Buying guides 2015

News Reviews Articles Buying Guide Sample Images Videos Cameras LensesPhonesPrinters Forums Galleries Challenges

185

NPPA and World Press plan ethics symposium following contest disqualifications

Published Feb 26, 2015 | Brittany Hillen

World Press Photo Second Prize Contemporary Issues Category, Singles. Photo by Ronghui Chen, China, City Express

The National Press Photographers Association and World Press Photo plan to hold a symposium later in 2015 to talk about ethics in photography, following news that 20% of the photos entered in the World Press Photo contest were disqualified after reaching the penultimate round, due to digital manipulations of some sort being discovered. Meanwhile, the NPPA has called on the photographers disqualified from the contest to release their photos to the public.

The news was revealed by the NPPA over the weekend. Says its President Mark Dolan, in part, "The news that so many final entries in World Press were disqualified because of digital manipulation is staggering, and it obviously raises concerns about entries in our own contest." He has praised World Press for requiring its finalists to produce RAW files for examination, and has hinted that the NPPA might do the same in the future.

For now, however, the two organizations are looking to get together this fall – possibly at Columbia University, though it hasn’t yet confirmed whether it will host the event – to discuss photography ethics. Dolan is calling for sensible discourse in the community, saying, “…rather than accusing, I believe what we need to be doing is questioning - WHY is this happening and, more importantly, WHAT can we do to change it?”

World Press Photo’s Lars Boering, managing director, also commented on the planned symposium, and he wants to see it touch on more than just ethical considerations. "...it all needs to be discussed, including manipulation, and what the industry thinks is still okay as far as working on the files. It will be a follow-up discussion to the one we will have about this during the World Press Photo Awards Day in Amsterdam in April. And it should go beyond World Press and the photographers as well, because we've realized that a lot of publishing houses are also looking into this, because it's not only the photographers who work on the files but also the art departments as well.”

As to whether the disqualified photographers will release their photographs to the public, Boering doesn't believe it will happen:

"NPPA's statement today calls on them to make it public if they want to, but I don't think they will because it might be very harmful to them and I don't think people should be punished for making stupid mistakes. It's a difficult lesson, and one they've already learned."

Source: NPPA

Tags: photography, world-press-photo

Comments

Total comments: 185

A photograph, like a painting, is not a reproduction of reality. It's an INTERPRETATION of reality. In other words, the "editing" occurs right when the photographer decides to frame something/someone and not something/someone else.

What difference does it make between excluding something/someone from a picture before the shot is taken or after? IMHO, absolutely none.

2 upvotes

And God said thou shalt not touch a photo in anyway other than how the ancients did and if thou doth he shall be struck down from his profession and shamed.

Comment edited 15 seconds after posting

3 upvotes

It would be interesting to know what they have to say about the use of a Lytro camera. Would it make sense if images shot with Lytro cameras be banned from "press photography" competitions? lol

I think what it comes down to is the same sort of issues they have in racing and sports, involving "cheating" - like when athletes take "performance enhancing drugs" . . . or are they "treatments" or supplements? Almost everyone does it to some degree. Some just do it more than others, and some get away with it, while others don't.

0 upvotes

Perhaps the original image from a Lytro camera is actually more honest than from a conventional camera? Perhaps it contains more relevant information?

1 upvote

Honesty in photography never existed. If I simply reframe an image while taking it an entirely different message can be conveyed. This issue harkens back to the roots of photography when bodies were moved and composed for pictures of the US Civil War. So at what point does reporting and illustration cross. My belief is as soon as you begin to compose the image. Am I to believe that the photographer didn't direct the subject to stand in the beam of light in the above image or it was a happy accident. Maybe they filled the air with dust as well. I might have. So if all these things happen before the shutter actually moves is it so different afterward?

2 upvotes

To answer your last question: YES.

In the case of photojournalism, an important part of the contest is that the resultant image isn't the whole point. Part of the contest includes the skills and resources the photographer applies in order to get the shot. An image needs to be an "honest presentation". If photographers wants certain elements (eg. blades of grass) to be absent, they must have the vision to cater for this beforehand.

And, of course, it might NOT be possible to sort things out before taking the shot! So a truly honest representation would have it in. It might be argued "it was just a bystander, why does it matter?" Whose decision is it whether bystanders matter? Increasingly, organisations are saying that for ethical (and other) reasons, bystanders do matter.

Views on this differ. Some people may be convinced that they have brilliant and/or obvious reasons for their views. Other with contradictory views may be equally convinced that they do too! Debate will continue.

1 upvote

In answer to your question "at what point does reporting and illustration cross?":

This article is about the World Press Photo contest. The organisers of this (and associates) are the ones with the mandate to answer that question. They state " the ... contest has encouraged the highest standards in photojournalism".

What does that mean? Ultimately, the contest must reflect how the "professional photographers and photojournalists", who can enter it, want their work to be seen by other interested parties, such as the viewing public. Think of it as promoting their profession.

The specifics of the photography are not the whole story, of course. Excessive manipulation or disruption of the scene may also be frowned upon. I don't know how that can be judged - but I am not a professional photojournalist.

At what point does it become propaganda? Or violation of people's rights? I don't know. Photographers have to beware of becoming part of the story.

1 upvote

I've now been trying to answer some of my own questions. Although I am not a professional photojournalist, I am a customer (or consumer) of photojournalism.

Let's assume that the photos that appear in this contest were originally intended for publication in the media. So what do I want from those photos in the media?

I think I want them to show me what I would I have seen had I actually been there, on that spot, and looking in that direction. I know from everyday life that what I see isn't all that there is to be seen. I may see a different subset from a person I am with. I am used to that, and I can deal with it.

So I want the photo plus the words around it to provide sufficient context as well as important elements. I don't want any "lies" in either words or photos. I don't want bodies moved, nor a staged action. I can't be precise, but I have my own views about when what I am being presented with is dishonest, and I don't want that.

I want photojournalism ethics to match that.

1 upvote

I've just been reading about forensic photography - making photos that can be used for evidence and stand up to scrutiny in a court of law.

The statement "Honesty in photography never existed" needs to be qualified! I think most of the comments here about ways of conveying different impressions can be catered for by using the established techniques of forensic photography.

The problem isn't that photography CAN'T be honest enough for use in court. It is that MOST photography isn't that honest, and this may be assumed to be the norm.

I think photojournalism is often thought of that way; because there are some bad practices, some people assume that is the norm. Perhaps NPPA and World Press want to change all that.

1 upvote

Well I have done photo journalism work. Just the fact that I show up and announce that I am here to photograph for the media effects the event.

Somewhere along the line we told ourselves that the journalism is more then story telling and that it is to be a non biased representation of events. That is simply never been the case. It ended as soon as it became a commodity if not sooner. Think about what you consume: First you choose what you want to consume (maybe its a liberal or conservative media source), then your options are regulated by a series of editors, the editors choose from a series of articles that all arrive with the creators bias. It may be changed edited to meet standards of the corporate organization (they might have agenda outside of the news if they are owned by a larger corporation). By the time it arrives ready for you to consume it is so removed from reality that it is unlikely to have any truth.

1 upvote

Paul Guba: Do you seriously claim "... it is unlikely to have any truth"? "... ANY ..."?

As I pointed out when discussing forensic photography, I also dispute your earlier statement "Honesty in photography never existed". It sometimes exists enough to be accepted without dispute in a court of law.

I certainly accept that distortions can happen in photojournalism, and that is affecting its credibility in general. There IS some truth, but we often can't be sure what it is. I hope the forward work proposed by these two organisations will improve things.

I personally get a lot of my news from Google's set of news sources. When I care a lot, I read multiple articles, from various various sources from left to right, casual to serious. I see more variations in the story told by the words than that by the photographs.

1 upvote

Yes I believe all media to be suspect. More importantly most people believe what they want to and don't know what they don't know. As far as I know Diogenes is still looking for an honest man.

0 upvotes

Thanks Paul! Every time this fishy topic crops up in the photography press I want to express the same views. You've nailed it perfectly. The very act of picking up a camera and stepping onto the location is exercising a bias, to frame the scene prior to shooting and choosing when to shoot so as to capture only what you want is all subjectivity, then selecting the images for submission, then cropping, then adjusting brightness to draw attention to certain aspects of the image - all bias and subjectivity. And that doesn't even account for the editors' and consumers' choices! To then claim a photog has done wrong and should be punished for, for example, removing a tiny distraction that in no way alters the information or the story in the image, is disingenuous and nit-picking nonsense. The problem was to ever believe that photography is objective...

0 upvotes

Sorry. A day late and a dollar short. It matters not how many "symposiums" they hold in the distant future, their credibility is fractured. That the NPPA is "hinting" they "might" require raw images in the "future," is not much of a commitment to the truth. They might as well say, "we don't really care, cheat as much as you want, we might do something in the future." Let's face it, this "manipulation" of images, in this context, is cheating plain and simple.

0 upvotes

80% of the finalists were NOT disqualified. If that is because those photos were NOT unduly manipulated, the situation may not be as bad as some imagine.

It is not clear to me what you think they should do other than what they are doing? They are clearly NOT saying "we don't really care"!

Changes to the rules in future will need agreement among various parties. Like changes to national laws, is it too easy to get them wrong if not enough care is put into getting them right.

1 upvote

I'm glad to hear that the NPPA and World Press is addressing this issue. With so many qualified and excellent photojournalists losing their jobs in favor of "citizen journalism" photos, the need to insure that we have images that are accurate and unaltered. I have nothing against a bit of cropping or cleaning up the file, but anything else such as removing or adding elements to enhance or "make up" the image should be stricken. A photojournalist strength is honesty and integrity. If one manipulates the image to sensationalize the story, what else would that person do to create a fiction.

1 upvote

I've never entirely understood the objection to photo manipulation, even in news photography. I know the idea is that a photojournalist is supposed to capture an event exactly as it happened, but simply the choice of lens and vantage point could be considered manipulation. For instance, a wide angle lens to make a space look larger than it appears to the naked eye, or to make a press conference appear sparsely attended by making the audience smaller in the frame, or shooting from a low angle to make something appear larger and more imposing. How are these kinds of manipulations any more pure than using Photoshop to make the subject "pop", or erasing an errant pole that spoiled the composition by sticking out of someone's head?

4 upvotes

Well, I for one would be interested in going to Perpignan Photojournalism Festival (Visa) every summer if I did't feel I was looking at genuine photography. I guess we have to draw a line somewhere. The angles and lens choices you mention are an accepted part of the photographic deal. I also think some basic adjustments of WB, levels, exposure, are acceptable. It's tricky, but there is a difference between correctional adjustments and manipulation.

0 upvotes

It is precisely as Sean65 says: "we have to draw a line somewhere".

Wherever the lines is drawn, there will be some who want more scope for manipulation, and some who want less. There isn't a perfect answer. But where there are winners and awards, there has to be a "level playing field".

(I've personally been on sub-committees at my local photographic society trying the get acceptable and unambiguous rules. It was a thankless task! There are always people, contradicting one-another, saying we got it wrong).

2 upvotes

Fully agreed. It is an "arbitrary line" defined by certain groups for certain purpose, and there is no right or wrong criteria. A competition may define it as "image as captured by camera", or ask for "RAW" image (with or without in-camera processing).
Even under those arbitrary rules, there is so much that can be done with content, framing, color, exposure, ... to create different messages from the same event, which is one of the key aspect of photography.
Please note that every single JPG captured by any camera, is processed (manipulated) by camera firmware either under "default" setting or "custom" setting, created by the user.
Also, no "RAW" image can be viewed/printed until it is converted to a common color space (often RGB for electronic display/printing and sometimes YMCK for printing). This conversation includes so many processing (manipulation) options that be decided by user.

2 upvotes

Bottom line: If you are planning to submit it for a competition/event, then pay attention to those "arbitrary rules", otherwise sky is the limit and enjoy all available tools to create images you like.

2 upvotes

"Please note that every single JPG captured by any camera, is processed (manipulated) by camera firmware either under "default" setting or "custom" setting, created by the user."

Therein lie the problems. The camera 'processes' images the user 'manipulates' them.

1 upvote

As a matter of interest, do typical professional photojournalists (which is what this article is about) shoot raw? Or raw + JPEG? Or just JPEG?

I am not a professional. I do sometimes shoot photos that I've entered into "photojournalism" categories. I always shoot raw. (Sometimes raw + JPEG, but the JPEG is then only for preparation, not final use).

Steve McCurry used to shoot Kodachrome. That is hard to manipulate!

1 upvote

The majority seems to submit JPEGS as they have to crush them down to 1MB and send them straight to the picture desks from the scene. Speed is everything. An increasing number keep raw copies as today cameras and cards can accommodate them.

1 upvote

Sean65 . . . "Therein lie the problems. The camera 'processes' images the user 'manipulates' them." Really? So a camera can't manipulate an image? What do you call it, when I shoot a panorama, and the camera removes a person who was walking by me in front of my camera? What do you call it when cameras like the New Olympus remove moving animals, when shooting multiple exposures to make a photo in "Hi Resolution" mode?

1 upvote

It is clear from responses here that a lot of manipulation can be done in-camera. And we can assume the trend will continue.

I think the important question is "how much manipulation should we accept in the photos we see in the news media, whether that manipulation is done before taking the shot, in-camera, or in post-processing?"

My view is (roughly): "I want to see what I could have seen had I been at that place, at that time, looking in that direction, even if the photojournalist hadn't been there". I want the photojournalist to be my "proxy", acting on my behalf, given I can't be everywhere.

The fact that photojournalists may currently stage the scene doesn't make it right to do the same in post-processing. I actually want them NOT to stage the scene! And so not to do anything afterwards that is equivalent to staging the scene.

Photojournalism serves a different purpose from artistic photography. (So does forensic photography). The purpose must be taken into account.

1 upvote

Scottelly,

I think you understand the gist of what I'm saying. You could go on and on splitting hairs all day. Hence the need for the symposium.
As for "what do I call when an Olympus does such and such?". I don't call it anything. It's just gimmicky stuff that photojournalist wouldn't use.

0 upvotes

"My view is (roughly): "I want to see what I could have seen had I been at that place, at that time, looking in that direction, even if the photojournalist hadn't been there". I want the photojournalist to be my "proxy", acting on my behalf, given I can't be everywhere."

That's pretty much what this is all about. :)

1 upvote

OK, I know I'm weird, but I see photo "manipulation" as a new direction in the art of photography. And the disqualifications seem to be stifling that art form. So why not have two categories--one for unenhanced photography and one for enhanced?

The other thing that bothers me about the disqualifications is the idea that photo manipulation is inherently bad. I remember hearing about Ansel Adams nearly throwing out one of his best photos before he realized that some special treatment in the darkroom could bring it to life. (Was that Moonrise over Hernandez?) And if not darkroom manipulation, photographers of that era certainly chose film types and papers to enhance photos. That was all part of the creation of a great image.

So now we have PhotoShop instead of the darkroom, and in-camera adjustments for white balance, sharpness, etc. That's all good in my opinion when the result is a photo that can be viewed as art.

1 upvote

There are photographic contests for "Creative", "Altered reality", "Experimental", photos. In some of them, massive manipulation isn't just allowed, it is pretty well expected! So photo manipulation isn't automatically considered bad everywhere.

But organisers of contests have their own organisational or professional values to take into account. A contest for Press Photography will inevitably have different rules from those of a Salon wanting to encourage artistic work.

International Salons typically have a variety of categories, each with different rules. For example, I might enter birds in flight to a Wildlife category with very tight rules, and studio work into a category that allows lots of manipulation.

This variety is good. There is no unambiguous definition of "photography". There are contests to suit just about everyone. People who don't like the rules for a particular contest may be able to join the organisation, get on the "rules committee", and influence the rules.

1 upvote

Here are the Entry Rules for the 2015 " World Press Photo contest":

http://www.worldpressphoto.org/2015-photo-contest/entry-rules

This may help resolve some of the debates and confusions present in the comments below.

My personal opinion is that the rules are a bit sloppy. Rule 13 says "The participants are required to provide file/s as recorded by the camera for all images that proceed to the final stages of the contest". As I would expect!

But it doesn't say they must be raw files, therefore it can't rule out significant manipulation in-camera. Perhaps it is the nature of press photography that many important photos are shot in JPEG. In which case, they may struggle to resolve their problems in future.

On the rare occasions that I shoot JPEG, typically when I use the Pentax FluCard, I shoot raw to one card and JPEG to the other. I always have a raw file. But I'm just an amateur and so ineligible for this contest.

2 upvotes

What does constitute as "image manipulation"?
Are they referring to processing of image post-acquisition?
What about so many built-in (in-camera) image manipulations?
Between the shutter is pressed until image is stored in camera memory storage, there are so many elements that user can changes via camera setting (some of these can be done externally by software as wells).

What about "content manipulation"?
For example, if you want to take a picture of scene and someone is standing there, whom you feel he shouldn't be there. What if you ask that person to move (or wait until he is gone) and then take picture (as opposed to removing that person digitally post-acquisition)

2 upvotes

Here are rules recently agreed by PSA, RPS, and FIAP, for "Wildlfe" and "Nature":

http://rps.org/news/2014/may/nature-definition-agreed

They give clues about what is allowed or not for these very strict categories. They have lessons for press photography too.

An important part of the contest is that the resultant image isn't the whole point. Part of the contest includes the skills and resources the photographer applies in order to get the shot. An image needs to be an "honest presentation". If photographers wants certain elements (eg. blades of grass) to be absent, they must have the vision to cater for this beforehand.

I've personally had (minor) success with photos where conditions were so bad that everyone else had gone home! I carried on to ensure I had some keepers. With sufficient manipulation I could have avoided much misery! But in effect I was rewarded for perseverance at taking-time as well as for the final image.

1 upvote

Thanks Barry and I certainly see your points. This is a tough, and oftentimes subjective issue. There are so many things that can be done in-camera, which also can be done post-acquisition. For example, in-camera HDR, multi-image averaging (to get rid of moving objects), lens distortion correction, selective color, histogram modification, scene-based effects...
As for scene content: what is the difference between asking someone to move (or moving an object) out of frame before taking photograph or afterward?

1 upvote

AksCT: There may be no difference in the final photo between sorting things out, if possible, before taking the shot, or taking it out afterwards.

But there is a difference in the vision and skills needed. And that is part of the test in such contests. (In an open contest it probably won't matter at all. But in a contest about photojournalism, perhaps the ability to adapt to the situation at hand is considered a vital ingredient).

And, of course, it might not be possible to sort things out before taking the shot. So a truly honest representation would have it in. It might be argued "it was just a bystander, why does it matter?" Whose decision is it whether bystanders matter? Increasingly, organisations are saying that for ethical (and other) reasons, bystanders do matter.

I've seen photos (I think from North Korea) where inconvenient people were removed from scenes afterwards. At some point (I don't know where) this changes from record photography to propaganda.

1 upvote

I have the answer for you.

Everybody's paying $10 to $60 monthly for their Adobe software, so they GOTTA get their money's worth out of it!

So it's not cheating to them.

2 upvotes

Yeah, if you're dumb enough to pay adobe for their BS rent2own software...that's why my last Adobe was CS5 which I got for free via academic site license. After going to CC Adobe is dead to me. If the processing needs CC is not worth doing. I know of people that pirated their copies of CC, I don't think Adobe even deserves that form of flattery.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting

1 upvote

prossi: Thanks a lot for calling me dumb!

Fortunately, I am sufficiently experienced and well-informed not to take that statement seriously.

2 upvotes

Barry: nothing personal.

1 upvote

LOL!

0 upvotes

The contest juris were undecided up to penultimate round? Please, very strange that action, and providing a false expectation to selected photographers. It was not a politically correct action. I doubt that the rules were clear.

Must be forgotten the controversy winning photograph of world press photo by Paul Hansen on 2013:

http://www.worldpressphoto.org/awards/2013/spot-news/paul-hansen

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

I am guessing they didn't have a reason to waste resources investigating the images until most were judged out. Not suspicious at all. Quite practical and believable , in fact.

2 upvotes

Your point of view may also be valid. Never will know. But I still think that one should not get that far with these image that were disqualified by the high PP. After all it was a situation known from the beginning.

0 upvotes

How was the situation known?

I think that World Press simply overestimated the integrity of the entrants. It's not a new policy in journalistic photography that nothing should be added or taken away.

These people just seem to need a reminder. This is not art, it's journalism, and finding examples where those standards are not always upheld is not an excuse for apathy in this case.

0 upvotes

as others already said, usually, only for the final rounds the raw files are requested (to ensure both that the photographers has the original file, and to check for the extra manipulations) ... so only then it is really easy to see the "level of manipulation".
I doubt that the PS work included pink flowers on a swamp background, so they were easy to see at first sight :)

0 upvotes

There are competitions that request raw files from the finalists, but not earlier. It would be too much trouble all round to do this level of checking earlier.

I don't know if that is the case here.
(Whoops! badi got there first).

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

1 upvote

When I said that would be a known situation right from the beginning, is to the effect that when we have a picture in hand, and who is used to dealing with photography at this level, I assume you know minimally if the image is or is not "overly" manipulated to have a continuity in the competition. imo

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Perhaps there needs to be a standard definition between altering a photo vs enhancing one.

0 upvotes

Yes, like a a standard definition between a good and bad photo.
It'll make judging and entry so much easier!

0 upvotes

If the standards will be really clear there will be no need for a jury :)
You can compute your own mark before sending the photo!

0 upvotes

This is a slippery slope. One could argue that simply sharpening a photo is already a manipulation...

And BTW, what's the difference between removing something from a photo and not putting it in the frame in the first place?

Finally, this is really rich, coming from the American mainstream media, the phoniest of the phonies in the world, people who censor and distort the news every day. "Journalists" without an inch of integrity who lie and self-aggrandize themselves all the time. Oh yeah, it's not just the couple of schmucks who recently got caught...

5 upvotes

Why are you and many others bashing the media industry in general? Go back and reread the names of the organizations mentioned - NPPA & WPP. They are photography based not TV. Perhaps many of you are of the digital camera era and working on pictures means something different to us old darkroom guys. We use to dodge & burn prints to get the effect we wanted but adding and removing things from a "NEWS PHOTO" is not right on so many levels of trust to the public who are trusting you as a NEWS photographer to represent the truth. If you can't do that as a NEWS photographer then there are many other fields of photography that perhaps don't care what you do with your pictures. Just my two cents for what it is worth.

4 upvotes

Sharpening,dodging and burning,etc is not the same as removing or adding something or someone. If you do the later,than your work is for digital art contest,not press contest. Simple as that.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting

3 upvotes

And pray tell, what's the difference between removing something from a frame and deliberately omitting it?

1 upvote

Time of making composition is not the same. If you create composition afterwards,you have time to think,to analyze the photo and create it how you like it. In that case documentary (crutial for press photo) aspect is forever lost.

Rule if it wasn't there-it shouldn't be there must be carried on strictly and all the way!

A bird could fly over the horizon in moment of time,but she didn't. You could be there with wider lens and have more things covered,but it wasn't a case. You could stand a little more on the right and have that red fridge in frame. But you didn't stand there.
You were somewhere in only one moment of time and only one segment of space. That is a fact. And press photo is document of that.

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting

4 upvotes

Simple answer: in photojournalism, the theory is that the person with the camera is the on-scene eyes of the viewer. The image s/he presents is, or should be, the same thing the viewer could have seen had the viewer been standing there (crouching, lying down, whatever) where the photojournalist was. Adding elements that weren't there, or removing elements that were, defeats that. Cropping or switching lenses does not.

3 upvotes

You're really splitting hair. The moment you pick one photo for publication out of who knows how many you have shot, you're already editing and deliberately omitting something.

1 upvote

Not splitting hairs at all. I'm saying is that the print should include everything that's in the frame, and not include anything that wasn't. You're advancing the same argument that was made when telephoto lenses were invented, and when wide angle lenses were invented.

Yes, the guy looking through the camera makes choices. He's a journalist, that's his job. Whether he makes those choices well, or badly, in his editors' opinions, and ultimately in the viewers', will determine whether he keeps his job or gets another one. If we didn't make choices when we shoot (and when we edit) photojournalism would be done by security cameras and satellites.

0 upvotes

ZoranHR and rcmckee have it spot-on. And in general photographers and journalists of quality news groups have a high ethical standard. The tragedy is that that quality is being lost with so many of these people being retrenched. At the daily newspaper where I worked our general rule for photos was: You can sharpen or lighten or darken pixels to improve quality for the printing press, but you may not move, remove or add any pixels.

0 upvotes

Meh. The only thing the are differentiating is that "traditional" editing techniques (lens focal length, aperture size, composition, etc.) are acceptable. Where as "new" editing techniques has been deemed unacceptable.

But yeah, saying, "Excuse me, could you please move out of the way?" before pressing the shutter is completely different than editing something out after the fact.

-Suntan

0 upvotes

I find it hard to believe that so many photojournalists could be "cheating"; instead, I question the standards by which they judge "manipulation" in the photos.

1 upvote

We'll hold a committee meeting of our committees yakkety yak yakkety yak...
It would be great to hear a description of rejection examples and why instead!

2 upvotes

You know guys, to me, this is hypocrisy at it's worst.

People get hellbent over darkened photos or removed objects... But isn't "adding/removing" (or rather "selecting") objects what photographers do when they frame AND press shutter?

Let's take BBC coverage of elections in Russia. Every freaking year I see images on bbc.co.uk with an old woman, or soldier (conscript), or both, casting their votes. For an outside observer, it would seem like no-one else votes in Russia.

To go on and say "we maintain highest standards of image taking, that old woman and the soldier were not over-darkened blah blah blah" is such a joke...

So, my dear purists, you're so funny. And sad.

4 upvotes

Nice attempt at deflection.

5 upvotes

Why are you watching BBC and not TASS?

Oh yeah... that's right...

lol

0 upvotes

> Why are you watching BBC and not TASS?

Hmm, indeed, why? There's no difference these days.

1 upvote

Try Fox "News".

Edit:I suddenly realized that "news" needed scare quotes.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

> Try Fox "News".

Yeah, that would *really* put things into perspective...

0 upvotes

Purists? So the next logical step is to say if you don't take a full 360 degree image every time then you're actively TRYING to deceive? There are limitations and there are deceptions, but they are not the same thing. Justifying changing the content of an IMAGE (notice that is not an attempt to change the content of the original SCENE) by saying any image is inherently dishonest is invalidating everything based on the possibility of any image not being absolutely real. An image does not fully represent the whole of human perception. This is like saying all photographs are a lie because you can't smell the scene, touch the scene, and travel back in time to be present at the moment of capture.
If you have removed or added anything digitally then the remainder of the image is suspect and the integrity of the image has been compromised. It may only be 1% compromised, but who gets to judge how important that trash on the ground was? You? Nope, this isn't a Photoshop contest.

0 upvotes

Well, I haven't heard back from the WPP people so, I'm guessing, my pics didn't win just because they were bad(der) the ones that won :)

0 upvotes

the press and the rest of the mainstream media are all fake anyways, what are they trying to make us believe? that they trying to be good and looking out for us? yeah right LOL

Comment edited 13 seconds after posting

7 upvotes

Actually they blatantly lie and self-aggrandize for their own narcissistic purposes, all the while carrying the water for the scummy corporations that pay their huge salaries. See Brian Williams and Bill O'Really, and those are just two of the very few unlucky ones who got caught...

2 upvotes

Frank C. and Papi61, you're really very ignorant about the news media, aren't you? Go visit a quality newspaper some day, and see for yourself the effort good photographers and journalists put in to keep their reporting objective. And remember that they are the watchdogs against corruption and such in governments.

0 upvotes

people have stopped watching the propaganda

http://thewatchers.adorraeli.com/2012/03/31/new-report-shows-viewers-are-leaving-the-mainstream-media-by-the-droves/

but that doesn't mean there aren't skilled photographers working for them the propagandists

0 upvotes

LOL mxx, you mean to refer to those people that from the Bush administration on started to smuggle government propaganda for "facts"?

There are very few real journalists left in America, and, even worse, they're vilified for their independence every day. Ask Glenn Grennwald.

0 upvotes

There's another article on petapixel that is about manipulation other than through PP. Look up World Press Photo, Charleroi, and Giovanni Troilo.

1 upvote

Just a note that Aur had already brought this up, much earlier in the comments. Just found his posts.

0 upvotes

Compromise. Submit the original OOC file as /is, and then modify it however you want to be, excusing yourself for failing to get it right at the time.

Label first entry."This is the photograph I took" , and the second modified photograph "This is the photograph I would like to have taken"

End of

6 upvotes

Well said.. :)
Totally agree.

1 upvote

This is the photo I took yesterday (I shoot RAW):

01000101010110101101011010001010111010100100010101010...

0 upvotes

As noted by others in this comment string, this is a World PRESS Photo contest. It is not a digital creativity contest. As far as cloning out stuff, remember the Coke can removed in the photo of the Pulitzer winner? Digitally removed in 1989! That wasn't a contest entry but illustrates that even in the film days, such manipulations occurred. And it caused a hullaballoo back then, too, because it presented as reality something that wasn't.

10 upvotes

Liked for use of "hullabaloo".

3 upvotes

I'm surprised organizations of this caliber haven't already got this sorted out.

I mean, it's been more than 30 years since National Geographic 'moved' the Pyramids for a better cover shot:

http://digitalis.nwp.org/resource/754

In short, there's a difference between 'photojournalism' and 'photo-illustration.'

1 upvote

Seems unfair to penalize PJ's for matching the embellishments of news anchors :)

6 upvotes

These dinosaurs need to evolve, many digital effects can be applied in camera at the time of exposure. It's no different than smacking a filter in front of your lens. Cloning out a distracting element shouldn't be an issue either. This is something any talented printer could have done for you in their darkroom. Photoshop aint cheating baby... it's part of the camera.

Photography Purists need to go back to shooting film and processing it a Walmart.

3 upvotes

That's a very fluid definition of cheating you have there. Photography purists are called photographers, and the good ones don't have to fake a composition to get a good composition. If you have to clone things out, you've gone beyond the basic processing done to create a RAW file and then maybe correct the white balance. What you've done is created a digital piece of artwork not a photographic artwork. And smacking a filter on the front of your lens isn't allowed in a lot of photographic contests either, depending on the filter. People want to live in a world without any rules or standards, which is how they define creativity but it's really just being either lazy, a liar, or both. If you do something, own it. If you enter a competition that has rules, follow the rules. Nothing wrong with manipulating an image as long as you have an ounce of honor about it and be honest. In the PRESS their main priority is journalistic integrity, not changing things to suit their audience.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting

14 upvotes

" many digital effects can be applied in camera at the time of exposure"

There are virtually no such "effects" that are (or even can be) applied to the RAW (which preserves the Bayer matrix). Submission of RAW should be a requirement for photos that purport to be factual or real. Though, of course a skilled fraudster can simulate a RAW from a manipulated image.

"Artistic" photos are obviously exempt from such demands.

2 upvotes

many competitions allow you to do basic editing/toning because you are still manipulating the existent data. what is generally not allowed is when you add of remove data. so really they allow you to tone, dodge/burn your image to taste. just dont clone detail, dont add and dont remove and dont manually manipulate the objects in the scene to something it originally wasnt.

most photographers only really need to tone and dodge/burn any way so that's fair enough. i do not think this limitation negatively affects them at all.

it's like i say, once you start editing beyond basics, you should be entering into a digital arts competition, not a photography competition. as digital art you are allowed max leeway to composit and edit at whim. a photography competition is about what you shot.

0 upvotes

@AstroStan- "There are virtually no such "effects" that are (or even can be) applied to the RAW"

I don't believe that statement is true for all camera makers.

GX7 At 4:49-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfVbScx1lck

0 upvotes

You have views on what the rules of a photographic context should. So do many others here. And these rules tend to be incompatible with one-another!

It is obvious that there is no consensus about what "photography" is. That is one reason there are many photographic contests across the world, with a large variety of rules. Whatever a person's views, there are probably photographic contests to suit.

I enter work into international salons accredited to FIAP. A typical salon has a number of sections or categories, each with a theme and its specified rules. (It is normally possible to put up to 4 images in a section). I study the rules for each section, and select from a large pool of my better images those that match each section. (Sometimes I can't find 4 because the rules are not ideal for me).

It is up to the organisations running a contest (or accrediting it) to decide what the rules are, based on their own nature. Find a suitable contest for your own views. Or run your own contest!

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting

3 upvotes

Oh please, that argument has been around for more than 50 years. Talk about dinosaurs. The point is that journalism can never be allowed to change the facts of a photo. It's not about an adjustment to tone or color, white balance or those kinds of things. Dodging and burning and color correction has been acceptable for decades in photojournalism. What is not allowed is changing the content of the photo. Because once you start down that path, then everything is suspect.

As the wise man once said, photos never lie, but photographers do. If you can't comprehend that principle, it's okay. If you don't want to follow such principles, that's cool too. Just call yourself an artist, or a surrealist. But don't label yourself a photojournalist, because you obviously don't grok the principles on which that profession relies. Once your credibility is shot (Ask Brian Willians.) it's not recoverable.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting

3 upvotes

Sorry, but purists process our own film in our own darkroom. In my case, in trays by inspection development using the green safelight to check progress of the negative in the Pyrocat HD developer.

0 upvotes

Some of the comments below appear to be based on the assumption that this is a new problem, and comments express doubts about what it is possible to define as rules and how to do so.

This particular news is about 2 organisation that have recently encountered problems and are trying to tighten up on entries.

There are LOTS of photographic contests run by other organisations where rules such as these have been in operation for many years. Such rules evolve over time. For example, at the start of this year FIAP, PSA, and RPS, jointly agreed new rules for wildlife and nature. PSA also have rules on travel and photojournalism.

Perhaps more interestingly, PSA also have rules on "Creative Photography"! In other words, sometimes the rules EXPECT "altered reality", and artistic work in Photoshop is permitted (and probably expected by the judges!) Rules include only using your own images, not doing EVERYTHING by computer, etc.

2 upvotes

Have those at NPPA ever criticized Eugene Smith for his manipulations presented as reality?

1 upvote

Yes.

1 upvote

I've been shocked to learn or witness photos being 'shopped', including by professional photographers who will paste in a person who was not available for a shoot. So wrong on so many levels. OK, not a competition entry, but deceiving because often this person is a manager and so a group shot shows him/her bonding with their staff. Not to mention effects being used to make up for what is really a dull photo.

None of the photos in my Flickr account are shopped, except those marked as 'Experimental'

0 upvotes

it is very easy to solve this problem: the NPPA should discuss what is allowed an what not an how long a photo is a photo made by a photographer or a picture is a picture that is based on a photo and changed on a computer.

My personal view is, that everything you could have done in a darkroom to develop a photo should be allowed. Real Photoshop-Work to change the content should not be allowed.

Changing the content of a photo is bad in the sense of a photography or documentation (not as "art" - then it should be allowed).

Maybe the can determin, if they want an photo-contest or an art-contest.....

0 upvotes

also in dark-room you could do tricks to alter the content of an image - like blending exposures, removing elements by dodging/burning them, etc.

Also cropping is a very "altering" technique that can be done before or after shooing...

1 upvote

One of the key things here is these are Press photographers, where you might prefer reality without bits added and removed. Then again if you like what Govt. spin doctors say you might be fine with some changes... :-)

2 upvotes

I myself have been an NPPA official. I was a member for over 15 years. I used to help with the Pictures of the Year contest when they held it in conjunction with the University of Missouri-Colombia J-School (which created the contest in the first place).

And they have been saying that for as long as the contest existed.

3 upvotes

A photography contest is not a Photoshop or retouching contest! Never was, never should be.

8 upvotes

It depends what the rules of that specific contest are! Wildlife / nature, travel, and photojournalism, are among those where typically rules preclude significant manipulation.

But such rules do not apply to all contests. I've entered many where artistic and manipulated photos are perfectly OK. (i tend not to do well in such contests because that is not my style, but that is MY problem).

All major contests attempt to be clear about the rules, whether they permit or ban such manipulation. Sometimes rules are unclear. Sometimes people inadvertently overlook certain rules. (Sometimes people simply cheat!)

2 upvotes

Sounds like the world of the press is somewhat lacking behind the rest of the world.

Photos should underline the point of the written story, preferably in an artistic and gripping fashion.

Who cares if its has been altered with, so long as the key parts of the picture is relatively unaltered.

0 upvotes

Actually, stories ought to fill in the holes that the photos don't cover.

How about them Apples, word herder? :)

5 upvotes

Is it cheating if all the pictures are on steroids? And what does it even mean?
Shouldn't HDR be considered as manipulation?

1 upvote

I'm with you on this one, bro.
Can we call the works of Cheyko Leidmann a result of steroids?
About HDR, it was invented, I believe, to get definition on dark areas of the image. Then again some guys use it to overcook the image, but isn't photography an area of constant experimenting?
The great Ansel Adams would be so happy to use it.

Comment edited 52 seconds after posting

1 upvote

I think Ansel Adams would gouge his eyes out if he was subjected to "clown-puke" HDR photography.

0 upvotes

Don't think so. Ansel Adams was photographing in b/w. I am sure that at the time he was very well aware of the artistic license he was taking that went beyond the pure technical limitations.
It is naive and sentimental to think he wouldn't be using Photoshop today.

0 upvotes

I didn't even mention the word Photoshop in my comment.

If you think that Ansel Adams would have thought Trey Ratcliff's gaudy over processed HDR photos were works of art you are out of your flipping mind.

Ansel Adams had a great eye and ear for aesthetics. Only the lowest common denominator of "photographers" find that horrible tone-mapping garbage as art. Ansel Adams would not see that as art.

0 upvotes

Euh...prossi & JDThomas...
Children...
No throwing mud, please.
If you've asked me (and I know you won't) I firmly believe that if Leonardo & Raphael, Gauguin & Monet were back amongst us, they will be delighted to see and to explore ANY kind of new techniques that are open for us today. HDR included. Remember that the Impressionist's works were seen as clown's designs. They were banned from Le salon des Arts for a long time. And Gauguin, oh boy, his paints were offensive to the Ethnocentric eye because of the bright colors. Leonardo's Gioconda traveled for 20 years in the warmth of his armpit because it was considered dull, and the patron refused to pay...dah...
By the way, some real close friends of the late Ansel Adams say that he was a better pianist than a photographer.
But that's another story.
We should ALL go for a coffee, uh?

1 upvote

I'll behave papa, I promise. & I totally agree with you.
If Mozart was alive today he would be featuring Lady Gaga in his dubstep. Good thing he lived 300y ago!
I think JD is just reminiscing & second guessing, and he's very free to do so! First & foremost art represents the human journey in time.

1 upvote

PROSSI,
YOU are a Gentleman of the World!!
I still remember when The Beatles came out. Most adults of my youth years claimed that those were nothing but vulgar Rock N Roll performers...(!)
Imagine what those ancient stone carvers would think about Renaissance painters: Hey, you have it easier, guys!
If you have the time, go on Youtube and look up for THE IMPRESSIONISTS, a three episode series. You'll love it!
Let me wish you a beautiful, sunny day, wherever you are.
Peace, bro!

0 upvotes

@papa natas:

I've got a degree in photography and a degree in fine art. I don't need to watch a YouTube video to teach me about art.

You interjecting Ansel Adams possible use of photoshop into my comment was pointless. I never said he wouldn't use it. I never brought up Photoshop at all. But it really doesn't matter what technique Ansel Adams would have used to create art because THAT WASN'T MY POINT.

All I said is that Ansel Adams would have gouged his eyes out if he had seen a horrible overly tone-mapped HDR piece of crap. I don't know any true artist or photographer that thinks over-processed HDR looks good. Every time I see one I want to gouge MY eyes out and stab the hack that created it. Trey Ratcliff should be crucified for unleashing this scourge among the masses. (I know he didn't invent it, but it's his fault you can't go onto flickr without seeing some disgusting clown-puke image)

Comment edited 39 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

JD you really gotta chill out and layoff with the eyes gouging, the beheading or whatever else you're into these days...you're going to register on the wrong radar. Now if your degree was in particle physics you'd really be in trouble.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

0 upvotes

Well considering I'm not planning on gouging out Ansel Adams eyes, and I only said that HDR makes me WANT to gouge my eyes out not actually do it, I'm on a photography website, AND I'm NOT a terrorist, I'm not especially worried about the NSA kicking in my door.

Anyway, HDR is what I consider to be a form a photographic terrorism. Maybe ISIS could take out Stuck In Customs dot com?

Did I hit all the tick marks yet?

0 upvotes

Worth noting that there's a HUGE difference between photojournalism/photoreportage and photography as art. The WPP and POYi competitions are NOT about art photography, they're photojournalism. The rules there... it's not so much that they're different as that they EXIST. If there are rules for what's acceptable in photography as art, I've never seen them, don't believe in them, and wouldn't follow them... and they wouldn't matter, anyway. Photojournalism is something else again, and there the rules do exist and do matter. What AA or anyone else would or did do in pursuit of an artistic vision has nothing to do with photojournalistic ethics, such as they may be. He wasn't and didn't claim to be doing it.

0 upvotes

you're intense

0 upvotes

@prossi: Hey, you're the one who brought up beheading, not me...

0 upvotes

Ooops! It was "stabbing the hack". My bad.

0 upvotes

With all the white supremacist and ISIS terrorist talk over on the British photos article I think this thread is safe for now.

0 upvotes

One should NEVER take part or send images to contests.
One will only gather sour grapes, since ONE has no idea of the state of mind of the so called judge panel. That jury is generally composed by very instable geeks, fragile of mind people. Must of them are veggies, believe in reincarnation, were exposed to abuse during childhood, harbor social grudges, hurry home before dark, use their lunch hour to go home and use THEIR bathroom, have erratic social skills, hold the highest score of Face book friends, live at mom's or she comes to do the weekly cooking and cleaning, are unequivocally convinced that sex is a human aberration (not a celebration, like yours truly)..Get the picture? So...Don't send them your pictures!!!
What was LAB WORK when we used film to record images, is now called EDITING. What was ART WORK back then, is now called IMAGE MANIPULATION.
Go figure where the fine line is, and PLEASE...DEFINE IT, Geeks!!

9 upvotes

I agree, and also I'd say one should NEVER send pictures to contests in Social networks.

2 upvotes

And people shouldn't comment when under the influence of hallucinogenic drugs, either.

7 upvotes

Well, as the world goes today, my friend, how can one make the difference between those two?
Half the comments I read here seem to be written under the influence of hallucinogenics.

0 upvotes

Newspapers also manipulate, on purpose, front page photos.

Check these well knowned examples of news manipulation using either prespective photo manupulation and manipulation by using a convenient prespective for the photo:

http://petapixel.com/2015/01/13/jewish-newspaper-photoshops-female-leaders-charlie-hebdo-march-photo/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/paris-march-tv-wide-shots-reveal-a-different-perspective-on-world-leaders-at-largest-demonstration-in-frances-history-9972895.html

0 upvotes

If they seek for truth - then it is impossible. Even straight from the camera picture can lie - it can be staged, can be framed to hide unwanted things, etc. IMO contests should seek evaluate the photos, not the event behind them. That's why manipulation shouldn't be disqualified.

6 upvotes

I think you are missing Leo's point. He is saying that you can manipulate the real world (people, environment etc) to yield a "news" photograph that is just as non-representational of reality as a digitally edited photo can be.

2 upvotes

Many photos are 'staged' like the photo above with the red background. Would the man be normally standing there staring at the camera? But what if the photo of the man was taken elsewhere and superimposed on the photo of the background? These are two different issues.

0 upvotes

So, should the measure of whether allowable manipulation be that if we could have physically manipulated the people, objects and lighting etc.. in same way you can do digitally, then either method of scene manipulation is Ok? ie. only when you digitally change a photo to something that would have been impossible to recreate physically, would a photo be disallowed?

BTW.. anyone seen the movie Nightcrawler? Creepy but entertaining, and somewhat on topic.. :-)

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

BTW, LOL I thought the red photo leading this story was representing one the disqualified entries..

0 upvotes

So if a rule CAN be broken there should be NO rules? What an idiotic argument. The point is to try to get as close to the truth as possible. Of course everything can be faked, but if you have honor and integrity you'll tell the truth and follow the rules.

5 upvotes

The camera never lies. But photographers do.

2 upvotes

The point is that the intent of the rules only prevents some kinds of manipulation and not others.. making the grandstanding rule-breaking expose angle kinda stupid.

Take the photo at the top of this story -- 2 hypothetical scenarios:
1) There was a small unpainted section of the wall that was partly blue. Photographer clones in some red to fill the distraction.
2) The photographer pulled the santa hat and mask out of his pocket and asked the subject to wear them.
Not sure #2 is against the rules or not, but certainly no way a judging committee could detect. #1 leads to disqualification.

0 upvotes

to PicOne:
Have you heard about WEEGEE?
A New York crime reporter from back then.
This guy was the champion of them all:
He did not altered his prints. He actually rearranged the dead bodies in order to give his picture a better composition. Place a hat here, close a mouth there, arranged the head position, etc. He even had the detectives wait for him to set a better crime scene. ALL his pictures are the official images from that time.
By the way, he NEVR entered ANY photo contest.
Go and have a short research and come back, ok?
Cheers!

0 upvotes

PicOne,
Scenario Number 3) Someone took a picture of what they saw and then didn't make any changes after the original capture except for those related to making sure the color itself was true-to-life (e.g. white balance, which is something the camera doesn't even do in a permanent way within the RAW file).
BOTH of your scenarios would lead to disqualification if there was any evidence that they had occurred. There will always be liars and cheaters and people who believe that if you can get away with it then you didn't break the rules, but if you're suggesting we give up on trying to motivate honest behavior at any level even at those that involve strictly voluntary involvement in creative pursuits, then we might as well embrace anarchy right now and burn the world down.

0 upvotes

Shoot raw/jpeg. Choose neutral, vivid, monotone whatever in camera the same way you could choose film type. Submit the jpeg as the entry and the raw file as the proof.

3 upvotes

Yeah, like photographers would willingly send their RAW files to those newspaper/magazines/whatnots that hold those contests.

I wouldn't!

1 upvote

That's right!

0 upvotes

No-one makes anyone enter a contest.

9 upvotes

neo_nights: Sometimes it is a condition that finalists supply the raw file for checking. (I don't recall a contest where raw files have to be supplied at the start, but that may happen).

1 upvote

neo nights, any person choosing to enter a competition will do so accepting the stipulated terms. that MAY require submission of raw up front or upon finals or as winning foto. it's generally for verification and any commercial terms agreed to upon competition submission. often organisers reserve some or all rights to use entries for promotional materials.

if you enter a competition you do so to get sometging out of it. usually free advertising and wide recognition of your work/skill. generally a successful entry that results in finalist and/or winner has far more value to the fotog than the value of a single foto. you, the artist, still retain full ownership except in some cases.

really there's no amount of money an independent photographer can spend to get the kind of exposure they can get from being a finalist or winner. that's very valuable and can be used for your own self promotion.

3 upvotes

This will have a devestating effect pn Photo Shop sales...

9 upvotes

No it won't. People are addicted to their monthly payment to Adobe!

1 upvote

Who cares if someone digitall manipulates a photograph? Cameras already cook the raw files and raw converters manipulate the data as well.

1 upvote

But pre-cooked RAW doesn't change a whole scene, like adding a person that wasn't there or vice-versa for example.

I guess those disqualified pictures had some more extreme case of manipulations other than just color correcting/cropping.

7 upvotes

I agree for most type of photography that manipulation is normal but for journalism I for one would prefer images not to be manipulated beyond crop, and tone adjustments.

3 upvotes

There's a big difference between basic white balance and colour correction and comping the Dali Lama into your shot to create a bit of interest :D

5 upvotes

Then don't enter a contest that has rules. And digital manipulation done to create an image doesn't mean anything done digitally is on equal footing. Oh, the bayer pattern was demosaiced so images are all completely fake and any amount of Photoshopping is exactly the same thing! Dumb.

2 upvotes

"disqualified after reaching the penultimate round, due to digital manipulations of some sort being discovered"

Really?

Well, they have to really define this "some sort" fellow.

"some sort" is making quite a stir of some sort to this sort of thing.

Hope they all sort it all out, in some sort of way.

7 upvotes

"some sort" because they are trying to encapsulate all the manipulations they found. The alternative is to specify each manipulation in probably a tedious list (20% rejects remember?). Eg: 'If you know if you have a criminal record of 'some sort' you can't run for...(whatever)' This is just arguing over semantics.

6 upvotes

"NPPA's statement today ... don't think people should be punished for making stupid mistakes..."

Wow, how utterly glib. People go to jail for shooting deer out of season or driving under the influence, even though they are sure it was just a stupid mistake. Perhaps not the best analogy but to the point, standards and rules need to be set and enforced imo.

3 upvotes

If you’re a press photographer, the published results of your work is expected to reflect “the truth” just as the news articles. Uhuh, there’s no such thing. That implies that both pressmen have a profound insight of the covered issues, which of course is impossibility. Everyone knows this, if you read about something you’re acquainted with yourself, there’s not much of it that you would call truth. But to raise a question, or public opinion, that’s not necessary. But the TRUTH?
So I guess the standpoint of National Press Photographers Association and World Press Photo is only a faint attempt to maintain the vain false status of the newsmakers, as it’s all about entertainment. I bear only contempt for this assumed attitude, and the withering editions testify that I’m not the only one.

7 upvotes

how about just trying to show Your impression of reality instead of relatifying "truth" and justifying manipulation?
Which this should be all about....

2 upvotes

This is really going to be hard to define. Where do you draw the line? Sure, outright changing someone's hair color or switching out logos on a shirt might be outright cheating, but what about making a model look thinner, like in fashion ads? Or removing tourists in a scenic photo to leave only the natural environment? There are so many ways that this can be handled incorrectly. I'm all for authenticity of an image, I just don't know how they will decide what's acceptable. I hope they make a list of rules available.

1 upvote

So, where can I read the 'standard set of rules' for a photo to qualify as photojournalism? Something that is more or less agreed.

0 upvotes

The mantra back in photojournalism courses was: "if it couldn't be done in the darkroom, you can't do it." Meaning, exposure, dodging, burning, and contrast adjustments in post were it.

7 upvotes

and of course cropping.. which by itself can completely change the context and a meaning of a photograph through the potential selective removal of entire persons or objects etc. In fact, the first round of cropping is done in camera by the photographer who selects what they're shooting. And, this is in itself the first manipulation of reality, since as human beings we each sit in a 3d world that goes out in all directions, not just the narrow band covered by the lens' FOV.

2 upvotes

The rules are identified directly or by linkage in all major photographic contests.

Sometimes national or other organisations establish standard rules for certain categories, especially for subjects like wildlife / nature. Sometimes contests define their own rules.

(I've entered dozens of international salons, and always do a careful match between the rules and my images to ensure that I only use conforming images. And I am prepared to supply the raw file on request, in the unlikely event that I become a finalist).

1 upvote

For those making the ridiculous straw-man argument: The issue is not filters, the issue at hand is composite images, heavy editing of content, and/or staging of photographs outright.

There is a difference between trying to make an event look better by altering exposure, and trying to misrepresent or even manufacture an event entirely.

Relevant article and possible catalyst for this symposium can be found by searching: "Belgian Mayor Says Award-Winning Photos of His City ‘Distort Reality’"

20 upvotes

> the issue at hand is composite images, heavy editing of
> content, and/or staging of photographs outright.

How do you know that? Was there any official announcement of what exactly those manipulations were?

I ask this second time, but no-one seems to care: it's just so much fun to bash each other, and not let facts get in the way...

1 upvote

Had to dig into it a bit and answer my own question (that NPPA link provided by DPR has enough info). For most thrown out images, yes, manipulation == adding or removing staff.

But by no means for all! Quote:

<<"It wasn't solely a matter of adding or subtracting content, Boering said. This year the jury was also looking very closing at toning.

"They looked to see if you make a photo so black that you lose information, and you don't see anything anymore," he said. "That is a line crossed."">>

So, if you dial down exposure comp and get dark image == fine. You darken it the same way in PS == heresy.

I'm not saying they can't use such restrictions; their world -- their rules ("World Press is within their rights to disqualify images as they see fit.", as they put it). But it's just so funny that you attack others for fighting straw men, and then build your own...

And BTW where did you get that "staging of photographs" part from? I didn't see a single mention of anything close.

2 upvotes

http://time.com/3721897/world-press-photo-charleroi-protest/

The winner staged them and even admitted on his website that his cousin agreed to pose for the couple in the car pic. Its pretty bad. I can understand the inhabitants being upset.

3 upvotes

If this is art it should be free to the vision of the artist. If these are surveillance photo that are going to be used in a court of law is a different deal.

Comment edited 25 seconds after posting

1 upvote

But this is a press award, which implies it is a reflection of reality (however biased). This goes beyond bias and actually creates a false situation. I'm talking of the award winner the one that staged photo's (I think the digital editing is minor infringement).

6 upvotes

@vadims, darkening an image to the point you can't see what it's in it is the same as removing those things from the image. That is clearly content manipulation, and is the point they are trying to make. I fail to see how you disprove, or even bring into question, anything I stated.

I also fail to see how I created any straw-man argument. You seem to be trying to childishly throw back a "no you!" remark. I was not "bashing" anyone, and I was getting my facts and evidence from the article you clearly didn't read(the one I mentioned). You are now creating your own straw-man argument, as well as accusing me of things only you are guilty of.

"not let facts get in the way"? Seriously? lol Learn the facts before you try and argue for/against them. ;)

1 upvote

The body sponsoring the contest can put any restrictions and rules they please on the entries. They set the playing field and then invite participants to do their best while working within the boundaries.
I can't see why so many people have a problem with that.
Another body of photographers can create an entirely different contest with different rules or even no rules. Pick the contest you want to work within and go with it.

16 upvotes

Precisely!

The only problem I see is that I have sometimes seen rather ambiguous rules. Last year I didn't enter one contest because I could drive a coach and horses through the rules!

1 upvote

Will it be ok to use in-camera toy filters? How about eliminating the low-pass filter?

0 upvotes

So, what were those "digital manipulations of some sort"?

Without knowing that, any further discussion is utterly pointless.

2 upvotes

So if you put a filter over the lens when you take picture it is OK but you aren't allowed to add one in Photoshop?

0 upvotes

It's obvious that they aren't talking about modest alterations to color or contrast.

They said the large majority of disqualified images added or subtracted elements from the picture. And in the cases where toning was the issue, it was extreme -- i.e. to the point of obscuring important objects or elements in the picture.

These people aren't simple-minded; they're not disqualifying people for brightening an image by half a stop or using a warmer white balance.

2 upvotes

And this happened with film too: Nancy Reagan had hospital gear removed from a photo of Ronny while he was in the hospital. The machinery was replaced with a plant or something.

0 upvotes

So basically, going back to film, and include negatives / positives when submitting a photograph.
Ah, good ol film; we had much less visual rubbish and forgery in film age — despite efforts to tweak and doctor negatives, it was so much harder and for these types of competitions, not worth the effort.

4 upvotes

Total comments: 185

Editorial content

Product database

Community

About us Work for us Advertise with us FAQ Feedback Interest-Based Ads Privacy Legal

All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved. Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.

Mobile site


The power of a photograph: Lynette Johnson and Soulumination Jan 17, 2016	Behind the Camera: Sue Bryce's contemporary portraiture Jan 16, 2016	New York Public Library releases thousands of images into public domain Jan 11, 2016	Readers' Showcase: Scott Matthews Jan 10, 2016

129	Why would you choose a Fuji x-Pro2 over a Sony Alpha 7II?
127	PART 2 This Week Through your m4/3 2016.01.16
92	The Sunday BIRD Volume 11 Issue No. 24, January 17, 2016
82	Rethinking my D5 Purchase ... In Light of the D500.
66	Windows Update Woes
66	Dynamic Range 100%, 200%, 400% affect RAW or only for JPEG?
54	Own up! Who said NEVER to an EVF.
53	Lens selection for BC, Canada , advice needed
53	Can't find the zoom lens I need !!
52	Panasonic GX8 and large prints
51	What is the most inflammatory brand focused topic on DPR?
49	Can k1 compete well with d 750 d610 and 6d prices?
48	♣ ♣ Bootstrap's Sunday 'Scapes ♣ ♣ 17 January 2016
47	Now that I've seen specs of a D500, I may get a D7200 anyway. Tell me I'm nuts.
44	What am I doing wrong GX-8
43	Canon 70D or Sony a6000 or something else
42	Nicest wide prime that is artistically good, colour etc
42	PART 3 This Week Through your m4/3 2016.01.16
40	RX 1 vs A7r II UNBELIVABLE !!!!
38	Tempting Alternative to D500 &