World Press Photo disqualification: Photographer speaks out

[johnastovall]

"Stepan Rudik, whose series on street fighting has been disqualified from the World Press Photo yesterday, has reached out to publications such as BJP in a bid to salvage his reputation as a reportage photographer..."

Response Here

[MicWayWal]

Since WHEN has cropping, dodging and 'burning in' not been normal accepted practices of photography. Stepan Rudik was robbed.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by MicWayWal

Since WHEN has cropping, dodging and 'burning in' not been normal accepted practices of photography. Stepan Rudik was robbed.

Since when has cloning been normal accepted practice of photojournalism?


But he just isn't a photographer - he is a photojournalist - which is held to a much higher standard.

[MicWayWal]

Originally Posted by Thomas Campbell

Since when has cloning been normal accepted practice of photojournalism?


But he just isn't a photographer - he is a photojournalist - which is held to a much higher standard.

I was wrong. I didn't understand or see the cloning that was done.

You and they were right to exclude the submission.

[dminton]

"...salvage his reputation as a reportage photographer."

Tough $hit Rudik.

[Atfulldraw]

First, the photo isn't that great (edited or unedited)

Second,

This much of a fit about a foot?

taking themselves a little too seriously, IMO.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Atfulldraw

First, the photo isn't that great (edited or unedited)

Second,

This much of a fit about a foot?

taking themselves a little too seriously, IMO.

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.

[Jeff_Green]

Maybe you should teach us ignorant photographers about photojournalistic ethics.

What is considered acceptable retouching and why? ANY retouching, whether the use of sharpening, curves, saturation, ANYTHING but the original image can be considered altering the image and thus become unethical. If you want to get nitpicky with the ethics in photojournalism, where do you stand?

Howard Chapnick said "Credibility. Responsibility. These words give us the right to call photography a profession rather than a business. Not maintaining that credibility will diminish our journalistic impact and self-respect, and the importance of photography as communication" .

How is the image in question an unethical photojournalistic image? It did not alter any meaning of the image. He did not recreate something to bring about a desired emotion or idea. He removed an extremely minor part of the photo that added nothing to the image (much like sharpening adding to an image?) and removing it took nothing away from it.

How come there is so much talk of his removal of part of a foot in the image but removing all color in the image is acceptable? Oh, because some have decided that it's okay and doesn't affect the image... only it does. It adds emotion to the image thus using a photograph NOT to capture an event as it happens but to convey whatever the photographer wants it to convey.

[Tom]

NPPA's Code of Ethics is a good start:

Code of Ethics

Visual journalists and those who manage visual news productions are accountable for upholding the following standards in their daily work:

1. Be accurate and comprehensive in the representation of subjects.
2. Resist being manipulated by staged photo opportunities.
3. Be complete and provide context when photographing or recording subjects. Avoid stereotyping individuals and groups. Recognize and work to avoid presenting one's own biases in the work.
4. Treat all subjects with respect and dignity. Give special consideration to vulnerable subjects and compassion to victims of crime or tragedy. Intrude on private moments of grief only when the public has an overriding and justifiable need to see.
5. While photographing subjects do not intentionally contribute to, alter, or seek to alter or influence events.
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.
7. Do not pay sources or subjects or reward them materially for information or participation.
8. Do not accept gifts, favors, or compensation from those who might seek to influence coverage.
9. Do not intentionally sabotage the efforts of other journalists.

Ideally, visual journalists should:

1. Strive to ensure that the public's business is conducted in public. Defend the rights of access for all journalists.
2. Think proactively, as a student of psychology, sociology, politics and art to develop a unique vision and presentation. Work with a voracious appetite for current events and contemporary visual media.
3. Strive for total and unrestricted access to subjects, recommend alternatives to shallow or rushed opportunities, seek a diversity of viewpoints, and work to show unpopular or unnoticed points of view.
4. Avoid political, civic and business involvements or other employment that compromise or give the appearance of compromising one's own journalistic independence.
5. Strive to be unobtrusive and humble in dealing with subjects.
6. Respect the integrity of the photographic moment.
7. Strive by example and influence to maintain the spirit and high standards expressed in this code. When confronted with situations in which the proper action is not clear, seek the counsel of those who exhibit the highest standards of the profession. Visual journalists should continuously study their craft and the ethics that guide it.

If you want to get nitpicky with the ethics in photojournalism, where do you stand?

Where I stand is that less is better.

Cloning out distracting objects or adding them in has gone way past the line of responsible photojournalism. (I have seen great basketballs and baseballs added to shots to make them more interesting.) It has been pretty well accepted throughout the industry that cloning is off-limits.

How is the image in question an unethical photojournalistic image? It did not alter any meaning of the image. He did not recreate something to bring about a desired emotion or idea.

I think his toning, burning and cloning did change the feel and meaning of the picture. He took a flat, boring picture and made it gritty. The emotion and idea from the original and the edited picture are both very different.

How come there is so much talk of his removal of part of a foot in the image but removing all color in the image is acceptable? Oh, because some have decided that it's okay and doesn't affect the image... only it does.

I think his toning went too far. Artistically, he did a great job with it. It certainly has the gritty feel that you would want a picture about street fighting to have. But for photojournalism, that is quite another thing.

And when talking about changing it to grayscale - many newspapers only run color on the cover, so it has to be converted anyway to run. And sometimes that will enhance the picture, and sometimes it will detract from it. Clearly, the B&W enhanced this picture.

[Crashoran]

I honestly don't see why he didn't get a close-up if that's the photo he was envisioning.

[Crashoran]

Originally Posted by Jeff_Green

How is the image in question an unethical photojournalistic image? It did not alter any meaning of the image. He did not recreate something to bring about a desired emotion or idea. He removed an extremely minor part of the photo that added nothing to the image (much like sharpening adding to an image?) and removing it took nothing away from it.

How come there is so much talk of his removal of part of a foot in the image but removing all color in the image is acceptable? Oh, because some have decided that it's okay and doesn't affect the image... only it does. It adds emotion to the image thus using a photograph NOT to capture an event as it happens but to convey whatever the photographer wants it to convey.

Their jobs are to report the story/scene as it is. Removing the foot took away the element of distraction, which is unfair to the other photoj's that (hopefully) took the time to compose properly and take the picture.

[Jeff_Green]

Originally Posted by Crashoran

Their jobs are to report the story/scene as it is. Removing the foot took away the element of distraction, which is unfair to the other photoj's that (hopefully) took the time to compose properly and take the picture.

So what editing was done by the other ones? If your job is to report everything EXACTLY as it is then no cropping, no sharpening, no color adjustment, nothing but take the picture and send it. I'm not saying his entry should be accepted. If he broke the rules, he broke the rules. What I am saying is that from a photojournalist aspect, did he break some code of ethics that isn't being broken by many other PJ's by using "just simple edits" that are acceptable for no other reason than just because?

[Crashoran]

I think there is a line, and cloning crosses that line

[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.

[Tom]

If your job is to report everything EXACTLY as it is then no cropping, no sharpening, no color adjustment, nothing but take the picture and send it.

When I am working at a PJ, thats what I do unless I am instructed otherwise.