This is awesome Justin, thanks for doing this and thanks for sharing the link about the fake travel photos. It is a fight I lost energy to fight for, but you are reviving the spark ;)
wow. well, this enlivened my Sunday evening :) I love it. I had no idea about the Steve McCurry shots. its kind of crazy. I was never truly drawn to his work for some reason. Not sure why... I appreciate everything you said as well as your integrity. That is something that is so important all the way around. ( I am trying to learn as much as I can about documentary photography so again, I do appreciate learning from a true working professional as yourself. Much respect). Keep the videos coming. BTW love the new set up in your office. Looks really good to me.
Thx man! Been following your videos. As another SF street photographer who now resides in SE Asia, I love your honesty in this and many other videos. You hit so many points right on! Your rant has been liberating.
I’m in Hong Kong right now. Exploring, seeing and feelin it the best way possible, as you mentioned, with street photography. 😊 Thinking of hitting up Vietnam in a couple of months. Maybe I’ll msg you for tips on your IG?
Finally... I wont even look at a Nat Geo in a dentist waiting room, if I want to see fantasy photos I will find them on those youtube channels you briefly mentioned.
As an ex newspaper photographer myself I def know the value of not retouching an image, although in my day that was much harder because we shot film! The closest we got was painting out film scratches or dust! I do agree with you completely, and in fact was hoping someone would come out with the competition scandal. These are rights grabs, nothing more and nothing less. NEVER enter an online photo contest as your images will make someone else a lot of money and you will be left without ownership of your image (forever) and you will have paid someone else for that priviledge. Well said Justin, love your work… Kirk Vogel (New Zealand)
I've always liked McCurrys work and my huge coffee table book of his images was not burnt because of the scandal. He got leeway, probably more than anyone deserved purely because his images were so good. His reputation was made before Photoshop was popular, and yes he does really say "it wasn't me" rather than 'fess up. But his reputation has bought him a lot of goodwill, so he's been given a benefit of doubt that most people wouldn't get. Fair? No. Surprising? No. And as you say, there is an awful lot of money, and a load of careers tied to McCurry.
Hi Justin, I always enjoy your videos. From my perspective as a National Geographic subscriber and fan from my early teens, I am 61. Until now, I never realised how much trust I had put into that publication as a wide-eyed kid leafing through all the fabulous photos and stories, believing them to be the real deal, only to find out that maybe it's all a little bit fake. If one person is doing a 'shonky', maybe there are others. And perhaps National Geographic know that some of their best image creators are submitting work that has been manipulated but turn a blind eye, only caring about the finished product and how it looks in their publication. Kind Regards B
I really appreciate this well-thought-out comment my friend. They definitely turned a blind eye and it was really disappointing that they still looked away after he was busted.
This is great, you need a specific theme song for when you do a rant. The only thing I'll say about McCurry (and you didn't even get into some of the super bad shit related to his most famous stories) is that there is this repeatable pattern in society where at first when people talk about someone "beloved" doing something bad they are attacked and dismissed. Then it becomes something that "everyone talks about privately", and then eventually there's like this weird tipping point that seems to come out of nowhere and then suddenly it's ok to talk about. Sometimes I guess that last part doesn't happen, but I remember (this is maybe not the best analogy) with R. Kelly that for like 20 years everyone privately talked about the awful shit he did and was like "I can't believe everyone is okay with this", and then over time the scales eventually swapped and then it was ok to publicly hold him accountable. Hopefully we're at least at the point with McCurry where people stop attacking folks who point out his awful behavior.
Totally agree on your Steve McCurry saga assessment. I remember the disappointment I felt back in the day. I always considered him to be a photojournalist.
First, I like your workspace. It looks cool and contemporary :) I follow you and understand how you are frustrated by the industry. In particular Nat Geo. It is like Roman catholic and there's the "Don't say anything about us" vibe. I'm not a pro😁yet I started a personal project just before pandemic and travel to one part of this planet each year, capturing some images from there. I now understand how tough it is to photograph "unique" photograph. I take the images important to me to visually describe this region, inspired by the conversation with the locals during the trip (also read books about the region and do some homework). I'm not over concerned about (afraid of ?) how people feel about my images although I take their opinion on the note and think through later, ask myself whether I could do better if so how did I do better etc. Always thanking you for sharing your knowledge and experience with us.
I think you make a great point about photojournalism. In my opinion a photojournalist is one who should be presenting truth, not artifice. If McCurry had always sold himself as a creative artist, not a documentarian there would be no issue, but he defrauded us. I’m also surprised that he didn’t suffer greater damage to his career. When the the difference between an OOC image and the edited image are so great that no variability due to photographic processes can account for them, you’re not doing photojournalism or documentation. And when you don’t reveal that you are staging and cloning and compositing to your client, you’re not a photojournalist. I’m also with you on the contests. It should be free to enter with very, very limited transfer of rights. Get a wealthy corporation to sponsor your damn contest.
100%. You’ve given voice to my thoughts. Leaving aside that I never liked McCurry‘s work anyway, it was always a little too on the nose and overworked for my taste (hey, turns out my instincts were correct!) adding or subtracting from the OOC picture is not even in journalism’s ballpark. And this new branch of photojournalism called Storyteller… please.
I agree with your point about new gear and the demo photos that accompany them. Usually I scratch my head and can’t figure out why the have used that particular photo. But I would say the same thing about photo contest winners - they’re rarely obvious why, just another empty street, unusual angle, elderly person - so predictable.
Thanks David, I’m doing a live stream follow up to this episode if you’re interested in joining the conservation. th-cam.com/video/mYIuzvNGzck/w-d-xo.html
Lots of great information and insights here Justin. The hunt for your next super natural moment and interesting subject composition, is what should keep you motivated curious, and keen to keep traveling and capturing moments. Without 100% real, ethical documenting, the value of the work can't stand proud. Interesting article on the fakers, I follow a few of them on there, and I was always a bit suspicious of their work, if it looks to good to be true, it probably is.
Thanks Jared , I’m doing a live stream follow up to this episode if you’re interested in joining the conservation. th-cam.com/video/mYIuzvNGzck/w-d-xo.html
I love your passionate rants mainly because the passion you have for what you do is palpable. And that really is great and refreshing, so never stop being passionate. I agree with most of what you said during this particular rant but I'm not so certain about Steve McCurry. I'm not a huge fan of his work and bland shots of indigenous people leave me somewhat cold but I think the concept of setting up images and being creative in Photoshop isn't always bad. Although I spent my life working as a film editor and then a TV director isn't quite the same as being a photographer the end product is similar. Both are trying to create an emotional reaction in the viewer using images. And trying to give the viewer an insight into a particular event or scene that you're involved in. In TV you can manipulate in many different ways but nevertheless you do have to manipulate in order to get under the skin of the event; to give any insights, to create the emotional reaction you want in the audience you have to do what you can to fill in the gaps beyond the two dimensional image they're seeing. Don't forget, you as a creator at the event or scene can take in all the sights and sounds and smells over a period of minutes or hours, together with the historical context of the scene. To convey all that in a few seconds or minutes of TV you have to use tricks and manipulations to fill in all the gaps for the audience. And the same is true, even more true, for a photographer. How can you convey such a huge amount of emotion in a single 2D image ? Sometimes you might be lucky or skilled enough to get an image that does do what you want but 90% of the time it's simply impossible. And in those cases I think the end justifies the means. And if that means some setting up or some Photoshopping then so be it. At the end of the day if the image you get reflects the reality of the scene you're involved with then you're not pulling the wool over people's eyes. What you're doing is filling in the gaps so the audience will be able to feel what you do. Hope that makes sense....
For TV I understand it in certain situations, the issue with him is it goes against the code of conduct for the publications he's shooting for an general journalist ethics, it's kind of photojournalism 101 of what not to do. He's literally erasing reality when his job is to document it. If he was a fine art or commercial photographer, not a problem.
It wasn’t art it was journalism and it will always be shameful in the journalism ethics standards. It’s like the first thing they teach you in any journalism class.
I agree 100% with you with regards to Steve Curry. It was an enormous disappointment for me when I understood that this guy was a scam(and even worse with National Geographic.)
The scandal isn’t surprising to me Alex, it’s how it was handled that rubbed me the wrong way. I’m doing a live stream follow up to this episode if you’re interested in joining the conservation. th-cam.com/video/mYIuzvNGzck/w-d-xo.html
Follow you but only just seen this. Fully agree. I have unsubscribed from quite a few 'young and non-professenal' photographers who give tips on photography, promote cameras and have only just got out of college. They know little but feelthey have the right to preach. Give up on them an also the photographerswho are established but all of a suddensee the pound notes and start promoting equipment of a dubious nature. You are several levels above them, thank goodness.
To be honest , I’ve wanted to talk about this since before it even became public because I knew this was happening through mutual fixers. However, I was a hit trepidatious because the industry itself tends to shun being called out but I’ve reached a point where I trust my audience to understand and appreciate my intentions. I’m sure I’ll get backlash but I’m ok with that.
@@AskMOTT I get the frustration, particularly if you feel silenced because of possible consequences. The fact that he suddenly called himself a "storyteller" kind of reveals that he knew what he did was wrong, but just doesn't want to own it. If he really saw himself as a "storyteller" he would have described himself as such a long time ago. He's a great photographer, but the lack of honesty and transparency is problematic. Regarding your first part, there always seems to be specific types of photos, which are preferred over all other photographs. It's frustrating, particularly when people pretend to be "critically" minded.
My thoughts on your video-composition is that the Cam is way too low. The crop in is a little weird that way, too close. Just a little under your eyeline is low enough. This right now, is the perspective of a teenager talking to a bigger parent. Just a little bit more up with the Cam please. And try to look to the right site of the frame, this is more friendly than looking left. Also arrange the backround corner to be an "L" ,so one side longer t han the other of the L. that creates depth. Also play with the angle of the microphone in the foreground. Your exposure level in your face is too low. The video looks almost monochrome. And i would go for Rembrandt lighting.
We are on the same page. I had it on a Joby tripod while I was awaiting my Rode boom arm to get it higher up for me. I don't look down on my audience ha ha, thanks for the feedback.
I think the best guide for post production is the Associated Press Code of Ethics for Photojournalists, it’s a PDF you can print. Maybe I should send the link to Steve McCurry.
Completely agree with you on the TH-cam “professionals”. Just be up front, if you’re selling ‘zines or books or just producing content. Don’t act like you’re a Leica ambassador getting sent out by magnum between vids. It took me 20yrs to put together my Leica system, drives me crazy that guys are walking around with m6’s, m10’s with ‘crons and luxes 😂😂….they never went through fm3 stage, m5 stage, cl with broken meter, elmarits, etc…..straight to an m6 with - bokeh king. 🤬😄. Sour grapes I guess 👍
I spent two summers traveling to Mount Rainier trying to get a wildflower shot that is similar to one by Art Wolf. I’ve scoured that mountain and have not been able to find where he took it. At a recent visit to my local camera shop, I learned he photoshopped in the wildflowers. That made me lose respect for the art form. Modern photography is fake news.
Thanks Juanita, it’s hard enough to get people to believe in photojournalists these days so it doesn’t help w when one of the biggest names shooting for one of the biggest publications stains the industry.
I personally think photoshopping is really against the essence of the medium of photography itself. To me, the beauty and amusement of photography always comes from its authenticity. If a photograph is heavily photoshopped to the level of altering its originality, what makes it different from AI photography that everybody rants about?
Photography is an art form. So IMO anything that supports your personal art is ok. Photoshop is a tool as is the camera in producing art and is 100% ok. Mccurry using his eye to set up a shot and photoshop to make it is own is perfectly ok.
Sorry but not when you’re working as a photojournalist for a media outlet. Writing is an art form, doesn’t mean a reporter can you just make up quotes or fabricate stories.
What I find odd about the McCurry saga is how he continues to be a member of Magnum given how uptight they appear to be over ethics. Maybe Magnum itself is a topic for another day? There are any number of world class photojournalists there, no question, but some of the 'fine art' photographers particularly those working on film leave me with a serious case of emperor's new clothes.
Regarding Leica, Canon, etc. and "their" photography, I think the camera manufacturers don't want to intimidate their customers. They just want people to take pictures - with THEIR equipment. Regarding Steve McCurry's photos, I think you're wasting your time. We ALL know how a digital image can be manipulated with Photoshop and Lightroom. What would make you think that Steve McCurry wouldn't "set up" a photo, even a "National Geographic" photo? And lastly, my pet peeve, is the humor in Elliott Erwitt's photos. To me, most of Erwitt's photos LOOK contrived - whether they were or were not. How is Elliott Erwitt a "great" photographer?
Leica Canon etc. not wanting to intimidate is likely true and possibly inspired by the old practice by Kodak for decades in their publications to use good photos that were within the potential of the average amateur.
That whole Steve McCurry situation was just made to go away. Reclassifying him as not being a photojournalist. Then they blamed his assistants for some of the mistake. I’m not surprised of the lavish shoots that probably has to more to do with his disability than anything else. In a recent interview he said he doesn’t use a Leica that offend because of that same disability.
Your photo rights are very important. Every time you take a photo its not just a bunch of pixels its an actual product that you can collect royalties on for the rest of your life.
Why would you have to pay for a competition? 😳 I've never done one so I didn't know that but what is the logic? Also, I love to copy but just to understand. I would never put those photos on the internet. For personal use only.
My aunt is five foot nothing and 100 pounds. She was a ringside photographer for professional boxing in the 70's 80's and 90's. She was a photographer. I don't know what a photographer is in 2022 with today's technology.
Everything right on the money, Justin. Especially these ridiculous contests, which mean nothing (and I’ve won my fair share) and McCurry. People get really upset when I talk about staged and photoshopped work. McCurry was on assignment when he manipulated and staged his stuff.
Why does this trigger a rant now, 6 years later? Also, while moving and adding should not happen, to my understanding every photographer edits color. With Raw Files, you have to, as without a Profile there is no picture. Or what?
If you’re working for journalistic magazines it’s completely unethical, it’s journalism 101, and the biggest no no in the industry. All other types of photography, have at it, but National Geographic and McCurry knew better and then he just edited his bio after he got caught.
I think there are issues, for example if you are shooting a travel brochure, then some retouching is acceptable, as people know is a advertisement, and its to sell the hotel, location, but if I was shooting a project on deforestation, then the work is getting into evidence area, so the captioning has to be correct as well as no cloning removal etc, in my opinion.
So overdone and copied over and over again. There is so much more to capture here than faking setups, this country is so beautiful on it's own, doesn't need to be faked, nor should it :(
@@AskMOTT Totally agree with you! Have no idea why the hell they can keep shamelessly stealing each other's ideas then submit to a ton of contests. Just disgusting. While lots of great documentary photographers out there mentally and financially struggling in the market!
Not at all , but photoshopping things out or adding things to a photos that weren’t there in reality when it comes to photojournalism is unethical by even the weakest standards for journalism.
No matter how contrived the set up, or how much post editing goes into the shot, it's not going to have the emotional impact of say Nick Ut's Terror of War, or Cappa's D Day landings or McCullin's shell shocked soldier. You can't fake that..
You keep standing up for integrity and someone is gonna take you out. You talk about equal treatment. Perhaps you remember the motto from Animal Farm, "All Animals Are Equal." This was later mysteriously amended to, "All Animals Are Equal, But Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others." The weasels always seem to find a way in. Through Marketing, I think. As for serious Photoshopping, I am no good at editing so it is SOOC for me. I should learn how to edit but, honestly, feel it alters the reality of the scene and what I saw that I thought should be in a camera. I have begun telling a lie when I do that. The size of the lie does not change that it is a lie.
It was extremely disappoiting to say the least. But I gotta say, some of his stuff just seemed too perfect. But he's not the only 1 I have had sneaky suspicion about. No one is that lucky. Surely. Not even those guys. And it turns out, they're not. Massive let down from a fan perspective but clearly more damaging for pro's.
If half his more famous images where photoshopped I would completely understand. But that’s not the case. I also would like to think it was NG pushing for the editing of the images not Steve, which would make sense because they was the ones paying for it. Steve didn’t need more Popularity or money, NG asked him to do these things.
Sorry , but no way anyone is asking him to do this and even if that was the case it’s just wrong in journalism. . He made a career out of doing this , that’s how he became famous. Even his famous Afghan girl photo was heavily worked.
This is awesome Justin, thanks for doing this and thanks for sharing the link about the fake travel photos. It is a fight I lost energy to fight for, but you are reviving the spark ;)
I lose energy on it all as well from time to time but as a community we can keep the fire alive :). Your articles are great man , keep them coming.
One of your best videos, and the links lead to three excellent, thought-provoking articles. Many thanks!
I'm happy people actually read the articles Jackson, I wish a big publication investigated this issue deeper.
wow. well, this enlivened my Sunday evening :) I love it. I had no idea about the Steve McCurry shots. its kind of crazy. I was never truly drawn to his work for some reason. Not sure why... I appreciate everything you said as well as your integrity. That is something that is so important all the way around. ( I am trying to learn as much as I can about documentary photography so again, I do appreciate learning from a true working professional as yourself. Much respect). Keep the videos coming. BTW love the new set up in your office. Looks really good to me.
Thanks Linda and thanks for coming on the livestream w your great questions , I appreciate that.
Thx man! Been following your videos. As another SF street photographer who now resides in SE Asia, I love your honesty in this and many other videos. You hit so many points right on! Your rant has been liberating.
Thanks Kelvin, where are you based ?
I’m in Hong Kong right now. Exploring, seeing and feelin it the best way possible, as you mentioned, with street photography. 😊 Thinking of hitting up Vietnam in a couple of months. Maybe I’ll msg you for tips on your IG?
Thanks for the courage to speak your mind about some of the problems you see in the industry. At the correct audio level no less!
Thanks Robert, glad it sounded good :). My Shure MV7 is a solid mic :).
Finally... I wont even look at a Nat Geo in a dentist waiting room, if I want to see fantasy photos I will find them on those youtube channels you briefly mentioned.
You reminded me I need to go to the dentist ha ha, I've been putting it off :(.
As an ex newspaper photographer myself I def know the value of not retouching an image, although in my day that was much harder because we shot film! The closest we got was painting out film scratches or dust! I do agree with you completely, and in fact was hoping someone would come out with the competition scandal. These are rights grabs, nothing more and nothing less. NEVER enter an online photo contest as your images will make someone else a lot of money and you will be left without ownership of your image (forever) and you will have paid someone else for that priviledge. Well said Justin, love your work… Kirk Vogel (New Zealand)
Thank Kirk I appreciate that and well said , it’s sad that most people just don’t even care.
I've always liked McCurrys work and my huge coffee table book of his images was not burnt because of the scandal. He got leeway, probably more than anyone deserved purely because his images were so good. His reputation was made before Photoshop was popular, and yes he does really say "it wasn't me" rather than 'fess up. But his reputation has bought him a lot of goodwill, so he's been given a benefit of doubt that most people wouldn't get. Fair? No. Surprising? No. And as you say, there is an awful lot of money, and a load of careers tied to McCurry.
Hi Justin, I always enjoy your videos. From my perspective as a National Geographic subscriber and fan from my early teens, I am 61. Until now, I never realised how much trust I had put into that publication as a wide-eyed kid leafing through all the fabulous photos and stories, believing them to be the real deal, only to find out that maybe it's all a little bit fake. If one person is doing a 'shonky', maybe there are others. And perhaps National Geographic know that some of their best image creators are submitting work that has been manipulated but turn a blind eye, only caring about the finished product and how it looks in their publication.
Kind Regards B
I really appreciate this well-thought-out comment my friend. They definitely turned a blind eye and it was really disappointing that they still looked away after he was busted.
Steve is one of the greatest OG photojournalists ever. The images he edited seemed to be for artistic purposes since he wasn't covering a story
This is great, you need a specific theme song for when you do a rant. The only thing I'll say about McCurry (and you didn't even get into some of the super bad shit related to his most famous stories) is that there is this repeatable pattern in society where at first when people talk about someone "beloved" doing something bad they are attacked and dismissed. Then it becomes something that "everyone talks about privately", and then eventually there's like this weird tipping point that seems to come out of nowhere and then suddenly it's ok to talk about. Sometimes I guess that last part doesn't happen, but I remember (this is maybe not the best analogy) with R. Kelly that for like 20 years everyone privately talked about the awful shit he did and was like "I can't believe everyone is okay with this", and then over time the scales eventually swapped and then it was ok to publicly hold him accountable. Hopefully we're at least at the point with McCurry where people stop attacking folks who point out his awful behavior.
Totally agree on your Steve McCurry saga assessment. I remember the disappointment I felt back in the day. I always considered him to be a photojournalist.
Thanks Richard, appreciate you taking the time to comment.
And even if he then changed his definition to "visual story-teller" doesn't change the fact that on previous assignments he WAS a journalist
Really appreciate the honesty of this channel, keep up the great content, even if it’s on a sour note.
I appreciate you taking the time to comment Matt.
First, I like your workspace. It looks cool and contemporary :) I follow you and understand how you are frustrated by the industry. In particular Nat Geo. It is like Roman catholic and there's the "Don't say anything about us" vibe. I'm not a pro😁yet I started a personal project just before pandemic and travel to one part of this planet each year, capturing some images from there. I now understand how tough it is to photograph "unique" photograph. I take the images important to me to visually describe this region, inspired by the conversation with the locals during the trip (also read books about the region and do some homework). I'm not over concerned about (afraid of ?) how people feel about my images although I take their opinion on the note and think through later, ask myself whether I could do better if so how did I do better etc. Always thanking you for sharing your knowledge and experience with us.
Thank you for sharing your story with me Mike, love that you’re working on a project as I feel that is the best way to grow as a photographer.
So refreshing to hear some honesty about this stuff, great video mate.
A bit nervous to hit publish Jay, but I trust my audience now and it felt right and I believe it’s important to address these things.
Thanks Justin, a good listen...
My pleasure :). thanks for watching.
I think you make a great point about photojournalism. In my opinion a photojournalist is one who should be presenting truth, not artifice. If McCurry had always sold himself as a creative artist, not a documentarian there would be no issue, but he defrauded us. I’m also surprised that he didn’t suffer greater damage to his career. When the the difference between an OOC image and the edited image are so great that no variability due to photographic processes can account for them, you’re not doing photojournalism or documentation. And when you don’t reveal that you are staging and cloning and compositing to your client, you’re not a photojournalist. I’m also with you on the contests. It should be free to enter with very, very limited transfer of rights. Get a wealthy corporation to sponsor your damn contest.
100%. You’ve given voice to my thoughts. Leaving aside that I never liked McCurry‘s work anyway, it was always a little too on the nose and overworked for my taste (hey, turns out my instincts were correct!) adding or subtracting from the OOC picture is not even in journalism’s ballpark. And this new branch of photojournalism called Storyteller… please.
I agree with your point about new gear and the demo photos that accompany them. Usually I scratch my head and can’t figure out why the have used that particular photo. But I would say the same thing about photo contest winners - they’re rarely obvious why, just another empty street, unusual angle, elderly person - so predictable.
Thanks David, I’m doing a live stream follow up to this episode if you’re interested in joining the conservation.
th-cam.com/video/mYIuzvNGzck/w-d-xo.html
love this channel. amateur here who also does youtube. i agree photography has become boring with the 'pros' pushed by big business....generally.
Thank you , I appreciate you watching my long rant :).
I really like the new set-up, Justin.
Thanks Andrew, I appreciate it brother.
Lots of great information and insights here Justin. The hunt for your next super natural moment and interesting subject composition, is what should keep you motivated curious, and keen to keep traveling and capturing moments. Without 100% real, ethical documenting, the value of the work can't stand proud. Interesting article on the fakers, I follow a few of them on there, and I was always a bit suspicious of their work, if it looks to good to be true, it probably is.
Thanks Jared , I’m doing a live stream follow up to this episode if you’re interested in joining the conservation.
th-cam.com/video/mYIuzvNGzck/w-d-xo.html
I love your passionate rants mainly because the passion you have for what you do is palpable. And that really is great and refreshing, so never stop being passionate. I agree with most of what you said during this particular rant but I'm not so certain about Steve McCurry. I'm not a huge fan of his work and bland shots of indigenous people leave me somewhat cold but I think the concept of setting up images and being creative in Photoshop isn't always bad. Although I spent my life working as a film editor and then a TV director isn't quite the same as being a photographer the end product is similar. Both are trying to create an emotional reaction in the viewer using images. And trying to give the viewer an insight into a particular event or scene that you're involved in. In TV you can manipulate in many different ways but nevertheless you do have to manipulate in order to get under the skin of the event; to give any insights, to create the emotional reaction you want in the audience you have to do what you can to fill in the gaps beyond the two dimensional image they're seeing. Don't forget, you as a creator at the event or scene can take in all the sights and sounds and smells over a period of minutes or hours, together with the historical context of the scene. To convey all that in a few seconds or minutes of TV you have to use tricks and manipulations to fill in all the gaps for the audience. And the same is true, even more true, for a photographer. How can you convey such a huge amount of emotion in a single 2D image ? Sometimes you might be lucky or skilled enough to get an image that does do what you want but 90% of the time it's simply impossible. And in those cases I think the end justifies the means. And if that means some setting up or some Photoshopping then so be it. At the end of the day if the image you get reflects the reality of the scene you're involved with then you're not pulling the wool over people's eyes. What you're doing is filling in the gaps so the audience will be able to feel what you do. Hope that makes sense....
For TV I understand it in certain situations, the issue with him is it goes against the code of conduct for the publications he's shooting for an general journalist ethics, it's kind of photojournalism 101 of what not to do. He's literally erasing reality when his job is to document it. If he was a fine art or commercial photographer, not a problem.
@@AskMOTT Understood
W. Eugene Smith also did it when working on the Albert Schweitzer assignment and nobody criticized him for it.
Man, you’re so right, great points I never thought about. Cheers.
Thank you , I’ll be doing a live stream follow up here on TH-cam August 7th 8pm ESTif you’re interested in joining us.
Most photographers use editing software for artistic purposes. It is no longer considered shameful.
It wasn’t art it was journalism and it will always be shameful in the journalism ethics standards. It’s like the first thing they teach you in any journalism class.
I have heard things about Steve McCurry & Peter Lik . Its good you people know there's a dark side to candid photography
Unfortunately you’re right Ernest.
Right on. Thanks for sharing.
I agree 100% with you with regards to Steve Curry. It was an enormous disappointment for me when I understood that this guy was a scam(and even worse with National Geographic.)
The scandal isn’t surprising to me Alex, it’s how it was handled that rubbed me the wrong way. I’m doing a live stream follow up to this episode if you’re interested in joining the conservation.
th-cam.com/video/mYIuzvNGzck/w-d-xo.html
Follow you but only just seen this. Fully agree. I have unsubscribed from quite a few 'young and non-professenal' photographers who give tips on photography, promote cameras and have only just got out of college. They know little but feelthey have the right to preach. Give up on them an also the photographerswho are established but all of a suddensee the pound notes and start promoting equipment of a dubious nature. You are several levels above them, thank goodness.
Those kids also take a workshop and the start iffering their own workshops or "master classes" ☺
cannot edit? really?
Wow man,you called out Steve,dam,great for you dude !
Where did the Steve McCurry rant come from :) Something happened lately or it's just the general frustration with things as they are?
To be honest , I’ve wanted to talk about this since before it even became public because I knew this was happening through mutual fixers. However, I was a hit trepidatious because the industry itself tends to shun being called out but I’ve reached a point where I trust my audience to understand and appreciate my intentions. I’m sure I’ll get backlash but I’m ok with that.
@@AskMOTT I get the frustration, particularly if you feel silenced because of possible consequences. The fact that he suddenly called himself a "storyteller" kind of reveals that he knew what he did was wrong, but just doesn't want to own it. If he really saw himself as a "storyteller" he would have described himself as such a long time ago. He's a great photographer, but the lack of honesty and transparency is problematic.
Regarding your first part, there always seems to be specific types of photos, which are preferred over all other photographs. It's frustrating, particularly when people pretend to be "critically" minded.
My thoughts on your video-composition is that the Cam is way too low. The crop in is a little weird that way, too close. Just a little under your eyeline is low enough. This right now, is the perspective of a teenager talking to a bigger parent. Just a little bit more up with the Cam please. And try to look to the right site of the frame, this is more friendly than looking left. Also arrange the backround corner to be an "L" ,so one side longer t han the other of the L. that creates depth. Also play with the angle of the microphone in the foreground. Your exposure level in your face is too low. The video looks almost monochrome. And i would go for Rembrandt lighting.
We are on the same page. I had it on a Joby tripod while I was awaiting my Rode boom arm to get it higher up for me. I don't look down on my audience ha ha, thanks for the feedback.
I think the best guide for post production is the Associated Press Code of Ethics for Photojournalists, it’s a PDF you can print.
Maybe I should send the link to Steve McCurry.
Excellent point Terence, at least that should be the standard for journalism-related contests and such.
Best video on youtube in years.
Damn Amos, you made my day :).
Completely agree with you on the TH-cam “professionals”. Just be up front, if you’re selling ‘zines or books or just producing content. Don’t act like you’re a Leica ambassador getting sent out by magnum between vids. It took me 20yrs to put together my Leica system, drives me crazy that guys are walking around with m6’s, m10’s with ‘crons and luxes 😂😂….they never went through fm3 stage, m5 stage, cl with broken meter, elmarits, etc…..straight to an m6 with - bokeh king. 🤬😄. Sour grapes I guess 👍
Well said Jason :)
I spent two summers traveling to Mount Rainier trying to get a wildflower shot that is similar to one by Art Wolf. I’ve scoured that mountain and have not been able to find where he took it. At a recent visit to my local camera shop, I learned he photoshopped in the wildflowers. That made me lose respect for the art form. Modern photography is fake news.
That’s so disappointing , what a bummer. Well, but all of us are fake news , some are keeping it real.
I agree with what you said about McCurry, but are you sure his manipulated images were published in NatGeo?
A bit sick of lies and dishonesty at the moment myself, so get why you need to get it out there.
Thanks Juanita, it’s hard enough to get people to believe in photojournalists these days so it doesn’t help w when one of the biggest names shooting for one of the biggest publications stains the industry.
I personally think photoshopping is really against the essence of the medium of photography itself. To me, the beauty and amusement of photography always comes from its authenticity. If a photograph is heavily photoshopped to the level of altering its originality, what makes it different from AI photography that everybody rants about?
Photography is an art form. So IMO anything that supports your personal art is ok. Photoshop is a tool as is the camera in producing art and is 100% ok. Mccurry using his eye to set up a shot and photoshop to make it is own is perfectly ok.
Sorry but not when you’re working as a photojournalist for a media outlet. Writing is an art form, doesn’t mean a reporter can you just make up quotes or fabricate stories.
What I find odd about the McCurry saga is how he continues to be a member of Magnum given how uptight they appear to be over ethics. Maybe Magnum itself is a topic for another day? There are any number of world class photojournalists there, no question, but some of the 'fine art' photographers particularly those working on film leave me with a serious case of emperor's new clothes.
I’m doing a live stream follow up to my latest episode if anyone is interested in joining me.
th-cam.com/video/mYIuzvNGzck/w-d-xo.html
Sadly the time difference will prevent my joining live but I’ll catch the repeat.
Oh yes! Let’s do Magnum next! I have several bones to pick with them, from selling NFTs to Gilden and beyond.
@@GS-vb3zn Oh, the NFTs talk will surely be spicy.
There's a LOT of shit that bothers me about the photography industry...
Get it out John , it’s therapeutic :)
I enjoy honest thoughts, and this is one.
Trying to keep it real Ricardo, thanks man!
Regarding Leica, Canon, etc. and "their" photography, I think the camera manufacturers don't want to intimidate their customers. They just want people to take pictures - with THEIR equipment. Regarding Steve McCurry's photos, I think you're wasting your time. We ALL know how a digital image can be manipulated with Photoshop and Lightroom. What would make you think that Steve McCurry wouldn't "set up" a photo, even a "National Geographic" photo? And lastly, my pet peeve, is the humor in Elliott Erwitt's photos. To me, most of Erwitt's photos LOOK contrived - whether they were or were not. How is Elliott Erwitt a "great" photographer?
Leica Canon etc. not wanting to intimidate is likely true and possibly inspired by the old practice by Kodak for decades in their publications to use good photos that were within the potential of the average amateur.
That whole Steve McCurry situation was just made to go away. Reclassifying him as not being a photojournalist. Then they blamed his assistants for some of the mistake. I’m not surprised of the lavish shoots that probably has to more to do with his disability than anything else. In a recent interview he said he doesn’t use a Leica that offend because of that same disability.
Your photo rights are very important. Every time you take a photo its not just a bunch of pixels its an actual product that you can collect royalties on for the rest of your life.
Why would you have to pay for a competition? 😳 I've never done one so I didn't know that but what is the logic?
Also, I love to copy but just to understand. I would never put those photos on the internet. For personal use only.
I got blocked by McCurry on Instagram last year after speaking out the truth about his famous Afghan girl portrait. Hehe
Good for you for speaking out.
My aunt is five foot nothing and 100 pounds. She was a ringside photographer for professional boxing in the 70's 80's and 90's. She was a photographer. I don't know what a photographer is in 2022 with today's technology.
Love it , do you have a link to her work ?
Everything right on the money, Justin. Especially these ridiculous contests, which mean nothing (and I’ve won my fair share) and McCurry. People get really upset when I talk about staged and photoshopped work. McCurry was on assignment when he manipulated and staged his stuff.
Why does this trigger a rant now, 6 years later? Also, while moving and adding should not happen, to my understanding every photographer edits color. With Raw Files, you have to, as without a Profile there is no picture. Or what?
If you’re working for journalistic magazines it’s completely unethical, it’s journalism 101, and the biggest no no in the industry. All other types of photography, have at it, but National Geographic and McCurry knew better and then he just edited his bio after he got caught.
I think there are issues, for example if you are shooting a travel brochure, then some retouching is acceptable, as people know is a advertisement, and its to sell the hotel, location, but if I was shooting a project on deforestation, then the work is getting into evidence area, so the captioning has to be correct as well as no cloning removal etc, in my opinion.
Totally agree, but Nat Geo magazine clearly represents itself as a journalism publication.
ah yes! That Ao Dai and fishing nets... As a Vietnamese, I'm tired of seeing those 🙃
So overdone and copied over and over again. There is so much more to capture here than faking setups, this country is so beautiful on it's own, doesn't need to be faked, nor should it :(
@@AskMOTT Totally agree with you! Have no idea why the hell they can keep shamelessly stealing each other's ideas then submit to a ton of contests. Just disgusting. While lots of great documentary photographers out there mentally and financially struggling in the market!
Very interesting.....
So editing photos is not a good thing to do?🤔
Not at all , but photoshopping things out or adding things to a photos that weren’t there in reality when it comes to photojournalism is unethical by even the weakest standards for journalism.
Sir you have just scratched the surface.
Indeed Bob, I’m tempted to go deeper.
I’m doing a live stream follow up to my latest episode if anyone is interested in joining me.
th-cam.com/video/mYIuzvNGzck/w-d-xo.html
Preach brother
I’m doing a live stream follow up to my latest episode if anyone is interested in joining me.
th-cam.com/video/mYIuzvNGzck/w-d-xo.html
right on
Right on back at you Kloie, thanks.
No matter how contrived the set up, or how much post editing goes into the shot, it's not going to have the emotional impact of say Nick Ut's Terror of War, or Cappa's D Day landings or McCullin's shell shocked soldier. You can't fake that..
100% Kim!
You keep standing up for integrity and someone is gonna take you out. You talk about equal treatment. Perhaps you remember the motto from Animal Farm, "All Animals Are Equal." This was later mysteriously amended to, "All Animals Are Equal, But Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others." The weasels always seem to find a way in. Through Marketing, I think.
As for serious Photoshopping, I am no good at editing so it is SOOC for me. I should learn how to edit but, honestly, feel it alters the reality of the scene and what I saw that I thought should be in a camera. I have begun telling a lie when I do that. The size of the lie does not change that it is a lie.
It was extremely disappoiting to say the least. But I gotta say, some of his stuff just seemed too perfect. But he's not the only 1 I have had sneaky suspicion about. No one is that lucky. Surely. Not even those guys. And it turns out, they're not. Massive let down from a fan perspective but clearly more damaging for pro's.
deeper!
I agree with you
This annoyed me.
Gonna call out testino? Used to be the royal family photographer.
Ao DAI....
:)
I suggest that you look at the lens and not the viewfinder. Thanks
Trying Roger, normally I do but lots of new gear w a preview monitor and such so let me settle in :).
Are you on speed? Talking in a pressured extremely fast manner is stressful to listen to.
Coffee, I’ve slowed down significantly on newer videos .
I sense some jealousy. Not cute.
Zero jealousy , just basic journalism ethics.
👊📷☕️☕️
Thanks Walt :)
If half his more famous images where photoshopped I would completely understand. But that’s not the case.
I also would like to think it was NG pushing for the editing of the images not Steve, which would make sense because they was the ones paying for it. Steve didn’t need more Popularity or money, NG asked him to do these things.
Sorry , but no way anyone is asking him to do this and even if that was the case it’s just wrong in journalism. . He made a career out of doing this , that’s how he became famous. Even his famous Afghan girl photo was heavily worked.