Q1: When technology makes it so easy to manipulate images, how much manipulation is acceptable?

Manipulation is accepted in many different forms and styles of photography. Changing the contrast and brightness are the very basics of manipulating photos, but Photoshop and other digital software there is no limit to what you’re able to achieve. Working with styles such as archival photography and landscape photography, need to either adjust the image is still going to be needed. But when working with the style of documentary photography which Steve McCurry shoots, the need for digital manipulation should not be over used and abused. As his work shows the beauty in Eastern countries, but many of his images is not a realist perspective on those countries. In recent months McCurry has been editing different elements such as a “sign post” in the images, and then wrongly adjusting the images which he has then worked hard to achieve. This one fault has then led to further investigation into Steve McCurry’s work. Yet as an audience we are unaware of the intentions of this sign post, McCurry may have been wanting to makes the yellow in the image brighter, as McCurry’s work has always shown and the need to keep his reputation of showing the Eastern countries and beautiful and rich in colour. But this is not the true, using documentary photography should mean you’re capturing events happening there and then, not having staged images, but the need for having perfect, colourful images highlights that appearance is prioritised over the ethics of the images. So manipulation is acceptable if doing certain images which need the digital manipulation due to the vision of that photographer. But the style of work Steve McCurry the least amount of digital manipulation should be used. As his images should reflect a real representation of the place of the image. Using Photoshop to gain that “perfect” and “aesthetically pleasing” images should come second because the photographer should be wanting to show the beauty of lifestyle, culture and lives of the people in these countries. 

Q2: With viewers more sophisticated and skeptical than ever before, how can photojournalists and documentary photographers preserve their integrity and maintain trust?

Now with the scandal of one of the best and well established photographers getting criticized for digitally manipulating recent images must have others on edge if they too have edited in such great ways, such as removing a child from and image. Maintaining their reputation, photojournalist and documentary photographers need to stay true to their morals and represent the real world and not a “perfect” world.  Shooting in the Eastern countries such as India, Bangladesh and Thailand all these countries are brutally struck with poverty yet many documentary photographers glamorize those countries which are rich in colour, culture and religion. So by staying true to what they are photographing what their eyes actually see. The risk also of their reputation being at stake can also be a major factor to the change in the way critiques see things. With the need to show genuine documentary images of countries which the Western world is not exposed too, photojournalism and documentary photography can all those to be transported into their world. Yet there is the risk of glamorization of their culture. So maintaining their status as a trusted photographer the ability to present the truth, yet their is always the desire to present this world in colourful light. But realistically it is a beautiful place with different people but their are the real issues which are facing different countries. 

Q3: Who sets the boundaries of what defines photojournalism or documentary ethics?

I think that the founders of documentary photography and photojournalism set the boundaries of what defines ethics or more importantly society and what we consider to be acceptable. i have this belief because they did not have the software that we have today when editing our images and did not have the ability to manipul. Originally if images did not come out perfect photographers would not have had the option to manipulateaspects in that image, due to the software not having the eraser or clone tool. The images were genuine and may of only had the basic adjustments to improve the lighting or to crop the image. Their images would of been able to express the true representation of what is going on in that current event. Documentary is needed to document a event either big or small, so the ability to capture it using the camera, there should be no need to digitally manipulate.