8% final World Press Photo entries manipulated and disqualified

[Isaac]

every time you make a picture you're editing

Every time we make an image, inevitably we frame an image.

Put your camera on P with a 2 second delay, toss it high in the air, and then explain why we should consider that picture to result from "editing the situation".

[jjj]

Put your camera on P with a 2 second delay, toss it high in the air, and then explain why we should consider that picture to result from "editing the situation".

Well some people do actually do pretty much that. Also at times I take photos with out looking through the viewfinder, but I can still get good shots because I understand the situation and how to exploit it.
Your example is meant to imply randomness I do realise that, but we are very obviously not talking about doing that random shooting.
And as an aside, to my mind P is hardly any different from AP or SP which many people choose to use to get great shots.

[RSL]

Isaac, if you were to do that the camera or plain randomness would be making the picture, not "you." Any time YOU make a picture, you edit. If you were to go out and try it you might begin to understand.

[Isaac]

if you were to do that the camera or plain randomness would be making the picture, not "you."

Did the camera leap into the air of its own volition?

Did the camera set itself to delay for 2 seconds before triggering the shutter?

The camera "would be making the picture" only in the same sense that the camera always "would be making the picture" -- shutter opens, light, shutter closes.

[jjj]

Did the camera leap into the air of its own volition?

Did the camera set itself to delay for 2 seconds before triggering the shutter?

The camera "would be making the picture" only in the same sense that the camera always "would be making the picture" -- shutter opens, light, shutter closes.

Except you said "Every time we make an image, inevitably we frame an image.'  and then suggested your flying camera example. Framing is the thing we would not be doing in that scenario.

[RSL]

As I said, Isaac, if you'd get a camera and go out and try it you might begin to understand. It's one of those things you can't understand unless you do it yourself.

[jjj]

We could always club together and buy Issac of these, so he could try some photography.
But then, we wouldn't know where to send it.

[RSL]

Even if we knew where to send it would he know how to use it?

[jjj]

Of course, he's an expert.

[Isaac]

As I said, Isaac, if you'd get a camera and go out and try it you might begin to understand. It's one of those things you can't understand unless you do it yourself.

As usual, you resort to distraction because your reason failed.

[RSL]

Pretty weak my friend.

[Jim Pascoe]

I think what one has to realise is that the demonising of post processing is fundamentally missing the point. The camera never lies is the biggest lie of them all.
Post processing is the new bogeyman with stipulations about what is and isn't allowed being ridiculous as so many of the 'alterations' could be achieved in camera. The processed look can be from a slide film,  HDR is not allowed, yet using fill flash for subject and base exposing for the bright sky is fine, yet basically does exactly the same thing. It reduces apparent dynamic range.
Basically it seems that doing something that results in an identical image is forbidden, if it is done after shutter is pressed. That's the logic of very stupid people yet is widely accepted - maybe there's a corollary there.  

Right Russ and JJJ! You both bloody well know exactly what I mean....   I don't have the time to split hairs with you two because I have work (photographic) to do.  I understand precisely the way photography, without manipulation, is used to bend stories and of course I realise the camera can 'lie'.  However I know that neither of you would genuinely think that press photographs should just be composited or edited in any way the photographer desires, and that the Press photography awards could be won by a picture which is in some substantial way fabricated.  Therefore some guideline is necessary.

Right, back to doing some real photography work - need to airbrush out some wrinkles on a middle aged woman....

Jim

[jjj]

Guidelines are indeed necessary Jim, I do not think either Russ or myself would say otherwise. But as I said above, the current ignorant demonising of post capture work is not the way to proceed, as it tends to show lack of knowledge about the entire photographic process.
Personally I want to smack someone around the head with a large technical camera whenever they witter on about an image being 'straight out of camera' and somehow superior. 

The amount of uneducated guff and witch hunt hysteria with regard to last year's prizewinner only showed that the Middle Ages thought processes are still here, busy frothing at the mouth.

[jjj]

In fact the much, much, much, much bigger problem is however never addressed. The veracity of written reporting.

[RSL]

Exactly!

[Isaac]

As usual, you resort to distraction because your reason failed.

Pretty weak my friend.

I won't try to bully you into sincerity - it isn't worth the candle.

[RSL]

Weaker and weaker. Fading away. We need to resurrect Henry Peach Robinson to document this, Isaac.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Weaker and weaker. Fading away. We need to resurrect Henry Peach Robinson to document this, Isaac.