Topic: So poorly done I almost buy McCurry blaming it on a technician

[hookstrapped]

http://petapixel.com/2016/05/06/botched-steve-mccurry-print-leads-photoshop-scandal/

Reading McCurry's statement, I get the idea that the tech was fired for doing a crappy job of cloning rather than for doing the cloning itself. The implication that a tech would decide on his own to do that is not plausible.

[Francois]

Well, I definitely think will go in the Photoshop bucket of shame...

What I find sad is that many people look up to people like McCurry yet these photographers with a reputation for excellence simply hold on to that level of greatness through a team of invisible techs and digital wizardry...

[hookstrapped]

Well, there's apparently a good reason McCurry's pics are "boring" (in the words of Teju Cole) beyond his aesthetic and photographic style: he clones out all the distracting imperfections. That's the secret sauce to the NatGeo view of the world. What an appropriate metaphor for a colonial world view.

[Francois]

Yeah, and I was really surprised when I learned for how long they've been doing it!
They were some of the first owners of the infamous Paintbox Machine... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantel_Paintbox

[tkmedia]

Thats a name I have not heard in a long time! I used Quantel paintbox lots! I used to localize car company tv advertisements on that. Example at the end of the ad you get a voice over and text for "see your local authorized Peugeot dealer" for smaller markets. For bigger ones, had to add different text for the local dealer name or locations and sometimes used different voice over. "see your local authorized Twin Pines Peugeot dealer" Could go thru 30 or so identical ads with slightly different bits modified.

[lharby]

If McMurry doesn't know it's going on then there is something wrong with his practice. So I suspect he is saying that to try and save (some of) his skin, by implicating the technician.

[gothamtomato]

If I had to bet, I'd say that McCurry knew exactly what the tech was going to do. He just didn't know he was going to do it so poorly. Blaming it on the assistant is lame.

It is very disappointing to find out Steve McCurry has been faking his pictures. It's one thing to do this for fashion photos, but to do it to news photos goes against all the ethics of photojournalism.

[Francois]

I'm starting to seriously question ethics in this world.
Just as a side story, we have in Montreal the École Nationale d'administration Publique which offers masters and doctorates degrees to managers. Most of their classes are highly specialized and of a very high level. They were looking for a new teacher for a class on ethics, so they hired a French former banker with a criminal record for a multi billion euros fraud... they went as far as saying he was particularly qualified to hold the position... I don't think they have the same level of ethics that I have.

[jharr]

If I had to bet, I'd say that McCurry knew exactly what the tech was going to do. He just didn't know he was going to do it so poorly. Blaming it on the assistant is lame.

It is very disappointing to find out Steve McCurry has been faking his pictures. It's one thing to do this for fashion photos, but to do it to news photos goes against all the ethics of photojournalism.

As was said before, a technician is not paid to make artistic judgments and make changes accordingly. They are paid to do what they are told with a high degree of competence. This guy was following orders and he got sloppy, so he got fired. It was his fault, but McCurry is putting his name on it, so it is his responsibility to answer for it. I don't see McCurry's work as really photo-journalistic anymore. It is like he said in the Petapixel letter, photographic story-telling. He is taking photos to illustrate a story about a culture or a place, not really a news event. I think with this in mind and considering the style of photography expected in Nat Geo, it is perfectly fine to clone people and light poles from the background as well as saturating colors and changing the light if it tells the story better. This has turned into a bit of a kerfuffle because of McCurry's prominence, not because what he did was a betrayal of trust.

[lharby]

Funnily enough by chance yesterday I read an interview between Sarah Moon and Frank Horvat.

Frank Horvat : Cartier-Bresson once said to me: “You must choose. It’s OK to witness reality, as we do, and it’s OK to stage, as Avedon does. But one shouldn’t combine the two.”

[lharby]

it is perfectly fine to clone people and light poles from the background as well as saturating colors and changing the light if it tells the story better. This has turned into a bit of a kerfuffle because of McCurry's prominence, not because what he did was a betrayal of trust.

But do you think McMurry has now been forced to admit to cloning due to his assistant's blunder? Or has he always been direct and honest about manipulating the image?

[hookstrapped]

I think this news makes Teju Cole's piece, "A Too-Perfect Picture" (hmmm, kinda nailed it with the title), worth another read, especially for those who thought it wasn't worth a read in the first place

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/03/magazine/a-too-perfect-picture.html

[gothamtomato]

This has turned into a bit of a kerfuffle because of McCurry's prominence, not because what he did was a betrayal of trust.

I think it would have been just a blip, but for the fact that he blamed his assistant instead of just saying the flat out truth. As we've seen in so many cases in so many spheres of society, it's the cover up that does your reputation more damage than the 'crime'. That and, if I recall correctly, he has questions the ethics of others in the past. Oops!

[Jeff Warden]

That was an interesting article.  The image in question doesn't look like a particularly strong McCurry image to me, and makes me wonder why they were bothering with it.  And the Photoshop work was done either by someone who was drunk or wanted to get caught.  The editing itself doesn't appear to make much of a change to the picture though.

To me the last image is much more interesting (the men on the bike), because the editing was so heavy handed that it changed the nature of the picture.  On the unedited picture my eye goes right to the smiling man on the bike - he's soaked, but smiling in the downpour.  And is that an optimistic table of fresh fruit on the right, served up on a white cloth?  Getting rid of the smiling man, the colorful nourishment, and the many other edits changes the mood of the picture completely.  That one looks like a McCurry picture, and it's because of the editing.

And that person in the center rear, with the red shirt?  Removing almost the entire body but keeping the torso for a decorative splash of color?  Eww.

[John]

I think this news makes Teju Cole's piece, "A Too-Perfect Picture" (hmmm, kinda nailed it with the title), worth another read, especially for those who thought it wasn't worth a read in the first place

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/03/magazine/a-too-perfect-picture.html

McCurry's obviously a phony. Edit as much as you like, but be honest about it. I thought that article was a bit mean to McCurry, but not now. The technician perhaps did that deliberately - to show what's really going on.

[hookstrapped]

I also had the thought that the technician did it deliberately, like a leak from an unhappy insider designed to reveal to the public what's been going on.

[Flippy]

I get the idea nobody here has worked for a magazine/serial publication before.

A lot of times once you deliver the work, that's it. You have no more input. You don't see it again until it is in print. How the mag crops it, changes the colors, or retouches it, is out of your control. They don't want your input or your thoughts. I might say that since he obviously knew this was happening, he might be inclined to criticize it openly and be honest with readers, but that might mean not getting another job.

None of which makes it not a problem - but understandable why one wouldn't raise a fuss about it.  I've seen much worse happen to friend's work when I did comics and illustration, which granted doesn't have to live up to any pretensions of objectivity - but still when somebody else is messing with your work, you can't do much except refuse to work again, and starve. There is no room for ego.

Teju Cole's article is still a jolly silly pretentious bag of farts though. 

If you want to read something actually interesting, I suggest this site: http://www.alteredimagesbdc.org/ It's quite interesting, and you may be surprised how many people, even in the olden days retouched photos. Some of them though were rather open about it (like Eugene Smith), others not so much.

[hookstrapped]

The case where this practice was revealed wasn't a magazine publication but a gallery exhibit, so deflecting the blame to the way the publishing industry works doesn't hold in this case.

The larger point is the demand by the public, real or perceived by magazine editors and McCurry himself, for idealized portrayals of exotic brown people. The falseness of those portrayals is betrayed by the type of manipulation McCurry is now revealed to have practiced.

[John]

I get the idea nobody here has worked for a magazine/serial publication before.

A lot of times once you deliver the work, that's it. You have no more input. You don't see it again until it is in print. How the mag crops it, changes the colors, or retouches it, is out of your control. They don't want your input or your thoughts. I might say that since he obviously knew this was happening, he might be inclined to criticize it openly and be honest with readers, but that might mean not getting another job.

None of which makes it not a problem - but understandable why one wouldn't raise a fuss about it.  I've seen much worse happen to friend's work when I did comics and illustration, which granted doesn't have to live up to any pretensions of objectivity - but still when somebody else is messing with your work, you can't do much except refuse to work again, and starve. There is no room for ego.

Teju Cole's article is still a jolly silly pretentious bag of farts though. 

If you want to read something actually interesting, I suggest this site: http://www.alteredimagesbdc.org/ It's quite interesting, and you may be surprised how many people, even in the olden days retouched photos. Some of them though were rather open about it (like Eugene Smith), others not so much.

You make a very valid point about magazines editing images. But this is by someone employed by the photographer, so I assume McCurry sanctions these gross manipulations. It seems he's sacked the technician because of a badly botched job - not the actual intention to retouch the the photo. In his statement he doesn't say upfront something like  'I do not endorse this type of manipulation'. He says 'what happened with this image was a mistake'. That's too vague. Yeah it was a mistake Steve, even I could do better.

[Late Developer]

Apart from dust removal, cropping and basic adjustments like contrast / levels / sharpening, I don't do a lot of retouching / post-processing to my photos.

I am, unashamedly, a big fan of Steve McCurry's photography but I must admit it's disappointing that there's so much editing been going on - botched or not.

However, how much of this type of editing / post-processing is acceptable to us? For me, if the photo is intended to be a true representation of the scene viewed by the photographer, then I'd say very, very little to none.  If, however, the intention is to produce a photo that's artistically pleasing, then that's where the lines get a bit blurred and liberties taken.

As has been said earlier, it gets even more blurred when the photographer is shooting to a brief and ultimate editorial control is their principal's (Nat Geo, etc). 

As an aside - I shot a wedding many years ago (pre-digital) and, between the wedding day and production of the album, there'd been a serious family feud.  I was (in all seriousness) asked if I could "remov"e one individual from the main group photos.  I said, politely, no - mainly because I didn't know how to but also because it just didn't seem right to do so.  I later heard that the bride's mother had tip-exed the offending individual's face off the photos I produced.  Her call, I suppose, as she paid for the album...!

Anyway, I'm sure Steve McCurry is far from unique in having his photos "changed" - the others probably just have assistants who are better at digital photo manipulation.

[Sandeha Lynch]

Perhaps less than relevant at this point, but fifteen years back I knew a photographer who did work for Nat Geo and several times it was stressed that the magazine would never accept even the slightest manipulation in a photo, and the topic kept coming up because there was a perceived threat that it would be too easy to mask manipulation in digital files. 

Perhaps that was never quite as true at Nat Geo as he suggested, or maybe Nat Geo's own standards have changed, but if it was the case back in the day, and presumably McCurry would have adhered to the dictum, why on earth would he then start to rijig the hell out of a shot in his 'personal' work?  Perhaps it was what he'd always hoped to be able to do.

Standards?  Well, I know they're not for everybody.

[Flippy]

The case where this practice was revealed wasn't a magazine publication but a gallery exhibit, so deflecting the blame to the way the publishing industry works doesn't hold in this case.

The larger point is the demand by the public, real or perceived by magazine editors and McCurry himself, for idealized portrayals of exotic brown people. The falseness of those portrayals is betrayed by the type of manipulation McCurry is now revealed to have practiced.

Not sure I follow. I guess we'd have to assume that he hasn't retouched photos with white or western people in them. We'd also have to somehow believe things like airbrushing a kid's hand out of the very edge of a frame somehow romanticizes the rest of the subjects. This isn't exactly in the same vein as Edward Curtis airbrushing out an alarm clock from a Native American setting because he thought "authentic" American Indians shouldn't have alarm clocks. It's more in the vein of Gursky removing people walking dogs from the banks of the Rhine because they're cluttering up the composition. Of course Gursky never pretended he was making an objective record, and McCurry did. But I doubt there is any deeper motivation than just wanting to clean up the composition. 

You make a very valid point about magazines editing images. But this is by someone employed by the photographer, so I assume McCurry sanctions these gross manipulations. It seems he's sacked the technician because of a badly botched job - not the actual intention to retouch the the photo. In his statement he doesn't say upfront something like  'I do not endorse this type of manipulation'. He says 'what happened with this image was a mistake'. That's too vague. Yeah it was a mistake Steve, even I could do better.

Very true! But in that case, one would want to know how the photos are being sold/represented? If he has been unloading these on magazines as authentic images, it's quite a different matter than if he is just selling them in a gallery to whomever has a want and money to spend. The former would make him a fraud, the latter simply somebody with shoddy craftsmanship.

[Late Developer]

Maybe photo editors should insist on receiving a copy of the original negative / slide or RAW / JPEG file to check against the post-processed photo.  There's software out there that can show, very clearly and easily, areas in digital / digitised files where there's been items added, move or removed.

Photographers / would then have to come clean and/or the magazines would have to accept some of the responsibility for what they publish.

[John]

Perhaps less than relevant at this point, but fifteen years back I knew a photographer who did work for Nat Geo and several times it was stressed that the magazine would never accept even the slightest manipulation in a photo, and the topic kept coming up because there was a perceived threat that it would be too easy to mask manipulation in digital files. 

Perhaps that was never quite as true at Nat Geo as he suggested, or maybe Nat Geo's own standards have changed, but if it was the case back in the day, and presumably McCurry would have adhered to the dictum, why on earth would he then start to rijig the hell out of a shot in his 'personal' work?  Perhaps it was what he'd always hoped to be able to do.

Standards?  Well, I know they're not for everybody.

I'd always assumed Nat Geo had strict standards too. It's one of the things to make it worth reading, in spite of it's obvious faults. I'd have thought this would have been McCurry's standards also, as he is so associated with Nat Geo. He ought to set the record straight. How many other 'images' we revere are complete fakes?

What's really sad is that he is a class photographer and he doesn't need to resort to such dodgy practices.

[charles binns]

I can't quite work out what the technician was trying to remove.

All in all the whole debacle is abit embarrassing but it is also a storm in a teacup.  A tech screwed up.  So what?

[Francois]

Maybe he was just looking for a way to get fired so that he could claim unemployment benefits? (if such a thing exists where he's located)

[charles binns]

I wish someone would fire me.

[02Pilot]

I wish someone would fire me.

You're clearly not trying hard enough.  If you really want to be fired, you need to apply yourself to the task.

[Francois]

I could always ask my dad for tips, as of late he seems to have become an expert on the subject!

[charles binns]

I wish someone would fire me.

You're clearly not trying hard enough.  If you really want to be fired, you need to apply yourself to the task.

You sound like my old school reports.  Charles must try harder.

[hookstrapped]

The larger point is the demand by the public, real or perceived by magazine editors and McCurry himself, for idealized portrayals of exotic brown people. The falseness of those portrayals is betrayed by the type of manipulation McCurry is now revealed to have practiced.

Not sure I follow. I guess we'd have to assume that he hasn't retouched photos with white or western people in them. We'd also have to somehow believe things like airbrushing a kid's hand out of the very edge of a frame somehow romanticizes the rest of the subjects. This isn't exactly in the same vein as Edward Curtis airbrushing out an alarm clock from a Native American setting because he thought "authentic" American Indians shouldn't have alarm clocks. It's more in the vein of Gursky removing people walking dogs from the banks of the Rhine because they're cluttering up the composition. Of course Gursky never pretended he was making an objective record, and McCurry did. But I doubt there is any deeper motivation than just wanting to clean up the composition. 

That's the main point of Teju Cole's piece -- our collective appetite for images of the third world that conform to a pre-existing idealized notion of exoticism (noble, docile, and above all picturesque). The sum of the critique of McCurry's photography was a critique of the way the photos comfortably confirm these biases among westerners.  (I don't know if McCurry takes photos of whites or westerners, but that would be an interesting comparison)

It's not that the photoshopping removes items seen as "inauthentic" but they are evidence of a larger pattern of distorting the image to conform to a pre-existing notion of perfection. I thought the weakest part of Cole's argument was tying the perfection of composition to the underlying falseness of the images. While I still think that idea is highly arguable in general, in McCurry's case it seems spot on.

[Flippy]

But that's the problem with his article. There is no opposite to McCurry in the world of photography, because no matter how much one contrives the point, or whatever romantic notions they have about the art - a photographer still sees what they want to see, captures what they want to capture. The idea that somebody could be capable of not doing that is insidious, it falls back into the realm of imagining there is such a thing as an objective photograph. Even when a photographer is photographing something awful, they get to choose when to press the button.

Sure there are examples of people "accidentally" getting a photo they didn't expect. Like Eddie Adams capturing the moment of Nguyễn Văn Lém's execution. But those are exceptional cases. Accidents.

Perhaps McCurry has some sort of romanticized image of the world he photographs, and sells this on to people who have similar ideas about the world. But so does literally every other photographer, catering to every other audience. The real question to be asked, is does this romanticized image harm people? Is it propaganda? Is he using these images to attack people, or stoke some sort of sentiment of western supremacy? Or is it just sappy sentimentalism he is selling? The problem with Cole's article is not that he suggests McCurry is biased, but that he pretends other photographers can be free from it by being candid. He comes a little closer to admitting the truth in another article http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/17/magazine/against-neutrality.html, but still seems to not quite grasp it.

[lharby]

"Of course Gursky never pretended he was making an objective record, and McCurry did".

This is the key for me.

Edit as much as you like, but you have to admit to the amount of editing that is done.

[Sandeha Lynch]

I don't think I would ask, "Is it just sappy sentimentalism?" as in the context this is one of the things that harms people.  If the chocolate box theme of the 'noble savage' is perpetuated, by photographers or by anyone else (and certainly travel writers are as much at fault), then we in the west can only continue with our assumptions about 'them' as other.  Returning from Singapore (where I lived for three years) I was constantly gobsmacked by the comments and questions of fellows Brits: for example, "Oh, do they have the Internet there?" ... (err, just about the fastest in SE Asia) and this in a place that had only just got off dial-up!

Again, the problem of bias confirmation is not necessarily McCurry, but Nat Geo.

[Flippy]

I don't think I would ask, "Is it just sappy sentimentalism?" as in the context this is one of the things that harms people.  If the chocolate box theme of the 'noble savage' is perpetuated, by photographers or by anyone else (and certainly travel writers are as much at fault), then we in the west can only continue with our assumptions about 'them' as other.  Returning from Singapore (where I lived for three years) I was constantly gobsmacked by the comments and questions of fellows Brits: for example, "Oh, do they have the Internet there?" ... (err, just about the fastest in SE Asia) and this in a place that had only just got off dial-up!

Again, the problem of bias confirmation is not necessarily McCurry, but Nat Geo.

That's all true. And yet has very little to do with the topic here. As I point out above, what McCurry has done/is doing, is of a different nature than the sort of thing Edward Curtis was doing when he hid "inauthentic" details while photographing American Indians. McCurry would have to be stooping to the level of photoshopping out cell phones or computers in an effort to make foreigners look different. But that's not what has happened. McCurry may be manipulating the photos, but not with any apparent intent to make people seem more primitive, or noble, or whatever.  What bias could he possibly be catering to by moving a sign post over a foot or two?

It is obvious he's making changes to photos to suit some sort of aesthetic preference, but I think some people may be projecting their own feelings about "others" onto his work and mistaking it for his intent.

[jharr]

It is obvious he's making changes to photos to suit some sort of aesthetic preference, but I think some people may be projecting their own feelings about "others" onto his work and mistaking it for his intent.

Yep. This is firmly to the "art" side of the art/journalism spectrum. Anyone who looks at a Nat Geo photo piece and believes that they are seeing strictly recorded reality is just deluding themselves. So, anyone who condemns McCurry for producing photos with a certain aesthetic (whether or not he discloses his methods) is just looking for a fight where there is none. It would be like condemning Thomas Kincade for idealizing country cottages instead of bringing us the reality of the 19th century crofter. Nat Geo is a photography magazine masquerading as a documentary news source. No one would say 'boo' if these photos were published in a photo trade rag or a travel guide, even with the obvious editing blunder. As far as misrepresenting 'brown' people goes, it is the nature of photography to give a very limited view of a thing, person, place, etc. If you want to have a realistic view of the developing world, you have to go there. There is no way a picture with a caption is going to convey the smell of burning garbage that hangs in the air or the constant din of car horns in Kampala. So what is a photographer to do? This...


Patricia by James Harr, on Flickr

[hookstrapped]

Folks might be interested in this essay I wrote that discusses (approvingly!) staging and paying of subjects in documentary work

https://medium.com/endless/new-media-manifesto-fe36f19457d0

These recurring reminders that the ethics of photojournalism might not apply to all forms of documentary photography are important not because they motivate us to want better enforcement of those ethical standards but because they help to reveal that those ethical standards are somewhat arbitrary (cropping, anyone?) and have never delivered on the false promise of objective truth.

[Sandeha Lynch]

A few years ago I came across an article on why aesthetics are important in photojournalism.  It was brilliant, but I didn't read it carefully enough to remember enough of its contents to find it again.  I wish I could because it supports my feeling that an awareness of and sensitivity to composition is at least as important as a sense of timing in documentary photography.  The cross fertilisation of other arts, (whether intuitive or conscious) is what can make one record shot stand head and shoulders above the rest, in my view.   For example, Cartier-Bresson saw himself as a Surrealist, and would have continued to call himself that had Robert Capa not insisted that 'photojournalist' was a more appropriate handle, (this was from a recorded interview with HCB).

You can walk in on a shot, wait for a shot, or encourage your subject, (or indeed stage it) and I don't think there is much to criticise between each technique if the result is either exceptional in some visual way, or successful in relaying something of the environment to the viewer.  However, I would expect (even if I wasn't able to work it out for myself) that the photographer's pattern of working would be consistent and reasoned.  Martin Parr seems to have had some of his best results when interacting with his subjects, and for all that Parr's shots are really about Parr's perspective, they still convey a solid impression of the world he is looking at.

To shoot a scene in St Mark's Square in Venice and then say to yourself, "This human interaction would be greatly improved by moving this column a little to the right" is of a different order.  This is where the viewer's intelligence is insulted if it is presented as naturalistic.  And this is also where the photographer or the editor is effectively saying, "My view of your world is greatly enhanced by me imposing my art on you."  Isn't this closer to what we can see in McCurry's manipulations?

Nice shot, James.  I'll see you with one of my own. 



My title for this was "The Pink Party Dress" because I could imagine the contrast between the first life of this dress, somewhere in the western world, spilt on with lemonade and chocolate cake, worn maybe on no more than half a dozen occasions, and its second life after shipping half way across the world as one item in a bulk aid container to dress a child working in a bakery in the mountains of western Nepal.  It was a scene I walked in on, and the expressions on the children's faces were, I think, the reaction to seeing such expensively-kitted foreigners in their village.

[Flippy]

To shoot a scene in St Mark's Square in Venice and then say to yourself, "This human interaction would be greatly improved by moving this column a little to the right" is of a different order.  This is where the viewer's intelligence is insulted if it is presented as naturalistic.  And this is also where the photographer or the editor is effectively saying, "My view of your world is greatly enhanced by me imposing my art on you."  Isn't this closer to what we can see in McCurry's manipulations?

I think it may actually reveal a certain simple-mindedness in McCurry's approach. The edits he has made all appear to be made to increase visual clarity of the image. For instance removing visual tangents, or clarifying a line. This is the sort of stuff we'd look for when laying out comic pages. Move this, change that, get rid of that. This is necessary in laying out a comic page because you want a reader to be able to instantly make sense of the panel, and move on to the next one without any confusion.  While the same ideas are important in composing a photograph, it also strikes me as rather backwards. I don't mind a photographer setting up a "clever" shot, then waiting perhaps for the "right" person, vehicle, whatever to come along and complete it. Afterall, Bresson did this time and time again, and it worked fine for him. But McCurry's approach seems to be much clumsier. Getting the shot first - fixing composition later. Obviously he didn't always work this way, so what happened? Laziness?

[hookstrapped]

To shoot a scene in St Mark's Square in Venice and then say to yourself, "This human interaction would be greatly improved by moving this column a little to the right" is of a different order.  This is where the viewer's intelligence is insulted if it is presented as naturalistic.  And this is also where the photographer or the editor is effectively saying, "My view of your world is greatly enhanced by me imposing my art on you."  Isn't this closer to what we can see in McCurry's manipulations?

I think it may actually reveal a certain simple-mindedness in McCurry's approach. The edits he has made all appear to be made to increase visual clarity of the image. For instance removing visual tangents, or clarifying a line. This is the sort of stuff we'd look for when laying out comic pages. Move this, change that, get rid of that. This is necessary in laying out a comic page because you want a reader to be able to instantly make sense of the panel, and move on to the next one without any confusion.  While the same ideas are important in composing a photograph, it also strikes me as rather backwards. I don't mind a photographer setting up a "clever" shot, then waiting perhaps for the "right" person, vehicle, whatever to come along and complete it. Afterall, Bresson did this time and time again, and it worked fine for him. But McCurry's approach seems to be much clumsier. Getting the shot first - fixing composition later. Obviously he didn't always work this way, so what happened? Laziness?

Excellent analogy and point.

This makes some useful distinctions

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2016/05/a-very-important-distinction-in-post-processing.html

[Sandeha Lynch]

Good article.  Which reminds me ... painters have it so easy by comparison.