Pictures: Manipulated World Press Photo, Before and After

[CSBC]

AP News update

[El_Sid]

Hmmm...

So removing a tiny element of disembodied, and contextually irrelevant, foot is a total no-no while excising better than 3/4 of the original image content is apparently acceptable. Bearing in mind the furore that surrounded the (mis)use of a heavily cropped picture of Dick Cheney last year one might argue that there's a touch of double standards being applied...

[daft_biker]

Looks like an after-thought and a half with a crop like that.

[Terrywoodenpic]

A silly decision... In the days of film such details were often burnt out.
Rather than disqualify such work, the rules should be equalised with previous film practice.

[Atavar]

I wasn't a big film developer back in the day but i think a crop that excessive would not have been possible with 35mm without it losing all coherence.

As for rules, its the press photo awards. The image HAS to convey what was at the scine - In anyones mind, the original colour un-crop does not convey the message the altered crop clearly does. The second image is evocative of pain, suffering and careing in a time of need. The original is... well, its a wonky pic of guy in an umbro hat.

[Stevet]

The image HAS to convey what was at the scine

Maybe so, but cropping doesn't change that - it only shows a smaller part of the scene.

The only manipulation (i.e. change to content) of the image is removal of the small portion of a shoe in the BG appearing beneath the taped hand - and as has been stated, this kind of thing would have been 'manipulated' in the darkroom in the past.

[Atavar]

The image HAS to convey what was at the scine

Maybe so, but cropping doesn't change that - it only shows a smaller part of the scene.

The only manipulation (i.e. change to content) of the image is removal of the small portion of a shoe in the BG appearing beneath the taped hand - and as has been stated, this kind of thing would have been 'manipulated' in the darkroom in the past.

When i first saw the photos i hadn't read the text. The original honestly looked to me like some guy in swindon who'd bashed his hand playing five-a-side footie down the sunday local league. No power, no emotion. When i read the discription and what he'd actually got up to i thought 'Oh' The second pic, even without explination that it was about street fighting, conveyed such power and emotion as to not need an explination.

Thats what i'm talking about, if he'd got a close up and diffused the light and all the rest while he was there he may have caught the mood of what had just happened or conveyed the brutality of it all - may even have seen the shoe. But he didn't. Take a look at the original and its just generic. Its like Quoteing a powerful line from a book. 'Does it not smell as sweet?' Of course it does, but it lacks the whole story and then some.

EDIT - and god forbit it should be a miss-quote like i've just done

[125thAtf8]

Huge crop! I'm quite astonished. That said I think they're right to give it the flick. Integrity has to start somewhere, and in other circumstances the removal of something equally innocuous might make the difference between a shot accurately reflecting or distorting a situation - perhaps think puffs of smoke on 'the grassy knoll'. Yes people did used to 'fix' stuff in the darkroom, but at least one to my knowledge got canned when he was caught short by the pic ed of an Australian national. The Sun's escapade with inconvenient handicapped people also springs to mind.

Crops are another matter, as is dodging and burning. Crops are a fact of life unless they distort; we crop everything when we shoot in any case and you can't be hung for leaving something out when you're framing, as a rule (except perhaps by your editor). Dodge and burn may reduce/increase the emphasis on something, but the whatever-it-is remains within the frames boundaries, and is there should someone wish to contest the image later and check the original.

If it's a pic to go on your wall; who cares. If it's for publication, I think this is the right approach.

[sey]

As has been said before, cropping has always been a fact of life.
In traditional photography either one cropped to fit the negative format to the paper format or the paper was cropped to fit the negative format, if the whole frame was wanted. Cropping to find the picture within the picture was an art for those capable of seeing that picture within the picture. Good Lord, a painter decides what/how much he wants to show on his/her canvas. He/she crops!!!

In this specific example, the crop is a good one and if the photograph had been shot on 35mm. film and blown up to a much larger print, the grain would have probably enhanced and dramatized the image.

As far as the cloning out of the foot goes, of course it would have been removed in traditional photography too.

As most here know, I'm against digital manipulation. By that I mean that I am against the dishonesty of changing a photograph by adding or subtracting elements so that the subject of the photograph means something different to what was actually photographed. After all the photograph is meant to tell a 'true' story and present an 'honest' picture. At this stage of my 64 years, I'm still naive enough to believe that the camera/photographer shouldn't lie.

But, having said all that, there are instances where better judgement and common sense should prevail and the case in question simply proves the point.

Here we have another example of the over the top antisocial reaction to photography/photographers that is hitting us from all directions. It is simply another case of hypocritically absurd political correctness. A superb example of the ignorant/boorish all or nothing stupidity that reigns in these times, with common sense now a depasse concept and being thrown out of the window. An anti-photography/photographer "POGROM"!

[ikonik12]

maybe the competition rules should be..???

" If you can create the same effect in an "actual physical darkroom condition " with a 35mm negative.. then it is allowed with your digital image ? ! "

for instance if you can take a picture on colour 35mm and develop it into black and white in a darkroom .. then you can do the same for a competition entry ?

if you can crop or enlarge your image on an enlarger then you can also do that for a digital picture in a competition?

maybe Pattersons need to look into a whole new generation of software that is the next step up from the red light darkroom equipment ?

and it will allow you to only do what you can with 35mm film .....with raw ,tiff, bmps, and jpegs etc ?

and also make it a standard piece of software that produces an unremovable watermark that can only be used as an entry to ALL photography competitions ?

then again.. maybe if they just make the rules extremely clear insted of the usual "non read" terms and conditions to what they want allowed and the proof they require... then it will make things a lot simpler..

either way .. some things are too simple to actual do arent they lol :-)

[daft_biker]

Seems plenty folk think bodging something with darkroom techniques is fine but bodging something with software techniques isn't. I don't - bodging is bodging.

[beejaybee]

As most here know, I'm against digital manipulation. By that I mean that I am against the dishonesty of changing a photograph by adding or subtracting elements so that the subject of the photograph means something different to what was actually photographed. After all the photograph is meant to tell a 'true' story and present an 'honest' picture.

I've lots of sympathy with that, but it does depend on whether the photo is supposed to be "forensic evidence" or a work of art. If the latter, why not do a certain amount of "tidying" e.g. removing unsightly litter from the image of a "beauty spot", removing skin blemishes from portraits, ...

This particular image, amputating the offending foot seems to be OK, I probably wouldn't have noticed unless the manipulation had been carried out. But if the rules of this particular competition say that this sort of manipulation is not allowed, then (to coin a phrase) the photographer hasn't got a leg to stand on.

If images are meant to be "forensic evidence" then surely all manipulation should be ruled out ... no curve & level adjustments, no sharpening, no noise reduction, not even in the camera ... surely the only acceptable format for the "image" is a list of the electron counts read out directly from the sensor.

[Still_Togging_Along]

Well, some thoughts to ponder over ...

1] Allow the same techniques as used in a film darkroom ... Get a DeVere 504 enlarger, fit a digital head on it, (which hooks up to a computer, and use Photoshop on the computer!) and the images are then projected onto photographic paper ... how does one get round that issue?

2] Until a camera manufacturer offers the option of a file format that records every stage of editing done on the original, plus records when duplicates are made of the original file, to defined forensic science (FS) standards, one is never going to be able to prove what the original file looked like.

3] This would mean the development of a range of FS accredited RAW, Tiff and Jpeg file formats; such 'beasts' would be invaluable for a lot of other things, such as SOC purposes, proving image copyright, etc, etc ..... The last mentioned, would knock holes in the pending Orphan image legislation, as within the file, could also be stored image ownership details, a feature of great interest to professional photographers!

4] Maybe, as a consequence of these more rigourous editing standards, we will also see either less entries because images of sufficent impact are much harder to capture, or maybe competitions having to take on board that editing does happen, and therefore the entrants have to send in before and after prints, to prove what they have done to their images.

[beejaybee]

Until a camera manufacturer offers the option of a file format that records every stage of editing done on the original

... someone will hack the security feature anyway. The problem with digital technology was, is and always will be that raising the bar doesn't stop people jumping higher, or limboing underneath it.

[Atavar]

Personally i don't care if its croped or edited, its the end connotation. A press photo is "just the facts, ma'am" the whole point of jernolisum is to take the image as a representation of reality and let the viewer make up their mind as to weather they are seeing is good or bad. By cropping out the medic and the umbro dude and chucking a load of new lighting effects it creates its own evocative language which speaks to people - problem is the evocative message just was not there. Instead of a picture that asks "how do you feel about this event?" there is one that states "you will feel the way i think you should feel about this event."

The message he is trying to convey may have been there earlier in the fight but that oppertunity had obviously passed and gone. You can by all means capture an image infront of you in a heartwrenching or prevocative way if the conditions are preasent but to mock it up later in the digital darkroom is too much of a liberty in my opinion.

In my mind the end emotional responce between the two images is so great they had no choice but to pull it from the comp on a technicality.

[125thAtf8]

Here we have another example of the over the top antisocial reaction to photography/photographers that is hitting us from all directions.

From the World Press statement: "The principle of World Press Photo is to promote high standards in photojournalism."

Anti-photographer? No. Anti sloppy photojournalism? Yes. I struggle to see any trace of political correctness, ignorance or boorishness in this. It is a logical digital-age refinement of the ethos that has questioned Bob Capa's "death of a soldier" virtually since the day it was published.

In the specific context of photojournalism, it wasn't OK in the age of film, and it isn't in the age of PC and PCs.

[Done_rundleCams]

A silly decision... In the days of film such details were often burnt out.
Rather than disqualify such work, the rules should be equalised with previous film practice.

The odd thing, T_WP, is that he could have burned down the foot but he "digitally removed it"
which, IMVHO, is completely different.

Cheers,

Jack

[Done_rundleCams]

photographer will take it away and will lose even more in
the long run.

Cheers,

Jack

[willie45]

IMHO competition judging is so random and arbitrary anyway, it's hardly worth worrying about

Willie

[beejaybee]

competition judging is so random and arbitrary

Good point!