Keep those raw files: WPP disqualifies 22% of 2015 entries

Discussion in 'Casual Photo Conversations' started by lex_jenkins, Jun 16, 2015.

  1. Unauthorized editing led to 22% of submissions being disqualified from the World Press Photo competition this year, way up from 8% in 2014.
    "We were shocked by the 22 percent,” (WPP managing director Lars) Boering admits. “Industry veterans I spoke to, the jury chair, everyone, just shocked. We thought it would be lower than the year before."​
    And, again, this experience demonstrates why it's essential for photojournalists and documentary photographers to keep the original camera raw files (not proprietary raw-to-Adobe-DNG conversions) or, at the very least, the original SOOC JPEGs. the case of RAW files—it’s extremely difficult to disguise editing. “You cannot cover your tracks in a RAW file,” Boering says. Hany Farid, a professor of computer science at Dartmouth College and a leading expert on imaging forensics, concurs. “Because of the proprietary nature of RAW formats, it would be very difficult to open, edit and repackage a RAW image,” Farid tells us.
    - See more at:
  2. I wonder if, at some point, the members of the WPP competition committee will fail to be so shocked and will even consider updating their competition rules. I'm not quite sure, to be honest, how I feel. On the one hand, it's extremely important to maintain journalistic integrity. On the other hand, I imagine a sizable degree of integrity could be maintained with some modifications to the strictness of the rules about what is considered editing that would impact the validity or integrity of a journalistic photo. The world of photography has changed. And our understanding of what truths and accuracies photos can convey and how they can do that and with what impositions by the photographer is kind of having to change as well, or at least I think it's worth considering whether it's possible. Integrity is the key, and there are many ways to arrive there.
  3. I'm proud that photojournalism continues to rise above the corporate and political shills, plagiarists, no-talent hacks, and others on the slippery slope of modern journalism. The higher the standards, the better.
    adam_mclarsson likes this.
  4. I support the WPP decision. I mean, if the output from a Professional modern camera is not good enough to present a scene without messing about with it, these photographers are surely doing something wrong.
    adam_mclarsson likes this.
  5. It's always interesting to pit such certainty against honest questioning. For me, questioning wins out in most cases.
  6. The current standards for photojournalism are much stricter than when I was in journalism. Back in the 1980s one of the standard college texts for photojournalism and editing permitted modifications that nowadays would violate today's standards. And it's arguable whether there would be any ethical problems.
    For example, back then it was considered permissible to eliminate an inconsequential distraction, such as a bright bare lamp over the main subject's head, or a utility pole growing out of someone's back. Or to remove a distracting logo from a cap or shirt.
    During the past few years some really good photos have been similarly altered -- inconsequential to the primary subject or entire context -- resulting in the photographers' submissions being disqualified.
    By current standards, the iconic work of Magnum master printer Pablo Inirio might result in disqualification or allegations of ethical violations. Some current standards could be interpreted as prohibiting selective dodging/burning and contrast control to better isolate a subject against a busy background, to compensate for exposure error, etc.
    Personally I believe some of these standards may have gone too far. But these stricter rules are the inevitable result of photographers themselves going too far in pursuit of a high impact, award winning photograph, making alterations that were ethical problems by almost any standards: cloning to fill gaps in a crowd; selectively altering light, shadow and contrast in ways that did not and could not have existed at the scene. And it's increasingly difficult to capture the viewer's attention with traditional still photography in the news. There's a temptation to push the boundaries in pursuit of a memorable image.
    It's particularly problematic when state of the art digital cameras are capable of dynamic range beyond anything seen before, and in-camera JPEG processing capable of wringing out detail that wasn't possible a decade ago, or even a few years ago. There's pressure on less well-heeled photographers to compensate in the digital darkroom for shortcomings in their "obsolete" cameras.
  7. As Fred, I find it difficult to really pin down what to think about what they're doing. In part I can understand the reasoning about the rules, and how one could feel this serves a goal of maintaining a certain level of integrity.
    At the same time, the edge cases are really muddy grey areas; the assumption that seems central that un unmodified raw file is more true or integer than an edited final jpeg/print/.... is rather shaky ground. Journalism is much about points of view, not about a single truth. What is integrity to start with? So even that unedited, never-touched, file isn't necessarily an integer thing. Choice of where to put focus, focal length and so on can all frame a scene such that it takes on a different meaning than others may have perceived at the very same moment. It's editing and directing a scene as much as Photoshop does. So, where does the manipulation become too much? I think the 'limit' is rather arbitrary, at the same time it is extremely hard to think of better alternatives too.
    Having the raw alongside the final result to compare, and to judge if the post-processing is coherent, in line and authentic to what the journalist originally recorded isn't a bad thing. But how to fix those rules, apart from accepting the human nature of judges, and take it as it comes? No idea.
    I think Lex sums it very well; striking the right balance between the post-processing of the image and the pursuit of eye-catching headline photos is a tricky one, and the access to the technology to make that headliner happen has become a lot easier. While the problem isn't new at all, its increase shouldn't come as much of a surprise. A newer generation photographers will only be more used to having photoshop around for some fixes and brushing up; I don't see this problem going away any time soon, and certainly not grow less. But I guess the WPP organisation has as much trouble defining decent and usable rules as much as we do.
  8. I'm sad there is a just words discussion about image ethics that aren't really supported by a lot of participants.
    Folks who want to see ethics lived should provide understandable example images of yes / no for each of their deamands, followed by borderline case demos, the latter preferably with instructions how to "get away" with something by doing whatever.
    An IMHO even bigger question: If they define "press photo" by their ethics, what are the terms for a publication or images that doesn't follow these? - Over here we have a long tradition of doing consumer protection by urging the producer of similar products from less pure ingredients to come up with another name for these.
  9. Wow, your photo could be given the boot on ethical grounds if it was oversharpened?! That might be a violation of good taste, but come on! Disqualified because of excessive manipulation? Because the scene wasn't really that sharp? What's next? Will color correction be disallowed? All tungsten shots must appear orange-yellow, and all fluorescent shots green? I'm glad my own work doesn't have to satisfy anyone else's ethical standards.
  10. If the adjustment brings the appearance of the shot closer to how the viewer in person would have seen it, then it should be fine. I don't see why this would be controversial. The idea is to preserve the documentary (communicating facts) nature of photojournalism, as opposed to art and fiction where anything goes.
    In my opinion a huge problem with professional journalism is that a lot of it is sensationalistic instead of factual, and so in a way it is not surprising if most media have little credibility left. The outcome is that the general public starts to prefer free content instead of paying for journalism if they don't see the difference in the quality and factuality of the content. A kind of information chaos results since fact checked content and fabrications get the same amount of visibility online. Professional journalism can only survive if it distinguishes itself by its superior quality and trustworthiness. Having high standards for photographic integrity (as well as the text of course) is a part of the requirements for restoring credibility, if it is to happen. It is not at all a given that society supports professional journalism; this type of trust has to be earned especially when now there is an alternative. Some people today think that mobile phone snaps are more direct and likely to be more honest representations of what happened than professionally prepared and edited (including post-processing) images where the photographer and editors have the skill and may in some cases have the motivation to alter what they saw deliberately.
  11. Question regarding the title: Is there an appeal procedure in which the raw files are used? Can the OP please explain why it is recommended to keep the raw files? Among the 22% were any appealed using raw files as evidence?
  12. I agree with Ilkka, and I think the WPP has no problem with that. I am in favor of the WPP rules. If you have a standard, then you should stick to it, and their rules do not seem onerous - perhaps the shots will not end up having the smack-you-in-the-face impact they could have had with extensive manipulation, but so what? They are there to tell a story and represent something real. If the photographer wants to show a slightly different processed version later they can do so in their own time.
  13. Is a photo valid in the WPP competition if, for example, the photographer waited for the sun to come out which resulted in a more contrasty shot than the moment before when clouds were filtering the light and things appeared softer? Is a photo valid in the WPP competition if a strong shadow, naturally captured, imposes a more dramatic texture than had the photographer snapped the moment before the shadow appeared? Photographers impose things on documentary and photojournalistic shots all the time by the choices they make, whether they intend to or not. Putting more restrictions on processing than other potentially biasing photographic methodologies, to me, represents a bias in itself about the entire photographic process, which includes framing/composition, lighting, perspective, and many other things. If I kneel down and shoot up at someone giving them a "heroic" view, have I broken a rule? Such a perspective can be extremely influential? If I shoot Richard Nixon smiling and playing with his dog, unmanipulated in the darkroom, digital or analog, natural as the day is 24 hours long, have I given the viewer the "truth" about Nixon? I've seen all kinds of biased news reporting that had nothing to do with the processing of the photos and everything to do with one-sided perspectives, stuff left out of the frame, etc.
    The only thing a photo ever represents to me is a reality of the perspective of the photographer at the time. No photo has ever shown me THE reality. The viewer has as much responsibility as the photographer in understanding what a single photo is showing her or him.
  14. The problem, Fred, is that we've seen examples of agenda-minded photographers doing things like cloning in extra billows of smoke to make conflict in a contested area look more extensive than it actually was. If a journalism organization (the publisher, or a guild-like organization like the WPP) don't insist on standards that put such manipulation completely outside of acceptable, their entire area of work is then seen as untrustworthy.

    Yes, a photographer who gathers a dozen young otherwise idle men and has them light up their Molotov cocktails and some burning tires, and uses a long lens to, through careful choice of perspective, make them appear to completely fill a theatrically flaming street in an area where there's not actually anything going on ... absolutely deceptive. But that doesn't mean that the contest judging organization should subject themselves to the very real criticism that would come with using looser standards and then having to decide with clone/healing-brush use is capriciously, subjectively OK and which is not. I completely understand their desire to put hard limits on post-production fiddling. Compositing in the moon is not the same as waiting around for the moon to rise.
  15. I wonder, would automatic Digital Lens Optimization during RAW conversion disqualify an image? Canon's Digital Photo Professional processing software includes a DLO module that corrects for geometric distortion, chromatic aberration, vignetting, etc. automatically (if enabled) for each focal length and aperture. Some Canon bodies apply DLO to in-camera JPGs. Hence, it might be within the rules to use a DLO corrected in-camera JPG, but not for an image taken as RAW and converted in Canon's own DPP, with DLO enabled. If they're going to do pixel-level comparisons to the RAW file, I think that DLO adjustments will show up as alterations.
  16. Matt, you're using extreme examples, which I can understand, to make a point. But, in a sense, it's also proving a point. Which is that you understand the difference between extreme examples and much less extreme examples, which is why you chose the extreme ones. Less extreme examples of post processing may not have the same effect as cloning in something that wasn't there. My point in bringing up waiting for a cloud to go by was by no means to justify cloning in of material as much as it was to help us consider what are reasonable photographer impositions and what are unreasonable photographer impositions.
    I've never been one to like zero tolerance policies. They tend to be mindless and tend to give authorities cover in using a broad brush when nuance and a careful look at each situation would produce a better outcome.
  17. The photo on this book cover came to my mind; I'm sure I've linked to it before in earlier discussions around this theme. Sure, there is a difference between waiting for the moon to rise and cloning it in. But in some countries, press meetings are tightly organised propaganda trips, and not playing along is risking your life. Getting the 'real' shots is made impossible. Those photos are as tightly designed as something that was drawn in Photoshop in the first place, it just happens to happen on-site.
    Now, those directed photos are unlikely to show up for WPP, as they're bog standard, but still, it's fair to say the concern is very related, and that manipulations in Photoshop etc. sometimes aren't half as bad as the manipulations that happen before the photographer presses the shutter. It's not a simple "either/or" situation, and for better or worse, the WPP rules do seem to make it such.
    Still, as said earlier, I think the WPP rules make sense as all alternatives for something better are pretty impossible and would always end in endless debate.
  18. This is exactly the kind of thinking that has resulted in criminal laws being written so that almost everyone is guilty of something these days: the idea that if we can regulate it or make a law about it because someone, somewhere may be offended, we should. I guess some people think that is a good idea, but I do not.
  19. We seem to have shifted our understanding of honesty to new-age relativism. Where down is up and false is truth. The standards they have for the contest and how they disqualify seem reasonable especially when discussing photojournalism. Who likes to be fooled?
    "The WPP contest rules state that the “content of an image must not be altered. Only retouching that conforms to currently accepted standards in the industry is allowed.” According to Boering, “currently accepted standards” encompass basic processing for color, tone, etc. Disqualifying manipulations are edits that materially change the image’s contents—such as excessive toning, and especially adding or removing objects from the frame. It was the latter action that implicated most of the rejected photos. “People have been focusing on the excessive toning [criteria] but that was only a small percentage of what we threw out,” Boering says."
  20. I am much less disturbed by the possibility of "new age relativism" than I am by the absurd Orwellian Doublespeak of statements that essentially say "Current standards are defined by what current standards are". And if removing things from photos is considered bad and current standards good, then we must assume that if I stand in a different spot from all the other photographers, thus taking a different picture then the mob decided was the right one and selectively edited the content that they decided was appropriate, I have violated the rules. From an objective standpoint, standing in a different place and cropping anything AT ALL from the total scene are all manipulations of a situation much more damaging the objectivity of the situation than removing a lightpost is.
    The real problem here is the they are trying to define their photo winners as objective and unedited views of reality, literally true, which is a totally absurd view of what photography does or can do. In building expectations that can't possibly be met, they are damaging rather than helping the trade.
    And when all of this is viewed in the context of what journalism now really does: pimp for power through lying for the government and business (Judith Miller/New York Times, all of Fox, Murdoch's papers, etc., etc.), I am really glad I am no longer a news photographer. Current standards? They have a lot of balls talking about "standards".
  21. Fred,
    Your examples are allowed in the WPP rules and that is the way it should be. I think we pretty well know why the rules are there: your examples are not problematic at all. We are not talking about art we are talking journalism. There are very misleading photos taken all the time: the WPP rules are an attempt to remove one way of producing them and this seems entirely sensible to me.
    Likewise, I do not think that WPP rules would prevent DLO use as this would fit into currently accepted standards. But if they did: it would hardly ruin a shot. I doubt think they any shots because it was used.
  22. At each point along the way, there are expectations for how light should behave—expectations that are shaped by the geometry of the scene and the light source (for example: are shadows where they should be?) all the way down to the behavior of the camera’s sensor and compression algorithms. All across this pipeline, Farid says, there are models that predict, with varying degrees of specificity, what an image from a given camera and sensor should look like at a very granular level. Deviations raise red flags.​
    I don't see how they can distinguish the way light should behave in any given scene especially on shadows vs the amount of allowable "toning" & "color" editing that wouldn't raise red flags.
    They're getting into splitting hair territory on this IMO especially considering editing software like Adobe's already 3 processing versions (PV2003, PV2010 & PV2012) drastically affecting shadow detail and clarity as explained in this blog on the newer laplacian tonal rendering technology in PV2012...
    I know I wouldn't want that job of deciding if the shadows look right for that scene. You can't even clone out stuff? Geez!
  23. "Question regarding the title: Is there an appeal procedure in which the raw files are used?"​
    Beats me, I don't represent the WPP.
    "Can the OP please explain why it is recommended to keep the raw files?"​
    In previous instances similar to this story, raw files were used for provenance. Some contest wording has required original manufacturer raw files. That wording may have changed, but I recall one contest a few years ago that would have disqualified raw-to-DNG conversions, as the DNG was not the OEM raw file. This wouldn't apply to cameras that do happen to use DNG as their native raw format.

    While I don't object to DNG conversions and can see some advantages, particularly in embedding metadata, I would definitely keep my OEM raw files even if I routinely converted to DNG. For example, I'm still using Lightroom 4.4, which can't read Fuji RAFs. I do convert to DNG for editing (although Fuji X-system JPEGs are so good they seldom need editing). But I don't discard the RAFs. I'm keeping those for provenance - I do some medical documentary photography and might be asked to provide the raw files at some point. And I'm hoping LR6 will handle RAFs better than the Adobe DNG converter, Photo Ninja, Silkypix, etc.
    "Among the 22% were any appealed using raw files as evidence?"​
    I don't know, I've only read the above story so far. It doesn't go into detail about which particular entry photos were compared against raw files.
  24. you can't even clone out stuff? Geez!​
    Of course you can't. It seems obvious to me. Perhaps I should join WPPs judges...Sometimes it will be splitting hairs - but you don't have to enter the competition if you don't like the rules.
  25. Your examples are allowed in the WPP rules and that is the way it should be.​
    Of course my examples are allowed in the WPP rules. My point was that many comparable things (though I don't think the same exact things) can be done in post processing and it makes little sense to allow the former without allowing the latter, just because the former impositions are done before or when shooting and the latter impositions are done in post.
    We are not talking about art we are talking journalism.​
    Yes, of course, I'm aware of that. It should be obvious when reading my posts here that I'm talking about journalism/documentary and not art, since I even use those terms in the posts.
    you don't have to enter the competition if you don't like the rules.​
    I did not take this thread to be about whether we want to enter the competition or not. Whether we enter has nothing to do with having opinions on the rulings of the judges and the more far-reaching stakes for journalistic integrity.
  26. The public, both on the left and the right, already thinks the press, on the other side, of course, is in the pockets of politicians, organizations and others. It's in the press's interest to have photo standards that tries to enforce honesty.
    I believe that some news organizations only accept RAW or unedited jpeg images so they can control the editing process. This prevents the photographer from making any changes as well as allowing him to not have to make or defend his edits. They focus on shooting only. Sort of like the old days when slides were the photos primarily used.
  27. you can't even clone out stuff? Geez!
    Of course you can't. It seems obvious to me. Perhaps I should join WPPs judges...Sometimes it will be splitting hairs - but you don't have to enter the competition if you don't like the rules.​
    I wasn't referring to cloning out large objects that are in the original scene, just sensor dust, tiny flying insects and birds that show up as tiny specks and other artifacts that don't change the original story being communicated so as not to debase the journalistic integrity of the image.
    That's the kind of hair splitting that's obvious to me. I mean there's room for common sense. It's WPP for Christ sake, not obsessive compulsive neat freaks.
  28. Removing sensor dust is allowed. Here the WPP jury discuss the topic
    "The only exception is the removal of tiny details caused by sensor anomalies like dust."
  29. other artifacts that don't change the original story being communicated so as not to debase the journalistic integrity of the image.​

    My point would be why bother with such trivia as birds and insect specks? This is completely unimportant to a news image. Once again, the WPP rules are sensible.
  30. I want to clarify my position which is not that I'm in favor of allowing major or even so-called artistic post processing changes to journalistic photos. But one of the photographers in the article Ilkka linked to mentions that one year his photo was disqualified because the judges felt the shadows had been manipulated to be too dark. The next year, his shadows were as dark but because he supplied the RAW file which showed them to be this dark, his photo was allowed into the competition. As this photographer says in the article, photographers have always chosen their exposures and this helps establish the photographer's view of things, which is always what we get in a picture, the photographer's view.
    Check out these two photos of Obama. Which one is "true"? THIS ONE I found in a tea party blog talking about how mean Obama is or THIS ONE in a more left-leaning blog talking about the lovable Obama? Neither may have been manipulated in post, and yet both can be manipulative, if we note particularly the facial expressions and gestures. And of course each shows a singular perspective, one much more iconic and one much more angry, that shows much less than the whole story, as any one photo usually will do.
    Manipulation of the public's view is nothing new and nothing limited to digital photography or Photoshop. Franklin Roosevelt, for a time, wasn't photographed in a way that the public would know he was in a wheelchair or disabled. Though a lot of that was seen to by the administration and secret service, the press played a role, though that role perhaps has been a bit mythologized over the years. Nevertheless there was for sure some degree of complicity on the part of the press. HERE'S ONE. Was it such a terrible thing . . . especially at the time? I think it's debatable (meaning I think there are good arguments on both sides), especially if we take hindsight out of the equation. The press used to avoid the sexual dalliances of public figures to a much greater extent than it does now. That was a manipulation. Was it a good thing or a bad thing? Also debatable, IMO.
    My main concern is that we emphasize Photoshop manipulation because it's an easy mark and then we wind up accepting other egregious manipulations because they didn't involve technology and so-called modern-day conveniences.
  31. WPP rules also disqualify staging and posing shots, and one of the winners was later disqualified since it was discovered that one of the shots was partly set up and another wasn't shot in the location which the story was about. It's not that the competition bans manipulations made in post-processing and accepts those made by staging; both are forbidden in the rules. However, it is easier for the organizers to monitor digital manipulation by comparing to the raw file as well as possibly with image analysis techniques than monitor the truthfulness of the message or detect staging. But they do what they can do.
    As for the dark shadows being allowed or not, there is an element of subjectivity in deciding what looks natural and realistic and what does not. Competition judging involves some decisions that may seem arbitrary - it is up to the organizers and judges to decide. It's not like it's a criminal trial with life-altering consequences.
  32. Ilkka, thanks. My previous post was meant as a response to the emphasis of the OP of this thread, which was about editing and to the general response of the thread, which was also about editing.
    I agree with the validity of questioning staging in photojournalism. But I think photographic perspective, which can be as influential as staging, while it may not be easily addressed in a competition, ought to be considered by any viewer looking at any photo which purports to show the truth or convey the "news." Only a multiplicity of photos and articles, from a variety of perspectives, can hope to convey the full story behind a news item. If I think one photo or one article will give me a semblance of truth, I am very likely to be far from it.
  33. News editors of respective media know or should know if they want to keep their jobs when photos are staged due to perspective positions of the photographer or other staging that effects the truth of the photo.
    Of course the problem is amplified when news editors deceptively use both photos and text to present points of view in their news section that reflect the media owner's personal beliefs. That's when it gets dangerous. When the public is deceived, the misrepresentations can get us into wars we have no business in or out of wars we should win. Social and economic policies can be influenced by falsehoods. It's always better to operate from the truth in public discourse.
  34. it


    "I wonder if, at some point, the members of the WPP competition committee will fail to be so shocked and will even consider updating their competition rules."

    To what? "Oh, it's OK to do a little bit of Photoshop." How much? Where do you draw the line? It's can't be allowed. They have to use the same rules that the international news agencies use. Extremely strict. Any violation is a sackable offence. I had this very conversation with a friend who is a photo bureau chief in the Middle East, around the time of the Adnan Hajj controversy. He just shut me down when I suggested something similar to the above statement.
    These agencies are trying as hard as possible to deliver some kind of objective truth under incredibly difficult circumstances. They would lose all credibility.
  35. These agencies are trying as hard as possible to deliver some kind of objective truth​
    As I see it, the problem rests here. Delivering some kind of objective truth in terms of news is impossible, since there's no such thing, except perhaps for God. What's advisable is for consumers of photos and news to realize this and not expect the impossible. IMO, it is incumbent upon news organizations and consumers of news to realize that there will be perspective and even natural bias in their approach to the news. Part of being honest and truthful is recognizing one's influences, biases, proclivities, culturally ingrained perspectives, etc. while also recognizing the limits of overcoming them. Part of being an adult is recognizing that humans are capable of fine tuning what's acceptable and what's not acceptable, without all or nothing policies.

    That's not to say there aren't more and less honest approaches to the news, but there is simply no one truth about any news event or personality. Every so-called truth will leave something out or come from a perspective that simply can't be a universal one. There is no absolutely objective photo, no absolutely objective drawing, no absolutely objective article.

    A good student of news will be taught not to seek out the organization that provides so-called objective truth but rather to learn how to see through bias and utilize multiple sources in order to gain as many different perspectives on a subject, person, or event as possible. All we have are these different perspectives. Objective truth, we don't.
  36. That's New Age relativism. Nothing's the truth. It's whatever you want it to be. Can you imagine playing soccer or baseball with no rules? How do you have a discussion or create policy when the very premise of the argument is false, a lie? This is Alice in Wonderland where everyone stands on shifting sands. Unfortunately it is where our society is going. No wonder no one trusts anything or anybody. When media presents falsehoods under the guise of truth, it's no wonder the public is confused, desperate and resigned to nonsense.
    So here we have an news organization that is trying to maintain standards of truth telling. Good for them!
  37. I just had a quick look on the WPP website. It says, "The content of an image must not be altered. Only retouching that conforms to currently accepted standards in the industry is allowed. The jury is the ultimate arbiter of these standards." What are these "currently accepted standards in the industry", or where are they defined? Are there more detailed rules on the site that I didn't spot?
    Is cropping allowed? I presume it's fine. I'm wondering because, coincidentally, I was reading this morning about Nick Ut's WPP-winning photograph from 1972 of the naked Vietnamese girl fleeing from a napalm attack. The original photo included some press photographers on the right-hand side, who were removed by cropping.
    Edit: I just found their report 'The Integrity of the Image: Current practices and accepted standards relating to the manipulation of still images in photojournalism and documentary photography':
    It says, "Adjustments (such as limited cropping, dodging and burning, toning, color adjustment, conversion to grayscale) to photographs are accepted. These are usually described in terms of "minor" changes being permitted while "excessive" changes are prohibited."
  38. I'm wondering because, coincidentally, I was reading this morning about Nick Ut's WPP-winning photograph from 1972 of the naked Vietnamese girl fleeing from a napalm attack. The original photo included some press photographers on the right-hand side, who were removed by cropping.​
    Whoa! That's one powerful crop.
    I wasn't aware that was done to that iconic image. I was under the impression that shot was taken in dangerous, hostile territory by one single brave photojournalist who managed to get through and not get shot.
    Now that there were other photographers standing around, I'm wondering if anyone of them decided to help the poor little girl or anyone else in that scene.
    OK, now I see why WPP has standards for altering images.
  39. Tim, I read a few articles this morning on the circumstances of the photo, and it seems that Nick Ut (and an ITN cameraman?) drove the children in the photo to a hospital in Saigon. There's an article on the girl on Wikipedia:
  40. I wonder if Time magazine or the police kept the original Raw file of OJ's police mug shot that appeared to be tonemapped to make him look sinister and dangerous as seen on the cover of Time magazine? Remember that image language "Oops, I didn't know people would see it THAT way!" Pho pas?

Share This Page