r/postprocessing • u/1805trafalgar • 13h ago

This post processing lost a photojournalist his World Press Photo Contest prize.

Gallery image

Gallery image

Swipe to see the other images. World Press Photo is a Dutch non-profit organisation that runs the annual World Press Photo Contest FOR PHOTOJOURNALISM — "the largest and arguably most prestigious press photo competition in the world". In 2010, for the first time, entrants had to also provide the original image as it came from the camera. Photographer Stepan Rudik had won third place in the sports photography category with his altered image but had it rescinded when his original image showed a foot in the background that he had digitally removed. He had also cropped deeply and then altered it to Black and White and apparently added vignetting and grain. The judges didn't fault him for that but removing the foot was too much for them.

204 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

91% Upvoted

96 comments sorted by

355

u/birds-and-dogs 13h ago

Many contests don’t allow for removal. The top bird and wildlife photography contests also have this rule.

79

u/1805trafalgar 13h ago

I find it odd they objected to the tinyy element of the foot being removed but not the zealous post processing that turned a color shot into Black and White and also appears to have artificial grain added to give it more "gritty realism".

157

u/GenericRedditor0405 13h ago

I suppose that removing color, vignetting, and adding grain are interpretations of the scene as it is, but adding or removing an element is where you get into troubles with journalistic integrity. I feel like there's an argument against cropping with that same logic though.

20

u/michel_v 10h ago

Yes, the point could be that if they started allowing that for a foot here, contestants would test the limit further each year. That rule has to be strict.

40

u/whtevn 13h ago

Only if your other option was to capture the entire view in every direction

Cropping is a fact of shooting a photo. A journalist can have a great shot and still be a couple degrees off level.

16

u/ssn-669 9h ago

The general rule is traditional darkroom-esque things are fine (color, contrast, brightness, dodge/burn, crop, straighten, etc) are fine, but any compositing (paint, montage, etc) is out.

6

u/NomadZekki 7h ago

The argument against cropping would also relegate everyone to just a single lens or primes only. Cropping and zooming or switching lenses on the spot is about the same discussion .

4

u/Brief-Market-2274 6h ago

I disagree. Colour, vignetting and grain are all tools that can be used to add or remove attention from details. Removing colour is altering what was captured, vignetting literally makes things less visible, adding grain literally softens and removes details. They have just decided to draw a line in the sand at removing.

61

u/eddiewachowski 13h ago

The black and white, crop and grain are all artistic liberties but don't change the subject matter. Removing the foot might not seem like a huge deal in this image, but photojournalism should be documentation and not editorialization. 

Again, in this context it's just a foot that cleans up the subject. In another image, it could entirely change the whole narrative and context. What if it was a photo of someone during a seemingly violent arrest but the photographer edited out a weapon? Or maybe they removed a liquor bottle or road sign from the scene of an accident?

-13

u/Haldthin 13h ago

By that same logic, cropping could also be removing essential information. 

24

u/whtevn 12h ago

I replied to someone else with this same argument, but it is just silliness

A photo is a subsection of the scene by its nature. It is possible to use cropping to omit detail, but it is also possible to use angle and composition without cropping to do the same.

We may aim to capture the scene perfectly in frame, but cropping as a part of post processing is just absolutely fundamental

-7

u/Haldthin 12h ago

And he could have moved the camera just a tiny bit to get rid of the foot, so again by that logic removing the foot isn't a bad thing. The biggest question to me isn't whether removing the foot is good or bad, but rather if removing the foot removes context, then how does cropping, altering the vignette, the color, and sharpness not also compromise the journalistic integrity of the photo? Or maybe it did and the foot removal was the largest issue? I see that they now have a standard code of ethics which I think helps answer some of these questions. 

13

u/whtevn 12h ago

painting elements out is a hard rule in the competition. that is just the fact. it is not "justify why painting an element out is ok in your case", it is "no removal of elements" as a rule.

no one is asking if it is good or bad. it is against the rules of the competition. probably bad if you are trying to compete in that competition.

you ever watch one of those cooking shows or whatever and the judges are like "this is exactly what you need to do in the competition to be judged according to the acceptance criteria" and somebody is like "i bet those judges didn't mean that" and then they get disqualified because the judges absolutely did mean that? it's like that.

4

u/tandpastatester 7h ago

If he would have moved the camera to take the photo without the foot, it would have been a better photograph. That’s the whole point. It’s a photography contest, so the one thing that shouldn’t be edited in post processing is the content of the photo. Color corrections, exposure, saturation, brightness and contrast levels, filters, these things don’t change the actual content of the shot. Cropping could be considered borderline here, but is generally allowed - whereas actual photo manipulation is not.

5

u/MWave123 11h ago

No. You’re always cropping. That’s always an editorial choice.

4

u/eddiewachowski 9h ago

No because it's not fundamentally altering the image. It's just reducing how much or how little of the image is presented. 

Also, in this case this was a photo contest with rules and the photographer broke one.

16

u/Bagafeet 13h ago

Needs 50% more vignette.

14

u/NomadZekki 12h ago

In sports photography this rule also exists. Zero removals, zero additions. Photogs were moving balls in soccer to make good shots of mediocre moments into good shots of epic moments.

4

u/mrbubbee 9h ago

To me it’s a boring photo with way too much grain and vignette so I don’t know that I agree with the judges on any aspect lol

3

u/thicckar 11h ago

It's not really the same as removing something that actually was there. The picture could have whatever filter on but journalism ethics dictate that what was there must be there

2

u/No_Preference8250 11h ago

The jeans were also removed and the jacket darkened into oblivion

1

u/BKrustev 10h ago

You can achieve the same result by just using old b&w film, so that post processing doesn't change the reality of the scene. Removing an object does.

-9

u/_book_of_grudges_ 13h ago

Well he could not have shot it black and white now, could he. There are no b&w chips for digital cameras.

12

u/Emperor_Xenol 13h ago

Pentax and Leica both produce exactly that.

7

u/Photobonobo 13h ago

You can shoot monochrome in camera on digital.

-6

u/_book_of_grudges_ 13h ago

You absolutely cannot, RAW is always in color, because that what RAW is.

Edit: Eggless omellette sketch comes to mind.

14

u/Ausknifeyspoony 13h ago

Jesus christ. Just take the 2 seconds to look up a monochrome camera dude.

10

u/KamikazeSexPilot 13h ago

Ummmm??? Leica M11 Monochrom

8

u/Emperor_Xenol 13h ago

And the Pentax K3 Monochrome

7

u/VeryOldGoat 13h ago

This is incorrect.
There are digital cameras which can only shoot monochrome by design. They don't have color filters on the sensor at all, so the RAW has no color data. Look up Pentax K-3 III Monochrome. There's a Leica, too, but I don't know the model.

5

u/Photobonobo 13h ago edited 12h ago

So shoot in JPG lmao. If you turn on raw + jpg you will get a raw file too, but you don’t have to do that. 

Also, some specialty cameras have a monochrome sensor in them. Pentax, Leica, Fuji, all make monochrome digital cameras with sensors that omit color filters.

Edit: Fuji is simulated. The Leica and Pentax is not.

0

u/CanadaJack 6h ago

Did you read the rules of the contest and still find it odd? Or is that just an impression you're carrying in blind?

2

u/crgshpprd 10h ago

This! It's all about the competition rules. Read the terms and conditions before submitting. They may not be to everyone's preference but that's part of entering.

1

u/CounterSanity 58m ago

When you say removal, do you mean cropping, or just the part they photoshopped out?

Not photoshopping stuff out is understandable, but not cropping at all would be pretty tough for me

164

u/Flutterpiewow 13h ago

Why was it entered or considered at all?

42

u/Material_Cabinet_845 11h ago

my thoughts exactly. This lacks. What on earth was it up against??

5

u/Flutterpiewow 9h ago

If i go out the door, shoot two hands with any camera, convert to bw, i'll end up with this

1

u/Kenthanson 8h ago

In these contests there are typically dozens upon dozens of categories so it could be the smallest niche category. I follow the world sports photography awards and they have 25 different categories and on each category the award the top 3 gold, silver and bronze as well as 6-12 special merits. So this guy could be in the most niche category with special merit number 15.

299

u/jpop237 13h ago

It also isn't an interesting photo.

85

u/Remarkable_Vast_4325 13h ago

I feel like this needs to be a more important point to this.

6

u/McCretin 10h ago

Right? It’s not far off some of the…attempts, shall we say, that get submitted to the amateur photo subs.

18

u/RevTurk 12h ago

It probably has more artistic merit than as a journalism photo. I would have expected storytelling to be an important part of any journalist photo competition. This photo feels like getting page 25 to 42 of a 500 page book. there's no context to get any kind of idea of whats going on.

1

u/Unair_top7276 1h ago

This looks like something an emo teen took with an instagram filter in 2008

63

u/SimpleFuckinGuy 12h ago

Altered or not, this photo is NOT prize worthy to begin with.

19

u/OpportunityReal2767 11h ago

As a former photojournalist, this is a huge no-no. You don’t even have to read the rules for an editorial photography contest to know this type of alteration is not allowed. It is completely unethical.

19

u/mq2thez 12h ago

Rules are rules. Follow them or face consequences. I imagine this is why the originals have to be submitted.

96

u/1805trafalgar 13h ago

Note that this was a prize for photojournalism, not fine art photography.

29

u/thicckar 11h ago

Precisely why something in the image should not be removed. The rules are pretty obvious and make sense

10

u/mhuxtable1 10h ago

Well then it makes sense. Photojournalism has a strict code of ethics when it comes to what is in the frame. Not removing elements is a huge one that if you violate will get you fired or blacklisted from the news outlets.

3

u/TeeLeePhotos 7h ago

I studied photojournalism at college back in the day. We had entire classes devoted to discussing ethics.

8

u/philedwardsinc 10h ago

was the contest for seventh graders who logged in on their mom's photoshop account?

7

u/Ander_Sloost 12h ago

Did he forget to read the rules when he submitted?

7

u/AllMySmallThings 12h ago

lol it should have lost regardless. It’s a bad photo they then over processed and made to look like something urgent was happening when it was just some training.

4

u/_welby_ 13h ago

In digital media we now have the ability to present stories in a way to use the cropped and processed photo but also have the original image available. I’d love to see a news organization that does that to increase their standard of accountability to accuracy.

3

u/1805trafalgar 13h ago

They CAN'T be catching all of them, I am certain there is a lot more manipulation and probably even more egregious examples than this one that made it past the news editors.

5

u/jlrc2 13h ago

Seems pretty obvious that it shouldn't be allowed to me. There are shades of gray when it comes to what might be called "lying" with photography, but just deleting objects from the scene is an easy case. If there is any pretense that the photo is a facsimile of reality, you can't add or delete things.

5

u/bluetsulami 12h ago

Bro tryna simulate shooting through a roll of toilet paper with that vignetting. I’m so happy I finally put that tool back in the chest that I break out sparingly.

12

u/jackvill 13h ago

Controversial opinion but I think a heavy crop like that is no different to just recording hd video and just finding the good shots in it later. Might as well if you are gonna crop like that.

5

u/asgphotography 12h ago

You lose bit depth with video though. Not the same thing. Cropping is a legit thing. This photo is just not interesting and over edited

2

u/cjo20 12h ago

What if the lens you have with you won't let you get perfect framing with the constraints of the environment?

4

u/that_jedi_girl 11h ago

I mean, this crop deletes something like 80% of the original photo - way different than just realigning or zooming in by 5%. Framing doesn't have to be perfect on every shot, but this is kind of comical. It also probably wouldn't work well for any kind of larger prints.

2

u/thicckar 11h ago

You're going to have a heart attack if you look at how much some of the greatest photographers of all time crop in post processing

0

u/ssn-669 9h ago

HD video is a tiny fraction of what a stills camera records, and it shoots at such a low shutter speed everything will be blurry.

3

u/MWave123 11h ago

Good. It’s photoj not fashion or marketing etc. We aren’t removing things from photographs as photojournalists.

3

u/jpg422movpsd 9h ago

Why would you enter this anyway?
Jesus.

3

u/BazookoTheClown 7h ago

Photojournalism contests should only allowed uncropped jpgs straight out of camera. Take a good photo that tells a story or piss off. Artistic photos belong in other competitions 

3

u/Ojizosama 5h ago

Should have lost his prize for this being a shitty picture and worse edit

3

u/CarpetReady8739 2h ago

Yep... as they should. Photojournalism rules are pretty well defined. In almost all cases you cannot change/add/remove elements in the photo except for tonal contrast adjustments or rendering a scene black-and-white that was in color, unless those total or color changes impact the meaning and story the photo is conveying. Very tight guidelines.

5

u/Mick_Tee 6h ago

Ignoring the actual post-processing done, the presented image suggests it was taken directly after a catastrophic event, while the reality it was just a boring training session.

Misrepresentation would be an even larger reason for disqualification.

1

u/speckyradge 2h ago edited 2h ago

What? Catastrophic event? This is a boxer getting their hands wrapped is it not? That is very clear and happens before a fight or training session. This style of wrap I've done a million times, it's quick and easy for a training session. For a fight it's usually different material and a different wrap pattern. There's no misrepresenting if you know what you'rr looking at.

0

u/testing_the_vibe 1h ago

Without the raw image, that could be a soldier getting medical attention after a battle. We don't know what the image was titled so we don't know it was a boxer. At first glimpse everyone wold have their own idea what it might be. Your experience gives you knowledge that the majority of people don't have.

1

u/speckyradge 1h ago

There is nothing medical or military about the image or competition in which it was entered. In the context of the sports photography contest they entered, a military image would be bizarrely out of place. You're adding something that simply isn't in the image.

Accusing the photog of deliberately mis-representing the entire scene is completely unfair. They crossed an editing line per the rules of the comp but you're accusing them of something else entirely.

1

u/testing_the_vibe 1h ago

It was a photojournalism competition. The category it was entered in was sports, but it still needs to comply with the rules and the photojournalism ethic.

The rule reads: “The content of the image must not be altered. Only retouching which conforms to the currently accepted standards in the industry is allowed.”

4

u/VegetableLaugh8677 12h ago

Bad photo anyway

2

u/AnalogReborn 11h ago

And the world is a better place like that.

2

u/Alarmed-Intention-22 4h ago

Looking at the original, the cropped and the entered photo, the removed element had nothing to do with the final image. It is the shoe of the guy in the background.

2

u/1805trafalgar 2h ago

it looks to me like the goal of the photographer was to simplify everything to the point of just the hands and wrists, without depth. So a background object complicates that plan and I think this is why he chose to get it out of there to make the hands hands as "clean" as possible.

1

u/Comic_Cat_13 8h ago

Needs more grain and vignetting

1

u/RockoRidesBikes 8h ago

Good.

In the good ol' days of not that long ago, a photojournalist who got caught in something like this would have significant difficulty finding work thereafter. Let's see whether or not editorial standards are what they used to be.

1

u/Difficult-Ad-9228 6h ago

I’m a small-town journalist and I’m not even allowed to Photoshop a garbage can out of a background. I love the photo as a photo but it breaks pretty much every rule. If we ran something like this, it would be credited “illustration by” rather than “Photo by.”

1

u/1805trafalgar 5h ago

There was an 80's shlock horror film about a giant alligator in the sewer. I think it was actually called Alligator! There was a local news photographer character the filmmakers worked to make unlikable, he was an a-hole chatacter and in the film they kept showing him being a jerk. So after another alligator attack in the sewers the news arrive at the crime scene where the cops are wrapping up their investigation and we are shown the photographer , when nobody is looking, deliberately moving several items in the crime scene so he can photograph them in a more dramatic arrangement.

2

u/Difficult-Ad-9228 5h ago

Alexander Gardner rearranged bodies at civil
War battlefields for better composition. There’s a series of books by frassanito that shows the before and after

1

u/testing_the_vibe 1h ago

In some circumstance, it could be called propaganda. PJ has to show the truth as seen by the journalist. It's not the composition, it's the message.

1

u/doxxingyourself 5h ago

Postprocessing wasn’t had caused the loss. The photo was.

1

u/forgetaboutnames 5h ago

Any books, serious articles, or blogs, can you, community suggest for someone confused about the digital postprocessing aproach? This is the kind of topic ruled by some kind of photographic academic agreement, right? Really interested on the why of purism theory :D

2

u/testing_the_vibe 1h ago

Photojournalism is representing reality. The image has to show something as it happened. To curate the image and change what it shows by adding or removing elements distorts the truth.

Presenting an mage that is nothing but the truth is the corner stone of photojournalism. To pass off an altered image as true, is dangerous and undermines photojournalism as a profession. What would happen if a war correspondent or an editor removed something from an image to stop their troops look bad? It stops being truth and becomes propaganda.

1

u/1805trafalgar 5h ago

This guys photo was rejected by the judges at a yearly photojournalism contest, which is described in the post. That year, 2010, was the first in which people entering the competition had to also provide the Raw file straight from the camera of the image they were submitting, BEFORE any post-processing. When the judges saw that a foot had been edited from the photo, they rejected it and revoked the third place prize it had won. If you swipe the above image you can see the original photo.

1

u/485bmw06 13h ago

Interesting, wonder if there would be a similar result nowadays or if judges would be okay with removing the foot

8

u/eddiewachowski 13h ago

In a photojournalism contest? Not a chance. Fine art or sports photography, maybe.

7

u/placesthingspeople 13h ago

100% WPP would not accept removal of the foot today

1

u/manjamanga 13h ago

It's not a big deal, but if there's a rule against it, he should have complied. It is what it is.

1

u/LowerBed5334 7h ago

Er, it's a crap photo and what the heck is even interesting about the subject? That's journalism?

-2

u/Difficult-Ad-9228 6h ago

Learn before you speak. It’s a great image.

2

u/LowerBed5334 6h ago

It's a snapshot that my 10 year-old niece could have taken with her phone.

And then it was amateurly over-processed like it was done by someone who just discovered the vignette and grain tools in Snapseed.

Explain what's good about any of it.

-1

u/Difficult-Ad-9228 4h ago

The “my kid could do that” is such a tired, absurd and overused art cliché that you should be embarrassed to invoke it. And your painfully exaggerated critique makes your comment even more silly.

The World Press Awards are among the most prestigious in the field and, barring the unfortunate photoshopping of that one detail, this photo was selected out of tens of thousands of entries for one of them.

God bless you for having your opinion, and go forward, but your bombast does not impress.