Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6   Go Down

Author Topic: McCurry Scandal?  (Read 17071 times)

MattBurt

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1186
  • Looking for that other shot
    • Matt Burt Photography
Re: McCurry Scandal?
« Reply #40 on: May 13, 2016, 03:39:36 PM »

Have you worked for a concerned citizens' magazine, or the Green Peace, or a non-profit, with the task to document the pitiful state of public gardens (hypothetically speaking), then of course your journalistic/documentary duty would be NOT to tidy the place.

In that case maybe bring a few items in case someone else had cleaned it up before you!
Logged
-MattB

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1525
    • Pieter Kers
Re: McCurry Scandal?
« Reply #41 on: May 13, 2016, 05:30:22 PM »

In photojournalism the editor decides. Now I wonder about the stuff Steve had in National Geographic. Considering the magazine's editorial stance I wonder even more.

Was it not  National Geographic  that moved ( or erased ) pyramids in the past to make the photo more balanced...?
Logged
Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu

luxborealis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2298
    • luxBorealis.com - photography by Terry McDonald
Re: McCurry Scandal?
« Reply #42 on: May 14, 2016, 09:28:33 AM »

The problem is "us". When we see a photograph, we want to believe it is "real". We assume it is real because it looks real. In many ways, photographs are optical illusions in time and space - they just look real and we accept the content as being real.

One doesn't need Photoshop to deceive; simply photograph someone in the wrong place at the wrong time and what might be quite innocent can appear quite incriminating.

So p, is what McCurry does deceptive? Deception has a negative connotation. While McCurry could use his Photoshop skills to be specifically deceptive, it doesn't appear that way. His removals or edits really don't change the nature of the image.
Logged
Terry McDonald - luxBorealis.com.
Flickr Account;
PhotoBlog – Read and subscribe!

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10428
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: McCurry Scandal?
« Reply #43 on: May 14, 2016, 03:16:58 PM »

... One doesn't need Photoshop to deceive; simply photograph...

Photographs do not deceive, they are always and absolutely 100% factual and true. It is our interpretation that might deceive. And for that we do not even need a photograph, let alone Photoshop. Just check the movie Rashomon and the science and psychology behind eye witness (un)reliability.

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9131
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: McCurry Scandal?
« Reply #44 on: May 14, 2016, 03:23:39 PM »

I don't agree, Slobodan. If you take something out of context with your camera, which is an easy thing to do, you may not be lying but you aren't telling the whole truth either, and in fact, in some circumstances without the context the picture is a lie.

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10428
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: McCurry Scandal?
« Reply #45 on: May 14, 2016, 03:32:52 PM »

And what exactly in this life is telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Getting anywhere near to the whole truth is a process, and anyone with even half a brain is supposed to understand that and not jump to conclusions by just seeing one piece (a single photograph, for instance) of a puzzle/context.

Osprey

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 82
Re: McCurry Scandal?
« Reply #46 on: May 14, 2016, 03:44:31 PM »

Would it shock you had McCurry been arranging and/or paying subjects as a National Geographic photographer?

I don't know if his Afghan Girl is offered as art or documentary; it is, without question, a stunning image, but I've often wondered if it isn't just a tad too coincidental that her eyes and her tunic (not her scarf) are an almost exact match to the background color of the tent.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2016, 03:48:07 PM by Osprey »
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11969
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: McCurry Scandal?
« Reply #47 on: May 14, 2016, 04:43:08 PM »

A half truth is a whole lie. -Yiddish Proverb
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
I'm out of here.

Zorki5

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 488
    • AOLib
Re: McCurry Scandal?
« Reply #48 on: May 14, 2016, 04:53:46 PM »

And what exactly in this life is telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Getting anywhere near to the whole truth is a process, and anyone with even half a brain is supposed to understand that and not jump to conclusions by just seeing one piece (a single photograph, for instance) of a puzzle/context.

Slobodan, I once wrote about this here; let me quote myself:

Quote
My favorite example is this: whenever BBC documents elections in Russia, on their English web site I almost invariably see images of soldiers (young conscripts) or elder women casting their votes. Interestingly, on their Russian site you wouldn't see this sh!t: there are images of young happy families and such. But for a Western reader the picture is "clear": only the military and elder people still support those who, unfortunately, usurped the power.

"The picture" on BBC Russian is... waaay close to reality, let me put it this way. I know this because I show up at every election, take my ballot, write "SHAME!" across it, in big letters, thus effectively invalidating it (so that a blank ballot could not be used for ballot-rigging), and cast it.

Bottom line: the way things are going, my disdain for photo-journalists will soon match my disdain for politicians.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10428
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: McCurry Scandal?
« Reply #49 on: May 14, 2016, 05:28:33 PM »

... the way things are going, my disdain for photo-journalists will soon match my disdain for politicians.

It is not their fault. It is ours. Just as it it not paparazzi's fault that we, the public, crave celebrity photos. It is our fault if we base our opinion on a single photograph, or a single video, or a single news source. One needs to be on a kindergarten level of mental development to do so.

Hence my advice: if you are a liberal, it behooves you to read Fox News or Breitbart, at least occasionally. If you are a conservative, you might find enlightening to read Huffington Post or Mother Jones from time to time.

If one doesn't collect information from different sources, educate oneself, combine it with experience, or simply use a common sense, there is no point in blaming a photograph or a photojournalist for one's myopic worldview.

Zorki5

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 488
    • AOLib
Re: McCurry Scandal?
« Reply #50 on: May 14, 2016, 05:51:39 PM »

It is not their fault. It is ours. Just as it it not paparazzi's fault that we, the public, crave celebrity photos. It is our fault if we base our opinion on a single photograph, or a single video, or a single news source. One needs to be on a kindergarten level of mental development to do so.

You're right in one thing: it is of course more complicated than I wrote. After all, in all likelihood, pictures from both English and English BBC sites were taken by the same photog; so it must be some acute case of "creative editing", and I should have blasted "media", not the "photographer". But then there are countless examples of the same [email protected] coming from photographers themselves... But well.

Also, I'm obviously over-generalizing all this -- but only because I see a trend. If whoever is reading this is a photo-journalist and doesn't do this sort of sh!t -- my apologies.

As to the... err, question of mental development, I beg to differ. A recent quote from Rob C comes to mind:

What can you do? The term sentient being is a misnomer. Just look at the pictures some take.

You were also right in one other thing, Slobodan: Rob's writing style is starting to grow on me, big time ;)
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10428
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: McCurry Scandal?
« Reply #51 on: May 14, 2016, 06:48:26 PM »

I think, Zorki, that we are talking about the same thing, just from different angles. Of course there are attempts to deceive by a (mis)use of a photograph or a video, some are deliberate, some accidental. Some are just the nature of the beast, in a sense that only one image/footage could be shown at a slot allotted to that particular news item.

For example, I was in Moscow in 1993, when Yeltsin's tanks were shooting at the Parliament, with communists barricaded inside and protesting around it. It was a lovely Sunday morning, I was driving to the downtown, but couldn't park where I wanted, as the police was blocking the Ring Road around the Parliament. I could see from a relative distance why: special forces were battling demonstrators, there was some smoke from burning cars, etc. I parked in a nearby street and went for a walk through Old Arbat (a major pedestrian and tourist street). As I said, it was a lovely Sunday morning, and the street was full with mothers with strollers, street entertainers, kids enjoying ice cream, etc. It was a somewhat surreal scene: you look to your left and you see, in the distance, cars burning, crowds fighting, etc., and then you look to the right and see happy children faces. Later that day, when i returned home and turn on CNN, all I can see were close-ups of bloody demonstrators faces, cars burning, police beating elderly babushkas etc. The only impression, if CNN was your only source of news, was that the whole Moscow is fighting and burning.

Now, one can argue that CNN had an agenda and deliberately engaged in a "creative" reporting. I do not deny that it is quite possible, likely even. However, the question also is, what would you do if allotted a few seconds for the news? What exactly is the news here? That a dog bit a man? Big deal, right? The news here was not that Arbat was full of happy children, the news of the day was the fight around the Parliament, of course. If you are a reporter sent to the event, you go there and that is what you see and report. Then you rush to the station to deliver the news on time. You do not have the luxury to enjoy an ice cream on Arbat at the same time (as I did). So, from the perspective of that journalist, he reported honestly what he saw and experienced.

This is the curse of the modern media: 24 hours of sound bites, 10-seconds news, impactful imagery. No one has the time to analyze it and present from a different perspective. Of course, there are such programs on TV, but who of us has the time to watch all of the 60 minutes? Not to mention that even a 10-hour program could have a slant.

It is not easy to escape that trap of the modern media. I spent eight years in Moscow without a single incident (not to say that Moscow streets can not be dangerous, just that I was lucky in that respect). However, whenever I travelled to London, Brussels or Paris on business, I would be exposed to CNN or Financial Times news about Russia. After several days, I would question my own sanity of returning to such a dangerous, disastrous place Moscow looked like from their perspective.

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9131
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: McCurry Scandal?
« Reply #52 on: May 15, 2016, 09:45:17 AM »

Depends on whether you're cleaning up camera and processing errors or trying to change the meaning of the picture.

luxborealis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2298
    • luxBorealis.com - photography by Terry McDonald
Re: McCurry Scandal?
« Reply #53 on: May 15, 2016, 11:29:52 AM »

Depends on whether you're cleaning up camera and processing errors or trying to change the meaning of the picture.

Exactly!

PJs have NEVER EVER told the whole truth – they can't! They can only tell the truth from their point of view, from what they see or have access to, or the PoV of their editors - as Slobodan so well described above. Every PJ has an agenda/bias and even if they claim not to, they do! And, if not them, directly, then it's the built-in agenda and bias of the people/corporation/society they work for, the ones who select and publish their photos.
Logged
Terry McDonald - luxBorealis.com.
Flickr Account;
PhotoBlog – Read and subscribe!

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9131
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: McCurry Scandal?
« Reply #54 on: May 15, 2016, 05:05:14 PM »

Russ, it would be interesting to learn if the vast majority of recent PJ work adheres to these principles.

I think in the days of Wegee most PJ's adhered to those principles. Lately I think there are very few PJ's who adhere to any principles except their political biases.

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10638
    • Echophoto
Re: McCurry Scandal?
« Reply #55 on: May 16, 2016, 12:54:59 PM »

Hi,

Our camera club had a guest talk with a really good photographer working for the local daily news where I live. They have very strict rules:

  • No retouch
  • Only minor global changes allowed

Doing B&W would probably be allowed and I think they can also crop.

Just to put it in perspective, a  winner of a large competition arranged by National Geographic (AFAIK) was disqualified for removing a plastic shopping bag from the picture.

Personally, I think that proper editing can enhance the message and I feel that the "no retouch" policy is somewhat simplistic.

Best regards
Erik



It seems as far as PJ work is concerned that there's a consensus that removing or adding elements is not acceptable.

How about tonal or colour adjustments, global and or local? Corrections to perspective? Noise reduction? Conversion to B&W?

Just asking.

AlterEgo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1996
Re: McCurry Scandal?
« Reply #56 on: May 16, 2016, 12:59:57 PM »

Personally, I think that proper editing can enhance the message

and what message was exactly enhanced with photoshop in allegedly McCurry's pictures ? and was it message that was enhanced actually ?
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10638
    • Echophoto
Re: McCurry Scandal?
« Reply #57 on: May 16, 2016, 04:15:05 PM »

Hi,

I don't know…

But, look at that famous Afghan Girl image. The processing that NG/McCurry have tells a story. A young girl, a fighter and a survivor… That message may be a lot weaker with processing I normally do.

Best regards
Erik


and what message was exactly enhanced with photoshop in allegedly McCurry's pictures ? and was it message that was enhanced actually ?

AlterEgo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1996
Re: McCurry Scandal?
« Reply #58 on: May 16, 2016, 05:08:10 PM »

But, look at that famous Afghan Girl image. The processing that NG/McCurry have tells a story. A young girl, a fighter and a survivor…

young girl - yes... fighter and survivor ? that's just а rich imagination



Logged

Otto Phocus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 659
Re: McCurry Scandal?
« Reply #59 on: May 17, 2016, 10:47:24 AM »

It seems as far as PJ work is concerned that there's a consensus that removing or adding elements is not acceptable.

How about tonal or colour adjustments, global and or local? Corrections to perspective? Noise reduction? Conversion to B&W?

Just asking.

I seem to remember about 20 years ago during the OJ Simpson trial that one news media was accused of modifying their tonal/color adjustments to make OJ look "blacker".  There was a rather large stink made about this.

I think it really comes down to intent.  But intent is often hard to prove/disprove.
Logged
I shoot with a Camera Obscura with an optical device attached that refracts and transmits light.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6   Go Up