fbpx

DIY Photography

Hacking Photography - one Picture at a time

Search

 

Submit A Story

The iconic photo “Migrant Mother” was “Photoshopped”

by 34 Comments

There is hardly anyone who doesn’t know about “Migrant Mother,” an iconic photo by Dorothea Lange. The 1936 portrait depicts Florence Owens Thompson and her children, and there are many true and untrue facts we’ve heard about it. But did you know it was altered? Or “photoshopped,” as we tend to say nowadays? Thanks to a new book from the Museum of Modern Art, this interesting fact has recently seen the light of day.

Dorothea Lange: Migrant Mother was written by Sarah Meister, a photography curator at MoMA. In addition to the already known facts, this book contains many new ones and it tells about some little-explored details. And among them, there is the story of “the missing thumb,” which was at some point edited out from the image.

The original image with “the missing thumb”
The print of Library of Congress, ©Dorothea Lange

The altered version of “Migrant Mother”, ©Dorothea Lange

As The New York Times writes, Lange had an assistant retouch the negative in 1939 and remove Thompson’s thumb from the bottom right corner. The reason for this was simple: the photographer thought it was a distraction and she reportedly didn’t have any doubts that it should be removed. However, Roy Stryker, Lange’s boss at the Farm Security Administration, wasn’t happy about her decision. He believed that it compromised the authenticity of the photo and of his whole F.S.A. documentary project.

In her book, Sarah Meister argues about different interpretations of the iconic image. For some people, it represents “the pinnacle of motherhood,” for the others, it represents “represent the depth of the Depression,” or “a suppressing of racial identity.” It’s important, however, to establish the facts and stick to them, regardless of the interpretation.

Generally speaking, documentary images like this shouldn’t be altered, because they need to reflect a real situation. However, I believe that editing out the thumb doesn’t affect the story Lange captured or the viewers’ interpretation. It wouldn’t add to the story even if it were left in place. Since we now know that it was removed from the negative, it helps us determine whether a print was made before or after 1939, and it’s definitely an interesting fact about the well-known image.

[via The New York Times]

Related posts:

Veteran war photographer Don McCullin receives knighthood in 2017 New Year Honours list Museum of Modern Arts puts these iconic photos up for sale Photojournalist potentially facing death penalty in Egypt awarded the “World Press Freedom Prize” Crying toddler at the border in viral photo was never separated from her mother

  • unethical… what about how much is unethical to be payed with taxpayers money, by the government FSA, to create propaganda material for the political goal to increase the power of the government to steal more taxpayers money?
    Finger retouched or not we have to focus on what the image was created for if we want to talk about ethic.

    • Um…..wtf are you going on about conspiracy guy

    • no conspiracy, she was payed by the FSA to promote Roosvelt’s New Deal. It is history, not conspiracy, and personally I think is 100% non ethical.

    • Alexander L. Harris no matter the goal, still is wrong.

      • billt47

        So is advertising unethical? Like advertising for the armed services to encourage people to join? Or ads for Medicaid, to encourage eligible people to sign up? Or in general advertising for government programs or services, to let people know that they exist and how to access them? These are all paid for with taxpayers’ money.

  • Yes. It was unethical.

  • It was not necessary to remove the thumb. The thumb was not a distraction at all. It was not unethical either because removing it does not change the message the picture conveyed.
    However, I would have liked to be informed that the thumb was removed.
    That is a thumb right???!

  • You don’t edit negatives. You edit prints. Prints are subjective. Paper is subjective. Get over it you digital fools.

    • I don’t need to thanks. Also I know more than the writers of this article about this original negative/print and would rather leave it at that.

    • Apart from you’re wrong.

    • Negatives were totally edited, drawn on, painted over, cut apart and pasted together. Someone with your background should know that and not falsely state otherwise (in a rather arrogant way)

    • I do know that. And that has nothing to do with this photo which the negative was not manipulated. The “original” in this article is not the original it is just subjective lab print and the print everyone is used to seeing is just an artists subjective interpretation. The negative was not manipulated the print was.

  • I will forever see the colored over thumb from now on.

    • Gael Gahewir

      And the index finger left in place right?

  • I don’t need to thanks. Also I know more than the writers of this article about this original negative/print and would rather leave it at that.

  • I’m not sure about unethical. My opinion is it’s been an iconic photo for 70+ years who am I to change it. While we’re at it let’s change The Creation of Adam, The Mona Lisa and The Starry Night.

  • It is her photo, she can do what she wants as long as it’s not distorting the truth.

  • Nothing we don’t already do.

  • Who cares?

  • Research Jerry Uelsmann. He was doing photoshop with multiple enlargers on a single piece of photo paper. Way ahead of his time

  • Arthur_P_Dent

    This is not exactly news.

  • I don’t consider it unethical, it was after all, the photographers decision and neither adds nor takes away from the image (well except that digit) which is now a ghost.

    It isn’t a distraction for me in the original image.

  • I HATE edited photos. I think a true photo tells a story and should be done as it really is. I am a photographer and find edited photos like this “fake” and dont do it myself. That being said, that is why many people make a lot of money doing photography, and I have a regular job. I dont care for the practice, but it is what it is, and has been that way FOREVER. so… whateves….

    • Robert Ausura

      Photographers are artists and should be able to do what other artists do. Painters, for example. When Monet painted his iconic masterpieces, he freely eliminated ugly shadows, misshapen branches, background distractions. In fact, his impressionist style was at that time as far from “reality” as it could be. Purists scowled, of course, but today Impressionist paintings are among the most treasured in the world. Ansel Adams and other “old school” masters regularly developed lightroom techniques to enhance (“edit”) their masterpieces. No one complained because no one noticed. But today’s photographers have a different vision of photography and what it can do, and though I think many of our community’s experiments fall short, I’m also excited that we finally have a full set of tools to, as the painters can, go directly from vision to artwork.

  • WHICH “iconoc” photo was not photoshoped ???❓

  • The image itself and the set it was part of did what they were designed to do.

  • My best photo i ever took was all luck, i walked past an alley in India, Turned my camera to the right, and clicked and kept walking… i ended up with a little 4 or so year old girl walking towards me with her finger in the mouth with laundry on each side of her… ethical or luck or whatever…. a man (0r woman) has to eat.

  • Jewels Vern

    It is easy to google the statement made by the girl in the picture. You will notice that most of the country had no such problems. Only the down-and-outers got the attention, and we have been led to believe the whole country was that way. In fact, the depression era had many signs of prosperity such as increased consumption of meat and butter and increased charitable donations.

  • Even the “original print” was edited, if you consider cropping to be editing.

  • Nick M

    Well done for COMPLETELY missing the point, which was that the woman was nothing to do with any depression and was simply waiting at the side of the road while her car’s tyre was being mended!
    As I understand it, Lange saw a great image and took the shot.
    The thumb is irrelevant, as the ethics of the wrong caption being applied to a well-to-do woman are far more scandalous.

  • Renlish

    The thumb hasn’t been removed. It’s been selectively burned in/dodged out – you can still see it. People have been doing this, quite literally, since photography began. I learned this technique, along with painting over and cutting up negatives in my photography classes at school. Ansel Adams is well known for his editing work. A plethora of olde timey photographers did this too.

    Editing is subjective. I don’t mind the thumb in the original but I could see that some might find it annoying. You want to be drawn to the face of the woman. The thumb sticks out.

Recent Posts