Is retouching acceptable?

There’s been a controversy surrounding Steve McCurry, a photographer I have listened to on the edge of a conversation a couple of times courtesy of Kodak who were always great sponsors and put his ‘Afghan Girl’ on display at photokina 2012 where McCurry’s work was celebrated.

Here’s the story – he’s been changing, or allowing his retouchers and agents to change, the material content of some shots. This has included the removal of people, changes to their clothing, tidying up messy objects and distractions. First, this is not something new and great photojournalists never saw harm in burning in or dodging back areas of a print to make something disappear into a shadow or burn out to white. It was OK to use bleach on prints if needed to remove blemishes, including things which damaged the shot. It was even OK to use tints or pencil to enhance outlines so that newspaper reproduction didn’t lose the subject in a grey mush.

http://petapixel.com/2016/06/07/eyes-afghan-girl-critical-take-steve-mccurry-scandal/

That’s the current controversy.

Well, here are some examples from my archives. One dates from 1969 and back when the first prints were made from this, with publication in The Guardian and various magazines, I used pencil and bleach to try to ensure the faces at the centre of the group were properly defined from the wall behind them. This was a very mild treatment and not very successful.

Here’s a not-totally straight print. Some detailed dodging and burning was done in the darkroom to try to get the definition needed between the blonde girl’s face and the wall. It was this lack of definition which meant it was never a real winner, though it did well enough in competitions. It was also taken on outdated Perutz film using a very cheap manual Hanimex lens – I was only 17 and could not afford anything more!

Vintage 1969 black and white print scan secondary school pupils crowd round a little black girl who has fallen and is crying at Maltby Grammar School sports day. Note the black child was one of twins from the only coloured family in this Yorkshire mining town and at this time there was no discrimination just a lot of attention.

Once scanned, the print could be retouched digitally, Photoshop giving much more accurate control of burning-in the tone of the wall behind the girls. This is the result – it’s not a huge change. and I do not think anyone would suggest it falsifies the image.

Vintage 1969 black and white print scan secondary school pupils crowd round a little black girl who has fallen and is crying at Maltby Grammar School sports day. Note the black child was one of twins from the only coloured family in this Yorkshire mining town and at this time there was no discrimination just a lot of attention.

Moving on, here’s another group of children – three kids in the timed-burst water play fountain at Alnwick Castle Garden. It’s a picture I was very pleased to catch, the best of three frames with the children at the best critical moment for action and composition. But in the darkroom I would certainly have burned in the people in the background to reduce their distracting highlights.

Children run into a fountain released by build up of a head of water visible in a tube popular water feature in Alnwick Garden Northumberland UK

One of the principles of making a picture which works is to reduce it to a simple form. Extra faces always distract (we are drawn to look at faces regardless of composition). So, for this image, I retouched our the entire background scene. This would not be allowed by many competition, awards and some news or general media.

Children run into a fountain released by build up of a head of water visible in a tube popular water feature in Alnwick Garden Northumberland UK

Since I offer both images as licensable stock, with the retouched version clearly identified as retouched, I don’t feel there is any wrongdoing here.

The next example is less controversial because it has no people at all. Wires interfere with the view of Hollows Tower, the old stronghold of the reiver Johnny Armstrong in the debateable lands as you pass from Scotland into England.

Hollows, the tower house of the Armstrong clan lairds of Gilnockie on the border between England and Scotland. Unretouched see also version with power lines removed from shot.

It’s not a massive task to remove the pole and wire mess. It falsifies the state of the scene, but only from a viewpoint which is not typical – most tourists see the tower as they drive past, from many angles.

Hollows, the tower house of the Armstrong clan lairds of Gilnockie on the border between England and Scotland. Retouched image with power lines removed.

I have not removed all the poles!

Finally, another example of where the infrastructure spoils the scene. In Holetown, Barbados, local ladies tend to dress up well to do the shopping and tend to stop to chat in the street. Even so, it’s a matter of framing and shooting quickly to catch a neat moment before they move on or something else gets in the way. And the wiring on the wall really does spoil the shot.

Barbados Holetown St Thomas parish west coast two Bajan ladies typically dressed chat on a street corner

The retouching here was more complex. Is it a crime, or a routine part of modern photography?

Barbados Holetown St Thomas parish west coast two Bajan ladies typically dressed chat on a street corner retouched version

My work is generally used by travel guides, or in articles and books relating to people and places, travel and everyday life. The meter on the wall clearly documents the real place. The retouched image is an imaginary place. However it’s not been removed because it was an ugly meter. It’s removed because it spoiled a shot which I liked.

You can make your own judgments on Steve McCurry or his retouchers. Did they alter the pictures because they were really spoiled by the way they were? I feel I would have been happy with the unretouched image in most cases or used less obvious major changes.

– David Kilpatrick

 

Sigma lens incompatibility with A33 and A55

Edited from Sigma Japan’s announcement:
Sigma’s lenses for Sony mount may have a potential aperture operation problem when used with the Sony α33 and α55 Interchangeable Lens digital cameras.
To overcome this issue, we will be offering, free of charge, a modification service to our customers who have purchased a Sony α33 and α55 and own Sigma lenses for Sony mount. This phenomenon will only occur with Sony α33 and α55 cameras. Future production of Sigma lenses will be fully compatible with these cameras.
We deeply apologize for any inconvenience caused to our customers.
Phenomenon
When shooting with a Sony α33 and α55 cameras, the aperture may not work properly and a “camera error” message will be displayed on the camera.
Lenses requiring the modification
All current Sigma’s lenses for Sony mount.
For lenses discontinued several years ago, a modification may not be available. For further details, please contact your nearest authorized Sigma Service Station.
Support for this issue
We will be offering a modification service for our current range of lenses free of charge. Please contact your nearest authorized Sigma Service Station.
World Network
Mark for compatible lenses
alpha33_alpha55
Future production of Sigma lenses will be compatible with these cameras. The above sticker will be put on the product box of compatible lenses.
For further information, please contact your nearest authorized Sigma Service Station.


Editor’s comment:
Depending on whether the aperture problem is entirely mechanical (the coupling) or also involves electronics, it would be fair to assume that problems with the A33/A55 may not be restricted to Sigma independent lenses, but may also apply to other makes, especially older lenses. Brands made by Sigma such as Quantaray are almost certain to be affected. We await Sony’s statement on compatibility with older lenses, including Minolta. Please note that the Alpha adaptor for the NEX E-mount provides normal aperture operation with Sigma lenses; how the A33/A55 mount differs we have yet to see.