Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => Discussing Photographic Styles => Topic started by: Ed B on May 10, 2016, 11:34:00 pm
-
Not sure how I feel about this. On one hand he made his name shooting PJ where this is not cool. On the other hand we live in the photoshop age.
http://petapixel.com/2016/05/06/botched-steve-mccurry-print-leads-photoshop-scandal/
-
Not sure how I feel about this. On one hand he made his name shooting PJ where this is not cool. On the other hand we live in the photoshop age.
http://petapixel.com/2016/05/06/botched-steve-mccurry-print-leads-photoshop-scandal/
Hi Ed,
I do not feel that creative improvements/alterations of an image should be an issue, outside of photojournalism for the news media of course. Personally I rarely change/delete or move objects in my images. But if it helps, why not?
Cheers,
Bart
-
I really don't see any scandal but more something like a surprising maladroitness that borders amateurishness.
-
Hi Ed,
I do not feel that creative improvements/alterations of an image should be an issue, outside of photojournalism for the news media of course. Personally I rarely change/delete or move objects in my images. But if it helps, why not?
Cheers,
Bart
I think that's a reasonable attitude.
I now wonder if the 'Afghan' chick really had eyes that colour - or if I even care. I find it odd that some pictures are given such iconic status for not very much. But then, that's how life works: somebody first sets the tiny snowball rolling...
One really has to guard against cynicism; if not, the conclusion is rapidly drawn that most of everything is bullshit. That shouldn't be the experience that happens to the young.
Rob
-
Did the great painters do "photographic justice" to their scenes?
Using white-balance and dodging & burning and grad filters to modify a landscape is hardly "accurate" to the perception of being there, but it lets the photographer express what she wants more easily.
-h
-
Did the great painters do "photographic justice" to their scenes?
-h
Considering that painting predates photography by many centuries, I think not...
Peter
-
comparing with WMD in Iraq ;D
-
I have no problem with Photoshopping images.....but when it is done badly I have. :(
-
Depends on whether the photograph is offered as reportage or as art. If it's the former, then any change other than normal PP to adjust brightness and sharpening shouldn't be acceptable. If the picture is offered as art, it's up to the artist. I've enjoyed Steve's photographs for several decades, and three of his books grace my photographic library. Unfortunately, it seems to me his answer sort of evades the question. His books are art, and as far as I know the pictures in question were put forward as art, so I have no beef with the changes I see -- except for the screwup. But I'd be discouraged to know that his coverage of the Iraq war, for instance, was Photoshopped beyond basic PP.
-
Guess it all depends on intentions.
Sometimes, I see a picture and its title simultaneously, and then, when it gets back home, I do what I can with PS to make the title seem fit. Perhaps that's why I like to title pretty much everything: it gives it a sense of purpose... I'm afraid that the older I get the less patience I have for snaps without some sort of basic meaning, if even for the photographer alone. A photograph without meaning of some kind is somewhat like a scream in the dark, except that such a scream might at least arouse curiosity, whereas the image does not...
I walked backwards for about 50 yards down the friggin' marina today after lunch, barked at by a pitbull sort of animal; as the weather is poor, I was armed with a furled brolly, for which doubtful comfort I felt rather glad. I would have preferred a swordstick or the 9mm Beretta I never had. But then, I never had the swordstick, either. Bloody mutts.
Rob C
-
Unfortunately, it seems to me his answer sort of evades the question.
that will be just a David Cameron moment... offshore ? what offshore... just give him few days to assess the PR.
-
Hi Russ,
Very well explained, I see it the same way.
Best regards
Erik
Depends on whether the photograph is offered as reportage or as art. If it's the former, then any change other than normal PP to adjust brightness and sharpening shouldn't be acceptable. If the picture is offered as art, it's up to the artist. I've enjoyed Steve's photographs for several decades, and three of his books grace my photographic library. Unfortunately, it seems to me his answer sort of evades the question. His books are art, and as far as I know the pictures in question were put forward as art, so I have no beef with the changes I see -- except for the screwup. But I'd be discouraged to know that his coverage of the Iraq war, for instance, was Photoshopped beyond basic PP.
-
Depends on whether the photograph is offered as reportage or as art.
That's the way I feel about it.
But, then it is up to McCurry to make this difference clear about his photography.
-
I'm a big fan of his work and hope this doesn't blow up into a huge deal. It doesn't appear that his edited photos are edited for deception but for aesthetics. I occasionally need to do that too and understand. Especially for art images but even reportage imagery can get a little cleanup without being dishonest (like an arm coming into the side of the frame that doesn't relate to the rest of the photo). I understand that's not officially accepted by organizations like NG or Magnum but I can personally overlook it although being dishonest about doing it is another issue.
-
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.
-
'A Too Perfect Picture' - An interesting essay that appeared before these photoshop allegations:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/03/magazine/a-too-perfect-picture.html
-
Does he even do the post-processing himself or is it handled by his assistants?
-
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.
Try converting that picture to B&W, Rip. I did that for a demonstration for a photo club group. The B&W is even more striking than the color version.
-
Try converting that picture to B&W, Rip. I did that for a demonstration for a photo club group. The B&W is even more striking than the color version.
Interesting take, but not my point.
-
I find the whole question of documentary vs. art, when it comes to McCurry, utterly ridiculous. Of course it is documentary. If it walks like a documentary, if it quacks like a documentary, it is a documentary. Especially since most of his images first appeared in the National Geographic, which goes (or used to) to great lengths to preserve authenticity. If it turns that the Afghan girl's
bulging eyes piercing stare is a result of the Photoshop's Liquify filter or Lightroom's Iris Enhance brush preset, the whole universe might implode.
-
I find the whole question of documentary vs. art, when it comes to McCurry, utterly ridiculous. Of course it is documentary. If it walks like a documentary, if it quacks like a documentary, it is a documentary. Especially since most of his images first appeared in the National Geographic, which goes (or used to) to great lengths to preserve authenticity. If it turns that the Afghan girl's bulging eyes piercing stare is a result of the Photoshop's Liquify filter or Lightroom's Iris Enhance brush preset, the whole universe might implode.
Funny thing: I've recently been looking at people - self included - and wishing PS (not ps as in plastic surgery) was available before the photography... perhaps in a few years.
Rob
-
I find the whole question of documentary vs. art, when it comes to McCurry, utterly ridiculous. Of course it is documentary. If it walks like a documentary, if it quacks like a documentary, it is a documentary. Especially since most of his images first appeared in the National Geographic, which goes (or used to) to great lengths to preserve authenticity. If it turns that the Afghan girl's bulging eyes piercing stare is a result of the Photoshop's Liquify filter or Lightroom's Iris Enhance brush preset, the whole universe might implode.
I thought the original Afghan Girl picture predated Photoshop......
Jim
-
Two things disappoint me:
1. In the rickshaw photo, someone felt the photo would be improved by simplifying it. It seems almost condescending, "we don't think the viewer is capable of looking at a complex photo". Then they modified the colours in an ugly way. Subjective judgements though, that's McCurry's business.
2. Except that McC doesn't want to accept responsibility... in which case he's saying that his exhibition prints were modified by an anonymous person, and he didn't check them all. To my mind, you either take creative control by looking at what has been done in your name, or you give credit to the "team" which is exercising those judgements. Or, you stop dribbling about "art" and just admit to running a pretty picture factory, which is also fine.
-
IMHO, Steve's portfolio and rise to fame was based on PJ work. Whether or not some of his images can be considered art, or not, is secondary. Take the rickshaw photo, for instance: if it gets published in a PJ work dealing the monsoon, or life in the streets, or transportation means, or whatever, then it can not have elements taken out/added in on it.
Now you take the same photo and package it as "art", does it follow that it is ok to take out/add elements to it? I don't think so.
I have no issue with adding/removing elements to an image, as long as it is clearly stated by the photographer. The fact that normally photographers get caught on it (meaning they tried to hide it in the first place), tells me that they know that their work would be downgraded because of it; or not accepted as a PJ work, for example.
It is the "sneakiness" of it that annoys me.
-
Interesting take, but not my point.
No kidding Rip. Then why this: ". . .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."
The important thing about the Afghan Girl is her eyes, and if anything, the effect of her eyes increases in B&W.
One thing I've often wondered when I've looked at Steve's pictures is whether or not the vibrance and saturation sliders got bent.
-
Does that preclude offering the image as a work of photo journalism?
You betcha. Part of the situation is its filthiness. Without that it becomes some kind of dream world.
Love the picture, but with the crap gone it's not journalism. On the other hand a lot of journalism is designed to make a point rather than report the facts. For many years one of my close friends was a guy retired from teaching journalism. Wish you could hear some of his revelations.
-
I thought the original Afghan Girl picture predated Photoshop......
Jim
you don't need PS to retouch the image... retouching predates digital, just different tools
-
tells me that they know that their work would be downgraded because of it; or not accepted as a PJ work, for example.
a good point...
-
Except that McC doesn't want to accept responsibility... in which case he's saying that his exhibition prints were modified by an anonymous person, and he didn't check them all.
and how do you know that it was him who actually took the photo ? you outsource post you might as well outsource the shooting too... you are a brand name now.
-
You betcha. Part of the situation is its filthiness. Without that it becomes some kind of dream world.
Love the picture, but with the crap gone it's not journalism. On the other hand a lot of journalism is designed to make a point rather than report the facts. For many years one of my close friends was a guy retired from teaching journalism. Wish you could hear some of his revelations.
+1
The only thing that I can disagree with here is that "a lot" part in "a lot of journalism is designed to make a point rather than report the facts". I'd argue that it's rather "all of".
The amount of manipulation that is possible with simple framing of your shot, or picking a moment to press shutter button, is incomparable to what one can do in post.
And even if some young, honest guy/gal full of idealistic intentions, will try to honestly just "report the facts", then he/she will be "corrected" by the editor picking just the "right" shots...
-
You betcha. Part of the situation is its filthiness. Without that it becomes some kind of dream world.
Love the picture, but with the crap gone it's not journalism. On the other hand a lot of journalism is designed to make a point rather than report the facts. For many years one of my close friends was a guy retired from teaching journalism. Wish you could hear some of his revelations.
Agree. But, one could argue that removing people is entirely a different level?
-
The only thing that I can disagree with here is that "a lot" part in "a lot of journalism is designed to make a point rather than report the facts". I'd argue that it's rather "all of".
I think that today you're probably right, Zork. But I'm looking at history. At 86 I've been around long enough to have seen a time when a large part of journalism (except in "Time" mag) wasn't aimed at political spin. Nowadays almost all of it is.
-
...well, what then?
...well, what then?
Well, then, with you, nobody cares.
You are not a photojournalist or documentary photographer. You have a reputation as a fine art photographer or simply artist.
-
But I've been both. Cut my teeth as a horticultural photographer, documenting public and private gardens. The first task before shooting was always the obligatory garden tidy.
For which I hope you got a civil service commendation. But surely you see the difference between removing a stray paper and removing a couple of humans?
-
Had I picked up those cigarette butts and sweet wrappers and disposed of them prior to shooting the image, well, what then?
Had I shot the image after the street had been swept, well, what then?
Hi,
So what you are saying is that it is only cheating if you get caught?
If so, then where to draw the line, and who draws it if not you?
Cheers,
Bart
-
No, I'm simply asking the questions.
In that case, it's cheating, which would not (never) be appropriate in journalism, but perfectly acceptable in fine art photography. Whether it's recommended if acceptable, is a matter of taste and creative intent.
Cheers,
Bart
-
You probably heard this one many times: "Hard to define, but you'll know it when you see it" (A US Supreme Court judge about pornography). So there's that.
The line is different depending on the genre. If McCurry said, in a preface to books or exhibitions, something to the effect of "I spent most of my life as a documentary photographer, but this book/exhibition is my artistic vision of the same scenes, where are took the poetic license to alter what was happening in front of my lens by removing a few elements, including human, in order to better highlight the essence of the scene...blah, blah, blah" I doubt we would be having this discussion. Stupid photoshopping notwithstanding.
On a side note, that single photoshopping blunder is much more damaging because it brings into question not just that photograph, but the whole opus. The lingering question then becomes: "If he manipulated that one, which others he did as well?"
I never thought he manipulated any, as I always thought he was predominantly shooting film, slides at that.
-
My publishing clients would have been particularly miffed had I not done that obligatory tidy prior to documenting the gardens.
Because it wasn't journalism, but editorial, or even commercial.
-
I understood I was being employed as a documentary photographer but of course I could be wrong.
Of course you are (wrong). I assume it was a horticulture magazine? On a side note, my second paying gig was for a horticulture magazine too, long time ago. As such (the magazine) their function is essentially commercial, just like all those "beautiful homes" or fashion magazines, i.e., selling an idealized version of flowers, homes or models, and enticing the readership and (more importantly) advertisers.
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.
-
But my question was Where do you draw the line? Who decides?
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.
-
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!
-
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...?
-
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.
-
... 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
A half truth is a whole lie. -Yiddish Proverb
-
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 (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=106630.msg877970#msg877970); let me quote myself:
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.
-
... 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.
-
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 cr@p 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 ;)
-
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.
-
Depends on whether you're cleaning up camera and processing errors or trying to change the meaning of the picture.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ?
-
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 ?
-
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
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/f5/ce/d5/f5ced58015a325e1368d21ef2b3129bd.jpg)
-
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.
-
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.
Sometimes, it's used the other way round (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=106873.msg881622#msg881622). Works just as "nice"...
I think it really comes down to intent. But intent is often hard to prove/disprove.
There's a saying around these parts that (translated) goes something like "The road to hell is paved with best intentions".
-
Whatever it is, it isn't a "scandal."
-
Hi,
It may depend on the context. If the images are said to be authentic, there may be a violence of the rules.
On the other hand, if the images are seen as interpretation of the subject the photographer would have much more artistic liberty.
An artistic interpretation may be more true than an objective rendition. There is a lot of subjectivity in photography and rigid rules of editing don't change that.
Best regards
Erik
Whatever it is, it isn't a "scandal."
-
That's been said several times in this thread, Erik. But it doesn't hurt to say it again.
-
But scandals sell! Who wants information when you can have SCANDAL!!!!11 :o
-
I think manipulating images, by removing elements and adding in stuff, is comparable to doping in sports. By artificial means you make yourself better than you are, at the cost of your competitors and audience. It's not okay. I just can't have a "who cares?" attitude to that. I love photography, and I don't want it ruined by photoshop manipulation.
It's genre-dependent though. If you make a work of art, it's different from documentary work and it can surely be a composite. As a rule of thumb I think one can say if it's obvious the image has been manipulated it's okay to show it without comment, otherwise it should be presented together with a comment.
These types of discussions usually unfolds into something "but is grading okay then, increasing contrast, changing color balance? If that's okay than surely anything must be okay?". And of course the relation between photoshopping and an arranged scene, is an arranged scene any better or not? There are numerous examples of claimed "wildlife" photographs that was actually shot in a zoo. That's not okay either.
It's impossible to draw a strict border though, as it's about context. What's perfectly okay in one context may not be okay in another.
As McCurry is known for documentary work, I find his photoshopping business very disappointing. I know too little to say if it's a scandal or not. If photoshopped images has been in say national geographic and broken their authenticity rules, then I'd say it's a scandal. If it's just about his prints in galleries without claimed authenticity it's less so.
We had a scandal in Sweden five years ago when a well-regarded award-winning wildlife photographer was caught with gross manipulation of images, adding in animals, sometimes not even using his own raw material. His explanation was that he couldn't handle the pressure to deliver top notch images that the audience was expecting from him so he started editing first a little, then a bit more, and a bit more, until it was totally out of control. The manipulations I've seen from McCurry are far from being that bad but I guess the reason behind it could be the same, he no longer feels he can deliver the same quality which made him famous without cheating.
-
In the end you have to realize, that if it's about art, anything goes...If it's about news, truth and integrity there are rules. And we "ALL KNOW HOW FAIR AND TRUTHFUL" the news can be. Because ratings and money has nothing to do with journalistic news. Blasphemy!
Peter
Today's world is not yesterday.
-
You nailed it, Peter. Who would ever think that one of our news agencies would slant the news? It's simply unthinkable -- at least by those who don't think. Except in his war coverage McCurry was doing art, so the modifications to his images are up to him. But even in war coverage, what gets "covered" is up to the editors. Would a news editor be biased? Heaven forfend.
-
Hi,
Let's assume that a next generation of cameras have a feature called automatic lamp post removal…
So, the camera removes any lamp posts automatically. You can still shoot authentic raw, of course… So what is OK and what is not?
- Automatic lamp post removal by camera software?
- Removal of lamp in post by content aware fill in PS?
- Parametric removal of the lamp post in Lightroom?
- No lamp post should be removed from any picture?
- Is it OK to remove the lamp post pre exposure using a proper application of dynamite?
Best regards
Erik
-
Let's assume that a next generation of cameras have a feature called automatic lamp post removal…
Before that, we will have "automatic smiles" feature, I believe. Like, every face in the frame will be made smiling.
Imaging a camera like that used in a war zone: scenes like "military ads" from South Park come to mind...
And you know what, the way things are going, that does not look like that big a stretch.
-
Before that, we will have "automatic smiles" feature, I believe...
No need to wait. For several years already, there are Sony models with a smile-detection feature. In other words, the camera snaps only when it detects a smile.
-
Who would want to shoot a picture of a frown?
-
In other words, the camera snaps only when it detects a smile.
"I'm sorry, my camera says that's not a smile. Can you smile better, please?"
-
Apparently some internet sleuths have been going over McCurry's images and turned up more photoshopping.
http://petapixel.com/2016/05/26/photoshopped-photos-emerge-steve-mccurry-scandal/
Right along side that article is one that praises the effects of a new "powerful" photoshop tool called Content Aware Crop." Got to love that.
http://petapixel.com/2016/05/26/content-aware-crop-coming-photoshop-heres-sneak-peek/
All that aside, it is interesting Steve has deleted his blog. https://stevemccurry.wordpress.com/
And his Tumblr page seems to be gone as well.
Then there is a quote from him today.
"I think that [Photoshop] shouldn’t add or subtract things. I think that Photoshop is a tool to color correct and to do various sharpening and what not. Obviously everybody does that. That’s a tool that everybody uses. […] Color balance, everybody does that. I think as far as adding or subtracting things, that’s not something that needs to be done or should be done."
http://petapixel.com/2016/05/26/photoshopped-photos-emerge-steve-mccurry-scandal/
His thoughts seem to be all over the place. He says one thing and does another it seems. I've never been a fan of do as I say not as I do but this whole thing is just weird. Why delete the blog? Own your stuff Steve.
That said, the changes made to the images in question are minor and don't change the meaning in any significant way. I've always been a fan of his but he's making things worse with his actions.
-
I just saw the PetaP article... it seems now that the vultures are circling. Most of the examples seemed relatively trivial, changes in colour saturation or exposure. I wonder if he did just hire someone who was a little too zealous: there is a person deleted from a bus stop in the far distance that really makes no difference at all. I just wish I had the same facility at removing the electric cable hanging in front of someone shot at a concert on the weekend...
Anyway, if he's a sensible person, he has most of his money in a safe bank account and he can ignore what idiots want to say about the demise of his "legacy".
-
I just saw the PetaP article... it seems now that the vultures are circling. Most of the examples seemed relatively trivial, changes in colour saturation or exposure. I wonder if he did just hire someone who was a little too zealous: there is a person deleted from a bus stop in the far distance that really makes no difference at all. I just wish I had the same facility at removing the electric cable hanging in front of someone shot at a concert on the weekend...
Anyway, if he's a sensible person, he has most of his money in a safe bank account and he can ignore what idiots want to say about the demise of his "legacy".
Never mind the snapper, 'legacy' has got to be the silliest concept ever to enter into a public figure's mind!
Anybody remember all the fuss about Tony Blair's 'legacy'?
But yeah, he did the right (;-)) socialist thing and feathered his several nests very well indeed! Don't you just love how life pans out?
Rob
-
If your lookin for truth, look within...
Peter
-
Maybe this is what he meant in his opposition to "subtracting" things?
http://petapixel.com/2015/06/02/steve-mccurrys-assistant-busted-in-654358-afghan-girl-art-theft/
-
Maybe this is what he meant in his opposition to "subtracting" things?
http://petapixel.com/2015/06/02/steve-mccurrys-assistant-busted-in-654358-afghan-girl-art-theft/
Just can't get the staff these days...
;-)
Rob
-
http://www.dw.com/en/ethical-lapse-photoshop-scandal-catches-up-with-iconic-photojournalist-steve-mccurry/a-19296237
-
http://www.dw.com/en/ethical-lapse-photoshop-scandal-catches-up-with-iconic-photojournalist-steve-mccurry/a-19296237
The truth, the truth...
If, as the clip claims, Mr H was the only one to get that close to Ali, then how did William Klein manage to make an intimate movie of the guy?
Truth, the truth...
Rob C
-
More interesting thoughts here:
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2016/05/steve-mccurry-is-not-an-ahole.html
To me, the problem is with the "trying to get away with it" approach that was taken. And of course now everybody will challenge his previous work, and wonder what he might have added/deleted from his photos. Now he says that today he is a storyteller, not a pj anymore... and so he has more freedom to play with his images. Sounds like a lame excuse to me.
The thing is, again, one of not disclosing a priori his objectives (pj vs. story teller) plus his image manipulations. I still have a great admiration of him and his work, just slightly less so than before... we are all human anyway, and this crusade to crucify him is stupid.
-
If your lookin for truth, look within...
Peter
In some cases, Peter, that doesn't seem to help very much! However, it does add to the rest of the static to be processed!
Rob C
-
More interesting thoughts here:
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2016/05/steve-mccurry-is-not-an-ahole.html
To me, the problem is with the "trying to get away with it" approach that was taken. And of course now everybody will challenge his previous work, and wonder what he might have added/deleted from his photos. Now he says that today he is a storyteller, not a pj anymore... and so he has more freedom to play with his images. Sounds like a lame excuse to me.
The thing is, again, one of not disclosing a priori his objectives (pj vs. story teller) plus his image manipulations. I still have a great admiration of him and his work, just slightly less so than before... we are all human anyway, and this crusade to crucify him is stupid.
I think that all of these events tend to do one thing: make the old guys appear far better at their jobs than the recent heroes. Don McCullin is still one of those for me, as are many others long gone.
If anything, I admire not only their photographic technique under extreme pressure, but also their dedication to return and to return and to return. Some never came back.
Rob
-
Truth, the truth...
Rob C
:D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXoNE14U_zM
-
Some more ...
http://petapixel.com/2016/06/07/eyes-afghan-girl-critical-take-steve-mccurry-scandal/
I tried quickly the "McCurry's filter" today and it work good. Same amount of errors are left to be close to the real master./
(http://www.hulyssbowman.com/Savings/Smc1.jpg)
(http://www.hulyssbowman.com/Savings/Smc2.jpg)
-
Some more ...
http://petapixel.com/2016/06/07/eyes-afghan-girl-critical-take-steve-mccurry-scandal/
I tried quickly the "McCurry's filter" today and it work good. Same amount of errors are left to be close to the real master./
(http://www.hulyssbowman.com/Savings/Smc1.jpg)
(http://www.hulyssbowman.com/Savings/Smc2.jpg)
This new piece from Petapixel IMO mixes a lot of things in the same bag. Mixes "staging a photo" with the recent PS manipulation of deleting important elements from the images, especially people.
Staging a photo is not a problem in my book, so if SM asked a few people to place themselves in certain places, and reshot a few times to get the image he wanted, it's fine. Wasn't the famous flag at Iwo Jima photo taken more than once?
-
This new piece of petapixel is the nail in the coffin. It is all about hype, lies and money. Those 3 things made McCurry's "legend" but it is just lies. How many photographers developed a passion over what they saw in those NatGeo back in the days ? It is just like propaganda work. Staged photojournalism is utter lie to the mass, utter lies to the purist photogs and utter non sense in the photojournalism discipline.
Some girls do have wonderful eyes who do not need enhancements if you take it in the correct light. So the Afghan girl could have been staged wherever in the Kentucky Like anybody here can stage whatever girl with beautiful eyes... Deception. How some agency will make him pay for the example.
In fashion or portrait it is common to edit at least the skin defaults and it is well known to a certain extent. In photojournalism in my book this is or should be forbidden.
(http://www.hulyssbowman.com/Savings/TunisGirl.jpg)
-
I would not be so strict. Lets take the example of the train station photo with the porter and the woman with the child. Yes, it was staged, but is it a lie? To me, no. It is a scene that can be seen everyday in an train station in India. Cleaning up a bit the eyes of the Afghan girl? Come on, what is the problem?
-
https://www.nppa.org/ethics
-
Then there was Doisneau, who staged most of his "street" pictures. But no one seems to mind.
-
Then there was Doisneau, who staged most of his "street" pictures. But no one seems to mind.
And many others, but then they were not acting as journalists/reporters. What's more, AFAIK National Geographic does not claim to be a news agency that reports on actual news events. That's different from e.g. Fox 'News' who do suggest to be a news agency where they basically are a propaganda machine that has been forced many times to correct their infotainment/propaganda.
The NG Website's 'About' says (emphasis in bold is mine): About National Geographic
National Geographic gets you closer to the stories that matter. Through the world’s best scientists, photographers, journalists, and filmmakers, National Geographic captivates and entertains a global community through television channels, magazines, children’s media, travel expeditions, books, maps, consumer products, location-based entertainment and experiences, and some of the most engaging digital and social media platforms in the world. A joint venture with 21st Century Fox, National Geographic reinvests 27% of proceeds to help fund the conservation and education efforts of the National Geographic Society.
The only confusion possible, but only for naive viewers, is that they occasionally also use established journalists/reporters known from other (News) media, for the purpose of entertaining.
The same silliness as with their wildlife movies/videos where animals are personalized and given human emotions instead of instincts, and stories are told that took many years of shooting and a lot of editing, to suggest something that happens in a few minutes time, supposedly with the same animal in sight.
People who feel betrayed are correct, but they fooled themselves.
Only factual reporting by journalists should be considered as unedited beyond basic exposure and color correction, and the editor of the publication is to make sure of that unaltered authenticity. And yes, I know, shooting/cropping only part of a scene is also editing and the angle of view also suggests things by the perspective it produces, but that's where multiple reports of an event can separate the frauds from the masters.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I do not know much about NG history, but I doubt they've been perceived as an "entertainment" machine, not until recently, at least. If anything, I, for one, have always thought of them as the authority in truethful, trustful, and factual story telling. Naive, perhaps, but I believe millions world wide shared my view.
-
You're right, Bart. Fox is biased, but probably not as biased as AP or AFP or Reuters. Fact is, every news source is biased. That's always been true and always will be true. Even (even?) Snopes -- the great truth source -- is biased. National Geographic is biased. So what? People have opinions, often (usually) unsupported opinions, and their opinions are going to come through in their work. It's the way the world works. The unfortunate part is that most of these "unbiased" news sources are biased toward the left. In the long run that's gonna cost all of us Western worlders.
-
I would not be so strict. Lets take the example of the train station photo with the porter and the woman with the child. Yes, it was staged, but is it a lie? To me, no. It is a scene that can be seen everyday in an train station in India. Cleaning up a bit the eyes of the Afghan girl? Come on, what is the problem?
and why you need to stage that or edit something then ? why do you need to clean up a bit the eyes of the Afghan girl ? why ? what is the purpose ask youself... to invoke something that did not actually exist or will not cause any feelings absent that staging / correction ? to make it a propaganda slogan instead of a fact ?
-
You're right, Bart. Fox is biased, but probably not as biased as AP or AFP or Reuters.
Well Russ, biased doesn't come close to describing it, they're in the entertainment business (with a very strong Republican propaganda twist), not news. Remember this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/01/16/fox-news-to-correct-guests-misstatements-on-birmingham-no-go-zones/), with in the ticker at the bottom a next warm up for allowing more government control, spreading FUD to soften the opinions on Govenment's expanding control over peoples privacy.
Less damaging, but still funny (especially for someone like me who grew up near Amsterdam) is this one (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqgObCvspfk) with a followup here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpU0NxPhA78). He blames everything on "the left", rather than admitting he is wrong (again).
Fact is, every news source is biased. That's always been true and always will be true.
There is a difference between bias and deliberately being wrong for (sponsored) propaganda reasons.
Even (even?) Snopes -- the great truth source -- is biased. National Geographic is biased. So what?
A bias is to be expected (i.e. don't be naive), e.g. by the choice of subjects or the people who are interviewed (and those who aren't), but not doing proper fact checking and letting 'lunatics' spread their message (because it suits 'the agenda') as if it were factual news, borders on deception, unless it's seen as entertainment.
People have opinions, often (usually) unsupported opinions, and their opinions are going to come through in their work. It's the way the world works. The unfortunate part is that most of these "unbiased" news sources are biased toward the left. In the long run that's gonna cost all of us Western worlders.
I suppose that depends on one's perspective. From where I come from (you know, Bill O'Reilly's cesspool), the average Left wing American Democrat is considered pretty conservative compared to what we call Left wing. We have more to worry about the ultra-right Neo-Facist factions that are more vocal than their real electorate, but they do influence (poorly informed) public opinion.
Cheers,
Bart
-
...Remember this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/01/16/fox-news-to-correct-guests-misstatements-on-birmingham-no-go-zones/)...
-
I suppose that depends on one's perspective. From where I come from (you know, Bill O'Reilly's cesspool), the average Left wing American Democrat is considered pretty conservative compared to what we call Left wing. We have more to worry about the ultra-right Neo-Facist factions that are more vocal than their real electorate, but they do influence (poorly informed) public opinion.
Cheers,
Bart
Actually I think the thing you probably ought to worry about is the U.S. left-wing castrating our military and our ability to protect Europe from the developing Muslim invasion. We're pretty close to a point where thanks to the cost of our Socialism we won't be able to afford that any longer. As usual, the Netherlands will be one of the first to go under.
-
Let's see, TheBlaze according to Wikipedia (one has to strart somewhere, right?):
TheBlaze is a multiplatform news and entertainment network available on television, radio and the Internet founded by conservative talk radio personality and entrepreneur Glenn Beck.
Which sems to correspond to what their website has to say after a lot of digging.
Okay, that sets the stage a bit, because there is little info on their website as to determine 'from which direction the wind blows'. Now, was that in their News part, or their Entertainment part of business.
Funnily enough, as if a websearch is any good at giving a balanced weighting, this appears to have gotten much more coverage in the USA, what seems to be mostly amongst right wing religious oriented websites and bloggers (hmmm, agenda's anyone?). In other countries it barely made the news outside the local Wupperthal papers in 2014, because it was an attempt to create attention for the Salafist movement that also recruits young people for e.g. Syria. Free publicity in the USA, but much less here in Europe.
The newspapers here, in 'O'Reilly's proclaimed cesspool', deal with other issues, like in this (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nrc.nl%2Fnext%2F2016%2F02%2F19%2Farnhemmers-de-cel-in-voor-steun-aan-strijd-in-syri-1593187&edit-text=) (poorly translated) article (don't know if it is geo-blocked) about recent convictions for recruitment and financing of Jihad fighters.
Maybe some of us are too sober minded to get drawn into providing those people with a platform. The ringleaders are dangerous and smart, no doubt about that, but do also look at solutions instead of only sending them a confirmation of what they are trying to provoke, repression which confirms that they are being discriminated against, and justifies them declaring 'war' on the infidel. Some Salafists also hate other Muslims, they are a pretty intolerant lot.
So again, a good example of why one should not have blind faith in any News medium, and certainly not in those who pretend to be a News medium. Many false, eh, prophets.
Sorry, no photo's to go with this story, although Slobodan's linked image did make me smile (such an obvious provocation to get into the news, and it worked).
Cheers,
Bart
-
...Slobodan's linked image did make me smile...
Glad you see that as a joke. One who laughs last... ;)
On a side note, there is this constant inclination to dismiss facts based on the source of reporting. A version of ad hominem?
-
I do not know why this affair have something to do with actual politic in US or Europe ... You guys drift a lot. Anyway I have a work to finish for the White House before the end of the year I hope the actual "resident" will be able to see it.
-
Actually I think the thing you probably ought to worry about is the U.S. left-wing castrating our military and our ability to protect Europe from the developing Muslim invasion. We're pretty close to a point where thanks to the cost of our Socialism we won't be able to afford that any longer. As usual, the Netherlands will be one of the first to go under.
Well, it's either that, or global warming, we're doomed as the low countries near the Sea.
Even some of our (WW2) bunkers, in this case bunker number 599 of the Dutch waterline defense, are hopelessly split between left and right ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
On a side note, there is this constant inclination to dismiss facts based on the source of reporting. A version of ad hominem?
Ad Hominem???? Not my intention at all, just taking news for what it's worth, one side to a story (and it's always helpful to understand the intentions of the source of that news). Take multiple versions of that news, from different sources with different agendas, and one might find a somewhat better balanced version.
That's why news reporting photo's should not be manipulated by adding/removing/concealing things that alter the interpretation of what is shown as factual.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Ad Hominem???? Not my intention at all,
I said "a version of" ad hominem, where instead questioning the credibility of the person, one questions the credibility of the news source, and in both cases failing to address the subject matter.
...That's why news reporting photo's should not be manipulated by adding/removing/concealing things that alter the interpretation of what is shown as factual...
Are you suggesting that I did that with the posted Sharia Patrol photo?
Take multiple versions of that news, from different sources with different agendas, and one might find a somewhat better balanced version.
What are the other sources of that news and how it then becomes "better balanced"?
-
Just answering a question, I know it's off-topic.
Are you suggesting that I did that with the posted Sharia Patrol photo?
No.
What are the other sources of that news and how it then becomes "better balanced"?
e.g. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35059488
or http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/german-higher-court-rules-to-send-so-called-sharia-police-to-trial-for-violating-ban-on-political-uniforms
After the initial furor over his nighttime patrols, Lau said his goal was to provoke the public, admitting “we knew that this would raise attention.”
The publicity ruse was met with disapproval from Muslim advocacy groups in Germany. “These people are perverting the name of our religion. With this shrill and foolish action, they are really hurting Muslims,” the chairman of one such group told a German newspaper when the controversy first came to light.
http://www.thelocal.de/20150902/prosecutors-target-leader-of-sharia-police
The western state of North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW) is widely regarded as a hotspot for fundamentalist Islam in Germany.
A number of high-profile German 'foreign fighters' who have joined Isis in Iraq or Syria came from the country's most densely populated region.
But also:
http://pamelageller.com/2016/05/sharia-police-who-patrolled-german-city-of-wuppertal-in-orange-vests-to-face-trial.html/
And many more (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sharia+police+wuppertal). Just make sure to also verify the intentions of the source to be in a better position to decode the actual message they are sending.
Cheers,
Bart
-
...Just make sure to also verify the intentions of the source to be in a better position to decode the actual message they are sending.
I am still confused. Just how what you posted (additional sources) contradicts what I posted? Or "decodes" it differently?
-
I am still confused. Just how what you posted (additional sources) contradicts what I posted? Or "decodes" it differently?
You think there is a contradiction? I don't follow that reasoning. There are different messages being sent by different sources about the same subject.
Some are Islamophobe in nature (spreading FUD about Islam taking over the world), others have a more optimistic view and look for the solutions rather than the differences (although the lack of separation between (any) religion and politics/government creates difficulties if not solved within a generation or two).
Pointing out (and magnifying) the differences never solved an issue, looking for explanations and, when understood, finding a way to bridge the divide can solve issues. And yes, it takes two to tango, fundamentalism doesn't help.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Well, it's either that, or global warming, we're doomed as the low countries near the Sea.
How about global cooling? When I was at University of Michigan I had a physical geology prof who was going to learn to build an igloo because of the oncoming new ice age. The global warming and global cooling fads are just that: fads. Climate changes constantly and nobody can predict what it's going to do next.
-
.
-
An example of the latest twist on twisting information - how Google seems to manipulate search results in Hillary Clinton's favor:
https://www.facebook.com/SourceFedNews/videos/1199514293432055/
YouTube link: https://youtu.be/PFxFRqNmXKg
-
McCurry could have tried a quote attributed to Hermann Weyl (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Weyl) to get out of his dilemma: "My work always tried to unite the true with the beautiful; but when I had to choose one or the other, I usually chose the beautiful."
-
McCurry could have tried a quote attributed to Hermann Weyl (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Weyl) to get out of his dilemma: "My work always tried to unite the true with the beautiful; but when I had to choose one or the other, I usually chose the beautiful."
That's a good one, Rajan. I might even commit a cultural appropriation crime and use it myself ;)
-
His blog is back up. The processing style now seems more natural than the earlier borderline garish treatment.
-
That's a good one, Rajan. I might even commit a cultural appropriation crime and use it myself ;)
Oh, there's plenty of good quotes on the subject... Just watch this: Photography: Truth or Beauty (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfQY5hps_ZA)
As to that video (it's "pre McCurry-gate", BTW), I find one thing especially interesting: finally someone talks about what beats all that cloning out cr@p -- see the image at 11:00.
-
Coming from an advertising background, that anyone believes what they see feels extraordinary.
Shame it can win elections, but there you are: caveat emptor. It's all a bill of goods.
Rob
-
McCurry could have tried a quote attributed to Hermann Weyl (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Weyl) to get out of his dilemma: "My work always tried to unite the true with the beautiful; but when I had to choose one or the other, I usually chose the beautiful."
Now there's an unexpected reference :) Part of my PhD was a review of some of the discarded theories to attempt to unify electromagnetism and gravitation: one of those was Weyl's. It's a nice example of how even theoretical physics is strangely experimental. He wrote down an elegant theory, that every particle carried with it it's own notion of length, a "gauge". Variations in the length of this gauge could then give rise to a phenomenon like an EM field. However, a lot of mathematics eventually made the prediction that each particle would have its own personal spectrum, which is not at all what is observed. Hence the confrontation between truth and beauty. Otoh, the notion of "gauge field" hung about, not for length but for various forms of direction in extra dimensions, so the standard model of particle physics is still a gauge theory.
The Truth vs Beauty conundrum is also remembered in one pair of quarks, which are called Truth and Beauty in some labs (but more often Top and Bottom, last time I looked, long ago).
A similar situation arose with Ed Witten's work on String Fields: it was supposed to be physics, but no one has ever found any observations to support it. Eventually he was given a Field's Medal (for mathematics) rather than a Nobel for physics. As it happens, back in the 80's a lot of this stuff was being discussed and written down at the annual Summer School of theoretical physics in Les Houches, where I was on holiday last week. I was out cycling and saw a sign pointing up the hill the "L'école de physique". I had to go :)
-
Weyl's semi-popular book "Symmetry" is a beautiful exposition.