8% final World Press Photo entries manipulated and disqualified

[Isaac]

http://www.bjp-online.com/2014/02/eight-percent-of-final-world-press-photo-entries-were-manipulated-and-disqualified-say-judges/

[mezzoduomo]

This is shocking.  I'm shocked.   

[Rob C]

" ...should make it clear what’s acceptable and what isn’t. "

That's the trouble with these claims: we don't appear to be able to see the altered images and judge for ourselves whether or not any significant difference in meaning was 'created'.

Rob C

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

" ...should make it clear what’s acceptable and what isn’t. "

That's the trouble with these claims: we don't appear to be able to see the altered images and judge for ourselves whether or not any significant difference in meaning was 'created'.

And worse yet, the article mentions "Following a controversial win last year, World Press Photo instituted new rules relating to post-processing in award-winning images."

So, what were these new rules to begin with? Only then can we say if they were violated, no?

This is what the World Press Photo Organisation has to say:
CONTEST SET UP

To establish to what degree pictures have been enhanced in post-processing, we have tightened our protocols and will provide the jury members with expert advice to aid their decision making.

I'd say that's vague at best, if no clearer guidelines are given to the contestants.

Cheers,
Bart

[RSL]

The photos were MANIPULATED? Heaven forfend! I agree that the guidelines are pretty fuzzy. Every photograph is "manipulated." If you're shooting raw you decide how much sharpening, tone curve extension, color balancing, etc., you're going to apply. If you're shooting jpeg the camera manufacturer makes those decisions. In both cases the photograph gets "manipulated." I think what these guys really mean is that the rejected photographs were faked! In other words, their meaning was changed. That is, and should be, a no-no in a press photograph.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Imagine if this had happened back in film days.

"Your image has been disqualified because the experts have determined that your film was not developed at precisely the time, dilution, and temperature recommended by Kodak."

Or, worse yet:

"Your image has been disqualified because the experts have determined that your film has been developed and fixed, which is clearly a form of post-processing."

Ridiculous!

[fdisilvestro]

I agree with those that claim the rules have to be specific, otherwise the disqualification is subject to the jury's discretion.

What about lens optic corrections? Cropping? Tone mapping? There's a lot you can do with the current cameras dynamic range. For instance last year's image  was disqualified because of excesive tone mapping, apparently using single capture HDR techniques, changing the natural balance of lights and shadows. Content was not altered and IMO the meaning was not changed either.

Consider the iconic photo "Migrant Mother" by Dorothea Lange, It was found that the image has been "altered" by retouching a thumb in the lower right region. If this image were submitted today to this contest it would propably be disqualified (check the disqualification reason for the Stepan Rudik's photo). Did the manipulation change the meaning? I think not

Regards

Edit: correction - last year's image was subject to controversy but was not disqualified

[Isaac]

Consider the iconic photo "Migrant Mother" by Dorothea Lange...

Consider that a photograph made by FSA photographer Arthur Rothstein was denounced at the time as “a real example of fakery”.

[Ben Rubinstein]

Thanks for that link Isaac, very interesting.

[RSL]

+1

[barryfitzgerald]

The photos were MANIPULATED? Heaven forfend! I agree that the guidelines are pretty fuzzy. Every photograph is "manipulated." If you're shooting raw you decide how much sharpening, tone curve extension, color balancing, etc., you're going to apply. If you're shooting jpeg the camera manufacturer makes those decisions. In both cases the photograph gets "manipulated." I think what these guys really mean is that the rejected photographs were faked! In other words, their meaning was changed. That is, and should be, a no-no in a press photograph.

Developing from raw and adjusting WB, exposure, contrast etc are NOT manipulation.
Adding or removing elements are, esp with a competition like this (photo journalism) where it's deemed unethical. People need to understand the difference between corrective/enhancement processing and manipulation.

I don't add or remove elements to my landscape shots, because I've learnt trying to make the perfect picture is unnecessary and fairly pointless.

http://www.popphoto.com/news/2013/12/world-press-photo-contest-overhauls-editing-rules-following-scandal

Rules are quite clear no adding or removing elements
Here is an example of manipulation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oryOqeZEruU

[Alan Klein]

This isn't a Photo Art contest.  Rather it's the World Press contest that deals with photojournalism.  And truth.  Adjusting colors, contrast, is allowed as is spotting out dust (if film) but not removing elements or adding them is standard practice with all reputable news sources.  Why would you believe the story if the associate pictures was phonied up?  It's a very sensitive subject to the news industry.

I'm reminded though of Weegee, a famous news photographer who shot with a press camera decades ago.  He followed the cops around and would often get crime scene pictures and all other kinds of mayhem in NYC, often beating the police to the scene.  There was one famous one of a Mafiosa shot dead in the streets with blood on the sidewalk.  To liven up the shot, he  stuck a cigar into the victim's mouth before he took the shot.  I suppose the picture wasn't phonied, but the intent was.  What a guy!

[RSL]

Developing from raw and adjusting WB, exposure, contrast etc are NOT manipulation.

No kidding? What would you call it? Yes, those things are not misrepresentation, but they're definitely manipulation.

I don't add or remove elements to my landscape shots. . .

I'm certainly glad to hear that. Peddling fake landscape would be a criminal offense.

[RSL]

I'm reminded though of Weegee, a famous news photographer who shot with a press camera decades ago.  He followed the cops around and would often get crime scene pictures and all other kinds of mayhem in NYC, often beating the police to the scene.  There was one famous one of a Mafiosa shot dead in the streets with blood on the sidewalk.  To liven up the shot, he  stuck a cigar into the victim's mouth before he took the shot.  I suppose the picture wasn't phonied, but the intent was.  What a guy!

Quite true, Alan. But I'm also reminded of Gene Smith and his picture of Schweitzer that included dubbed-in tools, and his picture of Tomoko in which the atmosphere was changed completely in post-processing. The Schweitzer picture is an out and out fake, and the Tomoko picture carries what otherwise would be legitimate manipulation far beyond legitimacy. I don't really have a problem with either one. They're both wonderful works of art, but both of these pictures were put forth as reportage. Let's face it, reportage often goes beyond simply reporting the facts and into propaganda.

Where would you stand on these pictures

[Alan Klein]

Photos are often used for propoganda.  Sometimes the picture is legitimate, but the written explanation of what it means is BS.  I'm reminded of the recent photo you see on TV showing a polar bear swimming between ice flows.  The caption describes how global warming is killing off the bears because the ice is melting away.  Leaving aside the arguments for and against global warming, the shot though was just a normal picture of late summer conditions, when the arctic ice breaks up as it's been doing for millenia and polar bears are always in the water swimming from flow to flow.   


I'm not familiar with the pictures you mentioned.  But false reportage, written or photographic where the intent is changed,  is different than hanging a picture on the wall for aesthetic or artistic reasons.  Don't you agree?

[RSL]

Smith's pictures were a bit different from what we usually think of as propaganda. The Schweitzer picture, which you can see at http://www.masters-of-photography.com/S/smith/smith_schweitzer_full.html, was run as part of a story in Life magazine praising Schweitzer's work. The story was legitimate, but the tools in the lower right part of this picture were dubbed in to increase the drama.

The Tomoko picture, which you can see at http://www.masters-of-photography.com/S/smith/smith_minamata_full.html. accompanied a story in Life about mercury poisoning in the village of Minamata in Japan by a local manufacturer. The story was legit, in fact it was so legit that Gene and his wife were attacked by a gang of plant employees while he was doing the series. But the picture of Tomoko, as it came out of the camera, was very routine compared with the product of extensive darkroom work which added a great deal of dread to the thing.

[Alan Klein]

And your point is?

[barryfitzgerald]

No kidding? What would you call it? Yes, those things are not misrepresentation, but they're definitely manipulation.


I'm certainly glad to hear that. Peddling fake landscape would be a criminal offense.

No they're not
Manipulation means to falsify, that is adding or removing elements to create something else. By your definition using Velvia or punching up the in camera jpegs is manipulation.
Few would agree

As for landscapes it's a personal choice. We all make personal choices in our work.
I'm not out to distort things, thus I don't take rocks out..I actually use my legs to find a suitable angle
And I don't put skies in from other shots, I bother to wait until I get the sky I like or want.

Sitting on a pc trying to tart up images with other images isn't my idea of photography.
Anyway, the point on this topic is purely from a PJ angle, and that it is not acceptable to modify or deceive.

IF you want to distort things and go uber PP, then enter a digital art competition

[RSL]

And your point is?

My point, Alan, is a question: The Smith photographs were, under the rules of this contest, manipulated. At the same time they were legitimate reportage, "enhanced" reportage. Should the rules of reportage reject this kind of manipulation? I don't have an answer myself.

[Alan Klein]

The Associated Press AP just removed pictures of Castro from their archives because the Cuban government removed his hearing aid from the photos before releasing them.  It really isn't hard to figure out what manipulation is.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/fidel-castro-photo-handouts-from-cuban-government-manipulated-to-remove-hearing-aid-9121200.html

Here's a description of AP photo policy taken from the City University of New York's Graduate School of Journalism blog.
There's also an interesting Ethical list of requirements that go beyond the photo itself.  (Not printed below-see the full link.
http://photo.journalism.cuny.edu/photo-filing-and-ethics-guidelines/

ASSOCIATED PRESS
 
The content of a photograph must not be altered in PhotoShop or by any other means. No element should be digitally added to or subtracted from any photograph. The faces or identities of individuals must not be obscured by PhotoShop or any other editing tool. Only retouching or the use of the cloning tool to eliminate dust and scratches are acceptable.
 
Minor adjustments in PhotoShop are acceptable. These include cropping, dodging and burning, conversion into grayscale, and normal toning and color adjustments that should be limited to those minimally necessary for clear and accurate reproduction (analogous to the burning and dodging often used in darkroom processing of images) and that restore the authentic nature of the photograph. Changes in density, contrast, color and saturation levels that substantially alter the original scene are not acceptable. Backgrounds should not be digitally blurred or eliminated by burning down or by aggressive toning.
 
When an employee has questions about the use of such methods or the AP’s requirements and limitations on photo editing, he or she should contact a senior photo editor prior to the transmission of any image.