Furore over award-winning photo

[Bear Dale]

Interesting read -


http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/furore-over-awardwinning-photo-20130515-2jlsl.html

[JM Tran]

I think this photo is fine, would be very hard to form a composite image from a few, especially when the subjects are moving and not in a linear manner.

[Warus]

Just my thoughts but it's essentially a HDR image as he re-worked several different versions of the RAW and blended them to create a larger dynamic range and it does show with unrealistic range through the photo. The question for me is "is this acceptable editing as defined by the rules of the competition?" Most seem to suggest only basic colour correction and dodging and burning is allowed. Were other images submitted allowed the same latitude when it comes to editing the images? Did the photographers entering the competition know that would be allowed? The image is powerful enough to win on it's own merit and I accept it's a single image but is it fair? Don't know. :confused013

[Steve Axford]

I think it would be quite possible to do, if you had taken a lot of photos, and you had a bit of luck with positions.. It's good that they checked it all out and found it was ok

p.s. I doubt that we're talking HDR here. That would be very hard and probably wouldn't work.

[JM Tran]

I dont even think HDR is possible, as there is a lot of movement from different ppl and the resulting output wouldnt match up well. Nothing wrong with lifting shadows and using tonal contrast as I suspect he did.

[dt86vyss]

I dont even think HDR is possible, as there is a lot of movement from different ppl and the resulting output wouldnt match up well. Nothing wrong with lifting shadows and using tonal contrast as I suspect he did.

Probably HDR with multiple images exported out of the one shot. Easy to do in LR

[fess67]

Certainly sounds like he applied a HDR approach to it. Easy to do a psuedo HDR from the RAW file by increasing or decreasing exposure, white point, black point, shadows, highlights.

I think it is a great photo and if his explanation of the process and the competitions scrutiny say it is within the rules then it should stand.

[Warus]

Exactly. HDR does not mean you need to use mutiple different shots of different exposures. To me it means you extend the dynamic range of the image beyond what the single shot was capable of and when shooting RAW you can easily push out several different exposure level images of the exact same image and then blend them together either manually or by wizardry.

[Rattus79]

You could do the same thing with a single negative and some creative dodging, burning, and some masking.

I see no problems here.

[Pixley]

I also think it is an incredibly moving photo!

[Steve Axford]

Exactly. HDR does not mean you need to use mutiple different shots of different exposures.

I think that's exactly what HDR does mean. When you a "single shot HDR" it isn't really HDR at all. It just gets the maximum dynamic range out of your single RAW file, at the loss of some colour information. Even if he managed to use real HDR (which is very hard with a fast moving subject), that would be perfectly ok for most comps, even journalist ones.

[Dylan & Marianne]

What do you guys think of the controversy surrounding the 2013 winner?
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/155617-how-the-2013-world-press-photo-of-the-year-was-faked-with-photoshop

The winning photographer admitted to reprocessing different versions of the original RAW file to achieve the final outcome
Is this worthy of disqualification?
Coming from a landscape photographer perspective, I can't see the problem - the message is conveyed in the RAW, the message is conveyed probably stronger with some post processing but how much is allowable in the genre?

[kiwi]

It's ridiculous and the blogger should get sued

[Dylan & Marianne]

oops I just realised Jim had a thread about this!

[Dylan & Marianne]

I agree with Steve - you could reexport the same file over and over again , or you could apply differing levels to duplicated layers on the same file and achieve the same thing - Even if he had managed to do a real HDR with subjects that stayed still for him, as long as the subject matter was the same, I wouldn't see what the problem would be (but then , I'm not a photojournalist). Likewise, if he had taken this shot with a GND hand held to minimise sky highlights, people would have questioned the image (as many questioned a portrait image of Kah Kit Yoong's from Carnivale) . I get the impression that just because manipulation was done in the field in the case of using a GND, it would somehow be OK rather than the lighting adjusted in post.

[JM Tran]

Exactly. HDR does not mean you need to use mutiple different shots of different exposures. To me it means you extend the dynamic range of the image beyond what the single shot was capable of and when shooting RAW you can easily push out several different exposure level images of the exact same image and then blend them together either manually or by wizardry.

What Steve said above, HDR needs to come from usually 3 or more to blend diff exposures together, creating different exposed ouputs from 1 image/raw file is not the same.

[Rattus79]

I said it in the other thread before, but I work with idiots, and am not adverse to repeating myself :D

The artist did not do anything that could not be done with film.

[Kym]

Threads merged :)

[arthurking83]

I think if it's from a single image, then there's no issue in recovering as much of the information available in the raw file .. as long as no other pixel deformation/contrivance has been done to alter the actual substance of the image.

But from my understanding of(not experience with) photoshop, is that this could easily be done as a multi image HDR.
One shot for the people/laneway which requires more exposure, and one shot for the background/sky which requires much less exposure.
Irrespective of whether the people are moving in relation to the sky, it's not important to mix those two elements in a HDR/blended image.
The manner in which photoshop can blend the sky/background(if I understand it correctly) should present no issue to the manipulator.
The dynamic range within the mass of people and the innards of the laneway, all seem to be within the ability of any decent camera .. just that the exposure requirement may have been low compared to the sky.

The sky looks to be heavily recovered anyhow, and the shade of blue it depicts looks unnatural and contrived.
So it looks exactly as tho it was just a simple heavy recovery job from a single image.


While the image depicts a very sombre and important social story, I can't see how it got voted as world press photograph of the year .. it looks too cartoony to begin with.
While it has a great look about it, it looks nothing like a new photograph, and more of a social documentary/artistic/gallery type image.

The shadowing on the faces of the people looks ridiculous to begin with, and is in opposition to the shadowing on the buildings.
The processing on guy at the far left just looks plain silly, with the light source coming at him from the LHS, yet the sun is obviously on the RHS of the frame.
The grey buliding wall won't reflect enough light to cast that kind of strong shadowing on his face, and of any external lighting was used(which apparently was not anyhow), it'd have to be placed right at the wall where there is some kind of doorbell or something like that.

Not an image of news as per the expected type that we usually see .. it's more of an art gallery type impressionist rendering. Definitely not a worthy World PRESS image candidate, let alone a winner IMO.

[Mat]

Threads merged :)

Careful Kim it might be disqualified as a thread... :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

HDR is a meathod to increase the dynamic range to more than that can be captured in the one shot. A reprocess of the same RAW file is not an HDR as there has not been any more recored information form the original capture. so to have an HDR you need to have 2 or more images capture at different exposures. Just pushing a single RAW image is more Tone Mapping.

[arthurking83]

HDR using a single exposure is usually called psuedo HDR, because(as already said) there is no more digital information in a single image psuedo HDR as there is in a single image.

You could easily forego the convoluted process of creating the various exposure compensated images from the single exposure .. and then merging again, and simply process in the normal manner (dodging/burning)! It's the same information in the file that's being used.

Most modern digital cameras have the ability to recover at least 3 stop of 'lost' information in the SOOC raw file. That's usually 1 stop in the highlights, and 2 stops in the shadows.

Most commonly made multi exposure HDR images are created with the aim to capture more than this extra 3stops of dynamic range that the camera can't reveal.

- - - Updated - - -

HDR using a single exposure is usually called psuedo HDR, because(as already said) there is no more digital information in a single image psuedo HDR as there is in a single image.

You could easily forego the convoluted process of creating the various exposure compensated images from the single exposure .. and then merging again, and simply process in the normal manner (dodging/burning)! It's the same information in the file that's being used.

Most modern digital cameras have the ability to recover at least 3 stop of 'lost' information in the SOOC raw file. That's usually 1 stop in the highlights, and 2 stops in the shadows.

Most commonly made multi exposure HDR images are created with the aim to capture more than this extra 3stops of dynamic range that the camera can't reveal.

[Steve Axford]

Definitely not a worthy World PRESS image candidate, let alone a winner IMO.

I think we disagree with that one, Arthur. The impact is all in the subject. I think we can get a bit hung up here on having a perfectly exposed, composed, etc image with no thought to the subject (or degree of difficulty).

[I @ M]

It all seems to have stirred some pretty extreme reactions about what is allowed and what isn't.

This page shows things in a slightly different light ( pardon the pun ) with what is claimed to be a before and after mouse over comparison of the shot.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/manual-update/news/wpp_photos_big.html

[Ms Monny]

Ill put my two bobs worth in..... why not!!

It could be a HDR from a single photo, copied 3 or more times, each altered with their exposure and then blended together...... or it could be a simple dodge and burn on a single image......

Either way, it is a fantastic image and I don't see what the fuss is all about. He is legit in what he did and didn't stray from the rules. Even those who use film dodge and burn to get a final image. Nothing out of the ordinary and very basic indeed.

- - - Updated - - -


It all seems to have stirred some pretty extreme reactions about what is allowed and what isn't.

This page shows things in a slightly different light ( pardon the pun ) with what is claimed to be a before and after mouse over comparison of the shot.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/manual-update/news/wpp_photos_big.html

It didn't work! :( What ever.....still a great image with a lot of impact!

[Mark L]

It all seems to have stirred some pretty extreme reactions about what is allowed and what isn't.

This page shows things in a slightly different light ( pardon the pun ) with what is claimed to be a before and after mouse over comparison of the shot.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/manual-update/news/wpp_photos_big.html

The interesting quote from Andrews link; "Hover your mouse pointer over the image below to switch from the newly-discovered newspaper version to that which won the World Press Photo contest."
So the photo in Jim and Dylan's previous links aren't the true reproduction of the winning photo? :)

[FallingHorse]

I could live with the HDR processing from a single image, the dodgin and burning but don't agree with painting in a different hairline for the subject holding the child on the left

[Steve Axford]

I think it is an amazing photo. A once in a lifetime shot. I suspect that much of the criticism is from people who know they will never get a shot like it. Are we really going to say that you can't lighten areas of a photo, particularly when the intent is to bring out the detail of faces? Are we going to apply rules that we don't apply to any other photos to these extraordinary ones? That just seems to be jealousy

[Tommo1965]

a highly emotional image...looking at the childrens faces is quite heart breaking..the anguish and knowing that the people in the bodies are no longer there..also the emotion of the mourners really brings the image to a unbearable conclusion......for me thats what the image says.

yes the Photographer has Dodged and burned..pushed and pulled..big deal !!..its not a fake..not a composite...these post judge bloggers are fools

one other thing...imagine you are the Tog in this environment..looks to be taken with a wide angle in their face lens ..he would have been walking backwards at a frantic pace firing off image after image...what a difficult workspace to endure

[ricktas]

I tend to see it as exposure blending, where two or more version of the same RAW file are blended and the final is created, where masking etc is applied to allow different parts of the different layers shine through. Whereas for me, HDR is where the entire photo, as a whole, is processed to create the higher dynamic range. I don't believe either processing has changed the story being conveyed with the photo. It has not had people added, removed to change what was happening on the day. I do not see white balance and tonal changes as 'cheating' in photo journalism.

As to whether it is worthy of the title bestowed on it, it certainly is a thought provoking, heart wrenching newsworthy photo and as such it's reach is extensive. It tells the story. A story that is relevant and part of the 'news' that reflects the scene as it happened. Your regular newspaper reader would most likely not care. But if the bodies of the children were edited in from a different scene/country etc, then it would deservedly need to be removed as the winner. As it is, it is one photo, one RAW file, that captured an event that was taking place.

[agb]

Talk on the ABC radio this morning. Hope this really is the link .
http://blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/2013/05/altering-photographs-heather-faulkner-russell-shakespeare-glenn-hunt-.html?site=brisbane&program=612_morning

[Dylan & Marianne]

Some people have been so blinded by the fact that this image has been processed that they've even gone so far to state that it has ruined the emotion of the image
I thought to myself, it would be such a shame to be such a post process skeptic that the mere thought that this image wasn't SOOC would ruin what would otherwise be a moving and emotional image.....I think there are times when you're better off to just 'look' and appreciate rather than 'looooook' to criticise or defame .
Have you guys seen the more recent AIPP QLD debate about a disqualified image?

[Tommo1965]

Talk on the ABC radio this morning. Hope this really is the link .
http://blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/2013/05/altering-photographs-heather-faulkner-russell-shakespeare-glenn-hunt-.html?site=brisbane&program=612_morning

link worked fine..thanks for posting it was a interesting conversation and seemed to me a common sense discussion

- - - Updated - - -


Some people have been so blinded by the fact that this image has been processed that they've even gone so far to state that it has ruined the emotion of the image
I thought to myself, it would be such a shame to be such a post process skeptic that the mere thought that this image wasn't SOOC would ruin what would otherwise be a moving and emotional image.....I think there are times when you're better off to just 'look' and appreciate rather than 'looooook' to criticise or defame .
Have you guys seen the more recent AIPP QLD debate about a disqualified image?

no..could you elaborate ?

[Dylan & Marianne]

Tommo, a candidate was disqualified because of 3 apparent breaches to the wedding section - this was publicised on facebook of all places.
One of the criticisms was that the wedding shot was of 2 actors but it turns out that it was their actual wedding!
AIPP QLD had to suddenly retract the slander included in that post and it turned into a huge explosion on FB. (the only rule which was breached in the end was the 24 month period for the photograph to have been taken within prior to comp entry for which the photographer accepted was his mistake)

[Steve Axford]

It's an interesting question (what is ok and what isn't) and one that is difficult to apply hard and fast rules to. For many forms of photography, including press photography, the subject is 90% of the final product. In the case of the award winning photo, no amount of photographic genius is going to make a normal street scene better. If it did somehow look "better" it could only be done by "cheating". I remember a photograph that was disqualified a couple of years back (a photo of a Haiti slum, from memory) where the photographer changed the lighting to such an extent that the image no longer looked at all like the original. He made it seem much darker and more threatening. What was done was possibly no more than was done with this winning photo, but it was judged to be illegal. Why? Because he had changed the whole mood of the image intentionally. With the award winning photo the intent seemed to be to show the faces and not to change the mood. In the case of the disqualified photo the photographer had turned an ordinary Haiti slum into something much more - like something out of Gotham City.

Where you have rules like this, there will always be the black letter people who refuse to see any distinction and try to apply rules across the board. The wedding photo that you mention, Dylan, would presumably have been illegal had the actors not been getting married? The rules intention seems to be that it can't be a total setup. But where is the cutoff? The black letter people would just ban all actors on the grounds that it was too difficult to police if they didn't.