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

[AlanKlein]

<p>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. </p>

<p>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. </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>you can't even clone out stuff? Geez!</p>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Removing sensor dust is allowed. Here the WPP jury discuss the topic</p>

<p>http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/17/world-press-photo-manipulation-ethics-of-digital-photojournalism/</p>

<p>"The only exception is the removal of tiny details caused by sensor anomalies like dust."</p>

[Robin Smith]

<blockquote>

<p>other artifacts that don't change the original story being communicated so as not to debase the journalistic integrity of the image.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />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.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>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.</p>

<p>Check out these two photos of Obama. Which one is "true"? <a href="http://www.teapartytribune.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/no-bad-talk-bho.jpg">THIS ONE</a> I found in a tea party blog talking about how mean Obama is or <a href="http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2012/11/07/1226512/374836-obama.jpg">THIS ONE</a> 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.</p>

<p>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. <a href="http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/education/resources/images/fdr1945lg.jpg">HERE'S ONE</a>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>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. </p>

<p>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.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p><em>"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."</em><br>

<br>

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. <br>

These agencies are trying as hard as possible to deliver some kind of objective truth under incredibly difficult circumstances. They would lose all credibility.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>These agencies are trying as hard as possible to deliver some kind of objective truth</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.<br>

<br>

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.<br>

<br>

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.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>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.</p>

<p>So here we have an news organization that is trying to maintain standards of truth telling. Good for them!</p>

[Colin O]

<p>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?</p><p>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.</p><p>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':<br>

<a href="http://www.worldpressphoto.org/sites/default/files/docs/Integrity%20of%20the%20Image_2014%20Campbell%20report.pdf">

http://www.worldpressphoto.org/sites/default/files/docs/Integrity%20of%20the%20Image_2014%20Campbell%20report.pdf</a><br>

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."</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Whoa! That's one powerful crop.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>OK, now I see why WPP has standards for altering images.</p>

[Colin O]

<p>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:<br>

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc">

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc</a></p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>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 <em>"Oops, I didn't know people would see it THAT way!"</em> Pho pas?</p>