Photo Contest Wades Into Murky Waters of Digital Manipulation

The Picture of The Year photo contest in Denmark recently disqualified a project from its reportage category because judges thought the photographer used too much digital manipulation. This is according to Pressefotografforbundet, which published a story about the contest on March 30. (The Web site later published a helpful English translation of the story, which you can read here.)

After asking a photographer to send in his RAW files, the judges decided there had been too much adjusting of colors, and rejected the project. The photographer, Klavs Bo Christensen, was displeased and shared some of his pre- and post-production images (including the two seen above) with the Pressefotografforbundet. The story has sparked many lively conversations about photojournalism ethics. (Check out the comments on The Online Photographer blog, where readers have been debating this for a week.)

There's a lot to consider here. How much toning is acceptable in documentary work? Is a RAW file really the most accurate depiction of reality? Should all photo contests that judge documentary work be as strict as the Danish Picture of The Year?

In any given day, we deal with photographs across different genres with different standards. Digital manipulation is encouraged and celebrated in advertising and commercial photography. Many photographers use it to enhance personal projects and to express themselves in fine art work. Photo manipulation is an open secret at many magazines, notably those that cover fashion and beauty. Yet digital manipulation is discouraged in news coverage, and it is essentially forbidden at wire services and newspapers.

Most worrisome, there is an information disconnect between photo professionals and the average media consumer. Some readers assume every news photo they see from Gaza has been Photoshopped, yet are shocked to learn a portrait in Vanity Fair is a digital composite.

Photo contests are stuck in a bind. They have to consider all sorts of images, held to all different standards, competing with one another out of their original context. The fairest solution is a clear set of rules that state what's acceptible and what's not. According to Pressefotografforbundet, the contest in Denmark has adopted this new rule:

"Photos submitted to Picture of The Year must be a truthful representation of whatever happened in front of the camera during exposure. You may post-process the images electronically in accordance with good practice. That is cropping, burning, dodging, converting to black and white as well as normal exposure and color correction, which preserves the image's original expression. The Judges and exhibition committee reserve the right to see the original raw image files, raw tape, negatives and/or slides. In cases of doubt, the photographer can be pulled out of competition."

This is a good rule, and other photojournalism contests would be wise to copy it.

Comments

[Tafari]

Those images are not reasonable styled IMO, he went a little bit over board. Most can Photoshop an image, but for a contest, show some in camera creativity, skill & technique & compete fairly.

@bygbaby (Twitter)

[Ry]

Last I checked, the world wasn't black and white either... Are those allowed?

Would I get disqualified for using Velvia instead of Astia?

Am I only allowed to shoot with a 50mm lens at f11?

[Jamal Ahmad]

Photoshop is just another tool, like any feature on your DSLR.

[Rémi Thériault]

You also have to remember that 50 years ago there was a lot of dodging and burning happening in the dark room. Some photographers would go as far as manipulating the negatives to enhance their view of the photograph.

[deb livingston]

I think it looks great! It's obvious the photo has been processed and the colors are rather interesting, but hard to say if natural vs. enhanced is always the best option. In this case, it does work.

@snapixel http://www.snapixel.com

[pam]

Maybe they should expand the categories and include something like 'enhanced' for one like the one on the right. Funny, her skin tone got lighter and everything else got darker.

[Eugen S]

By that definition black and white photos are not "a truthful representation of whatever happened in front of the camera during exposure", neither are blurry photos and long exposures. While the edited photos are fairly extreme, I highly doubt the scene looked like the RAW exposure.

[kate]

I'm afraid I don't agree with you at all. Effects of this nature were once produced through careful selection of film type, printing methods, and processing styles. You would be hard pressed to convince anyone that cross-processing would have been cheating. What if he'd used post to emulate that "organic" effect? Would we be okay with that?

The digital sensor introduces it's own limitations and it is fair to use post-processing to overcome those limitations. This contest participant used the tools available to him and every other participant - as technology evolves, so does the practice, the craft... punishing innovation is foolish.

[Eric]

I think this is where the difference between a documentary photo (literally, to document something) and what I would call editorial photos comes in. A lot of pictures in the newspaper are meant to just show what is happening at a place at a given time. There is always cropping that can be done to change the meaning, but the colors are "normal" (in line with the majority of photos people see in their lives) and the exposure is pretty balanced.
Other photos are meant to give the viewer a feeling, and one could argue it's meant to make a person feel even more like they are there by giving them that feeling. I would put these photos in the latter category.
I think it's just a matter of the contest communicating clearly what they are looking for and what the boundaries are (which looks like the have done now) and photographers entering with that knowledge.
I don't think anyone is proposing a universal right or wrong, but being a little more precise with categories would be helpful.

[peter bruyneel]

I think the image is great!!
Images should captivate us,draw us in. By changing the contrast and color balance he's getting our attention,he didn't change the reality, she's still living in a dump!
These people who organized this contest should organize a ping-pong contest next time for the elderly!

[Kyrani]

If he shot film and produced the same results in the darkroom, would he have had to produce his negative to the panel as well? As far as I'm concerned both darkroom and photoshop are tools to help the photographer achieve his or her vision.

[Nemo]

The judges were being absurd. Is dodging and burning and bleaching, etc. considered "too much manipulation" in the traditional darkroom? A RAW file is just that -- a digital negative awaiting interpretation. Would they have thrown out many of of Eugene Smith's classic images because he dodged and burned to create drama? What about the classic Adams work, "Moonrise, Hernandez". That, according to Ansel Adams, was an extremely "thin" negative that required a lot of darkroom work to bring out it's potential. Sadly, it's the clear "cheaters" who seem to have made judges hyper-sensitive to any kind of manipulation.

[Jim Sulley]

Can anyone say Kodachrome?

[Allen Lee Taylor]

Its their contest they can do what they want, just as the photographer can. Geez grow up people.

[Jerome LEON]

Please let photographers show what they see more than what is, and remember sometime what "photo-graphy" means.

JL

[Sean]

Way too much work done to this image. It looks terrible. Was the photorgapher worried that the picture wasn't strong enough without the manipulation? I think the judges made the right decision.

[John Lizarazo]

I feel the judges made the right decision on this. They were right to ask for his original raw file, the category this image was submitted to was "reportage," and without the original they would have no basis on which to judge whether or not it was acceptable or not in the specific category.

The main issue is that the post processing *changed the colors* of the original shot. The point brought up about dodging and burning black and white photos cannot apply because we're working with color here. You can only effect different tones in black and white.. in color you can (and what happened in this case) actually change the color from what the camera captured.

This photo belongs in another category. I'm afraid that this will be a continuing problem in contests. The judges will need to set clear guidelines and word them very carefully. "Traditional reportage" (minimal editing) and "Modern reportage" (the image being discussed).. just ideas who knows what will happen.

I don't know much about cross processing in film..it does change color overall, I believe, but does not localize the color change (i.e. local adjustments in say Lightroom or Photoshop, picking out specific areas and changing the color; in this case that is clear if you look at both the original and edited)

[David Campbell]

This is a fascinating debate, but as a writer aboutg photography, rather than a photographer, I find the terms of the debate to be sometimes a problem. See http://www.david-campbell.org/2009/04/17/photographic-truth-and-photoshop/ for more details.

[salv]

Picture should have been simply rejected as a candidate for being to amateurishly Photoshopped. Looks like the filter, "my first week in college" was used.

[Doug Milewski]

I believe that the judges did the right thing. When they said "documentary", they were referring to a style of photography sufficiently well known that a photographer should know or have researched what the contest intended.

Although I think the photographer's work is interesting, I don't think that it would appear in National Geographic or in Time magazine. The color correction has shifted the photo from the documentary category into the art category. That, to me, is the crux of the judges' decision.

Does the photo serve to illustrate the world, or does it serve to reinterpret the world? That is the crux of the decision.

[Craig Murphy]

Judges were right. The image is way over the top.

[JeffGreenberg]

Let's see all winning entries & compare:

1. as submitted
2. RAW

[Christen Hansen]

The problem is that we are looking at the top of an iceberg.
Two more photogs had their raw- files called upon for control. But whether they won a prize or were deemed out, is a secret.
Christen Hansen.

[Karsen]

The photo taken is bad and the photo enhancement is bad. Overall, a bad shot. Nothing intriguing about it. There are more interesting ways of showing poverty. This is not one of them. Whoever the judges are, they're clueless. I'll give them credit for turning it down finally.

[Joms]

The new ruling does not do a good job of clarifying that fine line of what is 'too much' post-processing. In fact, it blurs it more. Even great photographers would debate amongst themselves on the determinants of 'too much' post-processing. Its highly possible that an image disqualified in one year could very well be a contending photograph the next because of different judges or changes in opinions.

As a solution, I would agree with something similar to what Pam mentioned above about a enhanced category and a non-enhanced category.

I'd also like to add that a non-enhanced category would be great. It maintains that part of photography where planning,researching, and waiting for that perfect moment or lighting; keeping that part of the process at that the pre- and not moving it to the post. (This is not an arguement on which category is better) Hence, I think the contest organizers or any photo contest organizers should set a fine line based on quantitative variables to be fair for contestants. It wouldnt be that much of a debate once you set that fine line. Some people may not agree to that line, but hey, if youre running the contest, then you can have it your way.

[Keith]

Many great comments here. Heavy photoshop manipulation is fun stuff but it is best suited for an 'art' category. In a 'reportage' category such as this one, the image should be as close to what the scene actually looked like as possible (minor usage of dodging, burning, cropping..etc.). The image on the left (RAW image) is not like the actual scene at all. Somewhat flat. While the image on the right is a scene on steroids. Somewhere in the middle would've been better.

[Adrian Lander]

If they shot film would they ask to see the neg???

This is a bit of a silly debate , montaging/super -imposing bits in this section is wrong.However grading is an integral part of the shot. It can help to invoke a feeling for the viewer -
This grade is a bit 'heavy handed' (for my tastes), (so is cross processing when done poorly )But the judges chose the shot......
Hey it got a reaction!

[Christen Hansen]

Let's see all winning entries & compare:

1. as submitted
2. RAW

Posted by: JeffGreenberg | April 17, 2009 at 12:41 PM

If that happened, you wouldn´t believe your eyes!

[Elliott]

He burned, dodged, and increased the saturation.

Why don't we just break out the 11x14 glass plates and whip up a batch of collodion, since photoshop is the devil.

It's just another group of people afraid of someone who understands how a histogram works. Clipping your blacks doesn't mean you cheated, just wanted a better range.

Sounds like people are just pissy that they didn't think of it first.