Photoshop scandal! Although I've seen a lot worse than this

On Sat, 28 May 2016 14:54:26 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Saturday, 28 May 2016 17:47:47 UTC-4, RichA wrote:
http://petapixel.com/2016/05/26/phot...curry-scandal/

McCurry will burn in photographer's Hell. Declaring the rules don't apply because you are a "story-teller" then desperately blaming the technician when you know the game is up is the last refuge of a photo scoundrel.

http://petapixel.com/2016/05/06/botc...oshop-scandal/

I'm definitely in the "so what" camp, like a few of the commenters on
that site. He's manipulating photos, not the viewers of those photos.
If he were manipulating them for political purposes (throwing
children's' toys on top of a pile of rubble from a missile strike,
giving the faces of Palestinians carrying a body a saintly glow), then
yes, he should burn in hell. But from what I see, all he's done is
change unimportant details to do nothing more than improve the look of
the photo. Big deal.

On Sat, 28 May 2016 15:23:11 -0700, Bill W
wrote:

On Sat, 28 May 2016 14:54:26 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Saturday, 28 May 2016 17:47:47 UTC-4, RichA wrote:
http://petapixel.com/2016/05/26/phot...curry-scandal/

McCurry will burn in photographer's Hell. Declaring the rules don't apply because you are a "story-teller" then desperately blaming the technician when you know the game is up is the last refuge of a photo scoundrel.

http://petapixel.com/2016/05/06/botc...oshop-scandal/

I'm definitely in the "so what" camp, like a few of the commenters on
that site. He's manipulating photos, not the viewers of those photos.
If he were manipulating them for political purposes (throwing
children's' toys on top of a pile of rubble from a missile strike,
giving the faces of Palestinians carrying a body a saintly glow), then
yes, he should burn in hell. But from what I see, all he's done is
change unimportant details to do nothing more than improve the look of
the photo. Big deal.

Many photographs have been posted in this news group over the years.
Some are accompanied by accounts of the removal of visually
distracting details in post processing. Others have attracted
criticism of the "I would remove that letter box" variety. As far as I
can see McCurry has done nothing which would not have met with
approval in this news group (with the probable exception of the
botched pedestrian and the road sign). It's not as though the various
photographs shown so far depend exact details for their veracity.
McCurry seems to be the victim of a feeding frenzy by smaller fish.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


Many photographs have been posted in this news group over the years.
Some are accompanied by accounts of the removal of visually
distracting details in post processing. Others have attracted
criticism of the "I would remove that letter box" variety. As far as I
can see McCurry has done nothing which would not have met with
approval in this news group (with the probable exception of the
botched pedestrian and the road sign). It's not as though the various
photographs shown so far depend exact details for their veracity.
McCurry seems to be the victim of a feeding frenzy by smaller fish.

it's also something that has existed long before there was a photoshop.

On 05/28/2016 06:23 PM, Bill W wrote:
On Sat, 28 May 2016 14:54:26 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Saturday, 28 May 2016 17:47:47 UTC-4, RichA wrote:
http://petapixel.com/2016/05/26/phot...curry-scandal/

McCurry will burn in photographer's Hell.

Declaring the rules don't apply because you are a "story-teller" then
desperately

blaming the technician when you know the game is up is the last refuge
of a photo scoundrel.

http://petapixel.com/2016/05/06/botc...oshop-scandal/

I'm definitely in the "so what" camp, like a few of the commenters on
that site. He's manipulating photos, not the viewers of those photos.
If he were manipulating them for political purposes (throwing
children's' toys on top of a pile of rubble from a missile strike,
giving the faces of Palestinians carrying a body a saintly glow), then
yes, he should burn in hell. But from what I see, all he's done is
change unimportant details to do nothing more than improve the look of
the photo. Big deal.


I would agree for most of the examples in the two websites above. All he
did was "enhance" the contrast/density/saturation of the photo.

Removing people or objects comes close to the line, but it depends on
the ultimate use of the photo.

--
Ken Hart

Ken Hart:
I would agree for most of the examples in the two websites above. All he
did was "enhance" the contrast/density/saturation of the photo.

Unquestionably. Another idiotic post from RichA.

Removing people or objects comes close to the line, but it depends on
the ultimate use of the photo.

Close to what line? Who drew this line? Who is this arbiter of what I
may do with my photos in my home with my Photoshop, and from whence
does her/his authority derive?

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On 05/28/2016 09:54 PM, Davoud wrote:
Ken Hart:
I would agree for most of the examples in the two websites above. All he
did was "enhance" the contrast/density/saturation of the photo.

Unquestionably. Another idiotic post from RichA.

Removing people or objects comes close to the line, but it depends on
the ultimate use of the photo.

Close to what line? Who drew this line? Who is this arbiter of what I
may do with my photos in my home with my Photoshop, and from whence
does her/his authority derive?


The line between fact and fiction, and a journalist's responsibility to
not cross that line. Do what you want with your photos and photoshop,
but if you try to publish them as a factual representation, then there
is an imaginary line that shouldn't be crossed. Unfortunately, many of
today's journalists only see that line in their rear-view mirror.



--
Ken Hart

In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

I would agree for most of the examples in the two websites above. All he
did was "enhance" the contrast/density/saturation of the photo.

Unquestionably. Another idiotic post from RichA.

Removing people or objects comes close to the line, but it depends on
the ultimate use of the photo.

Close to what line? Who drew this line? Who is this arbiter of what I
may do with my photos in my home with my Photoshop, and from whence
does her/his authority derive?

The line between fact and fiction, and a journalist's responsibility to
not cross that line. Do what you want with your photos and photoshop,
but if you try to publish them as a factual representation, then there
is an imaginary line that shouldn't be crossed. Unfortunately, many of
today's journalists only see that line in their rear-view mirror.

it's not just today's journalists.

altering news photos is nothing new (or stories for that matter). it's
been happening for a very, very long time and will continue to happen
for a very long time.

http://atchuup.com/altered-famous-historical-photos/
http://pth.izitru.com

On Sat, 28 May 2016 22:41:13 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Sat, 28 May 2016 21:54:13 -0400, Davoud wrote:

Ken Hart:
I would agree for most of the examples in the two websites above. All he
did was "enhance" the contrast/density/saturation of the photo.

Unquestionably. Another idiotic post from RichA.

Removing people or objects comes close to the line, but it depends on
the ultimate use of the photo.

Close to what line? Who drew this line? Who is this arbiter of what I
may do with my photos in my home with my Photoshop, and from whence
does her/his authority derive?

The "line" is drawn for the photojournalist, not you. The "line"
reference is directed at what Steve McCurry can do in his role as a
photojournalist. What he is claiming is that he has been a
photojournalist in the past, but now says he's not offering
photographs as a photojournalist. Now he says he's a "visual
storyteller".

There's nothing wrong with being a "visual storyteller", but the
public has a right to know which role he's in - photojournalist or
visual storyteller - when he presents an image. The problem seems to
be that Steve never declared that he was providing visual storytelling
instead of photojournalism until other people brought the
Photoshopping to national attention.

Surely you could identify his role from the context in which he
presented his images?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Ken Hart:
I would agree for most of the examples in the two websites above. All he
did was "enhance" the contrast/density/saturation of the photo.

Davoud:
Unquestionably. Another idiotic post from RichA.

Ken Hart:
Removing people or objects comes close to the line, but it depends on
the ultimate use of the photo.

Davoud:
Close to what line? Who drew this line? Who is this arbiter of what I
may do with my photos in my home with my Photoshop, and from whence
does her/his authority derive?

Tony Cooper:
The "line" is drawn for the photojournalist, not you. The "line"
reference is directed at what Steve McCurry can do in his role as a
photojournalist. What he is claiming is that he has been a
photojournalist in the past, but now says he's not offering
photographs as a photojournalist. Now he says he's a "visual
storyteller".

There's nothing wrong with being a "visual storyteller", but the
public has a right to know which role he's in - photojournalist or
visual storyteller - when he presents an image. The problem seems to
be that Steve never declared that he was providing visual storytelling
instead of photojournalism until other people brought the
Photoshopping to national attention.

Eric Stevens:
Surely you could identify his role from the context in which he
presented his images?

That's what I was thinking. I think that I recognize the difference
between photojournalism, which aims to illustrate a story from life,
and art photography, which is just that (but which may also tell a
story, even with a bit of photoshopping).

I must concede, however, that I got pulled into this by the phrase
"close to the line" without knowing the background. My error. I know
nothing about Steve McCurry beyond his striking "Afghan Girl"
photograph (which stands by itself as a great piece of
photojournalism), so I probably should not have commented. I believe
that McCurry shot "Afghan Girl" on Kodachrome. What if it had been
digital and he had used Photoshop to adjust light and shadows before
sending it to NG? Could it ipso facto no longer be called a great work?
How can we know what a darkroom artist at NG did with the image before
publication?

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Sun, 29 May 2016 11:24:01 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

If you had been following a series of blogs by a journalist on the
subject of workplace discrimination of legal immigrants where the
writer was presenting factual accounts of discrimination, and that
writer started embellishing the accounts to make the examples more
pointed, you would feel deceived if you found this out. The writer
changed from journalism to storytelling.

Point to some of his photos that are analogous to this. I don't think
you can, and you even said in another post that you don't really
object to the altered photos that you've seen. I just don't get what
the uproar is about. As I went through the examples, I kept looking
back and forth at the pairs of photos looking for anything, anything
at all, that a reasonable person could consider deception. If he had
bad intentions, what were those intentions? All I see is the intention
of better looking photos. None of those photos were making any sort of
statement, they were just pictures of things.