World Press Photo disqualification: Photographer speaks out

[Atfulldraw]

Originally Posted by Thomas Campbell

If you think they are taking themselves too seriously because he cloned out a distracting element, then you don't know much about ethics in photojournalism.

perhaps, but if you intend to stick by your example of cloning in a baseball, then you don't understand much about analogies....

had the photographer (or PJ) moved one degree to the left, no one would be crying about him having altered the scene by concealing the foot of that all-so-important dude standing in the background.....

I stand by my statement of "IMO...." even after reading

6. Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images' content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.

who was mislead? how was the subject misrepresented?

[Murph]

I agree, he violated the rules, got punished, so take his licks, quit whining, and get back to photography.

[Tom]

perhaps, but if you intend to stick by your example of cloning in a baseball, then you don't understand much about analogies....

In either instance, he is materially changing a photograph.


I took this of Dwight Howard a couple weeks ago. There was a basketball there. You just can't see it well in the frame. If I copied a basketball out from another pic and put it in this pic, I am not changing the content any more than removing a foot. It is still a picture about Dwight Howard losing possession of the ball. The photo would just demonstrate that better if the ball was clearly visible in flying away from him.

No one would be misled. In fact, the picture would then better demonstrate what I wanted it to when I clicked the shutter button.

had the photographer (or PJ) moved one degree to the left, no one would be crying about him having altered the scene by concealing the foot of that all-so-important dude standing in the background.....

That's just it. He didn't do that. He is being judged on what he did do. And he didn't take the picture how he wanted to tell the story - which is what he was judging on.

It would have been way better if he had just gone in for the closeup in the first place.

[MicWayWal]

Originally Posted by Jeff_Green

Where is that line and why was it drawn there? This is my point. Editing a photo is acceptable until it's not acceptable.

A lot of PJists think like this; it is out of bounds if you could not do the same thing with an un-retouched piece of film and using an enlarger to make a print.

[Jeff_Green]

Originally Posted by MicWayWal

...it is out of bounds if you could not do the same thing with an un-retouched piece of film and using an enlarger to make a print.

But that can simply be done using an enlarger. Again, I am not sticking up for this guy and saying he should have won because he apparently broke the rules. I am saying that editing an image is editing an image and if you are going to restrict editing in one manner then editing in all manners should be restricted.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Jeff_Green

But that can simply be done using an enlarger. Again, I am not sticking up for this guy and saying he should have won because he apparently broke the rules. I am saying that editing an image is editing an image and if you are going to restrict editing in one manner then editing in all manners should be restricted.

So you don't see a difference in correcting the white balance and cloning out part of the picture?

[Jeff_Green]

Get it right in the camera. Isn't that what PJ's are supposed to do so that there is no issue? Where do you draw the line? "fixing" color? Sharpening? Adjusting the curves? You already stated that what you do is take the picture and send it on. Therefore there is no "correcting the white balance". Adjusting the white balance can change the mood or emotion of an image. So can adjusting the sharpness. So can adjusting the color or curves.

In fact, I would argue that the toning that he did changed the whole emotion of the image while the removal of part of the foot did minimal, if any at all, to change it.

[Tom]

Yes, that is what I do. But I tend to err on the side of caution when ethics are involved. Being someone that lectures on ethics in photojournalism, I have seen all kinds of things, and I want my ethics to be above reproach.

But there are things that are universally accepted and rejected. Cropping is universally accepted. Cloning is universally rejected.

Of course, photo illustrations are exceptions, but they have to be clearly labeled as such.

In fact, I would argue that the toning that he did changed the whole emotion of the image while the removal of part of the foot did minimal, if any at all, to change it.

I agree, and if I had been the judge, I would have disqualified him for excessive toning.