Afghan Girl: Steve McCurry?greenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread |
Was watching this documentary about the serach of the Afghan Girl. Steve was seen using a SLR(nikon?) with a zoom?Afghan sure is a nice place for portraits..
His search was treacherous but worthwhile.
-- Yossi (yosslee@yahoo.com), May 03, 2002
Steve McCurry was using a Nikon (FM? FE?) with 105mm f/2.5 lens.
-- Douglas Herr (telyt@earthlink.net), May 03, 2002.
I saw him took the pic of the older Afghan girl with a "modern" plastic SLR. Definitely not FM or Fe2
-- Yossi (yosslee@yahoo.com), May 03, 2002.
I thought I saw a Nikon F100 with 85/1.8. But I think on the NG website you will be able to finds some of these pictures including information on the equipment used for the job.
-- joop (mes@nat.vu.nl), May 03, 2002.
Ha! I looked it up at their website, check this:http://mesa.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/afghangirl/zoom1.html
Cheers,
-- Joop (mes@nat.vu.nl), May 03, 2002.
Did anyone see the NG article about this? They were treating her like an animal- someone they were interested in but decided they couldn't communicate with; they talked about how they used some scientific analysis of her irises to ensure that she was indeed "The Afghan Girl." Like they just couldn't ask her? Anthropological.How would McCurry like it if some technologically advanced alien holographer came and made a hologram of his mother as a girl, and, 10 years later, a crew of them came out and had to do scientific tests to see if she was really "The Human Girl" whose hologram made the alien holographer rich over the past decade.
To their credit, the NG has put together an Afghan girls' fund. I hope there is continued progress in having a broader, less Euro/Americentric perspective in the NG, and that their subjects can contribute to the editorial policy and tone of the magazine. Indeed, due in part to the global reach of NG, many of their 'exotic' subjects themselves will soon be able to afford the magazine. 'Course, they won't be as interesting to photograph anymore!
-- Tse-Sung (tsesung@yahoo.com), May 03, 2002.
Thanks, Joop.You answered it for us!
-- Steve Hoffman (shoffman2@socal.rr.com), May 03, 2002.
He uses 3 Nikon F-100's according to a report in one of the photojournalism articles.
-- nep111al (drdad1111@yahoo.com), May 03, 2002.
The 1985 photo was made with the FE or FM body and 105.
-- Douglas Herr (telyt@earthlink.net), May 03, 2002.
I think what Tse-Sung has to say about this is a lot more important than what camera he used.
-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), May 03, 2002.
I agree Jeff, Tse Sung said it well, empathy with your subject should mark a good photorapher. I find it fascinating that she was found. More interesting is our feelings and more important is our response.
-- gary brown (drdad1111@yahoo.com), May 03, 2002.
Tse-SungAs I am argumentative, I will address some of your points. How do you know they treated her like an animal? Not necessarily, and after all few people would want her to be the "wrong" person in which case the whole point of the story would be lost. She might not have actually even seen the famous shot - she does look different too - no doubt about that. While I am prepared to agree that the "evil West" does plenty of bad things, I think your attitude to her is just as patronising - Afghans are no more paragons of honesty or simplicity necessarily than westerners surely? Yes, maybe the NG should be less American and "more sensitive". But on the other hand why should it? This is its audience and why it is so successful and at least it is making an effort to tell the "ignorant" West about other peoples. I bet that an Afghan NG equivalent would probably appear just as unusual and judgemental to us as (maybe) NG does to the Afghans. I am not a tub-thumping American (in fact I am not an American at all), but I don't really see why the fact that it is an American magazine means it should be ashamed of itself. Even Afghans understand about newspapers and magazines and how they work - they used to work the same in her country, except in recent times there has not been much worth reading in that poor country. They are not that dumb.
-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), May 03, 2002.
It was with RESPECT that Steve set out to search for her. Get that right. He is , I believe at this stage, looking beyond fame and money.
-- Yossi (yosslee@yahoo.com), May 03, 2002.
I've been a fan of Steve McCurry for a number of years, and of National Geographic. I've seen the television special, and read the articles about the search for the "Afghan Girl," and not once have I gotten the impression that Tse-Sung has. If anything, I thought the NG crew and Steve McCurry both acted with the greatest respect for the Afghan people and their culture, and treated this woman on a very human to human scale. The truth is that when they finally located the "Afghan Girl," (and its not as if you can just pick up the telephone book!) and she was shown the photo, she wasn't sure herself that the picture was of her. It was the first time she had seen the photo in question, and, I believe, the first time she had seen any photo of herself. (How many of you "Third World Leica Photographers" get the name and address so you can sent your third world subject a copy?) This was the reason the retinal scan was done. It certainly wasn't done to belittle this lady, in fact she was curious herself. Those of use in the West, including Tse-Sung, quickly forget that in other parts of the world, not everyone lives as we do, with photos, mirrors, cosmetics, running water, Big Macs, etc, etc, etc. I don't mind someone getting a hair up their arse, but as least show some intelligence and make sure you know the whole story, instead of reading into some little piece, what you want to read into it. If Tse- Sung and Jeff Spirer are so worried about abusive behavior, I'm sure there's plenty of it around that's for real. On the other hand, use a Leica to take the most undignified photo of a third world person and their animals, and everyone on this forum will be kissing your arse, telling you what a great photographer you are. Talk about explotation!
-- Glenn Travis (leicaddict@hotmail.com), May 03, 2002.
Glenn Travis is right about at least one thing - peasant photos are held in high esteem on this forum. Why?
-- pinhead (blieb@sheridanross.com), May 03, 2002.
Well, I have a feeling Glenn's point is partly aimed at me, so I'll address it. We're all very familiar with the first world, and one of the potentials of photography is to reveal other worlds and other lives to us, so naturally when we see pictures about life in other, less advantaged parts of the world, they are quite intriguing. It's part of what I would see as the fundamental project of photography to do this.For myself, I am very attracted to India and South Asia (my wife is indian), and now to Palestine. Why? Partly because I genuinely like the way people live there, i admire and like them and enjoy being with them. And partly because I think there are plenty of injustices that need to be highlighted in those places. And also, I would hope to showning more than the usual stereotyped view of the places I photograph. If I can achieve any of that, then I think it's valuable, as well as satisfying my personal curiosity about those realities - I'll be dead in a few years time, so I want to see as much as I can of the world and how it works, and photography is a means of exploring that and also coming to something like a conclusion about it which I can then submit to others. At least when I come back from Gujarat, for instance, I'll have something to say about it. I may be no more than a tourist in disguise, but at least I'll have produced something and come to grips with it.
That's just my own feeling about it. Maybe it's not going to work for anyone else.
-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), May 03, 2002.
To Rob: After reading what you wrote I recognized how hard it can be to articulate why we shoot what we do. The best summary is a quote by Salgado that I think about a lot "...we photograph from our ideology." And I think its true for most of us who shoot the human condition, wherever we may find it.To Glenn, I know many colleagues who make sure photos go back to those they have photographed, in fact they make a big effort to make it happen. I make it a regular practice and you may know it isn't as easy as having a name and street address. And about your last sentence, could you be more specific?
Felt compelled to weigh in.
Namaste,
MH
-- Michael Hintlian (michael@hintlian.com), May 03, 2002.
We're all very familiar with the first world, and one of the potentials of photography is to reveal other worlds and other lives to usIt's also much, much, much easier to photograph people in the 3rd world than it is here in the West. Just try to photograph someone in a supermarket here or (god-forbid) some child in a playground...
-- Andrew Nemeth (azn@nemeng.com), May 03, 2002.
I may be no more than a tourist in disguise, but at least I'll have produced something and come to grips with it.Without the efforts of Rob and the like,we would think the world is a bunch of roses.Photography is about depicting reality(some lie)truth is not always nice.Photography is the most powerful medium for truth that has ever existed.
-- allen herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), May 03, 2002.
Andrew, what you say is _partly_ true. I think it's easier to get access to public space in the third/non-western world - or at least those parts of it that I know (although there are many problems there also) - but private space is just as difficult if not more so. For instance, photographing women at home in much of the muslim world is very difficult.
-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), May 03, 2002.
"To Rob: After reading what you wrote I recognized how hard it can be to articulate why we shoot what we do."Michael - it was rather incoherent! It's hard to explain an obssession.
-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), May 03, 2002.
Rob, we've talked before, and in no way was my post directed at you. Only in so far as you didn't jump to Steve McCurry's or NG's defense. Out of context, I think you photo's can be taken one way, but in the context of the Photo Essay, they are outstanding and a joy to read as I've indicated to you. If I've offened anyone else, I apologize, but it's so easy to sell the "Lie" over "Truth," and we should all be offened for the blantant attempt at manipulation.
-- Glenn Travis (leicaddict@hotmail.com), May 03, 2002.
Finally- a discussion I've long wanted to have! Glenn is right about one thing- I read only a small part of said article- I was turned off rather quickly.I'll go through it more thoroughly tonight or sometime, and I'll come back here with some thoughts, and more (esp. pinhead's question, "peasant photos seem to be popular on this forum")
Bis spaeter, TS
-- Tse-Sung (tsesung@yahoo.com), May 03, 2002.
I think it's easier to get access to public space in the third/non- western worldNo doubt about it Rob, it is much easier. Especially compared to Paris (France) or here in the west of Sydney.
I agree with you though about cultural & religious limitations making things difficult too - males photographing women in muslim countries is just asking for trouble.
But photograph a kid on a 3rd-world street and it's "a comment on the human condition". Do it here in the west and it's "officer, that man just took a photo of my daughter..."
-- Andrew Nemeth (azn@nemeng.com), May 03, 2002.
In my experience, the more money people have, the more they object to being photographed. Then there are other parameters as well, religious, cultural and so on. But without a doubt, the more money people have, the more difficult it is to photograph them. They always want to be in control and set the terms of any photography you do.This is a shame, really, because India, for instance, could benefit from being portrayed more across the social spectrum, but the simple fact is that the people who are going to give you a free hand in photographing them at home are generally the poorer people, who are also often the most hospitable in every way. They don't have an image to promote or maintain and so they're not afraid of photography as such, although they might object for purely personal reasons.
Another big obstacle to photography is religion. It's sad that the muslim world is so closed to photography, that it objects to the _fact_ of photography as such, because a country like, say, Saudi Arabia or Yemen or Pakistan could certainly benefit from being better and more intimately portrayed and seen in the West. But their culture is primarily verbal, and IMO it's a feature of modernity that images are more powerful than words; it's a sort of index of the differentness/anti-modernity of these cultures that they give priority to words over images. So they're really shooting themselves in the foot by forbidding photography. Of course, I have photographed quite intimate domestic stuff in muslim countries, but it's still a problem.
Glenn - Steve McCurry is a terrific photographer without a doubt. But I do have to say that I often wonder if he understands more than the visual aspect of what he's photographing. His book Monsoon, which is packed with fantastic snaps, shows a real failure to portray the way the monsoon permeates and drives the whole South Asian area's economy, for instance. It's not an easy subject, of course, but there's a lot more to the monsoon than flooded fields and washed away crops.
As to the Afghan Girl, I've always rather wondered why this very good portrait has been raised to such iconic status. I wouldn't accuse him of exploiting her, though - if you had to pay and track every person you photograph in the course of doing a story the costs would quite simply swamp the project in a couple of days and it would be impossible to do the job. People are mostly quite pleased to be photographed if they feel that they are being treated with respect and that you have a genuine interest in telling their story. Unfortunately that kind of documentary photojournalism just isn't going to be around very much longer.
-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), May 04, 2002.
They were treating her like an animal- someone they were interested in but decided they couldn't communicate with; they talked about how they used some scientific analysis of her irises to ensure that she was indeed "The Afghan Girl." Like they just couldn't ask her? Anthropological.They did ask her. Not only that, they'd previously asked another woman who claimed to be the girl and it turned out she wasn't. So your theory doesn't work particularly well.
Is it "anthropological" when police age a photo of a missing child or reconstruct the appearance of a murder victim from a skull? I guess it is, but so what, unless you have some preconceived ax to grind?
-- Mark Ciccarello (mark@ciccarello.com), May 04, 2002.
Steve McCurry is a terrific photographer without a doubtI'd disagree with this. I find his portraits to be typical stock head shots, albeit well-executed, completely lacking in intimacy. If you are going to fill the frame with a face, it should be more than just a face.
-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), May 04, 2002.
Mark, nice to see a comment here from you-thanks for keeping this creaky old dinosaur of a server going-warm thanks I'm sure, from all in this forum.You do say "Is it "anthropological" when police age a photo of a missing child or reconstruct the appearance of a murder victim from a skull? ". Since Sharbat Gula (I guess we can dignify her with a name) is neither, and Steve McCurry is no cop, the comment is certainly not off base totally.
Certainly we would agree that a journalist doing eye scans of a interview subject he has traced after 18 years is way over the top in terms of intrusive behaviour in our society.
That he was able to do so in Afghanistan neither establishes that he is way over the top there nor that he used the subjects guilelessness and poverty to his advantage. But it does not establish the contrary either. He may well have. All we have to go by is our own standards I think...
Jeff, I do agree with you about Steve McCurry. I think his greatest strength is his eye for color and his ability to isolate color in portraiture, especially in his backgrounds and with his use of telephotos. Whether this represents great talent or is a skill relatively easy to acquire I don't know.
What I do know is that he does not establish the kind of rapport with his subjects that this traveling photographer on photo.net seems to have done in Rajasthan (unfocused shot or not)...
-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), May 04, 2002.
http://www.photo.net/bboard/big-image?bboard_upload_id=8044684Why did my link not work again? :-(
[The link above was corrected and is now functional. -TR]
-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), May 04, 2002.
I don't think a big fat sloppy grin is any evidence of rapport being established. I think I could walk into any third-world country, hand somebody a fiver and get pretty much the same reaction. And technically, that photo is pretty awful.I think McCurry's street portraits are pretty good, actually. And that's certainly not all he does.
And no, I don't think a journalist analyzing somebody's irises is out of line, here or there.
-- Mark Ciccarello (mark@ciccarello.com), May 04, 2002.
Jeff, he definitely does more than just portraits - I don't find those headshots too fascinating either, really.Mani, surely he was just trying to establish her identity, given she didn't know or couldn't remember herself whether she was the girl in the picture? I haven't found Afghans to be particularly guileless or naive, to tell the truth.
-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), May 05, 2002.
The middle paragraph in the responze by Tse-Sung contains references to very important issues that are worthy of serious consideration by everyone associated with photography.
-- Jim Lennon (jim@jmlennon.com), May 05, 2002.
What troubles me is the recent conflicts in the Middle East where press access is restricted. I guess governments have finally gotten wise so many years after Vietnam as to what a good photo can do. I guess we will never know what is going on there now nor ever. At least McCurry and company gave the world a glimpse of a Afghan refugee camp the West will never see otherwise. By the way McCurry uses AF because he can only shoot with one hand.
-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), May 05, 2002.
More worryingly, journalists are now targeted for assassination more and more.
-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), May 05, 2002.
I'd disagree with this. I find his portraits to be typical stock head shots.Sorry Jeff but who are wrong again...as much as i admire some of your work.
-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), May 05, 2002.
I guess governments have finally gotten wise so many years after Vietnam as to what a good photo can do.Sad, but true..a horrible thing a honest photograph.
-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), May 05, 2002.
I understand Mr McCurry has earned some money from his photos of the «Afghan girl» (BTW, I have myself doubted that the older girl was actually the real one, but that's not my point) and that he and NG went to great lengths to find her. Did they, by any chance, consider giving the woman some of that money? Let's say, just for the sake of it. Just a question.
-- Olivier Reichenbach (olreiche@videotron.ca), May 07, 2002.
Oliver, read the NG article. McCurry did offer financial support. But the woman said she only wanted to be able to send her children to school and go to Mecca for the pilgrimage, so apparently McCurry/NG are arranging both. Additionally, NG is setting up a fund for the education of Afghan women and children.
-- Richard (rvle@yahoo.com), May 07, 2002.
Surly the whole thing about third world countries and first world countries is that, if a photo of an Afghan girl is taken and then displayed in Afghanistan...no one would bat an eye lid. However, a photo of a girl taken in England and displayed there, a lot of Afghan's would want to know how the girl lived etc. It all depends on who the final audiance is.
-- Yogesh Jeram (Yogeshjeram@hotmail.com), May 07, 2002.