Have you heard that picture winner of World Press Photo 2013 is manipulated? Sure, you've heard. In the end they were saying even on the front page of Onet, which clearly shows that we plot photo scandal first class.
Winning the World Press Photo of the photo was faked? – Says in the title of the entry Alexandra Parzyszek on Onet.
The winning photo of World Press Photo 2013 photomontage? – Antek Żółciak asks in the pages of the World Picture.
Fake picture got the World Press Photo 2013 – echoed service sdp.pl.
The winning photo of World Press Photo 2013 assembled from three? Why embellish the cruel reality? – Asks Olga Drenda of Fotoblogii.
A quick glance at the headlines, and we already know – it is a scandal and a noise, that is about it. Although uncertain, judging by the number of question marks in the above examples, but who cares. So let's look what bloggers and journalists disliked Paul Hansen – author of the controversial photographs, where we see a group of men carrying the bodies of children killed during the Israeli raid.
In a nutshell
SDP writes about the possibility of falsification of images, citing the recent publication extremetech.com and analyzes presented by Neal Krawetz – criminologist and analyst. We read in them that rewarded photo is actually a combination of three photos, and traces can be seen in the information processing sewn in a digital file. Author says, there is no manipulation. Hansen is of the opinion that minor adjustments made to Rawi are acceptable and even desirable – all in order to make the picture clearer. The voice took the body of World Press Photo – called experts (Hany Fraid of Dartmouth College, and Kevin Connor Fourandsix Technologies) are of the opinion that the work complies with the formal requirements, and used by the author working outside the norm. Conclusion? Everything is as it was. So what's all the noise?
Because the document is supposed to be a document
The problem has long been the same and returns like a boomerang. How to define what is actually handling and where its boundaries lie? Which techniques are still acceptable in documentary photography, which have not? Is the fix, and "beautification" photo is still within the competence of a documentary?
This position can be understood in a portrait or fashion, but the document, especially war, should be "beautiful", – says Olga Drenda of Fotoblogii.
It seems to us that at this time there is no great matter whether the image was manipulated and to what extent. Much more important is the loss of confidence in professional photographers and prestigious competitions, which will be difficult to recover. – Says Marcin Grabowiecki the pages Fotopolis.
Browsing the opinions presented in the Polish part of the global network it is impossible to escape the impression that very few people care about the content of the image. Instead, many commentators (and even a few bloggers to find) vehemently arguing about how many devils can fit on the head of a pin. Because manipulation is by definition evil. Because at the end of the document is a document, which means that if the guy in the picture is badly lit, it has such a stay. On the other hand, the critical approach is aimed primarily at those working in the digital darkroom. The fact that the traditional photo manipulation tools we have seen, very few notes. Maybe because the choice of the type of paper or correcting the call time does not appeal as much to the imagination, as the famous sliders in Photoshop. Probably very few people also care about the fact that half the automatic filters to call RAW files in SLR also a form of manipulation of the image. The question therefore arises. Is the image of a digital SLR only called from a vending machine is better than the hand-processed RAW, which drew the tonal range? Is the hardware limitations (which do not have yet a lot to do with the limitations of our understanding of the world) should dictate to us the only legitimate form of documenting reality? Or perhaps better to focus on the content? Finally, on this extremely controversial picture shows, above all, human harm. I can see it will not matter whether the faces of the people in the parade will be better or worse lighting. In all this the only one I'm curious – how many commentators have recognized the problem actually shown in the picture, and not just those concerned with the form of …