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.
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
New Art Photo wrote: 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
If that was one of the terms then we'll shortly be hearing about the image being disqualified...like so many others.
I had a hard time viewing the scene because I was so focused on the image itself and how hyper-real it looks. I have a hard time believing that image is straight out of anybody's camera. Maybe it is, but it looks borderline HDR processing to me.
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."
Michael Pandolfo wrote: If that was one of the terms then we'll shortly be hearing about the image being disqualified...like so many others.
I work for a newspaper. News images are a visual depiction of events as they occurred. It always surprises me when people think we are allowed to "Photoshop" things. Just the other day another subject asked if I'd PS something or other off her.
These are the only ways I'm allowed to manipulate images for the paper:
- exposure =/-
- noise reduction
Granted I could do a lot of manipulation with just those things but the general rule of thumb is what I saw is what gets printed.
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.
Chichester, England, United Kingdom
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.