between what the viewer expected of Mr. McCurry's post processing, and the actual post processing that occurred?
I for one, was awestruck with the image of the Afghan Girl. It is awesome. Period. Mr. McCurry's art and the emotion it evokes is real. Does the girl exist? yes, Does she have those intense green eyes? Yes. Is my emotion and wonder when I see the image real? Yes.
So I am left trying to understand if the extent of the post-processing is really so severe that it warrants all the controversy. Mountains and molehills come to mind.
Rudiger, thank you for your comment. I, too, vividly remember the Vietnam era image of which you speak. If my memory serves correctly, the image was made at the exact moment the general fired his revolver into the Viet Cong's head. It is one of those I will not forget. I was in high school and college during America's involvement in Vietnam and, as you know, that time of a budding man's life is the time many lasting values and impressions are set.
DeleteCould you imagine if Sharbat Gula's (the Afghan girl) eyes were photoshopped and not that intense green that made that photo? The photo would have been significantly less expressive and would not have achieved its international fame. In its case, that image was documentary in nature and must be accurate to reality.
Do what you want to your images, just be sure viewers understand under which context they are made and portrayed, is my thought on all this.
We make the mistake to think photography represents reality, we want to believe that.
ReplyDeleteIf we satisfy ourselves with the idea that a 2 dimensional, frozen in time moment, cropped vision of an event/place is depiction of reality, sooner or later we probably will find disappointment.
If we accept that photography is an interpretation at best and deceit at worse in showing us a snipped of reality than we are closer to its concept.
Anything else is make-believe, including the emotion that we create around a poignant image.
Well said, mr Mook! A lot of folks nowadays in the internet love to point fingers, without even thinking or knowing details about what it is they are pointing at!
ReplyDeletePhotojournalism is one thing.
Personal art is a completely different animal.
We should never forget that.
And in a (small) way, neither should the likes of S. McCurry and so many others.
How to enforce that is the crux of the problem.