Edgar Martins: The Madoff of Photography?

The New York Times Magazine photo editors were duped by Edgar Martins, who now admits he uses Photoshop, as revealed in his interview posted on Arte Photographica. He did not apologize — it was a “misunderstanding” of sorts — and spins a wild tale that goes nowhere to explain his audacity.

Is his career over? No. Unlike Bernie Madoff, his shell game scam will make him even more sought after; the value of his altered prints, made during the era when they were said not to be, are already no doubt worth considerably more than before. Only a few of us will hand down the 150-year death-in-photojournalism prison sentence. Am I surprised? Not at all. I wanted to give him a chance to explain what happened. Instead, with his statement, he proved he is not a worthy person. If he wants to call himself an artist, a photographer, he can, but he has broken our laws. He’s just a flimflam man.

Someone told me that it wasn’t as though he Photoshopped a child being killed in a war zone then claimed it was authentic. True, this story was illustrative to begin with. And for all his previous work he so righteously said was unaltered, well, I guess he wanted to make a joke of the whole issue, thinking he was more clever than we are. Maybe he is.

How does that saying go again? You know the one. Laughing all the way to the bank.

====================================================

There are a few questions that I can’t find answers to:

1. I’ve read he shoots 4×5 film, is that what he used for this assignment?
2. Did Martins submit his images as film or as finished digital files?
3. Where is the lab he uses to develop his film? Who paid for that processing?
4. Where were the scans made of his film?
5. Did anyone at the NYTM see his original film?
6. While he was on the road shooting, did he send in any images midstream, or did he finish, go back to his studio, then submit them all as a package?
7. Did he indicate on each image whether or not that particular frame had been altered?
8. He implies that he gave the magazine choices (what he calls the misunderstanding). Did editors knowingly pick images that were altered and run them anyway because they were the best?
9. Have we asked Kathy Ryan (or whoever was responsible) what happened and what her involvement was in this assignment?
10. Does Kathy claim she looked at the final selects for the article in the final layout for approval, under the impression at the time that they were not altered but created in camera?
11. Can Kathy verify that in her initial conversations with Martins about the assignment, that they discussed his methods and the magazine’s policy for acceptable alterations?
12. Is this policy included in the contract that Martins signed?