PDA

View Full Version : Another Photography Contest Winner Disqualified



AntZ
03-03-2010, 10:15 PM
The evidence in this one is undeniable the image was manipulated. Does this manipulation break the contest rules? I think the rules are not crystal clear, but I think the manipulation shown does break them. Personally I would have no problems doing this manipulation(and regularly do) to the image to post, exhibit, sell or whatever, but to not to enter into a contest like this. Maybe this kind of manipulation may creep in to "accepted" over time. We will see.

World Press Photo Disqualifies Winner (http://www.petapixel.com/2010/03/03/world-press-photo-disqualifies-winner/)

Note: Scroll down the page to see the original/final images.

JAS_Photo
03-04-2010, 12:34 AM
One little touch with the spot remover and poof gone! Seems like a lot less of a crime then the extreme crop he used which is apparently fine. I would not even consider a photo with that much of a crop to be competition worthy if it were mine.

Mad Aussie
03-04-2010, 12:59 AM
Makes you wonder why it won in the first place. Did they think he created that vignetting & noise SOCC with physical filters?

Greg_Nuspel
03-04-2010, 06:36 AM
I didn't think the crop was the problem it was the removal of the foot that was the problem. Cloning out something I think does create a problem because if allowed people will push it too far. You have to draw the line somewhere and no tolerance in removal of elements of the original image I think is a good one for news photography.

casil403
03-04-2010, 08:39 AM
Funny...when I saw the original image, the huge crop and the manipulation, I thought of steroid use by athletes in competition...
I guess it's kind of similar. :shrug:
I personally thought the crop and PP was more over the top than the removal of the foot. In the original it looks like a bunch of kids getting ready to play a game. In the crop it looks like he is being bandaged from fighting or something similar. The darkness of the PP and the crop alters the entire meaning of the photo and suggests something entirely different from the original. In an art contest IMO I have no trouble but in a news/journal photo competition I do.
And I agree with the rules...they are a bit are vague and ambiguous.

jjeling
03-15-2010, 04:38 AM
This opinion may not count for much, but I think the crop was way too excessive, and the removal of the foot was just the icing on the cake. How many photos have we taken that we could crop that much out of the image to create a whole new image.

My latest issue with this has to do with my own image. The one specifically of the Erie Canal. I did clone out a couple of twigs. I hate doing that. In my eyes, it is completely altering the picture. If a photographer deserves any merit, he/she needs to do everything in their power to get it right within the camera itself.

Coming back to this image, if the original image was that of the guy getting his hand wrapped, with the rest of the annoyances out, then maybe this would not have been so scrutinized about the foot. I could be wrong though. The BW conversion and vignetting may have raised some eyebrows, but I do believe this was taken too far.

At some point you have to draw the line. There is no doubt they have used this as an example to set a precedent for what they expect in the future. It also serves as a reminder to us all, that we should do everything we can to get it right the first time. We shouldnt ever rely PP alone to provide the image we are looking for. It can, and sometime should be used to assist in the image, but never completely relying on PP to achieve your goal.

The problem here lies within that reason. Just way too much PP when it could have been solved with a better photograph. And a better photograph may have lost the contest to this image. That is the shame in the whole ordeal. Im not taking away from this image, it is a good one, but I think the classification of a "photograph" is gone.

Feel free to comment on this. Im curious to hear what other might have to say as a response.

Wicked Dark
03-15-2010, 07:58 AM
It's still a photograph, just a highly altered one. It's a tough thing to convey in rules perhaps, the amount of alteration permitted. In this contest it appeared to be the old "I know it when I see it" approach that got this one cut. Maybe contest organizers should only accept RAW files.

AcadieLibre
03-15-2010, 09:53 AM
Anyone see where the rules were posted, probably right in front of me and I missed them. After I see the rules than I would have an opinion, not that it matters one way or the other lol.