Lomo In-Depth: Does Photo Manipulation Make You Less of a Photographer?

12 13

You may have already heard of the recent news on Steve McCurry's Photoshop scandal some weeks ago and if you noticed, it definitely shook the art and photography world.

The leaked botched photographs of Steve McCurry stirred a conversation on one of the most sensitive issues in photography in the digital age: does photo manipulation — specifically Photoshop — make one less of a photographer?

The stigma of Photoshop in photography

Some photographers would argue that master photographers also had their own way of photo manipulation, their own Photoshop: the darkroom. However, the comparison does not simply apply. Digital medium (Photoshop) is far easier to use and handle with, compared to the old (darkroom).

The rise of digital medium and trends make it harder for serious aspirants to have their own breakthrough: this is due to the digital medium offering perks of ease, instant gratification, less work and effort. It is not only in art, but even in the sciences and other fields as well. With the abundance of advanced technologies, it easy for one to claim himself an artist, a scientist and many more.

Logo/icon of Adobe Photoshop Creative Suite 6, panoramic image of a darkroom by Tony Webster from Wikimedia Commons.

Adobe’s renowned application, Photoshop, offers versatile uses for every sort of creative, but no one benefits more from it than the photographer. Some photographers patronize it, some denounce it. Fstoppers said that majority of people they surveyed seems to be all right with Photoshop, so long as the aftereffects are not glaringly obvious.

However, it seems that when it comes to measuring one’s photographic caliber, photography seems to be best without the reliance of Photoshop. Photographer David Byrne’s award for Landscape Photographer of the Year 2012 was revoked by the governing body when they found out that the photo was heavily photoshopped (read more about the issue here).

Art photography vs. accuracy-based photography

Another argument which enters in the Steve McCurry issue is the difference between an artist and a photographer, despite their worlds intersecting. Photography has always been divided between fine art photography (e.g. fashion, boudoir) and accuracy-based photography (e.g. documentary, photojournalism). This division seems to differentiate what photographers value most: either truth or beauty. In the light of the scandal, McCurry, who is reputed as a veteran photojournalist, seems to value beauty more.

Image of an exhibition poster of Steve McCurry featuring his famous “Afghan Girl”, by zac mc from Wikimedia Commons.

The Associate Press reacted to the issue with this statement:

“The content of a photograph must not be altered in Photoshop or by any other means. No element should be digitally added to or subtracted from any photograph. The faces or identities of individuals must not be obscured by Photoshop or any other editing tool. Only retouching or the use of the cloning tool to eliminate dust on camera sensors and scratches on scanned negatives or scanned prints are acceptable. Minor adjustments in Photoshop are acceptable. These include cropping, dodging and burning, conversion into grayscale, and normal toning and color adjustments that should be limited to those minimally necessary for clear and accurate reproduction (analogous to the burning and dodging previously used in darkroom processing of images) and that restore the authentic nature of the photograph. Changes in density, contrast, color and saturation levels that substantially alter the original scene are not acceptable. Backgrounds should not be digitally blurred or eliminated by burning down or by aggressive toning. The removal of ‘red eye’ from photographs is not permissible.”

But here’s why this issue became a big deal: McCurry, a man with an authority in photojournalism (as tested by time and history), has now said in Time Magazine that he identifies himself more as a visual storyteller than a photojournalist. And perhaps this is the reason why many of his admirers feel perplexed — until this issue, McCurry had always promoted himself as a photojournalist.

Lessons to be learned

Photoshop in itself does not make any creative less. A fine art photographer who uses Photoshop to tweak his photographs does not make him less of a photographer — it is his duty as a fine art photographer to bring out beauty from his final image. A photojournalist doing the same process goes against the idea of his own genre. The stigma of Photoshop and photo manipulation in photography depends on what the photographer values more.

McCurry’s issue poses an important question to be answered by photographers: “Truth and beauty — which do you value most in photography?”

What’s your opinion on using Photoshop and Steve McCurry’s issue? Leave your thoughts through a comment below.

Images used are under the CC License and/or public domain.

written by Ciel Hernandez on 2016-06-04 #culture #photographer #photojournalism #photojournalist #steve-mccurry #documentary-photographer #lomo-in-depth

13 Likes

agridvlce, akula, xuliaroffe, ihave2pillows, dotpotodot, kangiha, cmart, pan_dre, karazorel, hervinsyah, phoenix1206, lafilledeer & srcardoso.

12 Comments

srcardoso · 2016-06-04 16:16
Is a DJ less musician than a pianist? Is a digital painter less painter than a traditional oil & canvas one? IMO, they're equally artists.
Using Photoshop is not an easy task if you want to make hard image manipulation like magazine editors do. They're made by professionnals.
Anyway, I kind of agree that if one wants to have some credits on his photos' veracity or honesty, he should stick to the Associate Press rules.
sirio174 · 2016-06-04 16:28
The greatest COLOR fine art photographers, William Eggleston never used digital aids.

The GREATEST b/w photojournalist, Henry Cartier Bresson, never allowed digital manipulation of his photos.

I don't like the main photo in this article, too much manipulation, fake colors, no soul, dry, fake.

Digital editing might be used, after the scan process, to adjust SLIGHTY contrast, tones and brightness, with no heavy manipulation. The slight adjustment is very similar to the choice we made in our darkroom: color temperature of the light enlarger, contrast of the paper, time of exposure. Otherwise we are graphics, not photographers.
enaaem · 2016-06-04 17:36
In my opinion photography as art has no rules. Photojournalism on the other hand is a form of journalism and should be objective. A good photojournalistic photo can be art, but not all art photos can be considered photojournalistic.
hervinsyah · 2016-06-04 23:08
LOL thanks for making my comment a week ago at SMC's article as an article =) Normally I will turn into dislike if great icon like him did a bad mistake (in this case he add a new object at his Cuba photo and got caught by Italian photographer) just like valentino rossi when he blame marq marquez, he just like a child who always made an excuse if he lose at the competition I suddenly disrespect my only fave automotive racer (I'm an automotive blind but admire valentino rossi since 2001 when watch gp500 together with my friend on tv). But it's different with SMC I don't know why, because this one big mistake Cuba photo scandal can't erase my admire of his last kodachrome video and his Afghan girl iconic portrait it's kind of only legend could do that thing. Maybe he should just back into analogue photography eventhough actually you can manipulate photo too at analogue photography =p
fash_on · 2016-06-05 05:55
For a long time I have winced a little when I see heavily manipulated images and then in the bottom corner I see: photo by ---------

IMHO these images are not PHOTOS, they are images. The terminology should have changed when digital came in. I'm not saying one is better than the other but when you are presented with heavily manipulated and HDR images they should not be listed/presented as photographs.
fash_on · 2016-06-05 05:55
For a long time I have winced a little when I see heavily manipulated images and then in the bottom corner I see: photo by ---------

IMHO these images are not PHOTOS, they are images. The terminology should have changed when digital came in. I'm not saying one is better than the other but when you are presented with heavily manipulated and HDR images they should not be listed/presented as photographs.
susudio · 2016-06-05 10:42
Great article. Food for thought. Film is a great tool for an artist. Digital is a great tool for an artist. Hybrid forms (film meets digital, for example) are interesting to me. Digital allows you to make "double exposures" from a film base...so the substance and end product is film, but the metamorphosis effected "in computer" instead of "in camera." I find it hard to believe that an artist like Eggleston who innovated a technique to radically manipulate color would look down on an artist using whatever means at his or her disposal to achieve a desired effect. In fact arguments of purity and process were marshaled against him: "William Eggleston has been criticized for choosing the complicated and expensive dye-transfer technique for prints of such banal everyday objects. Eggleston uses this process for making prints from his transparencies and color photographs, as it permits him to control the colors individually, and also to exaggerate them according to his intended color emphasis." (Thomas Weski). And we have no way of knowing if Cartier-Bresson would have embraced digital, had he lived to see its realization. Maybe he would have relished its ability to meet the decisive moment. Maybe he would have changed his bon mot to "Your first million photographs are your worst" (updating it to reflect digital profligacy). ;p Film is still wonderful and has some qualities which are, as of this writing, still unique to it. I'm happy it will continue to be there for us. But I don't judge film for "whom it chooses to sleep with" sometimes.
ihave2pillows · 2016-06-11 17:10
As long as you are honest, just don't say one thing and do another... A 1 in a million shot, for instance, should be a skillful capture of a rare moment and not digitally synthesised.
akula · 2017-01-04 14:51
We do not like to feel as if we are being deceived, journalistic photographs needs to be "real". In art, a social realism, a social truth can be created through manipulation of the image. C'est n'est pas une pipe, beware the treachery of images.
jeffalu · 2017-01-04 15:07
It's not even about "truth" or "Beauty", it's simply about what I want to communicate.
stooky121 · 2017-05-08 20:50
I used to be a big follower of Mr McCurry's work.

Now I am not.
millepiedi · 2017-09-07 08:28
With my images I lie the truth. No photo in the world is accurate. How could it be? It's a projection!
Choice of view, lens, (digital)camera, film, shooting-,developing- and printing technique and of coarse digital manipulation changes outcome allways.
For example the works of Cartier-Bresson (wich I do like very very much!) Accurate? Was there no color in his time? I love his decisive moment choices translated in projected images in B/W.
I trust NO photo for it's accuracy, I trust (or not) the maker for his or her vision.