World Press Disqualifies Winner: What do you think?
As we trumpet the arrival of Adobe Photoshop CS5, should the registration come with an affidavit promising that the user will only produce images for good?
Here comes that blurry line again, in the age of accessible image manipulation.
The World Press Photo organization had announced the winners of this years best photographs, earlier this year, and all were happy and celebrating the success.
But the jury has since come across a manipulated image that had won a 3rd Place award in the Sports Category.
What had won was this:
“Street fighting, Kiev, Ukraine†© Stepan Rudnik
The original was this:
Stepan Rudik was required, like all entrants, to provide the RAW file to make sure no manipulation o the actual image had occurred.
Here is the deal: the shot was disqualified because he eliminated the foot in the background between the fingers. A little Where’s Waldo but look close.
Here is the question for everyone:
If the final image was the intent, although not shot like that, was the manipulation egregious and worthy of disqualification?
Have manipulated images taken license with reality so truth has been “shifted”?
Or is the purpose of press photography to tell the story though the photographers eyes, no matter how it’s digitally enhanced?
Let us know what you think by leaving a comment here.
(by the way we are having a small glitch in the comments area where it may say there was an error but we most likely have it. All comments are moderated so it doesn’t show up immediately)
Grab RSS Feed
It looks like the extra foot was some kind of an excuse; it really does not change the picture that much. BUT I am glad the jury found it; what actually is not acceptable is the obvious intent to cheat the reader; the real problem is not the foot, but the caption. And the foot revealed that manipulation.
To me manipulating pictures is not so immoral… as long as you do not manipulate readers!
Herve has a point. The caption (& photo for that matter) implies a sports of war moment but the actual image could’ve happen in with any
bunch of guys hanging out in Kansas, never mind Kiev!. The foot is another matter. It’s not a big deal, but rules are rules!
If there are specific rules for a contest, they must be followed. That’s the whole point of rules. However, I must say that banning such edits as the one you describe is non-sense. Photos were manipulated in such ways back in the film days, so why not in the digital darkroom?
In my opinion, if a photo can be manipulated using film in the dark room or a copy stand, then doing the same digitally is of no consequence. It’s not cheating, it’s just quicker.
“BUT I am glad the jury found itâ€, -jury did not found it-they received a letter from some of the photographer’s “friends†with the link to the web blog where the original photo was posted first (before the Photoshop manipulation)
The thin line is not just about manipulation by means of software, but by any means. Photos can be staged (which is generally good and acceptable for artistic purposes), but what happens when those photos are meant to report the truth? Sure, staging a journalistic photo is more difficult, but it’s possible. Frankly, I believe the line is crossed when the picture stops telling the moment’s truth. (Yes, there is a truth to every moment.)
Was this photo still telling the truth? Yes. Even with the foot cut out. It’s not as though he gave the man an extra finger (which he clearly didn’t have) or removed the bandaging. All the photographer did was remove something that could have been removed had he said, “Hey guys, mind taking two steps to your left? Kaythnx*click*bye.”
But I guess the rules are the rules are the rules. Rigid and inflexible…and we all know what Darwin would have said about that. :/
I think it’s not fair to be disqualified after winning. World Press Photo should check the submitted photos before announcing the winners, not after that. It’s a shame!
I agree with Teli. The photo was telling the truth even without the leg.
It’s a shame that World Press Photo did not checked the photos before announcing the winners.
I agree with Teli, because this photo is telling the truth even without that leg.
(I had an error 500, sorry for the duplicate comment if that’s the case)
i agree with Rob-L, it’s like “burning & dodging!”
Or if the photographer has a faster lens with an aperture that can create a bokeh, isn’t the foot between the fingers will mostly be unfocused and unnoticed?
did the contest RULES suggests:
NO cropping,
NO burning nor dodging,
NO color manipulation…
i mean, WE PERCEIVE things DIFFERENTLY…
i just started digital recently, and oh boy, it’s the same thing but a LOT FASTER!
it’s not like he created something like what Jerry Uelsmann would…
if it were me, taken the shot using film, i would definitely use the burn and dodge technique.
it’s not like he created something what jerry uelsmann would, i mean if i took this using film, i would simply burn & dodge it.
Art, throughout history, is all about communication. What makes artists different from the rest of us is that they can repackage what they see and present it in a way that makes their vision apparent to other people. If the artist felt it necessary to remove a distraction from his photo that’s his call. Inventing niggling little rules that straightjacket creativity is the product of a bureaucratic mind. That kind of rigidity has no place in the world of art.
The photographer was required to submit RAW files, which I assume he did. If the committee reviewed those files carefully for each photograph that was in competition for an award, they either did not catch the foot, or felt its removal was not a critical factor.
In either event, if the photographer followed the guidelines of the contest, submitted the RAW file for the jury’s comparison, and they felt his image was worthy of third place, that decision should stand. Next time the rules should be more exact and the jury more careful in the comparison of RAW and final image.