Lomo In-Depth: Does Photo Manipulation Make You Less of a Photographer?
In light of Steve McCurry’s Photoshop issue, Lomography tries to understand the implications of photo manipulation in photography.
Steve McCurry’s Photoshop scandal some weeks ago 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.
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 Photographer David Byrne’s award for Landscape Photographer of the Year 2012 was revoked by the governing body when they found out that the photo was heavily photoshopped (read more about the issue here).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.
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.
This article was written by Ciel Hernandez. Originally published on www.lomography.com.
