Danish photoshop debate

Wow, I can't believe they would disqualify a guy for having some skill in Photoshop... As far as I can see, the editing isn't even that extreme. For the most part, it just looks like he just pulled the saturation and contrast sliders to the right with a little dodging and burning. It's pretty obvious that all that information is in the raw file.

I hate to bring him up yet again as I always do, but Ansel Adams' negatives looked at least as far from his prints as those raw files do from the jpegs.

"Photos submitted to Picture of The Year must be a truthful representation of whatever happened in front of the camera during exposure." Yeah... good luck with that.
 
Of course the judges can establish whatever rules they like, but in this case the rule is "You may post-process the images electronically in accordance with good practice. That is cropping, burning, dodging, converting to black and white as well as normal exposure and color correction, which preserves the image's original expression."

While "good practice" and "original expression" are obviously quite subjective, I don't see any evidence that the photographer did anything other than what the judges list as acceptable post-processing.

It kind of reminds me of the recent "truth in photography" thread...
 
I'm calling BS on this one, I went and looked at the image info in PS, and checked the histograms of both the raws and the submited image and the difference is huge, put it this way, if he would have been shooting slides, he would have had clear strips of film.

This guy did selective color corrections, color boosts, one image looks like he painted one wall with some blue to match the rest of the image.

And as far as I can see, a photojournalist that can't get an exposure right in camera has no business complaining when the judges decide that the processing is overdone. And regarding conveying the original conditions of the shot, these manipulations are very far from what was to be seen at the location, if he wanted really saturated colors, he could have set it in camera and shot RAW + jpg, checked his LCD on his D700 for exposure and bracketed when he was unsure. None of these scenes where going to disappear faster then the 10 seconds it takes to bracket a shot.

If i was to turn in RAWs like that to my editor, he would have:
1. not published any of it
2. asked me what the hell was wrong with me
3. and never given me another assignment again

If he wants to compete in a "who has the maddest photoshop skillz", he may win, for photojournalism, this is well deserved.
 
I personally think that this is not that different to dodge & burn treatments to B&W images. As long as he did not do selective colour replacements and modified the actual contents of the image (e.g. cloning things out, adding things in, etc), my vote would be that the initial award stays.
 
The Photoshopping alterations look a bit too heavy for photojournalism in my opinion - I would prefer to err on the conservative side of things when it comes to "news" photography - i.e., less alteration/manipulation is better.
 
sleepyhead said:
The Photoshopping alterations look a bit too heavy for photojournalism in my opinion - I would prefer to err on the conservative side of things when it comes to "news" photography - i.e., less alteration/manipulation is better.
Click to expand...

I agree. The manipulated image strays too far for photojournalism... but how do you quantify the "too far". Well I guess that's what the judges debated :) Not that my opinion counts for anything, but I reckon they were spot on in this case.
 
One thing is to work in photoshop to try to make the image look closer to the impression the photographer had when he took the photo. Another one is to change it to something that was arguable never there to begin with. In this case the way he oversaturated everything does not depict reality very faithfully does it?
 
the manipulated image looks like complete crap! i wouldn't call that photoshop skill at all. if he were skillful, you wouldn't even know by looking at the manipulated shot that he had used photoshop. i like the raw image 10 times better!
 
Reading the article the first time, I kind of missed the photojournalist part. I do agree that such heavy editing does take the image somewhat out of the realm of journalism.

Though I'm still hesitant to call a photographer out for adjusting normal photo parameters, the judges' decision makes more sense to me in context.
 
My salute for the judge. Photoshopping in photojournalism, I think about FIXING. Anyway, I'm using new-entry DSLR and I know it already have kind-of "color-correction" menu which may help me for difficult picture or scene. I think it's enough.

For some reason, photographer probably don't have time to play around with his camera - fine, he may adjust something while transferring his RAW picture int JPG. But, heavy COSMETIC like this is questionable.

If he has problem with color, convert it into B/W then... :)
 
Last edited:
The manipulation of the image changed it enough that I think it conveys a different message.
To me, this is the same as HDR -- manipulating an image to alter your own version of reality.

This went beyond the normal toning and adjustment of levels that occurs for most photos.
 
They kicked him out. Was it a photography contest, or an image processing contest? Call me old school, too much image processing and not enough photographic skill. Use a Polarizer and bracket.
 
Last edited:
The ridiculous thing is ... looking at those two images I prefer the rather dusty faded look of the original raw to the mutilated PS final result ... it's repulsive!
 
Last edited:
I was thinking the same thing. The original works as is.

I think the problem is endemic to the news industry in that photos have to be bolder and more exciting when sometimes reality is good enough.

The issue that I see with this photo is that he changed the color of the ground to something that was far from reality and almost garish.
 
Well Peter Dejong's pics as submitted look like overcolorized satires of the actual scene.

His rant and rave about being excluded is as infantile as it is self-serving with his hand caught in the cookie jar ... of digital manipulation which is an expressive art form by itself, no doubt, but not photography.

The world is beautiful as it is. We do not need otherwordly scenes (colorwise) of earth, do we? At least in photo journalism. Well done again, Denmark!
 
The original image looks fine to me. In conveys the mood of the place very nicely. No editor or publisher would ever use that manipulated image to illustrate an article on conditions in Haiti. It made no sense to even bother submitting it that way.
 
Me-thinks he'd be far better suited to a career with the Disney Studios! :p
 
Bassism said:
Wow, I can't believe they would disqualify a guy for having some skill in Photoshop... As far as I can see, the editing isn't even that extreme. For the most part, it just looks like he just pulled the saturation and contrast sliders to the right with a little dodging and burning. It's pretty obvious that all that information is in the raw file.

I hate to bring him up yet again as I always do, but Ansel Adams' negatives looked at least as far from his prints as those raw files do from the jpegs.

"Photos submitted to Picture of The Year must be a truthful representation of whatever happened in front of the camera during exposure." Yeah... good luck with that.
Click to expand...

you cant believe it? how come?

perhaps, Ansel did not sumitted his photo for the picture of the year photojournalism contest, did he?

good luck is never been an option, just wear a good pair of boots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom