@bumac Posted October 1, 2009 Share #1 Posted October 1, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Welcome to the World Press Photo Contest Archive Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 1, 2009 Posted October 1, 2009 Hi @bumac, Take a look here Worldpressphoto Archiv online. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
stunsworth Posted October 1, 2009 Share #2 Posted October 1, 2009 Thanks for that. I've managed to see the complete exhibition 'in the flesh' for the last few years. Not always very easy images to look at, but worth seeing none the less. Since seeing it I've always though that this image illustrates why sharpness isn't necessarily important in making a good photograph... 2007, Tim Hetherington, World Press Photo of the Year, World Press Photo of the ? A pity about the watermarking, it's in just the wrong place. Incidentally, and in connection with another thread saying that digital isn't real photography, and has no soul, you can read in the following link that it was taken with a digital camera... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7240590.stm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aesop Posted October 2, 2009 Share #3 Posted October 2, 2009 Thanks for that. I've managed to see the complete exhibition 'in the flesh' for the last few years. Not always very easy images to look at, but worth seeing none the less. Since seeing it I've always though that this image illustrates why sharpness isn't necessarily important in making a good photograph... 2007, Tim Hetherington, World Press Photo of the Year, World Press Photo of the ? A pity about the watermarking, it's in just the wrong place. Incidentally, and in connection with another thread saying that digital isn't real photography, and has no soul, you can read in the following link that it was taken with a digital camera... BBC NEWS | South Asia | Picture power: Tim Hetherington ...hmmm, this is an interesting one, Steve. I have no issue with digital or analogue having soul, but I'm not with you (or the 2007 jury) on Tim Hetherington's winner. Here's why - to my mind, the selection of this photo as the winning shot was less about the image and more/all about context. There will be those that argue that, this being a reportage thing, both aspects should be considered by the jury. Well, I fully agree - with the proviso that, if anything, the weighting should be biased towards a technically competent (but not necessarily perfect) image. But I see nothing of the sort. What I see is a poorly executed image ("just get the shot") - technically deficient, but heavily infused with context. Classic reportage, maybe, but still not a winner in my book. I am sure Mr. Hetherington is a fine photographer capable of delivering award-winning images, but I would be really sore if I lost out to this shot. I guess that explains why I am not on the jury. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted October 2, 2009 Share #4 Posted October 2, 2009 Well I have to disagree. I think the image is about emotion. It's a photograph of raw emotion and weary pain that could probably have been taken in any war. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aesop Posted October 2, 2009 Share #5 Posted October 2, 2009 Well I have to disagree. I think the image is about emotion. It's a photograph of raw emotion and weary pain that could probably have been taken in any war. ...sounds like we both agree it is a context thing, then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
schmelli Posted October 2, 2009 Share #6 Posted October 2, 2009 ... since when is the level of technical creation of a photo a factor in regard to whether it is not only a good but rather an outstandig photo? This photo transfers a very strong message and both The framing and its slightly off focus creates a very corresponding feeling within most onlookers. It also is a strange picture in today's war photography as it reflects the ugly side of a war that is dominated by cold objective and technically sound images, that too often simply lack the human factor. This is the reason why this is a photo, not just an exchangeable image. But that's just my understanding... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.