• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Steve McCurry after Kodachrome: "I don't use film anymore"

Dan thank you for bringing Jeff Jacobson to my attention his last roll is very different to Mccurry's work and I believe in a good way. I also agree the thread has become very nasty especially the racist comments.
Without the turks and arabs we wouldn't have a a lot of things like the number zero and the entire greek philosophy not to forget many advances in the optical sciences.
 
PKM,

Bye folks, read only from here on out!

It's your call, of course, but I think that seems like an overly extreme reaction to a small group's bad behavior.

As Edmund Burke once said, all that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men[1] to stop posting on internet fora. Or something like that.

-NT

[1] He did in fact say "men", alas. I do not endorse the sexism of the people I paraphrase.
 


And don't forget: "Clap on, clap off the Clapper".... Morgan Freeman in "Bruce Almighty
 
actually a lot of things mentioned in that article are wrong ..
first and foremost, before the 1920s it was not turkey, turkey did not exist
it was the ottoman empire which in its height spanned from asia to venice.
only now noah's ark considered to be in turkey.

i wish the racists would not comment in threads it ruins it for the site as a whole.


...apug used to be known as "the most polite forum on the internet"

... not this
 
Last edited by a moderator:
...apug used to be known as "the most polite forum on the internet"

... not this

Even so, this is a pretty tame forum with some pretty nice people who share common interests... thankfully. These kind of htings happen periodically, as you well know, and then they go away - either the offensive member goes, or the issue dies down and goes.
 

I don't think it makes the matter right, just because others do it as well. I don't want to get into it but the whole interns as free labor model is broke, the continuation of it across so many other job sectors is disgusting. It's not what it was ideally anymore, as a learning apprenticeship. I remember his posts require interns to already have all the photographic skills already, so it's just free labor with a change of staff every 3 months.

There are more discussions on other sites about his practices, if you search online, but I wont comment on it further here. This thread has gone every which way and I don't think it reflects apug as a community forum.
 
I don't understand all the fuss in this thread. This Forum SHOULD be about a photographers PERSONAL CHOICE. It is every bit as ridiculous to criticize someone for choosing to shoot digital as it is to criticize someone who chooses to only shoot film (and besides, from the comments I've read here over time, it appears most of us here shoot both).
 
Yes I remember how polite Jorge was every day.

 
I find this site pretty tame, compared to when I first joined, but I have put a lot of threads on ignore so I really only get darkroom and presentation threads to view.

I will say this ... Dinesh is by far the biggest pain in the ass on this site, he is a real trouble maker, he is lucky I never bump into him on the street.


Yes, me too... but he left. He and a few other characters really left an impression, eh?
 
I will say this ... Dinesh is by far the biggest pain in the ass on this site, he is a real trouble maker, he is lucky I never bump into him on the street.

Uh oh.....it's ON!
 
I agree with PKM this thread is pretty shameful, especially that really bigot remark about one APUGers country being in the Stone Age, really not ok...

Also, one if our own recently moved to an all digital printing, remember that? And everyone said fond things and wished him luck, so why is Steve McCurry getting bashed for essentially the same thing?

Furthermore I wouldn't mind interning for free for him, also many of my models are free, does that make me bad too?


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
 
There's basically 2 people in this thread going back and forth. Hardly the rioting offensive thread people are making it out to be. I think some of the comments were stupid and irrelevant but this place is hardly like photo.net or dpreview.
 

I completely agree with you here. I get angry at people who criticize my choice to use film but I also ensure I don't criticize their choice to use digital. My friend (a very adamant feminist (her term, not mine)) had a screaming match in a university class with a professor who told her that she wasn't a real feminist since she didn't want a career, she wanted to stay at home with kids and pursue her non-money making passion of gardening (she married into money). "What is the point of fighting for a woman's right to choose to do anything they want when you deny all but one of their choices?" I think anyone here on APUG who think we are trying to make everyone go back to film is sadly misunderstanding what this community is about; for me, this community is about empowering people to use film and to ensure the knowledge base required to practice this art form is maintained. I would hope that somebody who is 100% digital would still be able to get something out of this website, just as I try to get something out of digital websites. There is this sense on APUG like if someone uses digital, they have betrayed real photographers and need to be ostracized - we are here because we feel excluded from digital sites, so let's exclude others???

I think McCurry is a great photographer but his is not the style I would buy or emulate. I could care less what he shoots with or that he has stopped using film, I care much more about what his output looks like. And I think if you had a time machine that let you asked any of the great masters of photography what they would do if they were alive today, do you really think all of them would be 100% analogue? Do you really think Adams, Cartier-Bresson, Karsh, Kertesz, Weston and any other who was worried about feeding their family through their art would really be concerned with anything other their output and getting paid for it? Would any of you turn down work for National Geographic or Vogue or the New York Times because they insisted on digital capture? Why would we blame McCurry for doing what his job demands? Of course he doesn't shoot film, he can't and still feed his family. He'd pay his interns if there wasn't a line out his door offering to work for free; I would have done it before I became responsible for other people.

Thank-you for posting the interview and even asking the question to him.
 

Well, this is the internet.

i wish the racists would not comment in threads it ruins it for the site as a whole.

Well, this is the internet.

...apug used to be known as "the most polite forum on the internet"

... not this

Well, this is the internet.

 

McCurry loved Kodachrome; he later loved using the E100 Ektachromes. I believe his choice to go digital was largely a pragmatic one, and I won't criticize him for it.
 
...... he is lucky I never bump into him on the street.

As I walk looking straight ahead and not down, I probably wouldn't even notice you!
 
McCurry loved Kodachrome; he later loved using the E100 Ektachromes. I believe his choice to go digital was largely a pragmatic one, and I won't criticize him for it.

The only thing I could be critical of is forsaking a medium which made him. Of course, it's all about the content - but I tend to doubt Afghan Girl would have lost something had it not been on Kodachrome.

I guess what I'm saying is of course there's "I don't really use film for commercial work" line of view and then there's the "I don't use film, ever" line of view that personally rubs me the wrong way. He can do whatever he wants, but I'd imagine if one was shooting film for 30+ years, it'd be an old friend - not a divorced wife.
 
Digital or film is irrelevant when discussing McCurry's trademark image, Afghan Girl. He had a camera. He was there are the right time and the right moment, AND he had refined sense of empathy and association with the subject that allowed him, for a few brief sections to capture that cold, haunting stare, he then moved on. Twenty hears later he re-photographed Sharba Gullut, Afghan Girl, with the same empathy and associative qualities that made his first image. The only big difference was that the resulting image was nowhere near as hauntingly beautiful as the first, but we can understand that: age and the incessant weariness of war would take its toll on the hardest of hardened Pashtun, the feared ethnics to which Gullut belonged. I have viewed several later works of McCurry and don't think those works are anywhere near as moving as the one that put his name up in lights, even though decades later very few people can associate the image with the photographer by name. Luck, timing and preparedness, together with people skills would have delivered millions of similar images in the decades since, whether on film or digital. Good on McCurry for using what is best for his professional needs irrespective of what others think. That's what we all do.
 

That why I say I think it's largely a pragmatic decision. His world (the one of photojournalism) changed around him. Salgado went to digital, with a stated reason being the difficulty of getting film safely through airports.
 

She was angry with him at having to show we face and scared, but in her culture she did as a man asked, that's why she has those haunting eyes, it's anger and fear. She was pulled out of we classroom for the shot to get better light and he chose her specifically. It almost ruins it when you read the full story, but the image is what inspired me as a photographer. It was on my wall from the time I was 12 till 28... I also own the original national geographic periodical (somewhere). I might be obsessed. Also the original slide is not quite as saturated, thank the touch up guys for that.


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
 
That why I say I think it's largely a pragmatic decision. His world (the one of photojournalism) changed around him. Salgado went to digital, with a stated reason being the difficulty of getting film safely through airports.

I think going digital is about getting the images out safely, you can upload via remote satellite feed if need be... To get the images of the afghan girl out, Steve had to hand sew the film into his jacket that he wore through security at the airport.. He sewed the strips into the lining of the jacket in complete darkness remember... Not easy)...

Digital upload is way easier


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk