The Steve McCurry Scandal. - It's about ethics in Photojournalism.

[Ravenor]

OK Recently in the world of Photojournalism there has been a bit of a scandal surrounding Steve McCurry, if you don't know who he is you'll most likely recognise his work particularly this rather famous example:

Well it turns out that he's been editing his Photo's since the early 80's, now in the age of Airbrushing every photo you see having at least minor touch up's that might not seem like much but in the world of traditional Photojournalism touching up or staging Photographs in anyway is considered completely not kosher as summed up by one person as this:

Photojournalists abide by a pretty serious code of ethics. We're not allowed to manipulate or "massage" a situation, we're not allowed to take photos of staged things (even if they're spontaneously staged by the subjects for the purpose of taking the photo). Cloning or any sort of real photo manipulation is completely prohibited outside of dust removal.

Your supposed to present images representing the facts of events as they happened, to give people a real world experience while reading the accompanying text.

Well Steve McCurry hasn't been doing that for a long time it turns out, He's been "adjusting" images it seems from the very start of his carrier. This all came to light when some one noticed this in one of his Photo's:

Now his manager claimed that Steve has not been a Photojournalist for a long time, and if that was the case it wouldn't be a issue however on further investigation into his work. Including this work that was amongst one of his many pictures that was staged and sold to the public as being completely natural:

This is what Indian photographer Satish Sharma had to say about Steve McCurry:

“I am not at all surprised at the digital manipulation (done by him) to create the perfect frame.

I have watched him rig (stage) his pictures. (He) Arranged the subjects (back then) because chromes (slide film) could not be that easily manipulated.“

And he had this to say about the cover Photo it's self:

“This famous cover picture of his National Geographic story on the Railways was a special case that I remember. He actually had to reshoot it and got the railways to take the engine back again, because the first shoot was not sharp enough”

However the most egregious example can be related to this Photo:

“This apparently off the cuff moment was arranged too. The lady is the wife of a photographer friend and the suitcases the coolie (porter) is carrying are empty. They had to be because the shot took time and lots of patient posing. McCurry’s pictures have been called STAGED CANDID MOMENTS by Avinash Pasricha , a photographer friend who knows how he works because he helped him with the pictures like the one above. The lady is his sister in law. "

Another Indian photographer Avinash Pasricha had this to say about Steve staging photographs.

Yes, from what I can recall, Steve used to stage quite a few shots back then. He needed help whenever he came to India and people obliged. Since my house was and still is centrally located in the city he would come here often. He was always passionate and longing to go out and shoot again. On one occasion that he had come, he told me of a particular shot that he wanted to take on how people travel in India. He requested my sister in law Vanita to accompany him to New Delhi Railway station”

Now what does all this mean?

Well it mean's that some of the most Iconic images of the late 20's century are called into doubt regarding there legitimacy, you see sadly a lot of people find images more striking than text it's self and a image like the Afghan Girl has came to symbolise whole events in Human History seriously whenever some one mentions the Russian invasion of Afghanistan that image at the top of this thread is the first thing to come to mind for the majority of people, That image now appears to have been seriously edited in the eye area to make it more striking or visually apealing.

McCurry has been shooting and providing images to National Geographic and other Publications for a very long time and we are yet to see just how far reaching this scandal will go however it's safe to say that his carrier as a Photojournalist is shot, and his reputation is tarnished forever. But it raises a bigger questions what if this is just the tip of a much larger iceberg and other famous Photojournalists and Iconic Photographs have been staged does this mean that the visual history of the world from the 1980's to the present day is a lie?

Here is the article I have borrowed the quotes from and some of the example photographs, that goes into far more detail that I can on the subject.

 

[AnOminous]

It's funny this is a scandal in photojournalism, which was arguably founded by Matthew Brady, a famous Civil War photographer who was himself notorious for staging photographs, including by posing dead bodies on battlefields.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

painters of historical events used artistic license to communicate events, why are photojournalists any different

 

[Forever Sunrise]

I think it depends on the subject matter. If the photographs are still an accurate representation of their subject matter, they still have a valid journalistic role to play. There's absolutely nothing wrong with changing or enhancing minor details of an image to make it more visually appealing. I don't even mind staged photographs, so long as the intent is to convey an accurate version of events. It's only when you start airbrushing out important details that would change the message of the picture that it becomes a problem.

That said, I agree that selling edited photographs as completely unedited is a scummy move. If the editing process was disclosed, then fine. Trying to pass edited material as fully realistic is essentially forgery. I think this guy should be punished for his business practices, but I don't think they alter the iconic nature of his pictures - they just reclassify them.

 

[Ravenor]

It's funny this is a scandal in photojournalism, which was arguably founded by Matthew Brady, a famous Civil War photographer who was himself notorious for staging photographs, including by posing dead bodies on battlefields.

painters of historical events used artistic license to communicate events, why are photojournalists any different

The thing is in those cases that's for two different technical reasons.

1) Photography was a new technology when Brady was taking Photographs in the American Civil War, he couldn't take photographs like where taken in subsequent wars because the exposure time was very long. When you see pictures from that period of time an every one has these non natural stiff poses that's because they often had things holding them still.

2) A Painting or a Sketch are different they took a while to create and they had to get as much information from the event into a single painting or drawing so you'd see a much more condensed version of events than you would with a Photograph.

It's only when you start airbrushing out important details that would change the message of the picture that it becomes a problem.

The thing is he has been doing just that.

That said, I agree that selling edited photographs as completely unedited is a scummy move. If the editing process was disclosed, then fine. Trying to pass edited material as fully realistic is essentially forgery. I think this guy should be punished for his business practices, but I don't think they alter the iconic nature of his pictures - they just reclassify them.

That's what he has been doing, supposedly only one of his images used on the front of Nat Geo was one taken in front of the Great Pyramid of Giza where they shifted the background colour more towards the red an they published a disclaimer on the inside cover of the issue, and that was a decision by Nat Geo everything else they used of his he supposedly sold them as original unedited nonstaged pictures an that clearly wasnt the case.

 

[AnOminous]

The thing is in those cases that's for two different technical reasons.

1) Photography was a new technology when Brady was taking Photographs in the American Civil War, he couldn't take photographs like where taken in subsequent wars because the exposure time was very long. When you see pictures from that period of time an every one has these non natural stiff poses that's because they often had things holding them still.

Dead bodies don't do much moving around on their own.

 

[ActualKiwi]

Dead bodies don't do much moving around on their own.

Depends, have you seen Wu lately?

 

[SpessCaptain]

I really appreciate his works as an art but using enhancement tools and staging has made his photography less magical and legitmate. When someone is proven to break the standards discreetly, such as heavy tracing, underpainting, photoshop and other editors, and claiming its 100% authentic is a huge no no in any medium.

A lot of them get away with it too.

 

[Tranhuviya]

Dead bodies don't do much moving around on their own.

That's what they want you to think, famalam.

 

[Rou]

I don't mind that he edited his pictures but passing them as natural is pretty unethical. Posing should be the most you should do if you're trying to pass it as natural.