World Press Photo Contest
Written by duckrabbitIt’s a great picture … let there be no doubt, but it’s also symbolic of the fact that traditional photojournalism is losing its revered place to new media.
The image from the Iranian elections that everyone will remember is a still taken from video shot by an amateur on the streets of Tehran. It’s the image of the young woman, Neda, dieing after being shot on the streets of Tehran.
Nothing from the last year can really compete.
The winner though does remind me another great photo.
Sao Paulo, Brazil in 1960. Photo: Rene Burri
Author — duckrabbit
duckrabbit is a production company formed by radio producer/journalist Benjamin Chesterton and photographer David White. We specialize in digital storytelling.
Discussion (9 Comments)
I was curious what your thoughts are on the editing of this photo. To me it looks like there is quite a bit of burning on the sides, or do you think all that darkness is natural?
/Long time follower, first time commenter.
Bruce,
that’s a superb question … David is the expert. It’ll be interesting to see what he thinks.
Just out of interest does it make you feel differently about the photographs if its recieved that treatment?
For me photojournalism is about the truth, not the photographer’s perception of the truth. If there is heavy editing, such as burning down the edges to the point of it going black, this is a huge negative for me. What is the photographer trying to hide and cover up and why? This is the photographer trying to show what he/she perceived as the truth.
On this photo in particular, I spend more time looking at the edges and how weird/unnatural it looks than the lady doing the yelling. I wish that the big contests such as World Press and PoYI would require the submission of the RAW file so it truly is a contest about the best photograph, no the best photo editing.
To get to your question- Yes, it does make me feel differently about the photo if in fact it has been heavily edited.
The sports action winner in PoYI last year is a great example- http://www.poyi.org/66/03/01.php Too much burning i my opinion.
Bruce thanks for this.
I agree with you. It’s obvious when you look at the photo that won the POYI. The picture is moving from journalism into theatre. That said in all the other journalistic arts (radio, TV, print) there is an awful lot of theatre involved.
Hmmm…Sure, it looks burned round the edges. It is burned round the edges. It may also have been taken wide open on a fast lens, so vignetting is going to occur. Looking at the pic seems to show that there is very little of ‘interest’ on the left or right, so the winner has burned down to pull your eye back to the woman. I pulled it about in curves, there’s nowt of interest there. Personally I think it’s overdone, but I don’t have a problem with it in a photojournalistic context…no content has been changed, which has to be the golden rule…The burning is rather crude.
“What is the photographer trying to hide and cover up and why? This is the photographer trying to show what he/she perceived as the truth.”..he may be hiding nothing, and almost undoubtedly is, unless you count building edges important…he has done it, as many thousands before him, to take your eye into the centre of the image, to the subject. That is why it is so commonly used, not to hide anything. If you wanted to hide something, you’d probably crop it out.
Btw, good luck in finding the truth… Everything is a decision, an interpretation. Everything.
That Rene Burri shot is one of my all time favourites too. Magic.
I fail to see the issue here, as David says, the photographer is adding emphasis to guide the viewer’s attention. There’s no lies in this photo. I’m pretty sure the Rene Burri photo had quite a bit of burning too considering the heavy backlight. I’ve learned photography in the days of film and this burning and dodging were standard tools of finishing an image and I don’t see why these techniques should be dropped in the digital era.
For the the issue is that this is not the way (I am guessing) it looked when he took the photo. He is creating a fine piece of fine art, but photojournalists should not create shadows where there was light and the other way. If the areas on the outside are not needed to be seen, why not crop it out?
I too learned photography in the days of film, and learned how to manipulate photos in the wet darkroom, doesn’t mean it is okay to do it now just because it can be done in the wet darkroom.
I understand what you’re saying Bruce, but have you seen the photos of James Nachtwey and many other photojournalists? I don’t think there’s anyone that has never dodged or burned to place accents in the image. Just look at the documentary War Photographer and how Nachtwey and his assistant are working ontheprints for an exhibition. To me, this doesn’t take away the journalistic value of these photos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7u_y-__62w
I have seen the movie many times. There is a big difference between dodging and burning to slightly enhance (accent) something and burning something to where it goes completely dark beyond recognition, as the photo above has done. Big difference.