The difference between winning and losing? Six-tenths of a second...

[ishi_p]

<p>Barry i'm not trying to get at anyone, But I will talk hard, and people talk hard to me.<br /> BTW I like you b&w stuff, The only criticism I would make (not that I think i'm something spacial) Is the lack of your own position. Maybe If you could make them show how you felt about something they would be even better. Or at least got them to show something more particular. <br /> As it is they are like many arguments on this thread, maybe respecting or paying homage to past works/ideas, but how much of yourself is in them. Do you just stand up for it because others have? <br /> I went to are art university and saw lots of this, and I still do it lots of it myself. It's so easy to regard what others have regarded, There so much prase already out there for alike works. So then it's easy to the justify why it's good. In theory.<br /> But to shape your work based on your own experiences and reality. To engage with what you do on a more personal level that goes some way beyond copying is something else. Again I am not saying I am any better. But that's the thought I had so I have posted it.</p>

<p>And I would note that who I feel is the best are more often than not people who have disregarded convention.</p>

<p>This image (to me) is the real dregs from the decisive moment convention.</p>

[ishi_p]

<p>"T<em>his is a follow the cash photo, nothing more." k</em><br /><em>Don't you have any compassion for the dead horse you continue to beat? Again, so you say, and so what.</em><br>

<em></em><br /> <em>"K"</em> and an insult.<br>

<br /> Cant you drag up anything better. Who has the dead horse?</p>

[john_jennings2]

<p>Obviously, failed to use a Nikon.</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>This discussion has gone way beyond what I expected it to...</p>

<p>Here's the deal - Pulitzer prize - awarded by a jury of 5 people - they review entries - basically anyone / paper / organization that submits an application and a fee - they don't automatically scan papers for photos or stories.</p>

<p>They (jury) look at all entries - determine finalists and then pick the winner from the group of finalists.</p>

<p>Subjective at best. You get 5 people looking at an image and making a call on it. Period. End of story. </p>

<p>And for the record - I think there's enough dead horses in this thread to kill one or two more...</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[Marc453]

<p>Here's irony for you. This discussion about the Pulitzer prizes is taking place only days from the announcement of the next awards. (The 2010 Pulitzer Prizewinners and Nominated Finalists in all categories will be announced on April 12, 2010 at 3 p.m. Eastern daylight time. Winners' names, photos and bios will be posted on this Website at 3 p.m., along with all winning photographs and cartoons. The 2010 Prizes are awarded for work published, produced or premiered in 2009.) Anybody want to guess what the winning breaking news photo will be about? The Hatian earthquake does not qualify as it happened in 2010.<br>

For my two cents, I have been a photojournalist for more than 40 years. I got my first "F" for being at the Kent state shooting and not getting off our high school bus to take photos, even though we were told not to move. (We watched the National Guardsmen march by our bus.)<br>

I have covered the end of the Vietnam war and many other minor breaking news stories. I have been the editor of moer than seven military newspapers (which are just like other newspapers in many respects.) And the U.S. Department of Defense has its "own" Pulitzer prize program, the Maj. General Keith L. Ware awards. These awards paralllel the Pulizers and are highly coveted by military journalist. (I was on the staff of two Army newspapers that each won an award.)<br>

In my opinon, its the moment that makes an award winning photo. An award winning photographs shows the ethos of human drama. Whether its a minute, an hour, a second or six-tenths of a second. I've entered many a photo in the Keith L. Ware awards and even got ah Honorable mention one year. It does not make me less of a photographer or human for not winning. Someone mentioned the Pulizer winnng photos of Eddie Adams and of the young girl who was the victim of a napalm attack during the Vietnam War. I would point out two other photos, neither taken in the United States which points to the drama of the human condition which we as photojournalist strive to illuistrate.<br>

The first is the "Pulitzer Prize" winning photo taken in 1994 during the Sudan famine. The picture depicts a famine stricken child crawling towards a United Nations food camp, located a kilometer away. In the photo a vulture is waiting for the child to die so it can eat it. This picture shocked the whole world. No one knows what happened to the child, not even the photographer Kevin Carter who left the place as soon as the photograph was taken. (Three months later he commited suicide due to depression.) The second is photographer Oded Balilty photo of a lone Jewish woman defying Israeli security forces in the West Bank.<br>

Both these photos show the human condition and both photos move us in different ways. Both tell stories. Both "haunt" us as humans seeing others in despicapble conditions that we want to do something about. Both make us want to find out more about the story. And that's the ultimate purpose of photojournalism. To tell a story with a photograph. We may see or understand the story from a different point of view. But our job is to tell the story in a photograph.<br>

Both photographers are very talented and are experts at their craft. That being said, the Pulitzer is awarded for "distinguished example of breaking news photography in black and white or color, which may consist of a photograph or photographs, a sequence or an album, in print or online or both." (Note: the use of online photography is new! See the Pulitzer website for more information.) The key is breaking news photography or in my own words, "story telling photography."<br>

And to end on that note, here is my latest non-pulitzer prize winning photograph, entitled "The agony of number two."</p>

[Marc453]

<div></div>

[daverhaas]

<p>Marcus -</p>

<p>You forgot one distinction as did I - there are now two categories for photos - one for breaking or spot news and one for feature / soft news.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>Here's irony for you. This discussion about the Pulitzer prizes is taking place only days from the announcement of the next awards.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Its not irony. Its coincidence.</p>

[ishi_p]

<p>It make me wonder what it is to exel. It is deap in our cultue that achievement is based on beating others. I wonder if it does in fact create a better scociety, more like it just makes it very good for the few.<br /> Where as in truth there are so many ways of assessing sucsess. Is it fair for anyone to say they can disinguish.<br /> (Three months later he commited suicide due to depression.) It makes me think, The winners can become losers also, but we are still all encouraged to win, regardless of the risks to the competitors. Not that I mind sport.<br /> Anyhow thanks for posting that Marcus, I like how your post (and photo) is thought provoking yet is not (or seems to me)...................polarized?...Or maybe that your points are not about (winning) the argument. <br /> I am way to much.</p>

[steve_swinehart]

<p>Ishmael needs to take a crash course in <a href="http://museum.icp.org/museum/collections/special/weegee/">Weegee</a>...</p>

[ishi_p]

<p>Steve, thanks for that. Though i'm yet undicided how if feel about them, only looked at the critic so far.</p>

<p>It certainly emphasizes negativity. It's probably not good for me to investigate any further, i'm negitive enough. For me it can be paralysing.<br /> I may post one of my more personal works. i'll see.</p>

 

[mike_hitchen]

 

<blockquote>

<p>It make me wonder what it is to exel. It is deap in our cultue that achievement is based on beating others. I wonder if it does in fact create a better scociety, more like it just makes it very good for the few.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The discussion about benefits (or otherwise!) of competition have been a political (and by default social) hot potato for forty years. I think the problem is not competition but how people approach the outcome: the old asage of humble in victory and gracious in defeat still applies. The illogic conclusion about avoiding competition is the education system that arose in the 70s where the more extreme proponents decided that school sports were bad because those who were not good at soccer felt excluded. I am firmly in the camp that competition is good as long as people use it to learn and develop themselves in the way they want.</p>

<p>But I don't hink the Jackson-Beers issue is about that. It was about one person who missed a chance of worldwide exposure by a fraction of a second and his reaction to that - he felt worthless even though everyone still respected him. Other people would have been driven to get the shot next time and there is no accouting for how people react at key moments.</p>

[ronald_olsen]

<p>Having used an old-time press camera with flashbulbs, I can appreciate the skill required to capture this photo. No "P" mode back then. It is just sad to read that the second-place finisher took it so hard. </p>

<p>My father was in the color guard representing the army at Kennedy's inauguration, and wept at his assassination. I am too young to remember the news events of those times, so I am thankful that news photography existed and the moments were forever captured on film. As a result, people who were there can remember and educate the next generation through discussions like this one. Sometimes, a picture is worth more than a thousand words.</p>

[ishi_p]

<p><em> there is no accouting for how people react at key moments. </em>I would disagree there . I has a hell of a lot to do with there upbringing and what scociety promotes. <br /> Anyone who has had a member of there family who pushes them to the point where loosing is simply to much for them will know how this is. <br /> That kind of pressure that exists for many is just that, pressure. And then if (or when) things do go bad for them they simply can't take it. Even if it was luck.</p>

[larry h.]

<p>I just read the first few responses, but I need to get back to work.</p>

<p>I don't have much to say, but I know that I've seen Mr. Beers's picture a few times before. In fact, I think it is the one I remember from my school history textbooks. My guess is that the publishers bought his picture because it was less expensive.</p>

<p>I agree with the people who say they should have been awarded joint Pulitzers, but Mr. Jackson's picture is the more dynamic and moving.</p>