World Press Photo 2013 a fake ?

[Roger Hicks]

World Press Photo decision:

www.worldpressphoto.org/news/digital-photography-experts-confirm-integrity-paul-hansen’s-image-files

Thanks for that.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

“When I compare the RAW file with the prizewinning version I can indeed see that there has been a fair amount of post-production, in the sense that some areas have been made lighter and others darker. But regarding the positions of each pixel, all of them are exactly in the same place in the JPEG (the prizewinning image) as they are in the RAW file. I would therefore rule out any question of a composite image.”

- Eduard de Kam, digital photography expert NIDF (Nederlands Instituut voor Digitale Fotografie)

Looks like the main "issue" was the interpretation of "fake". And by how I understand "fake", they believe this was not "a fake". That it underwent heavy post-processing was one thing, but it was not "a fake". I at a time felt carried by the calls of "fake!" by looking at that photo under that ::cough:: light.

I'd also add that...adding salt to food is "faking" the flavour for some, and simple post-processing to others. Some people's views are more pur-o-fanatical than ethic-o-conscious.

Still, there should be guidelines about dumping a cup of it on this particular entrée without others muddling the issue by crying "fake!". And please take this back to the chef.

 

[Pioneer]

I suspect that these discussions about how much post processing is too much have been going on for a very, very long time. Of course I wouldn't really know since I don't think I was there when it started! 🙂

 

[sepiareverb]

I certainly dislike the HDR-esque or Slumdog Millionaire-esqe look that some press photos have these days. But that's taste, and this isn't the first time I've been out of that loop.

I wonder how perspective correction and lens distortion correction would be viewed in this circumstance? A 16mm lens in a small room, corrected to feel as if one is in a large one...

 

[Keith]

Assuming that every pixel is indeed where it should be I think the photographer has a right to be miffed about this furor.

That's not to say I like the image or what he chose to do with it in post! I remember I posted a link to the pic from our Oz ABC site ages ago and we discussed it in some detail.

 

[Bille]

http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/gesell...ens-und-world-press-photo-award-a-900383.html

http://translate.google.de/translat...world-press-photo-award-a-900383.html&act=url

 

[ChrisLivsey]

Having just read this thread from the beginning can it be clear now that the original RAW file has been submitted?
Having said that this is a RAW file that has been "opened" or "developed" even before the photoshop treatment.
There are numerous "treatments" of this shot as printed in various publications around to compare.
What a murky world this digital is. I suppose the World Press Photo plug-in is just around the corner?

My view? Glad you asked: Interpretation, even to the extreme is fine if you're "fine art" ; look what happened to Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico by Ansel Adams, over the years he had "visionary" changes: but lines in the sand are required for photojournalism.

Not that the history of that genre has been spectacularly pure: Yes it's time to drag up poor Roger Fenton and his movable cannonballs; Capa and his Spanish Civil War;Raising a flag over the Reichstag by Yevgeny Khaldei where the flag-bearer was wearing two watches, which could imply he had looted one of them so using a needle, he was able to remove one watch from the right wrist. He also copied the smoke in the background from another picture to make the scene more dramatic. No doubt you can find more efficient ways in Photoshop these days.
So, lines in the sand or pie in the sky: take your choice. It has happened before:it will happen again.
If anyone believes without question what they read or see in print, including the internet, without a healthy, and lets not go where the evidence for "five a day" is (hint:- it is very tenuous), dose of scepticism they require to be left quietly alone in their child like innocence.

 

[Gary Sandhu]

Just don't shoot RAW. Nothing wrong with what he did. My nikon and fuji cameras in JPG make all kinds of adjustments in shadow and highlight details and etc; my ricoh even makes different white balance adjustments in different parts of the photo. The fellow that accused him of compositing later redefined compositing in a bizarre way to "prove" his case.

 

[Gary Sandhu]

Oh yeah, and damn to hell whoever is responsible for the dead babies.

 

[Addy101]

Same pixels in RAW and submitted picture - case closed, no fake!

 

[ChrisLivsey]

Same pixels in RAW and submitted picture - case closed, no fake!

I think you are taking a particularly narrow view; which you are fully entitled to do and the judging panel at the competition appears to agree with you, of what constitutes a fake.
The very bottom line is all photography is a fake in its representation of what we perceive as reality; the question is how much fakery are we prepared to accept? The case will never be closed:because opinions will vary.