WPP image disqualified
Seems to me the crop and the B+W conversion do more to alter the content of the image than the foot clone. Still, I guess there is a "slippery slope" argument, and thems the rules. http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-10049-10543 -- der...@iinet.net.au http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: WPP image disqualified
I agree with you regarding the changes. To me this shows that the jury is more interested in the rules than the reason for the rules. DagT Den 7. mars 2010 kl. 22.18 skrev Derby Chang: > > Seems to me the crop and the B+W conversion do more to alter the content of > the image than the foot clone. Still, I guess there is a "slippery slope" > argument, and thems the rules. > > http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-10049-10543 > > > -- > > der...@iinet.net.au > http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: WPP image disqualified
From: Derby Chang Seems to me the crop and the B+W conversion do more to alter the content of the image than the foot clone. Still, I guess there is a "slippery slope" argument, and thems the rules. http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-10049-10543 If that foot is supposed to be the guy in the background, his legs must be 10 ft long. I don't know what it was, but it don't look like a foot to me. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: WPP image disqualified
On Mar 8, 2010, at 10:18 AM, Derby Chang wrote: > Seems to me the crop and the B+W conversion do more to alter the content of > the image than the foot clone. Still, I guess there is a "slippery slope" > argument, and thems the rules. > > http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-10049-10543 I'm impressed that he came out with such a striking image from what looks like a very mundane original. I'm also interested that he's as bad as I am at keeping the horizon straight. Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: WPP image disqualified
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 4:13 AM, David Mann wrote: > I'm also interested that he's as bad as I am at keeping the horizon straight. Those of us in the flat earth society, do not have that problem.:-) Dave > > Dave > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- Documenting Life in Rural Ontario. www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ York Region, Ontario, Canada -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: WPP image disqualified
> > It's a photojournalism contest. I think it's clear that his > alteration (small as it might have been) is beyond what would > be considered acceptable for a press photograph. > > As submitted to the contest, it's a wonderful photo. I have > no doubt that the photographer wasn't trying to be evasive or > deceitful. > > It could win many art photo contests if entered, but for > photojournalism cropping and the digital equivalent of > dodging and burning are (AFAIK) the only alterations allowed. > Even straightening and tilting are contrary to the genre! > > I think the right decision was made. > He could probably have burnt it in to the point where it no longer interfered with the composition, but remained within acceptable limits - ie, was definitely there and not removed, but relatively unobtrusive. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: WPP image disqualified
2010/3/8 David J Brooks : > > Those of us in the flat earth society, do not have that problem.:-) When you tilt a plane, all the water's going to run off on one side. -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: WPP image disqualified
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 4:47 PM, DagT wrote: > I agree with you regarding the changes. To me this shows that the jury is > more interested in the rules than the reason for the rules. It's a photojournalism contest. I think it's clear that his alteration (small as it might have been) is beyond what would be considered acceptable for a press photograph. As submitted to the contest, it's a wonderful photo. I have no doubt that the photographer wasn't trying to be evasive or deceitful. It could win many art photo contests if entered, but for photojournalism cropping and the digital equivalent of dodging and burning are (AFAIK) the only alterations allowed. Even straightening and tilting are contrary to the genre! I think the right decision was made. cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: WPP image disqualified
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Bob W wrote: > > He could probably have burnt it in to the point where it no longer > interfered with the composition, but remained within acceptable limits - ie, > was definitely there and not removed, but relatively unobtrusive. Agreed. Ashamed, really, because it's a wonderful image... cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: WPP image disqualified
On 3/7/2010 11:18 PM, Derby Chang wrote: Seems to me the crop and the B+W conversion do more to alter the content of the image than the foot clone. Still, I guess there is a "slippery slope" argument, and thems the rules. http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-10049-10543 To me it seems like a great example of a difference between spirit of the rules and letter of the rules... Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: WPP image disqualified
Boris Liberman wrote: On 3/7/2010 11:18 PM, Derby Chang wrote: Seems to me the crop and the B+W conversion do more to alter the content of the image than the foot clone. Still, I guess there is a "slippery slope" argument, and thems the rules. http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-10049-10543 To me it seems like a great example of a difference between spirit of the rules and letter of the rules... Boris It certainly is. Quite plainly put, the jury's decision was a monumentally irrational (aka: stupid) one... keith whaley -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: WPP image disqualified
- Original Message - From: "Keith Whaley" Subject: Re: WPP image disqualified To me it seems like a great example of a difference between spirit of the rules and letter of the rules... Boris It certainly is. Quite plainly put, the jury's decision was a monumentally irrational (aka: stupid) one... The problem with this sort of thing is where do they draw the line in the sand? Do they draw it at cloning out an errant foot because it "is not a subject of the image submitted to the contest"? What if they allow this, and next year, someone clones out something that, while not a subject of the image, is something that makes a huge difference to the impact of the image. As an aside, imagine for a moment how much weaker the picture he submitted would have been with that errant foot left in. The press takes it on the chin every time it is discovered that a photo published by a news agency has been manipulated by having things taken out or added, and now they are taking it on the chin because they are not allowing photographs that have had things manipulated or added. I have to question how they are supposed to come to terms with this. Would it be more fair to leave the image in place? What if it wins, but wouldn't have wone, had the manipulation not happened (this is more likely the scenario). What happens if the runner up discovers that his unmanipulated photo got beaten by one that was manipulated? Would we be pillorying the jusdging process for not disqualifying the winning photo at that point? Like it or not, press photography is not about fine art, where most anything goes. It is about presenting what was in front of the camera at any given moment. Allowing the huge amount of manipulation that the photographer did (monochrome and contrast enhancement) for impact is OK, it isn't altering what was there. Cloning details out is altering what was there, and this is something the press has to be very careful about, whether it is a photo contest or a picture of an Iranian missile launch (I'm certain we all remember the derision that one generated). William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: WPP image disqualified
From: Keith Whaley Boris Liberman wrote: > On 3/7/2010 11:18 PM, Derby Chang wrote: >> >> Seems to me the crop and the B+W conversion do more to alter the content >> of the image than the foot clone. Still, I guess there is a "slippery >> slope" argument, and thems the rules. >> >> http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-10049-10543 > To me it seems like a great example of a difference between spirit of > the rules and letter of the rules... > > Boris It certainly is. Quite plainly put, the jury's decision was a monumentally irrational (aka: stupid) one... Remember that this was a PHOTOJOURNALISM competition. Their decision reflects and shapes the standards of professionalism. The rule against alteration in the image goes to the heart of whether photojournalism is trustworthy in the digital age. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: WPP image disqualified
On 3/16/2010 4:41 PM, William Robb wrote: The problem with this sort of thing is where do they draw the line in the sand? Do they draw it at cloning out an errant foot because it "is not a subject of the image submitted to the contest"? What if they allow this, and next year, someone clones out something that, while not a subject of the image, is something that makes a huge difference to the impact of the image. As an aside, imagine for a moment how much weaker the picture he submitted would have been with that errant foot left in. To my eyes, the picture would have been all the same, because viewing it on the web, it would have been unlikely for me to notice the offending element. You're right in general, Bill. It is just that it is pretty obvious to me that once they start noticing image modifications of this magnitude, they inevitably will also look the other way at certain times. This, to me is significantly more offending... Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: WPP image disqualified
- Original Message - From: "Boris Liberman" Subject: Re: WPP image disqualified You're right in general, Bill. It is just that it is pretty obvious to me that once they start noticing image modifications of this magnitude, they inevitably will also look the other way at certain times. This, to me is significantly more offending... So you would find it less offensive if they started looking away now rather than perhaps or perhaps not look the other way in the future? That is an interesting viewpoint. Personally, I thought the rendering of the image to be rather overdone. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: WPP image disqualified
I am afraid you misunderstood me. Indeed, this image shouldn't have gotten as far and high as it got. But the way it happened smells of fish, especially given that his modifications were not grandiose... Boris On 3/17/2010 7:53 AM, William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: "Boris Liberman" Subject: Re: WPP image disqualified You're right in general, Bill. It is just that it is pretty obvious to me that once they start noticing image modifications of this magnitude, they inevitably will also look the other way at certain times. This, to me is significantly more offending... So you would find it less offensive if they started looking away now rather than perhaps or perhaps not look the other way in the future? That is an interesting viewpoint. Personally, I thought the rendering of the image to be rather overdone. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: WPP image disqualified
- Original Message - From: "Boris Liberman" Subject: Re: WPP image disqualified I am afraid you misunderstood me. I know, it was fun. :-) Indeed, this image shouldn't have gotten as far and high as it got. But the way it happened smells of fish, especially given that his modifications were not grandiose... People, being what they are, will always push the limits. If you allow the door to open a little bit, someone will come along and try to open it all the way. By stepping on this now, they are saying don't do it, you will be disqualified for it, and hoping to keep the door closed and the competition (and the photographers who enter it) honest. Also, while the show was not a big part of the original, even the hand being taped wasn't. In the final image, which is very heavily cropped, that sneaker toe would have been a very large picture element. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
