World Press Photo 2013 a fake ?

[Jan Van Laethem]

The World Press Photo winner of the 2013 award, Paul Hansen, may have applied too much manipulation to his winning entry.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...ss-photo-of-the-year-was-faked-with-photoshop

I wouldn't go as far as to call it a fake, but it raises a question : how much Photoshop/Lightroom etc. can you apply to a picture that will compete in such a contest ? And is it any different than the dodging and burning that used to be applied in the darkroom ?

The photographer's refusal to send in his raw image certainly raises an ethical question.

 

[btgc]

Well, probably back then they didn't submit lyth prints in Press category, such analogy comes to mind. Press photo editing certainly has to be constrained.

 

[Bille]

For reference
http://www.spiegel.de/international...e-being-excessively-manipulated-a-898509.html

Excessive "tweaking" of lights, shadows, midtones ... I dont like the movie poster look in press photos, but it seems to sell well.

 

[Bille]

Why not present both sides and hear directly from the photographer?

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/05/14...otoshop-pictures_n_3271504.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

"Paul Hansen has previously explained in detail how he processed the image. World Press Photo has no reason to doubt his explanation. However, in order to curtail further speculation - and with full cooperation by Paul Hansen - we have asked two independent experts to carry out a forensic investigation of the image file."

Instead of simply handing out the RAW file...

 

[newsgrunt]

Instead of simply handing out the RAW file...

hate to pillory the guy but this point bears repeating. If my reputation were on the line, you can bet I would give WPP my original file to examine. Can anyone verify that WPP does require original files for winners ? I've heard this floating around...

 

[icebear]

For me everything that is the up to date LR equivalent to darkroom dodging and burning is OK.

Incorrect representation of :
- date, time and
- location
- information what is happening in the scene or
- removing or adding anything to the content of the picture

are not OK.

Therefore: heavily post processed yes, fake - no.

 

[Out to Lunch]

I don't think you have to be a PS forensic expert to notice the extensive shopping in this picture.

 

[Flood]

I was uncomfortable with the photo when I first saw it - it just screams HDR - but then I thought it unlikely that such a dynamic scene could be a composite and just considered it unnaturally HDR-like processing.

If WPP rules state the photogs need to supply RAWs, why did they choose a photo with obvious heavy PP and no RAW present??

 

[dcsang]

As an FYI:
http://www.worldpressphoto.org/news/reaction-following-discussions-about-world-press-photo-year-2012

They are now going to review it with the blessing of Hansen via independent forensic investigators...

Cheers,
Dave

 

[Jan Van Laethem]

Forensic investigators ?

The jury should just take a look at the RAW file, just as we used to look at a negative or slide on the light box. It shouldn't be more complicated than that. Would you inspect a photocopy of a contact sheet ?

 

[dcsang]

Forensic investigators ?

The jury should just take a look at the RAW file, just as we used to look at a negative or slide on the light box. It shouldn't be more complicated than that. Would you inspect a photocopy of a contact sheet ?

Don't tell me man.. go talk to WPP about it 🙂
I'm just some guy on a forum somewhere 😀 😀 .... the people whose minds you want to change are located here:
http://www.worldpressphoto.org/contact

That said, the comment is that the two "experts" are carrying out a "forensic investigation" (direct quotes from the link). For all we know, that investigation includes reviewing the RAW file but that is not explicitly stated.

Cheers,
Dave

 

[gavinlg]

Hate to sound like a dick but I was saying that photograph was heavily manipulated from the moment I saw it. It looks as if it has been lit from multiple angles.

 

[Jan Van Laethem]

Hate to sound like a dick but I was saying that photograph was heavily manipulated from the moment I saw it. It looks as if it has been lit from multiple angles.

Exactly, look at a properly lit picture here, photograph by Georges Merillon, World Press Photo Award from 1990. The shadowy areas actually add some drama to the picture as well. A much more natural looking result.

http://www.archive.worldpressphoto..../q/ishoofdafbeelding/true/trefwoord/year/1990

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I think that it won is evidence enough that press photographers are obligated to do what they're doing.

Photography by itself doesn't cut it for photography: it's about cinematics and near to in-the-studio looks that draws the very stubborn editors (and judges) who are plagued by IADD (Image Attention Deficit Disorder) syndrome.

Armstrong felt he needed to game the system, press photographers feel to do the same. It is not right that they do this, and it is not right that they are being pushed to do this.

 

[dct]

A slightly different view (somehow influenced by the ethic statements of 10b Photography).
IMO not really wrong, not completely true. I have to accept we have not yet found the digital darkroom red line.

 

[anjoca76]

This is the photographic equivalent of auto-tune and Pro Tools in the music business, where each and every note can be manipulated to the point of perfection--or surrealism. There is almost not a single song you hear on commercial radio in the last decade that is not processed to the point of near-perfection--especially vocals.

Personally, I don't have a huge problem with post-processing (editing) in either music or photography, as long as it's minimal. This has been done for ages, whether in a traditional darkroom, or, in music, by splicing and other forms of tape manipulation.

Where I draw the line is when things are manipulated to the point of being fake. If a vocalist uses auto-tune to correct a note he or she could otherwise sing if given another pass at a vocal take, that is fine, in my opinion. Likewise, if a photographer makes corrections to a photo that he could have achieved naturally if given the opportunity, again that is fine with me.

But there is a line. If you are a terrible singer and use computers to make yourself sound amazing, to me that is blatant misrepresentation. If you are creating images that could in no way have been done organically by anyone, again, I find that phony.

I shoot film almost exclusively and do as little as possible in post-processing. Usually only things that one can do in a darkroom, such as adjust contrast, or cropping/straightening, etc. I don't really have any editing skills beyond that, fortunately. Most of the tools in Lightroom I don't even know how to use.

I am also a musician and have recorded multiple records. When I do, I try to do as minimal editing as possible. If that means the recording isn't perfect, then so be it. To me, that is real, and I prefer real to manufactured.

 

[taskoni]

I shoot film to avoid problems on that matter as well as I have "avoided" all possible awards around me too 😀

Regards,

Boris

 

[Sparrow]

... the light looks odd even to me ... why would that have fooled expert judges?

 

[user237428934]

Not again such a discussion. We live in an infotainment world. I visited 2 world press photo exhibitions. Most photos (digital and film) are higly edited in digital or old fashioned darkroom. It's good that way because I'm not going to an exhibition to see boring, flat, unedited photos. For my taste this one is a bit too much but to speak of a fake is ........... forget it, I have no words.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

You could try to fake the words: so-called journalists do it all the time. H3ll, they hardly ever do proofreading online anymore; who(m)ever says differently, then there's the rub.