DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Individual Photograph Discussion >> Seriously?? DQd for this??
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 32, (reverse)
AuthorThread
05/04/2016 06:12:13 PM · #1
don't get excited, it's not DPC. :)

the rule: "The content of the image must not be altered. Only retouching which conforms to the currently accepted standards in the industry is allowed."

That seems rather vague.

World press photo DQd
05/04/2016 06:24:08 PM · #2
What a frickin joke.
05/04/2016 07:04:51 PM · #3
Wow! He should have just burned it... and then it would have been okay??

05/04/2016 07:05:32 PM · #4
I'm so happy, Wendy, that you're surfing... and entertaining us while you recuperate!
05/04/2016 07:35:39 PM · #5
that photo was a winner? the standards must have been low :\
05/04/2016 07:45:30 PM · #6
Originally posted by Mike:

that photo was a winner? the standards must have been low :\


My thoughts at the time, exactly. On top of that such a weenie dq
05/04/2016 08:43:34 PM · #7
I get why it was DQ'd, as silly as it seems...the rules for photojournalism are very different from what goes on here at DPC. But honestly it should have been DQd for the massive amount of cropping and processing, not just the foot.
05/04/2016 09:14:00 PM · #8
Originally posted by RKT:

...the rules for photojournalism are very different from what goes on here at DPC. But honestly it should have been DQd for the massive amount of cropping and processing, not just the foot.

You said it ...
05/04/2016 09:14:24 PM · #9
If the rules were broken than a DQ is warranted, otherwise the ones who followed the rules would have a complaint especially the person in second place. There have been photographs on this very site DQ'd for minor violations so what is the difference they have their own set of rules just as DPC does.
05/04/2016 10:51:49 PM · #10
Originally posted by RKT:

But honestly it should have been DQd for the massive amount of cropping and processing, not just the foot.

I'm with you on the processing, not on the cropping. It's in the nature of photojournalism that the photographer crops to tell a story. Whether he crops by changing focal length or in posy seems to me irrelevant.
05/04/2016 10:54:17 PM · #11
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by RKT:

...the rules for photojournalism are very different from what goes on here at DPC. But honestly it should have been DQd for the massive amount of cropping and processing, not just the foot.

You said it ...

agreed.
crop could have been done in camera, same effect, processing, well, that's different (cloning included).
asking them to pose for a minute until foot left would solve that, then it's just B&W, gritty look. still sketchy, but at least it's more true to what the camera saw at the point of exposure.

as far as content/"wow factor", it's not what i'd call a fantastic shot (especially the raw one), but it is something that would grab attention in an article with a headline. "Mother bandages sons hands before street fight in Kiev" would draw in a lot of readers....
05/04/2016 10:57:00 PM · #12
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by RKT:

But honestly it should have been DQd for the massive amount of cropping and processing, not just the foot.

I'm with you on the processing, not on the cropping. It's in the nature of photojournalism that the photographer crops to tell a story. Whether he crops by changing focal length or in posy seems to me irrelevant.

In this case I find the crop so extreme as to remove any context, which -- especially when combined with the extreme processing -- seems to undermine its claim to be photojournalistic rather than "artistic" ... the source picture could be in a newspaper though ...
05/04/2016 11:19:30 PM · #13
what a stupid picture.
05/04/2016 11:53:29 PM · #14
Originally posted by vawendy:


the rule: "The content of the image must not be altered. Only retouching which conforms to the currently accepted standards in the industry is allowed."


Originally posted by tnun:

what a stupid picture.


Here's MY opinion

In this case, the content of the image was cropped so drastically that it should have been DQd for that alone.
The shoe looked like another digit, so that too.
Stupid picture is an understatement.
05/05/2016 01:34:17 AM · #15
Yup.
05/05/2016 07:22:51 AM · #16
Trying to make good photo from a crap one by post processing is a bad habit for any photographer but at least you're only cheating yourself into believing you are good, by trying to win a competition by the same means you are cheating everyone else too.
05/05/2016 10:34:28 AM · #17
Originally posted by jagar:

Trying to make good photo from a crap one by post processing is a bad habit for any photographer but at least you're only cheating yourself into believing you are good, by trying to win a competition by the same means you are cheating everyone else too.


One of the best things I have read in the last years.
05/05/2016 12:16:25 PM · #18
Originally posted by jagar:

Trying to make good photo from a crap one by post processing is a bad habit for any photographer but at least you're only cheating yourself into believing you are good, by trying to win a competition by the same means you are cheating everyone else too.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't understand this. Give an artist a blank paper and a piece of charcoal and he can create something. He can create whatever he wants. Nobody's gonna quibble about that. Give the same artist a blank sheet of paper, a pair of scissors, some glue, and a couple Vogue magazines and he can create whatever he wants. Nobody's gonna quibble about that, or I hope they're not anyway. So why is it any different when it comes to "photography"? What is it that makes some people expostulate that if the image doesn't closely match "what came out of the camera" then it's not "valid"? I don't get it. Why can't I take my originals to be my blank paper and then go to work on them any way that suits me? Isn't that MORE artistic, in one sense, than just accepting what the camera offers up as some sort of sacred gospel?
05/05/2016 12:45:08 PM · #19
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by jagar:

Trying to make good photo from a crap one by post processing is a bad habit for any photographer but at least you're only cheating yourself into believing you are good, by trying to win a competition by the same means you are cheating everyone else too.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't understand this. Give an artist a blank paper and a piece of charcoal and he can create something. He can create whatever he wants. Nobody's gonna quibble about that. Give the same artist a blank sheet of paper, a pair of scissors, some glue, and a couple Vogue magazines and he can create whatever he wants. Nobody's gonna quibble about that, or I hope they're not anyway. So why is it any different when it comes to "photography"? What is it that makes some people expostulate that if the image doesn't closely match "what came out of the camera" then it's not "valid"? I don't get it. Why can't I take my originals to be my blank paper and then go to work on them any way that suits me? Isn't that MORE artistic, in one sense, than just accepting what the camera offers up as some sort of sacred gospel?


Because photojournalism isn't about being artistic, it's about capturing the events through the camera lens and sharing those details with the world.
Artistic photography has it's place, journalistic photography has it's place.
This is akin to saying "why can't a news anchor read a fictional book about the holocaust and report it as fact?". Blank piece of paper + your creativity =/= what really happened.
That said, NOTHING is without bias. Everything that anybody ever has or will experience is influenced by every other action that has taken place in their life. The only unbiased experience in the world is being born. It's all downhill from there as far as honest interpretation of events go.
There is a line which is referred to as "journalistic integrity", or how little deviation from "plain fact" that a person will report back. This image taken journalistic integrity and throws it out the window based on the exposure that was used for the edits.
What we see close-cropped could be a back-alley fight in the middle of a bombed out city, dead bodies all around, etc. What we actually see is a "dirtied up" image of a few people in a lush green field. That is a big distinction in terms of reporting on conditions and hardship.
People have come to accept the background imagery associated with "grungy" news photographs to be equivalent to squalor, poverty, destruction - not people boxing in a wheat field (or whatever this happens to be), and by processing it in this way, the crop tied in with the grunge, he has lied to the viewers and allowed them to create a false story.

*edit* struck out "lush green" - it's still a field, and likely is lush green when fully in season, but it's obviously not the middle of summer there to have it be lush and green.....

Message edited by author 2016-05-05 12:49:57.
05/05/2016 12:52:43 PM · #20
Yeah, but I don't think Jagar is *just* talking about photojournalism; he seems to be addressing photography in general. If not, my apologies to him :-)
05/05/2016 12:58:11 PM · #21
Likely so.
There is a definite distinction between photographic manipulation and holding a camera and framing a shot to get it "right, in camera".
With something like this site it is "acceptable" to crop in if you go a little wide, even if you are in journalism and you crop a small % of the negative-space within the image but keep the majority of the content, especially all relevant content (including relevant people) in the scene.
If you want a close crop image, zoom in or walk in, get your shot, it can be one of a series in the area you are in. I'm sure we all do this when we're out taking pictures.
Work from your best image, and if your best image isn't worth winning, then that's because the other people involved were better prepared (training included) and happened to also have a modicum of luck on their side as well.
05/05/2016 01:14:21 PM · #22
I like where this discussion is going.

Part of what we revere as "great photography" now is people being at the right place at the right time. The perception and understanding in the digital age is that photographers have infinitely more moments available to capture since "film" is pretty much infinite.
We generally have high expectation that a great captured moment will not look posed, setup, or easy to get. Just follow National Geographic on Instagram ... there is never an dull or meaningless photo. Perhaps that's obvious.
05/05/2016 01:16:17 PM · #23
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Yeah, but I don't think Jagar is *just* talking about photojournalism; he seems to be addressing photography in general. If not, my apologies to him :-)


Yes, my fault, I should have been more specific, I meant photojournalism, maybe also street photography.

I still think though that the magic of photography is in capturing what we see when we see it, and the skill in photography is being ready for that moment, that's just me though and in no way do I think lesser of those that do different, it's just less magical for me.

05/05/2016 10:29:52 PM · #24
Originally posted by jagar:

I still think though that the magic of photography is in capturing what we see when we see it, and the skill in photography is being ready for that moment, that's just me though


Well said, but it's not just you.
05/06/2016 12:02:13 AM · #25
Yes. The real tool is the CameraEyeHand.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/29/2017 02:10:19 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2017 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 03/29/2017 02:10:19 PM EDT.