World Press Photo winner disagreements

[cfusionpm]

Another comment which caught my eye was this:

... A picture is supposed to be worth a thousand words, not need a thousand words to supplement what it does not say. This choice disappoints completely.

I agree with this statement 100%. But then again, that's just how my view on the "artistic" field is. I shared similar thoughts on an artist glorifying the spray and pray technique, beefing it up with artsy terms and making it sound like more than it is. Visual art should be an expression of skill or talent in the visual media. It should communicate what it needs to in visual form, and not require a page-long placard explaining why a bland and ordinary image isn't. If it can't do this, then it shouldn't be regarded as a successful example of that form of media.

 

[Timbo1961]

While I agree with most of these posters that this particular photo should NOT be the winner, I have to take a bit of a shot at those who seem be able to read into this picture a lot of the facts that are "explained" by the judge who chose this image as the best of the year ... almost as though she had to justify her choice.

As many of us have over the years studied this field, a PHOTOjournalistic image itself should tell the story BY ITSELF. The image should tell the story... the reader flips the page, and is immediately shocked, saddened, brought to some emotional state BY THE IMAGE ... not the subtitles below.

What about that photo of the Spanish soldier by Robert Capa. The compelling image of the girl in Vietnam running down the road with her clothes burned off in a naplam attack? You all know the images I mean ... this is because they are compelling images that immediately tell a story and make you want to know more. Type into Google Images "September 11 2001" ... All are compelling PHOTOjournalistic masterpieces.

The images shown from Charles Ommanney and Walter Astrada are certainly more compelling Photojournalistic images ..... they tell the story, they make you stop and look and think. There is no photoshopping and you immediately feel for the people in the images and want to learn more.

This winning image has no information about the location.... how do I know this is Iran? Certainly not the architecture, or any flags ... What are they yelling? They could be in Italy and she is telling her neighbour about a new Penne Bolognese recipe? There is nothing compelliing about the image. AND, it is photoshopped .... if the journalist did this, what else was done to the image?? The photographer should not have to interpret or manipulate the image to "help" you see what they are trying to portray with their photograph.

If this was a dangerous and possibly life-threatening situation (if the authourities found out) then why is Mama Bravo sitting on her chair in the background with her hands in her lap like nothing is happening? I get the feeling of a nice summer evening sitting out on the roof top terrace with some drinks having a conversation with family and friends.

You look at the image and no information about any PHOTOjournalistic event or any political, societal, religious or personal pretext is invoked .... at all.

Sorry, one more person who doesn't get it....

AND, try and remember that the image tells the story not the editor back in the safety of the office on the other side of the world. The text is not the image .... This is PHOTOjournalism .... not journalism.

 

[Muusers]

I like 4 best. And a +1 to timbo.

 

[12sndsgood]

its all subjective. one group of judges viewed this image as the best, another group of judges may judge it as utter crap. thats what you deal with on the art side of things.

 

[CWyatt]

its all subjective. one group of judges viewed this image as the best, another group of judges may judge it as utter crap. thats what you deal with on the art side of things.

This is not so much the 'art side of things'. It is, as Timbo wrote in that good post, about stories. Good photojournalism is less subjective than you might think.
Newspaper editors would not put this on their front page because it doesn't tell a story, doesn't print well, and won't get anyone buying their newspaper. Of course this group of judges did have a different opinion. But the outcry from the wider photojournalism field partly shows it can't just be passed off as being down to subjective tastes.