Brittany Rose - Steve McCurry Research Paper

   
     I have always slightly agreed with photoshopping for pictures. As with anything, there is a line, however, to me, it definitely depends on what field the author is working in at the given time. Like self-publishing a photograph for art, yeah go to town make it look like you are this amazing photographer if you have the talent and ability to. Photoshopping people? Only if you have permission and its little things like smoothing skin whitening teeth and so on, I've done this and only normally do little things like that (I don't smooth skin as much as I clear blemishes that are not permanent anyway). But all of these are for personal use or art majority of the time, I never do these for newspapers or anything like that. Steve McCurry who was at the center of a controversy of doctoring photos I find in my research that he defines what field he works in based upon where the photograph will be published even then though it gets to be a little fuzzy. He states “Some of my work has migrated into the fine art field and is now in private collections and museums”. Okay, yeah that's great for him but that still doesn't change the fact that he submitted photos for publication in Natural Geographic that were heavily doctored. I'm all for a little doctoring here and there but taking people out of photos entity is another story, moving the locations of objects is also another story. While he may classify himself as a "visual storyteller" that isn't true for all of what he published. "Today I would define my work as visual storytelling, because the pictures have been shot in many places, for many reasons, and in many situations" he states in his interview with Peta Pixel. Just because he defines himself as a storyteller that doesn't change the situation that he published his art and called it photojournalism where the line of what you can and cannot do to photos is present and enforced. It would be like a photographer working the trump inauguration and doctoring even fewer people at it, calling it "visual storytelling" and it is published in the newspaper like it was an actual photo of the event. That would confuse the hell out of the six-year-old at the grocery line check out, looking at the newspapers.  Because that is what they will remember of the inauguration is that there were no people present at the even thanks to doctoring that photo. While this is an extream example it is true. People are going to remember what is published and doctoring the photographs, and calling it "visual storytelling" doesn't change the field of publishing.  


Links:
http://time.com/4351725/steve-mccurry-not-photojournalist/
http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-mccurry-photo-editing-scandal-2016-5
https://petapixel.com/2016/05/06/botched-steve-mccurry-print-leads-photoshop-scandal/