Cloning, Cropping, Leica, and Lying: Ethics in Modern Photography

Is cloning out a foot or piece of trash really that bad in photojournalism? YES — and in this video, I explain why. I’m Justin Mott, a professional photojournalist with nearly two decades of experience working for outlets like The New York Times, and today I’m calling out the growing disregard for ethics in photography. Whether you’re an amateur photographer, a Leica shooter, or a documentary pro, understanding the rules of visual truth is crucial.

We dive into photojournalism contest scandals, unethical editing practices, and the danger of blurring reality in an AI-driven media world. I break down the difference between cropping (creative choice) and cloning (visual deception), why contests like World Press Photo have strict rules, and why Leica’s Content Credentials Initiative is a huge step forward for image verification.

This is a no-fluff conversation about truth, accountability, and your responsibility as a photographer. If you care about photography’s role in storytelling — especially in journalism, documentary, and street genres — this episode is for you.

📸 Let’s talk ethics, Leica, integrity, and the fragile trust between photographer and viewer.

🔔 Subscribe, comment, and join the conversation. No sponsors, no agenda — just the truth.

#photoethics #leicam11p #photocontestscandal #journalismintegrity

IMPORTANT NOTE
I want to take a moment to address Steve McCurry, as I left him out of the video on purpose. I didn’t want the discussion to spiral into a debate about one individual and distract from the larger issue of ethics in photojournalism. That said, I do have thoughts.
While there’s no verified evidence that McCurry’s image manipulation extended into his contracted photojournalism work, in my educated opinion, he intentionally misled audiences. He used his background as a respected photojournalist to create the impression that his travel, documentary, and so-called “personal work” were authentic. — when in fact, many of those images were staged, directed, or manipulated. These images were sold in books, presented in galleries, and sold as prints weren't called Photo Illustrations they were marketed under his bio (which has since been changed to story teller) as a photojournalist in order to give them and him more gravitas, extremely shady at the very least.
To be clear, I also shoot commercial work — as many of us do — but I draw a hard line between that and my journalism or documentary work. From what I’ve seen and heard, McCurry blurred that line for commercial gain — to sell more books and make his work appear more “real” than it was.
I’ve even heard firsthand accounts from fixers who’ve worked directly with him — stories that echo what’s already well-documented online. These include using hired actors, constructed sets, and even removing entire people from photos — not just objects.

To me, that's a serious breach of trust.

Here’s the article for anyone interested in the full Photoshop scandal.
👉 https://petapixel.com/2016/05/06/botc...

Let’s keep this conversation going. It's an important one for our community.

Join this channel to get access to exclusive content, access to my monthly photo competition/assignment, weekly members-only live streams and much more.
   / @askmott