Before
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Photographer Steve McCurry Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 720 Image Height 486 Scene Capture Type Standard
After
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 205 dpi Vertical Resolution 205 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1024 Image Height 694 Scene Capture Type Standard
JUST
>>2866949
Trishaw in the rain? Not a breaking news story is it?
More of an idealised Indian stereotype, a collectible for rich white folk who just want to own stuff, whether it be a print on the wall of a book on the shelf, but would never go out amongst all those smelly brown folk to get their own snapshits.
At the end of the day it only the people on Reddit who feel betrayed but that is mostly because they never understood McCurry in the first place
>>2867499
...did you actually look at the pictures?
>>2867500
Yes, why do you ask?
>>2867501
I guess the line
>Trishaw in the rain? Not a breaking news story is it?
seemed to me to suggest you hadn't.
Ignoring the reputational issue for McCurry (if any), is it a better photo with or without the Photoshopping?
>>2867507
Removing irrelevant distractions is usually an improvement.
>>2867511
There's a big difference between "removing distractions", and reconstructing an entire photograph.
>>2867507
neither are good. but edited photo is more aesthetically pleasing. original is just a mess of a snapshit.
>>2867516
>econstructing an entire photograph
Bit of an exaggeration but even if it wasn't it is still a better picture.
There is no news in the story, the missing bits don't matter from any journalistic point of view. The missing bits simply don't matter at all.
Now McCurry is out there, in the rain or pahaps in a sheltering in a dooway, he sees the trishaw coming along, raises his camera, belts off half a dozen frames as they go past and then forgets about it.
Six months or a year later he's curating images for a book or exhibition he finds the pictures and thinks to himself ah yes, this is not a bad shot. Shame about that grinning idiot in the back ground, don't remember seeing him. Lets get rid of him ... and the lamp post ... and clean up some of the other shit too while were about it. You wind up with a picture that is clean and concise. The story is exactly the same because the only story there is 'trishaw in the rain'
So the rich people buy the prints and stash them away in their vaults photography buffs but the book and everyone is happy. At least they are until some smartass comes along and shrieks "oh my god Steve McCurry retouches his photos."
The rich people aren't even listening, they are sitting by the pool waiting for their investments to go up in value. There's a shitstorm on Reddit because they have found out that he is not some kind of immortal who just walks into perfect photo-op situations and they feel betrayed. AP get a junior reporter to call McCurry for a comment. McCurry says "So, I don't do journalism anymore, haven't done for years." McCurry sells images of an idealised Indian (in this case) fantasia.
>>2867530
this
i dont see the problem at all
>>2868286
>Honestly I liked it better with the grinning idiot
No, no, no these are ordinary poor folk. Poor people aren't allowed to look happy in McCurry's India unless they have a brightly coloured turban and a big bushy beard. Poor people have to LOOK poor so rich people can gloat
I will never understand that in this age ppl still complain about photoshopping pics to make them look better (given it still looks natural). I mean fuck theres even ppl who bitch about pp with LR because MUH NOT NATURAL
>>2866948
Any anger at McCurry is based off false premises.
First, like him or not, he's trying to create some work of art. (It doesn't fucking matter if you think this qualifies as art. That has fuck all to do with his intent.) He can make the image whatever he wants however he wants. That's how arting works. Look at the fucking Mona Lisa.
>b-b-but she wasn't really sitting in front of those mountains! that's a fake background! how dare leo alter reality like that!
Second, photography is not, not has it ever been, an objective pursuit. Even with film photography, every single decision a photographer makes affects the final product. Different cameras. Different lenses. Different films. Different exposure settings. Different developers. Different printing techniques. Different papers. Heck, I hate to break it to y'all, but people have been editing photos and taking stuff out and making massive changes from day one. Even an undeveloped negative isn't some objective record of anything. It only represents decisions the photographer made at that time. It's just potential for a finished a product. It's a step along the way. Now that we live in a mostly digital world, nothing has changed.
>>2868477
That's why we have to keep white people looking rich
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 1000 Image Height 1366 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:05:25 09:23:34 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1000 Image Height 1366
