More McCurry problems exposed

On 2016-06-08 04:21:49 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

\
http://petapixel.com/2016/06/07/eyes...curry-scandal/

Defenders

of McCurry should read this article before responding to the
posts critical of McCurry.

The major point is, McCurry is not some blameless victim in this
affair. This is all of his making and has been for years. Now that his
work is subject to closer scrutiny, his reputation built on his obvious
talent and his self created legend of not being a tamperer of images,
has been seriously damaged. His efforts to spin the story so as to
minimize the damage are weak and unconvincing.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 8/06/2016 2:47 @wiz, Savageduck wrote:

http://petapixel.com/2016/06/07/eyes...curry-scandal/

Defenders of McCurry should read this article before responding to the
posts critical of McCurry.

The major point is, McCurry is not some blameless victim in this affair.
This is all of his making and has been for years. Now that his work is
subject to closer scrutiny, his reputation built on his obvious talent
and his self created legend of not being a tamperer of images, has been
seriously damaged. His efforts to spin the story so as to minimize the
damage are weak and unconvincing.



Hmmm... Dunno. Some of the "altering" I've seen is perfectly
consistent with the "editing for printing" I've seen on zillions of
other photos that get published in print. In almost all cases done
without express authorization of the owner.

The nature of the differences in the Afghan girl's shots or the
Guy-in-the-monsoon ones is perfectly consistent with what I'd expect
editors to do to "clean-up" or "fit" images.
No problem the adjusting colours/contrast and cleaning skin blemishes
is not objectionable to me.

The added/missing figures in some of the photos though is a worry - that
is alteration of content, pure and simple. Something I find completely
wrong in photo-journalism.

The actual truth behind all these events/manipulations?
I don't think we'll ever know...

On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 21:47:18 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-06-08 04:21:49 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

\
http://petapixel.com/2016/06/07/eyes...curry-scandal/

Defenders

of McCurry should read this article before responding to the
posts critical of McCurry.

The major point is, McCurry is not some blameless victim in this
affair. This is all of his making and has been for years. Now that his
work is subject to closer scrutiny, his reputation built on his obvious
talent and his self created legend of not being a tamperer of images,
has been seriously damaged. His efforts to spin the story so as to
minimize the damage are weak and unconvincing.

Quite apart from the question of tampering with images, that many of
his images are posed, staged, and generally set up should be obvious.
The vast majority of the current photographs on
http://stevemccurry.com/galleries reek of having been set up. But he
is not alone in this. Anyone who travels through the same parts of the
world as those of his subjects will know how hard it is to get the
clean, organised and uncluttered shots so commonly returned by not
only McCurry but all the better known photographers.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens