Erm, it seems pretty clear that the crop, post processing and cloning of the affected area have significantly altered the meaning of the original image. I dont think that Stepan has a leg or, ironically enough, a foot to stand on.

Erm, it seems pretty clear that the crop, post processing and cloning of the affected area have significantly altered the meaning of the original image. I dont think that Stepan has a leg or, ironically enough, a foot to stand on.

should've taken another picture… without that guy. anyways, i don't really get what's so good about the photo.

I agree with G. Liu. Its just a snap shot that has been photoshoped untill it looks 'dramatic'.

Thats not photography, its image making.

Yeah, cropping an image to such a degree is just ridiculous. I mean, the Silver Efex Pro or whatever filter makes it look nice, granted, but I take more issue with the crop than anything. From a journalistic standpoint, the hand being wrapped like that is just a minute detail compared to the rest of the image. The foot is just one tiny omission! I would have filled the frame with the hand if the hand was what I was shooting with any intent. Journalistic photographs are about intent, not art.

I agree with the disqualification.

His picture didn't deserve any prizes to begin with. It's just a heavily cropped and processed soccer-mom-style shot.

And it's clear he had no bad intent, but he *did* break the rules. If you can't remove content, you can't remove content.

4 dead in Ohio
A pole from the women's head.
Good morning students.
Today we will talk about photojournalism.

HELL YEAH HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DQ'ED! zero tollerance is the way to go…although the alteration he made was somewhat insignificant, once you let one person do something other people will think its ok too and it will eventually snowball

Photo manipulation is as old as photography itself. It is dumb that they disqualified him for removing a foot that was distracting… they might as well DQ him for cropping the photo and changing the exposure

and about photojournalism supposed to capture an event that actually happened that wasn't arranged… sorry but that's really how it is whether or not you would like to think that way.

he should not have been disqualified

It may seem to a lot of people that removing the foot in that photo doesn't alter too much the essence of it, but if removing was allowed who knows what could be removed from other photos in the future. Photographers would take the freedom to remove things that could be vital to the overall photo. That photo was altered.

I agree with most here that due to the post processing a basic snapshot has been changed to a more dramatic image mostly due to cropping and adding the film grain. While this wasn't the issue with the rules it should be looked at for future contest.

The foot being cloned out of the photo is an obvious disregard for the rules posted. While the photographer may have found the removal of the foot as insignificant to the overall image I don't believe that this photo would have even been considered if the foot was left in the image. When a photographer takes a photo he/she should be aware of what the subject is and any elements that may contribute or distract from the subject.

In this case the foot was a clear distraction and had a large impact on the photo by being removed.

If they allow any removal by cloning, at all… then when will they allow addition of elements by cloning– all in the name of aesthetics?? The original shot was ordinary and quite uninteresting. The guy should have known better, maybe he does now.

All photos have post processing in one way or another and have since the beginning of photography. I don't know what the rules are in this case but the removal of the distracting element is extremely trivial and totally insignificant. For the “purists” who say “don't alter anything,” — give it up there is no such thing. No camera made sees the way the human eye does and to make it more real, EVERY photo has to be “tweaked.” That does NOT mean manipulated to the point of misrepresentation. Nothing was done here to tell a story that was not there. Thirty years ago the assignment would have been shot in black and white anyway. Far more distracting, to me, are the orange jacket and even the orange tape on the hand. If the image had not been cropped, the utility pole coming out of the guy's head would have to be removed as well. And without black and white and toning down the print, the glasses or whatever is sticking out of the jacket pocket would also have to go. Unlike fine art photography where one studies the arrangement of everything in the frame before even making the exposure, photojournalism by it's nature is shoot, shoot, shoot and edit later. This is editing later and using the tools that are available and have always been available. Digital imaging just makes most of it a little easier. Go look at the images from the legends of photojournalism. Their original or “raw” image is vastly different from the final presentation, and it's the final presentation that matters. By comparison, most professional images start with what many might consider a “snapshot.” It is knowing how to use the tools to tell the real story that makes the separation. I've seen many a false impression conveyed without any PRINT manipulation but by manipulating the point of view. For example, photographing between people to frame a shot shows LOTS of people attending when in fact only a handful might be there. There are no justifications for how much or how little one can crop. That is just plain dumb!! Of COURSE you can crop. Any way you want. In camera, or on the print. We make those decisions every day with every photo. Go back and study Cartier-Bresson who helped pioneer photojournalism. Without those decisions and those tools we are ALL just snapshot shooters. This should never have been disqualified.

Do you remember many famous photographers proclaimed, and everybody worldwide embraced?
“I shoot my photos in the world, but I make my photos in the dark room”.
Where is this daft puritanism, these years coming from, or where is it good for?
I never change anything, only optimise as possible, but won't blame anybody who applies these little adjustments as in this photo. The photographer didn't alter the meaning.

I never said anything about it being right.

Photography IS manipulation of reality. You use different lenses, apertures, and every you-name-it ring or switch on the lens and camera when you shoot, and then in the darkroom you start to make the REAL manipulations. This is what photography is all about. Even “normal” pictures have been manipulated to look normal. Good photographers do this all the time. I think the rules in this contest is downright wrong and misleading in the interest of photography.

There is no question that this photo deserved disqualification. Responsible photojournalists operate under relatively distinct rules and guidelines easily found in places such as the NPPA website (http://www.nppa.org/professional_development/se…) and I’m sure on the WPP website as well. One of the most concrete rules which photojournalists are expected to abide by is that absolutely no element of an image is to be removed by cloning or otherwise (however reasonable cropping is generally ok, although its use is also sometimes put into question). With all the exposure given to recent instances of digital photo manipulation leading to disqualifications, firings, etc. I would think it should be clear to all photojournalists that this is something that is not tolerated. This is probably why the photographer in this case does not argue against his disqualification. He should have known better, or did know, and manipulated the photo inappropriately anyway. No journalistic photo or story can be 100% true or objective, the goal of responsible journalism is to get as close to the truth and objectivity as possible. Photojournalists must make certain choices when capturing a subject or an event for a story. However, as stated by the NPPA on their web page on “Ethics in the Age of Digital Photography”, ” I do not think the public cares if it is a little lie or a big lie. As far as they are concerned, once the shutter has been tripped and the moment has been captured on film, in the context of news, we no longer have the right to change the content of the photo in any way. Any change to a news photo – any violation of that moment – is a lie. Big or small, any lie damages your credibility. The reason I get so adamant when I discuss this issue is that the documentary photograph is a very powerful thing and its power is based on the fact that it is real. The real photograph gives us a window on history; it allows us to be present at the great events of our times and the past. It gets its power from the fact that it represents exactly what the photographer saw through the medium of photography.”

I believe the argument presented by some other commenters that famous early pioneers in photography engaged in this kind of manipulation in the darkroom so we should accept it now is severely flawed. Photography is a relatively new technology and the ethics concerning its application to journalism is, and should be, evolving all the time to keep up with it as it advances. We should count ourselves lucky that there are much better controls in place today to expose unethical journalistic practices.

This was not a series being judged for an art contest, it is a serious photojournalism contest and therefore must adhere to certain rules that have been put in place for good reason. There is certainly a lot of grey area currently being debated concerning the ethics of post-processing in photojournalism, however this instance is a very clear violation of a rule which is not vague in any way. No photographer is allowed to clone out parts of an image entered into this contest or meant for publication as news. That’s all there is to it. I strongly agree with the choice made by the WPP here as any leeway given to photojournalists in this area opens the door for photographers to decide for themselves what is ok and what is not ok to delete from an image meant to be published as news and erodes the public’s already shaky trust in the integrity of journalism.

I think the appropriateness of alterations depends on the viewer's expectations. In this case, the cropping and post-processing result in an image that suggest that things are really tough on the streets of Kiev while the orignal image, if anything, gives the opposite impression. Foot or no foot doesn't really change this.

I reflected on this in my own blog posts this morning: http://blog.pamhule.com/2010/03/end-of-night-on…

Would love to hear your comments.

Personally, I think WPP must have either really low standards or had some really bad photo entries this year because this photo even after the treatment wasn't great. It was a normal photography 101 detail shot. Why did it get so far in the first place? WPP judges must have been asleep.

Stepan broke the rules, it's clear.

I would like to draw your attention to the fact, that he “removed” also the upper part of the body, and this removal WAS according to the rules. I'm wondering why he didn't used burn tool to remove the foot too? Probably the effect wouldn't be so good, but…

And I agree also with opinions, that this hudge crop changed greatly the photo. This IS a different photo that he shooted. But cropping is acceptable.

I agree that we have to keep rules, because we need limits that are set clearly. But this example shows, that reportage is a matter of a delicate feeling of honesty. And photography is very liable to manipulation, even if it was done with the rules.