Al Kaplan
Veteran
Ansel Adams was not a photojournalist, nor did he claim to be. The photo we're debating is hardly photojournalism. Perhaps "photo illustration" might be a better category for it if we want to avoid calling it a "cartoon".
ampguy
Veteran
good for the judges and photography in general. The PS'd one makes the dirt look wetter, and the whole scene is saturated in psychadelia, where the raw image shows a dry barron dumpy area.
Read "After Photography" if you haven't already.
Read "After Photography" if you haven't already.
Merkin
For the Weekend
I agree, although I would go one further and say that the dirt looks like excrement instead of dirt in the shopped version.
DougFord
on the good foot
I guess the judges didn’t like the day glow paint on black velvet look. It’s definitely an acquired taste.
MartinL
MartinL
A prize-winning news story or investigative report can withstand a degree of clumsy writing if the content is very strong. On the other hand over-blown and sensational writing calls attention to itself and makes the story untrustworthy.
The judge erred in faulting excessive PS manipulation. The photo should have been disqualified on its (lack of) merits. Presuming that the photo has news value, that value was diminished by the photographer's hand. Not prize worthy.
PS is fantastically powerful, and it's hard not to abuse it. The clarity and vibrance sliders are especially seductive for the undisciplined. Even a slightly too-heavy hand leaves a manipulation signature. As if Michelangelo left evidence of his Dremel tool on some important part of David.
The judge erred in faulting excessive PS manipulation. The photo should have been disqualified on its (lack of) merits. Presuming that the photo has news value, that value was diminished by the photographer's hand. Not prize worthy.
PS is fantastically powerful, and it's hard not to abuse it. The clarity and vibrance sliders are especially seductive for the undisciplined. Even a slightly too-heavy hand leaves a manipulation signature. As if Michelangelo left evidence of his Dremel tool on some important part of David.
fondueman
Member
an oil painting is an interpretation of an impression and does not come from a machine. why should a photograph that began from a machine not also be manifested as an interpretation of an impression?
is it the medium or the tool...?
is it the medium or the tool...?
Ronald M
Veteran
The photo is way overdone in photoshop according to the contest rules. If you can see PS work, it is overdone in my opinion. The photo is supposed to look as it does to the eye, not an artsy interpretation.
I will say, if the judges expected a contest file to look like a raw file, nothing would be acceptable.
I will say, if the judges expected a contest file to look like a raw file, nothing would be acceptable.
aniMal
Well-known
I really wonder why on earth he won in the firs place? It is so clearly manipulated, and also the manipulation is done to make it more dramatic. Which means that the actual story of it is changed - and this is a contest for photojournalists???
I really hope that there will be more decisions like these. I have no problem with photoshop, but I think it is important to know where the demarcation between documentary work and artwork/advertising is...
Somehow it is the sad opposite of the discussion around Salgado some years ago. Lots of people felt that he made his subjects appear too artful, that the dramatic light and beauty was a mocking or denigration of his subjects. But that was all done by catching the right moment at the right place! Which is really the essence of documentary photography. But here there is no quality from the start, and scarcely a story worth telling...
Anyway, it will be very interesting to see what will be regarded as real representations or truth in photography some years from now - with photoshopping like this, and things like HDR around!
I really hope that there will be more decisions like these. I have no problem with photoshop, but I think it is important to know where the demarcation between documentary work and artwork/advertising is...
Somehow it is the sad opposite of the discussion around Salgado some years ago. Lots of people felt that he made his subjects appear too artful, that the dramatic light and beauty was a mocking or denigration of his subjects. But that was all done by catching the right moment at the right place! Which is really the essence of documentary photography. But here there is no quality from the start, and scarcely a story worth telling...
Anyway, it will be very interesting to see what will be regarded as real representations or truth in photography some years from now - with photoshopping like this, and things like HDR around!
peterm1
Veteran
Based on a quick review of the original I cannot see that he has over stepped the rules. The image is intact and the most significant change seems to be to contrast and brightness. The changes certainly add to the mood of he shot - perhaps that's what they are complaining about. Whether or not you like the end result - well that another issue!
Last edited:
Turtle
Veteran
I think he pushed it too far, personally.
RetroBritt
Newbie
Over Doing Photoshop
Over Doing Photoshop
This is my first post here so if my etiquette is incorrect please forgive me.
I have always found over photoshopped extremely hard on the eye. They always seem to become either HDR type images and take on the "Harry Potter" effect . Modern software seems to be used as a stick by which any image regardless of quality can be turned into something that some see as image worthy. It all seems to stem from the what does this button do mentality.
I original image is in my opinion far more real and has far more impact than the edited one . It has life that looks and feels real where as the edited image has become unreal. We have to remember that news images are to portray news, whether pleasant or not it is there to provide visual information . As such it should look real. I am sorry if this offends but in the edited image i keep expecting to see a broom stick fly into the scene.
As a side note : I have shot digital images professionally for 15 years until early this year when I decided that for me personally the culture of shoot it and fix it or change it with software was very limiting both creatively and ascetically. Since then I have sold all my digital cameras and returned to film. I feel that with film my creativity and my work has improved for both myself and my clients. It gives me more time to capture images rather than make them after the event..
Over Doing Photoshop
This is my first post here so if my etiquette is incorrect please forgive me.
I have always found over photoshopped extremely hard on the eye. They always seem to become either HDR type images and take on the "Harry Potter" effect . Modern software seems to be used as a stick by which any image regardless of quality can be turned into something that some see as image worthy. It all seems to stem from the what does this button do mentality.
I original image is in my opinion far more real and has far more impact than the edited one . It has life that looks and feels real where as the edited image has become unreal. We have to remember that news images are to portray news, whether pleasant or not it is there to provide visual information . As such it should look real. I am sorry if this offends but in the edited image i keep expecting to see a broom stick fly into the scene.
As a side note : I have shot digital images professionally for 15 years until early this year when I decided that for me personally the culture of shoot it and fix it or change it with software was very limiting both creatively and ascetically. Since then I have sold all my digital cameras and returned to film. I feel that with film my creativity and my work has improved for both myself and my clients. It gives me more time to capture images rather than make them after the event..
SimonSawSunlight
Simon Fabel
not up to me to decide whether it should or shouldn't be excluded, but it sure looks ugly. in an HDR-ish way.
Nelson Tan
Established
Disqualifying an image for "excessive" Photoshop is definitely a touchy subject, no matter where or when. But when it is a photojournalism contest, it seems much easier to call the shots (pun intended!). Basically, the photographer manipulated the image in a way that affected the integrity of the image, and that is a huge taboo in photojournalism. The edited image made the place look much dirtier and filthier than it actually is (compared to the original image). That does not fall in line with the ethics of journalism, which was why (I suppose) he got eliminated from the contest.
igi
Well-known
For a start, the ground was ash grey on the original and then mud brown on the PS'd version... I think the changes are way, way overdone.
Nikkor AIS
Nikkor AIS
The fact is, almost every photo taken that is worth looking at is manipulated in one way or another. Color correction is done with film. Burning and dodging are done in B+W. In digital photography, I imagine the possibilities are infinite. I really think they banned the photo just to get "press" or ink/coverage of their contest. Really, smart gorilla marketing if you ask me.
Personally, I don't even own Photoshop but I often increase contrast, drop down the highlights, and correct colour, both on my scanned film images and from my D3 files. Where I draw the line is moving stuff around, or removing stuff, or adding stuff that wasn't there in the first place. Everyone must draw the line for themselves. Sometimes a little bump in contrast/saturation can make a huge difference. Other times, like when you're working with cross-processed film, it's anyone's guess where the line is.
As far as digital images, every link in the image affects the final outcome.
Gregory
Personally, I don't even own Photoshop but I often increase contrast, drop down the highlights, and correct colour, both on my scanned film images and from my D3 files. Where I draw the line is moving stuff around, or removing stuff, or adding stuff that wasn't there in the first place. Everyone must draw the line for themselves. Sometimes a little bump in contrast/saturation can make a huge difference. Other times, like when you're working with cross-processed film, it's anyone's guess where the line is.
As far as digital images, every link in the image affects the final outcome.
Gregory
Last edited:
Fujitsu
Well-known
Yes, over the top. And looks ****ty anway. Less would have been more in this case.
kzphoto
Well-known
Raw files from my Nikon look like his original. They need a ton of post-processing to get them to "look" right. That being said, his submission was a little harsh.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Given that it's an NPPA contest, it's so be expected that the judges are not going to appreciate a photo that deviates too much from current professional standards.
Reuters, for example, is pretty darned clear:
On points 2 and 3, the shopped image is a fail.
That said, the idea that a RAW file is in some way un-manipulated is absurd, and there is no such thing as a "RAW image" (see caption in the link). Both images are JPEGs that contain only tiny fractions of the information in the original RAW file.
For one thing you're compressing the luminance range captured by the sensor (1:1000 to 1:4000) to a display device that is in practice somewhere between 1:20 and 1:250. For another, the color response of the sensor is not neutral. Etc., etc.
There is no such thing as an unmanipulated photo, digital or otherwise.
Reuters, for example, is pretty darned clear:
On points 2 and 3, the shopped image is a fail.
That said, the idea that a RAW file is in some way un-manipulated is absurd, and there is no such thing as a "RAW image" (see caption in the link). Both images are JPEGs that contain only tiny fractions of the information in the original RAW file.
For one thing you're compressing the luminance range captured by the sensor (1:1000 to 1:4000) to a display device that is in practice somewhere between 1:20 and 1:250. For another, the color response of the sensor is not neutral. Etc., etc.
There is no such thing as an unmanipulated photo, digital or otherwise.
Last edited:
Pico
-
The NPPA has strict rules regarding manipulation. The photographer broke the rules. He should know better. Tough.
dan_sutton
Member
ha. had he just shot some velvia and dropped it down stop and a half he would have been there anyways