World Press Photo and Image processing

[tomczak]

World Press Photo has disqualified a 2010 winner, Stepan Rudik, for alleged image manipulation. Here is a note on it and links to probable image that caused the decision. I'm sure that there will be a lot of new discussions on what photojournalist can or can not do based on this controversy, and who is to decide on it. The WPP used a clause in its entry rules that demands adherence to 'industry standards', which don't quite exist...

http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/behind-35/

[tomczak]

Just an addendum to the previous post: while any form of cloning is a v. risky proposition in photojournalism, no matter what, here is another controversy that Christensen's photo from Haiti has caused. He vouches to do B&W only from now on...

http://nppa.org/news_and_events/news/20 ... nmark.html

[MikeG]

Thanks for the links - interesting.
As a rank amateur I thought that the fuss about the missing foot (more like 1/4 of an inch haha) was harsh, though I can see the point. If that is allowed, where do you draw the line?
To my eye manipulation of the Haiti shot was way over the top and unlikely to be close to reality.

Mike.

[tomczak]

The missing foot affair is also interesting as the image that was admitted and won the competition was severely altered in many other ways: small crop, B&W, altered contrast, added grain, artificial vignetting etc. By most standards, local dodging and burning is OK; if the foot disappear by way of burning (on the enlarger or digitally) and not cloning, would that be ok?

Most people have no problem with the general photojournalistic standards regardless of the computers - one doesn't invent reality and call it as such; the details and good taste seem to be a bit more obscure. Photojournalism is not about forensics either.

Presently, the golden standard seem to be checking the RAW file - even though there is nothing fundamental about it, many things happen between RAW and the image, and it's a moving target too.

Another common axiom is that one should limit processing to what's reasonable to achieve with an enlarger and wet darkroom. Stalin's photographers would probably laugh at such-defined reality...

I doubt there is an end to arguments along these lines, but the consequences are real enough - the photographer was chastised for dishonesty by his peers; other peers strongly disagree...

[Dieter Mayr]

Themes like this usually lead in endless and mostly resultless discussions, everyone has his or her point of view and arguments which hardly (impossible) can be brought together to a final conclosion.
Pesonally i see it pragmatic.
There are not many things in image manipulation that can not be made in the wet darkroom too, Maciej already mentioned Stalins photographers, in some cases it needs more effort in the wet darkroom, but if the reason and will for the editing/manipulation/enhacement, however you wish to call it, is big enough it was, is and will be done.
And, isn't every photography a interpretion of reality, 2 photographers can, by just using there cameras without any "after shooting manipulation" whatsoever, make total different images of the same reality.
By using different aperture, shutter speed, focal length, field of view, position, light... we can make the same "manipulation" to a image then with postprocessing in the darkroom, either if wet or dry.

So, to my oppinion, the only "real" thing is reality itself, every image of it is manipulated by the image creator and because of that his or her interpretation of the reality.