World Press Photos of the Year

I've gotten in trouble by pointing this out before, but I feel that in many cases what makes these pictures "prize-winning" is not the picture, but the caption.

Example: The "photo of the year" is a dark, monochromatic image showing a man in fatigues holding a hand to his head. The caption: "American soldier resting at bunker, Korengal Valley, Afghanistan, 16 September"

If the exact same picture had been entered with the caption, "American soldier with hangover, Passaic, New Jersey, 16 September", would it have been "Photo of the Year"? Would it even have gotten into the awards? I doubt it very much.

Or the first-place spot news photo: It's a dark, tilted, blurry image that appears to show some men standing around facing the camera, with an orange glow and some smoke behind them.

The caption: "Assassination of Benazir Bhutto, Rawalpindi, Pakistan, 27 December"

But what if the caption had read, for example, "Members of Sigma Nu fraternity in front of bonfire, University of Illinois, 27 December"? Absolutely zip. The only thing that gives the picture news value is the assertion that the orange glow behind the men is the explosion that killed Mrs. Bhutto (or that accompanied the gunfire that killed Mrs. Bhutto, depending on whose explanation you believe.)

Either of my made-up captions would have fit the images just as well, and would have completely neutralized their chance of competition success. In fact, without the magic captions, the photos themselves are utterly trivial.

This underlines my view that in many cases of highly celebrated "great" photos, what matters is not what's in the photo but what we're told about the photo.

It's one reason I got out of the photojournalism business.
 
jlw said:
If the exact same picture had been entered with the caption, "American soldier with hangover, Passaic, New Jersey, 16 September", would it have been "Photo of the Year"? Would it even have gotten into the awards? I doubt it very much.
Click to expand...
Good point. You're absolutely correct, but does it really matter?

Most, if not all, photos are better with a good caption. Even highly dramatic, iconic shots - like the airplane crashing into the WTC - are only "good" because of the circumstances under which they were taken.

Without good captions and some background info, all great photos ever made could have been taken from a faked scene in a Hollywood movie.

One could argue that any photo, in itself, is more or less worthless. This is, obviously, a philosophical question.

Jarle
 
jlw said:
I've gotten in trouble by pointing this out before, but I feel that in many cases what makes these pictures "prize-winning" is not the picture, but the caption.

Example: The "photo of the year" is a dark, monochromatic image showing a man in fatigues holding a hand to his head. The caption: "American soldier resting at bunker, Korengal Valley, Afghanistan, 16 September"

If the exact same picture had been entered with the caption, "American soldier with hangover, Passaic, New Jersey, 16 September", would it have been "Photo of the Year"? Would it even have gotten into the awards? I doubt it very much.

Or the first-place spot news photo: It's a dark, tilted, blurry image that appears to show some men standing around facing the camera, with an orange glow and some smoke behind them.

The caption: "Assassination of Benazir Bhutto, Rawalpindi, Pakistan, 27 December"

But what if the caption had read, for example, "Members of Sigma Nu fraternity in front of bonfire, University of Illinois, 27 December"? Absolutely zip. The only thing that gives the picture news value is the assertion that the orange glow behind the men is the explosion that killed Mrs. Bhutto (or that accompanied the gunfire that killed Mrs. Bhutto, depending on whose explanation you believe.)

Either of my made-up captions would have fit the images just as well, and would have completely neutralized their chance of competition success. In fact, without the magic captions, the photos themselves are utterly trivial.

This underlines my view that in many cases of highly celebrated "great" photos, what matters is not what's in the photo but what we're told about the photo.

It's one reason I got out of the photojournalism business.
Click to expand...

As a PJ, did you not have to write captions?

Most photojournalism work is a combination of the two.

It is really not hard to understand.
 
I was waiting 2 months for this day. I went to sleep with the page open o see the winning shots. They are nice but I've been very displeased to see some winning shots being so much photoshopped. Like the Draganized Marathon winners. A shame, IMO.
 
As a person committed to peace in Israel and the Palestinian areas, usaully these photo awards take a very biased anti Israel slant. Regardless of your political persusion, bias is never good. This year's awards have IMHO, avoided this bias, which allowed someone like me to enjoy and appreciate the photos all the more. Also I particularly enjoyed the fact that the great majority of all the award winning photos do not appear to be overly Photoshopped. Let the camera do its thing. A great batch this year.
 
Jarle Aasland said:
Good point. You're absolutely correct, but does it really matter?

Most, if not all, photos are better with a good caption. Even highly dramatic, iconic shots - like the airplane crashing into the WTC - are only "good" because of the circumstances under which they were taken.

Without good captions and some background info, all great photos ever made could have been taken from a faked scene in a Hollywood movie.

One could argue that any photo, in itself, is more or less worthless. This is, obviously, a philosophical question.

Jarle
Click to expand...

I think by its very nature a "Photo of the Year" has to have some sort of timely message to it, or it wouldn't be a photo of the YEAR. On the other hand, if you look at memorable photos of great photgraphers, say even a portrait by Richard Avedon, they need no caption to hold our interest. Ditto for great landscapes. Therefore, I conclude that a truly great image needs no caption. The image speaks for itself. But timely photos do need a caption, and most will not be great beyond their time. And, of course, there are great and timely photos, such as the explosion of the Hindenberg. We all know what it is when we look at it, but if you don't it is no less compelling for that.

/T
 
I am a bit surprised how 'mundane' most of the pictures are. There are some good shots but these are the shots of the year?
 
Tuolumne said:
.. if you look at memorable photos of great photgraphers, say even a portrait by Richard Avedon, they need no caption to hold our interest. Ditto for great landscapes. Therefore, I conclude that a truly great image needs no caption. The image speaks for itself.
Click to expand...
First, I was primarily commenting on "news photos" as this was the topic of this thread. Portraits and landscape photos (to name a few) are "great" for different reasons.

Still, I just browsed some of the photos at www.richardavedon.com. Avedon's work needs no further introduction - or captions, right? I'm not so sure. I find the photos more interesting once I know when and where they were taken. They don't *need* a caption, but most of them benefits from one, in my opinion.

In another example, would Ansel Adams' "Moon and Half Dome" be as "good" if it was taken by John Doe on a family trip in 2003? I don't think so.

Photos are great for different reasons, with cultural and historical references playing a big part.

Jarle
 
I've been disappointed by WPP for years now. These aren't iconic photos.

JLW is right, as are nb23 and kshapero. I always make a point to visit the WPP exhibition here in Amsterdam and NEVER leave with a single photo stuck in my mind (except last year's winner: fancy girls in cabrio sports car in a devastated Beirut (?) district). Each and every photo is just another image added to the millions of identical ones out there.

The pro US bias of many of the WPP winning photos is starting to tick me off. And the really good documentary series don't really get the attention in most media they deserve, problably because no-one really cares about AIDS orphans in Africa or gay "actresses" in China or the like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom