Steve McCurry is one of those photographers that the rest of us look at with awe. He creates so many wonderful, beautiful images. Those of us who are mere mortals, couldn’t possibly compete, or can we? Seems like he has been editing his images in post beyond what would be considered an honest representation of the moment.
Peter van Agtmael writes a response to the controversy on Time.com, but instead of addressing the inherent issue with the manipulations, he spends a great deal of time talking about the vernacular used in the criticisms.
With the images that have already discovered to have been manipulated (three so far have been shown to have removed or moved elements) I have no choice but to wonder if other images have been similarly edited. Is this a rare occurrence or a standard operating procedure? How far back do these practices go? Afghan Girl?
The answer offered that he considers his work as “visual storytelling” is underwhelming. At what point did his work transition to a form that does not require basic journalistic honesty as his explanation seems to imply? Did he let the consumers of his work aware that he was no longer going to follow the strict principles of photojournalism?
I’ve never met Mr. McCurry, so I cannot responsibly speculate on the answers to these questions, but I cannot help but think that the curtain has been pulled back from the wonderful Wizard of Oz only to find interns and staffers working away. This is not a new issue, but this is a microcosm of ethical questions revolving around Photoshop usage. Once a photojournalist’s integrity has been brought into question, all of our integrity has been brought into question, and that damage may be irreparable.