Topic: World Press Photo award controversy

[hookstrapped]

Interesting.

http://www.loeildelaphotographie.com/2015/03/05/news/27451/world-press-photo-2015-controversy-an-open-letter-of-jim-colton

Kind of a mess.  It seems the rule that no "staged photos of scenes that otherwise would not occur" was violated, yet the prize sponsors finally revoked the award because one photo depicted a scene in a city other than what the photographer indicated -- kind of a smaller technical reason than the larger issue that they ignored.  I'm not opposed to posed or staged scenes being included in a documentary series -- as long as they arise from real circumstances of the actual people being photographed.  Some of the photos in my DR series https://www.lensculture.com/peter-schafer?modal=true&modal_type=project&modal_project_id=84656 are posed in that way, yet they still reflect a found reality rather than a constructed fiction.  Other series I've done are purely made up stories with each scene constructed using models/actors, not inspired by any real event or circumstance.

I can understand photojournalists defending a notion of journalistic integrity, though I'm a bit skeptical of the premise that the act of observing and photographing an event or scene can be done without altering it.  That's part of the mystery and beauty of photography, that it alters reality even in the most straightforward shots.  And we all know our presence with a camera alters people's behavior.  It's a blurry area without as clear a line of demarcation as Colton and others would have it, but I think the original prize winner blew past that blurry area. At the same time, I think there's a place for the ex-prize winning series in telling stories (though I don't like the particular series myself for purely subjective reasons).

[SLVR]

A definition of Photojournalism - Photojournalism is a particular form of journalism (the collecting, editing, and presenting of news material for publication or broadcast) that employs images in order to tell a news story.

With this definition it makes the "rules" so broad. With this definition staged photos seem totally acceptable. They could be telling a news story about a political issue, event, etc. Also the means of editing leave interpretation to the editor.

There has to be something said about timing. Right place, right time. Or perfect timing to see and compose a shot. To me this is what photojournalism really is. Giving viewers a glimpse into something that really happened, something authentic and genuine. Im curious to know how much editing our past war coverage had done to the images besides some dodging and burning.

I may be getting cheesy here but while you may be skeptical that "the decisive moment" doesn't exist without extensive manipulation I disagree. But I think when one is competing against people who do manipulate it's like bringing a knife to a gunfight.

I don't pay much attention to the World Press awards. I haven't seen much but from what I've seen I have a hard time getting inspired. Every year is always a big hooplah about how the winner's photo is over edited. I'm not interested in looking at digital images or how people are editing their images. So I don't really care.

[Ezzie]

It is a basic law of physics, you can't observe something without having an influence on what it is you are observing. How much before it is no longer considered documentary is the big question.

[hookstrapped]

This is an interesting piece about "participatory documentary filmmaking" that makes related points. 

http://www.newyorker.com/culture/richard-brody/all-documentaries-are-participatory-documentaries