Steve McCurry is one of the legends of photography for those images that we have everything in our retina and that special portrait of the Afghan girl with that powerful and disturbing look.
Today we learned that this photographer has been altering your images with techniques prohibited in photojournalism for many years. A scandal that sends the reputation of this famous photographer to the ground directly and that is receiving aggressive criticism from the most famous journalists on the planet.
When we find ourselves in a time when photo manipulation helps us create beautiful works of art like Johansson's, this manipulation is not allowed to be used in photographs that have to show or reveal the world around us. McCurry is a legend of photography and today it has come to the fore that his intention was to show that world in the best possible way.
An excuse that is not valid when it has been discovered that has removed children, arms, a road sign or a window on a wall that had to be erased according to McCurry.
There are many colleagues who consider this photomanipulation a fraud when deleting items of an image with Photoshop tools in which cloning or the typical cut-paste is used, a practice prohibited by agencies and awards related to photojournalism. Let's say it cannot be conceived.
It was all discovered when a photographer named Paolo Viglione discovered the stroke of using Photoshop on a piece of road sign that was separated from the rest. From his blog he spread the image and encouraged the rest of the editors to check the 40-year archive of this photographer.
McCurry has removed all those photographs from the indicated images and due to the fact in question, there are already many who claim that for less, to other professionals they have been fired from their job and their careers have collapsed.
It's very simple, If you are a journalist, you cannot lie, or cheat, or manipulate or remove things in the photos, assuming that reality is told. Finally, McCurry declared before the accusations that he takes his images with an aesthetic sense.
We are already ...... is it a sin to use Potoshop?. What a mania ..
For it depends what cannot be used, for certain contests it is prohibited and the use of graphic design tools. And is it okay if it is used without permission as they do with many models and actresses? they protest and do not want to be touched up but the agencies do it to sell more. Photoshop is the best program for image retouching but it is useless for anything else, if you are a designer you will know that illustrator or any vector program makes a thousand turns, in my work Photoshop is used occasionally, almost everything is done with other programs, if you are a designer you will know why, greetings. :)
It is photojournalism, if it were photo manipulation as many artists do, it would be perfectly understandable. But this man has sold himself as a photojournalist, hence the criticism and his final excuse that ended up saying it was his assistant's fault. Greetings Jose Maria!
Wow, yours is dogma. I imagine you know why? although I have the feeling that you are a bit wrong since what you use in your work does not have to be law.
And by the way, I can't help it. Every time I read it I laugh more. You say “Photoshop is useless for anything but image retouching” OMG. What there is to read. No wonder the profession is the way it is.
of course ... step of purists !!!!!
If you are a documentary photographer, it is a sin. It is one thing to retouch the light and another to erase objects. Certainly a disappointment!
Even retouching the light could be frowned upon. You are supposed to have a professional camera that has to capture the light of the moment as it appears on the scene.
Regards!
I do too, will I burn in hell? This capuyo is paid for delivering good photos, not for being honest in his work ...
The truth seems silly to me: s
What would be good is that it is reported that it has been done in the photograph. What is not right is to present a work and want to pretend that it was obtained with a photographic process, when in reality it has been obtained with a computerized process. It is neither good nor bad (I do not particularly like retouching photographs) they are different things. A photograph is one thing and a digital illustration is another.