Jain Lemos » Photography and Publishing

Jain - (via email) Hey Jain, I read your post today about the New York Times Magazine removing the photos from its slideshow because they had been digitally altered. I got a chance to interview the guy who exposed the photos for being altered and then alerted the newspaper of the fakery: http://bloggasm.com/how-a-metafilter-member-caused-the-new-york-times-to-pull-down-altered-photos Anyway, I thought this was something you and your readers would find interesting. Take care, SimonJuly 9, 2009 - 10:02 am

Jain - (via email from David W. Dunlap, The New York Times) http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/behind-5/ Dear Jain: You may be interested to know that I received an identical communiqueJuly 9, 2009 - 10:54 am

Yoink - Hi, you might like to check out this thread at the site Metafilter.com (where Martins's fakery was first discovered). If you read down through the thread (and also the "metatalk" thread that is linked from that thread) you'll find that the posters there (including myself) have discovered multiple--indeed pervasive--examples of photoshopping throughout Martins's entire career. Indeed, it would be fair to say that after reading that thread you'll find yourself starting from the assumption that every single one of Martins's photographs is digitally manipulated. As you know, if you are a fan of his, he has maintained throughout his career that he refuses to do any post production manipulation, either in the darkroom or digitally.July 9, 2009 - 12:38 pm

Jain - Yoink -- I already read the thread and linked to Metafilter in my post. Thanks.July 9, 2009 - 12:41 pm

Yoink - Hi Jain--ah, I see that you did (sorry, didn't mouse over the relevant link before I wrote). However if you've been through that thread, you'll know that there's really no question whatsoever about Edgar Martins's willingness to misrepresent his work. It beggars belief that he would finally have "come clean" about his use of Photoshop to the NYTimes when he has repeatedly and blatantly lied about his practice throughout his entire career. And, in fact, even if he never explicitly said to the NYTimes "these images have not been digitally altered" that would hardly lessen the gravity of the situation. A) it is already the explicit policy of the NYTimes not to accept digitally altered images for journalistic photoessays (he can hardly claim to have thought that he was producing illustrations, can he?) and B) one still has the long record of his outright lies about his entire body of previous work.July 9, 2009 - 1:44 pm

Dave Copp - Interesting debate. I am familiar with Edgar Martins' work, but not with Metafilter. Does the blog have certain, falsifiable, and direct proof that this is taking place? If so, it would be disappointing to say the least. If not, it might be best to hold judgment before all the facts are in. However, if it is the case that Martins has been profiting off work that claims to be unadulterated and authentic, but is in fact manipulated, then that is rather fraudulent towards those who have purchased his prints thinking they were more special than they actually were. Whatever the case, his photos are still very intriguing. But whether he has an eye for the symmetries of reality or whether he merely profits off the deception that he does is a question that he needs to answer. Thanks for the info, Jain.July 9, 2009 - 2:03 pm

Yoink - Hi Dave. Metafilter is a general-discussion link-aggregator site that puts a high premium on intelligent and informed discussion. It's not a specialist photography site. If you follow Jain's link to the original Metafilter thread on this subject you'll find considerable "certain, falsifiable, and direct" proof of Martins's extensive use of digital processing. Indeed, you'll find yourself saying "how on earth was this not obvious to everyone"? Here are some examples: This one pretty much speaks for itself--he's done a certain amount of clone-tool work to disrupt the symmetry, but as soon as you realize what to look for it's obvious (look, particularly, at the converging, mirrored tire-tracks). This one is almost laughably self-evident. You can see that the lowest branch on the right is just the next-to-lowest branch on the left flipped and stuck on (notice the perfect symmetry of all the interior branches, the perfect symmetry of the curb). He's digitally altered the leaves, however, to break up the symmetry a little). Here's one that's rather more subtle--but it's very subtleness suggests just how pervasive his practice is. Look closely at the four large stones underwater in the lower left of the image. There are only two 'originals' there--he's doubled both of those stones (notice, particularly, that you get exactly the same slight reflection/ripple in the water above the two on the right). The more I look at this photo, in fact, the more I suspect tat the "fire" in its fake and that much of the greenery is fake as well, but I can't prove any of that. Two minutes in photoshop would prove the cloning of those stones, however.) The two Metafilter threads will give you links to plenty more examples.July 9, 2009 - 2:53 pm

Robert - Dave: Yes, Metafilter presents overwhelming evidence of pervasive photoshoppery. Take a look through the thread. It's pretty damning.July 9, 2009 - 7:33 pm

Behind the Scenes: Digital Manipulation - Lens Blog - NYTimes.com - [...] photographer at the heart of the current controversy, has told Lens and at least one other blog, Jain, that he will be telling his side of the story soon. The text of his e-mail response to requests [...]July 9, 2009 - 11:03 am

Edgar Martins: The Madoff of Photography? » Jain Lemos - [...] 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 [...]July 10, 2009 - 3:41 pm