20 per cent of World Press potential winners rejected

[Walter Strong]

According to the NYTimes, approx. 20 per cent of potential winning shots were disqualified for excessive photoshopping. Apparently the panel doesn't release the disqualified images. Wouldn't it be more helpful to give examples of what's going on that falls outside of standards?

http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/12/a-subtle-moment-becomes-the-world-press-photo-of-the-year/

[Blair Gable]

We probably won't see the photos since that would vilify the entrants and World Press would probably be sued by said entrants for defamation of character. But a more specific form of communication about what falls outside the rules would be helpful. Seeing as 20% of potential winners were disqualified, imagine how many non-winners probably pushed things too far.

[David Buzzard]

And so many out of sports stories failed they could only award two places.  I was thinking of a behind the scenes article on this guy shooting the soccer world cup cover for Sports Illustrated.  The photo they selected for the cover was shot with soft boxes from all angles on a chroma background, and then completely worked in Photoshop.  It's not hard to see why there's some confusion on the matter.

http://www.popphoto.com/news/2015/01/behind-scenes-photographing-sports-illustrated-world-cup-issue

[Fred Lum]

my takeaway from the story:

“I couldn’t believe that some of the biggest names in photography did this — people who are in the pantheon.”

I'm going to hope that they outsourced their post to a third party but wouldn't excuse them for not laying ground rules and boundaries. IF this is the case in some entries. I'm shaking my head. But I would like to see examples of before and after, are their rules 'TOO' stringent ?

[Walter Strong]

Today's piece in the nytimes on the matter:

http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/17/world-press-photo-manipulation-ethics-of-digital-photojournalism/?smid=tw-share&_r=0

The discussion seems hopelessly academic without examples. Even the photo of the year (which accompanies the article) looks like it prob should have been disqualified according to some of the comments made in the nytimes piece.

[Fred Lum]

sorry, meant to post this earlier with his consent. An email from Donald Weber, one of the judges this year.


"Hey Fred;

Just an update on the NPAC post, actually, %20 means that total images, not amount of photogs. For example, if a photographer entered a 10 picture story and 3 images were found to be disqualified, they would be kicked out, but that means 3 entries, not one… So, it’s the total number of images not photographers.

Secondly, it was more about manipulating the image to points where bits and pieces were removed or added, not photoshop toning itself, which frankly is a problem but that’s my personal judgement, as long as the integrity of the image stayed the same. Also, if you burn down areas to toal black depending on how much and how much it altered the image, that could be considered disqualified…

Hope you like the winners!"