When I first looked at the image the word that came out of my mouth was "Jesus!"

What a picture. Just wonderful. I do have to ask though, do you see a little Photoshop or NIK Color used to enhance the image?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/1 … de=2112244

Yes, it definitely looks processed to me.

There are VERY few images today that haven't been "shopped"...
Even before digital,an image like that would have been burned,dodged and cropped in the darkroom to fit the journalists vision.

It IS a powerful photo...enhanced or not!

[INADVERTENT DOUBLE-POST (MM's fault)]

When I was studying photojournalism simple dodging and burning was not allowed. It is a powerful image but the over enhancements make me question what else was done. I suggest looking at www.ppagla.org (Press Photographers of Greater Los Angeles) They got some powerful images without the enhancements.

Any photograph that conveys happiness and joy without political undertones will always be a winner to me.

We have enough of grief and suffering in this fallen world to be bombarded with more.

.

As a former photojournalist, I'm a little creeped out that the image looks so Processed. My understanding was that was not allowed.  Yes, it's powerful, but it looks like scene from a hollywood movie. It's no Don McCullen.http://designabsolute.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/mccullin.jpg

Absolutely HDR.  But well done.  I usually hate HDR.  Very powerful image.

Whether it meets the rules of the journalism category I couldn't say.  Personally, I don't have a problem with adjusting light and dark values, dodging and burning, etc. and good HRD is just an extension of that.  On the other hand, changing the text of a sign, swapping heads or putting an object in someone's hand would be a material misrepresentation and a serious violation, IMHO.  We don't need to create evidence, but as someone said about writing, "I am trying to create poetry from the evidence."

Eh, processed or not.....I like it. It has the right "feel" for me anyways.

If the camera recorded everything it captures, absolutely according to what the human eye saw, EVERYTHING would "look processed". The fact is, the camera "processes" every image it captures, according to it's specific technology. If one can recapture some of the shadow, and highlight details, according to what they saw in the viewfinder, they are "unprocessing" the image, in my opinion, and it is more "real" than what the camera captured.
  Looking at this image, I see a halo in the sky, along the edge of the building on the left - almost certain proof that something was done AFTER the camera captured the image. Do I care ? No, because it is unlikely that the image looked as good as this one does the way the camera captured it. (I would have gotten rid of the halo, though). If one wants all of the details in the dark areas to disappear, then, by all means, print it the way it came out of the camera.
  If an image "looks processed" it may be because it looks better than the camera was able to capture. If it is hyper saturated, looks like a cartoon, and jumps off the page at you, chances are, it was processed unskillfully.
  In any case, what can be done to an image, in one or more computer programs, to bring out what the camera couldn't, is a plus (if done skillfully) - NOT something that makes people whisper to one another about "the evils of processing".
  In photojournalism, it can be impossible to control the light on the spur of the moment, so SOMETHING has to be done, after the capture, to "recreate" the moment as it appeared to the human eye.
  Again, what is "real" will always be a topic of debate, but I would argue that dependence on today's camera technology to capture that, is, at the very least, also controversial.
-Don

If you look carefully at the image you can see that the light seems to be coming from two directions. The man on the left's ear is glowing red from back lighting yet the predominant shadows look like a soft source going left to right. I can't work out whether there was a white building out of shot reflecting the light back onto the scene or whether there was a light placed camera left before the funeral procession arrived. I find the fact that the shadows don't make sense disconcerting in an image like this. I guess HDR could do a similar thing but even so seems a bit much to me.