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:
â€œStreet fighting, Kiev, Ukraineâ€ Â© 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)