|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/09/2012 12:43:51 AM · #1 |
A couple of interesting articles re photojournalism competitions:
Image manipulation.
Cliche.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2012 12:54:33 AM · #2 |
They ARE interesting. Thanks for hooking us up.
R.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2012 08:01:54 AM · #3 |
| Yes, very interesting stuff. Cheers for the links Paul. |
|
|
|
03/09/2012 09:10:28 AM · #4 |
Interesting. It supports my theory that if I learn to do flowers and wine glasses, my averages will go up.
Nah.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2012 10:36:51 AM · #5 |
Message edited by author 2012-07-24 21:48:07. |
|
|
|
03/09/2012 10:51:50 AM · #6 |
| Thanks for the reference, I enjoyed the read. |
|
|
|
03/10/2012 04:36:00 PM · #7 |
I asked my favorite photojournalist this question, and got a long-winded, but interesting answer, with examples. Here it is if you care to read:
Tom,
Interesting you should ask about this, as it's been a topic of conversation in our photo department lately. As we peruse year-end national and international contest winners, we've noticed, too, various interpretations of toning techniques.
Regarding post-processing, most newspapers and professional organizations, like the National Press Photographers Association, have a clear understanding as to what's not acceptable in photojournalism. Namely, the digital alteration of any content within an image is prohibited. Adding, removing or rearranging individual elements of a photograph is never allowed unless the image is expressly described as a photo illustration. When there have been breaches of this tenet, the photographers involved have lost their careers as a result. Here's a recent example:
//www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2012/02/patrick.html
And here's a portion of our ethics code addressing the issue:
//www.nppa.org/professional_development/self-training_resources/ethics/principle.cfm
Honest representations of moments is what gives our pictures value, and if that's compromised, we've lost credibility with our audiences.
So, that's the baseline. But what is acceptable is a little less clear.
Photography is a subjective craft. We're making aesthetic and editorial choices when we choose what to capture and how we record an image. Lens choice, angle of view, aperture, shutter and flash settings are all components of a photographer's decision-making process. My basic guideline when I'm working editorially is to make sure I let my subjects tell their story as much as possible, and not interject my own expectations, perceptions or perspectives into the process. It's up to photojournalists to represent events and subjects as honestly as we can and let viewers interpret the information in their own way.
Now, in regards to toning and post-processing, there's been conversations as to what constitutes a compromise of image integrity. HDR, for most of us, is contradictory to our ethical standards as it involves a merging of more than one image. Others argue that because of our camera's limitations, it can sometimes more closely approximate what the eye sees. Highlights are not blown out while shadows are visible. Both views have validity. The vast majority of what I see being produced as HDR, though, normally doesn't usually mimic at all "what the eye sees," and often offers a pretty surreal version of reality. That's not our goal. Here's an interesting conversation about an HDR photograph used in the Washington Post and the convoluted explanation the paper gave for publishing it:
//www.poynter.org/latest-news/top-stories/159412/washington-post-raises-eyebrows-with-composite-photo-on-front-page/
The combining of two different images into one is the sticking point for our profession. If cameras would be able to instantly account for highlights, shadows and the full tonal range in a single exposure, without combining multiple captures (no matter how close), photojournalists would be more inclined to accept it. So we're left to mimicking the effect through the use of digital means such as dodging, burning and level controls, all acceptable means of post-processing. Of course, these techniques can be overused as well. Most papers I know of archive the original raw files and there has been at least one proposal to require these with entries in photojournalism competitions:
//blog.photoshelter.com/2012/03/should-photo-contests-require-original-image-files/
And here's a interesting link to a World Press photo that was disqualified for excessive post-production:
//www.dvafoto.com/2010/03/stepan-rudik-disqualified-from-world-press-photo/
While the example was severely cropped and desaturated, one could argue if reality was altered in this case. It's a matter of perception. After all, is using fill-flash, or converting a picture to black and white changing the content of the image? Many top award-winners are entered as monochromes, clearly not the way they were captured. Back in the analog darkroom days, many photojournalists would routinely print their black-and-whites with extensive dodging and burning techniques, sometimes known as the "Hand of God" approach. This helped isolate the subject and minimize distractions. The thing is, I remember these pictures, now, many years later - and isn't that the point of our craft?
As publications compete for subscribers and viewers, its possible that the boundaries of what's acceptable, and even marketable, might change over time. With so many creative image-making techniques and applications available to everyday photographers, expectations of what makes an effective and memorable photograph are probably bound to evolve.
For me, ethics conversations must first and foremost involve a consideration about the content of the image. The addition, subtraction or alteration of elements within captured instances should never be acceptable in photojournalism. Tonality choices might be a bit more subjective. Some approaches can enhance, some can detract and even deceive. Incidentally, I was amused recently when I became conflicted about whether to choose the "faithful" or "natural" setting for my in-camera filter... In the end, it's incumbent upon the photographer to honor and pursue the intent of the profession - the rendering of honest and truthful representations of the moment.
Interesting topic and thanks for asking!
John
|
|
|
|
03/10/2012 05:26:50 PM · #8 |
| thanks for posting that Tom, very interesting. It would be cool to read an analysis that draws parallels between the photojournalistic points of view and the written journalistic point of view on being objective. |
|
|
|
03/10/2012 05:35:28 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by deeby:
thanks for posting that Tom, very interesting. It would be cool to read an analysis that draws parallels between the photojournalistic points of view and the written journalistic point of view on being objective. |
What a great question! I'll ask him... |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 07/28/2025 12:58:06 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/28/2025 12:58:06 PM EDT.
|
