# World Press Photo of the Year 2015 winner only uses 5DMk.II & 3 primes!



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Feb 19, 2016)

Throw away your latest equipment, you gadget-collecting dilettantes! 




> On the winning image, he commented: “The refugee story was fast moving all the time; you had to be in the zone and there was no let up. *I just had a straight 24mm lens on my EOS 5D Mark II and I used my body as a tripod as it was so dark and the shutter speed (1/5sec) was so low. I only use three primes: a 14mm, 24mm and a 40mm.* That’s it. I don't believe in taking monster cameras and lenses on assignment. I need to move with the subject; that’s how I work.”




*Australian freelance photojournalist Warren Richardson has won the World Press Photo of the Year 2015 for a poignant image of two migrants passing a child through a barbed wire fence, as they crossed the border from Serbia into Hungary.*

Full Story: http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/news/world_press_photo_2015_winners_revealed.do


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Feb 19, 2016)

I can predict the reaction of the equipment measurebators already: "How did that picture win, you can see the obvious banding from the low-DR 5D2 sensor in the dark areas of that winning shot!" Teh Lulz! ;D  :


----------



## H. Jones (Feb 19, 2016)

It's a great example of how pretty much every spec on a camera goes out the window when you're focused on the images instead of the camera. Photojournalists have been working with cameras since ISO 100 was considered fast, and everything from there is just a bonus.

Just look at the work of David Burnett, who still uses a 4x5 Speed Graphic to photograph the olympics. Sure, it's incredibly hard, but the man has taken some seriously incredible, award-winning photographs. 

Disclaimer: I have a 1Dx Mark II waiting for me this summer, so my wallet doesn't think I should be saying this.


----------



## Stu_bert (Feb 19, 2016)

It's an emotive shot and the photographer is clearly talented, thanks for sharing

but...

The first prize is a 1DX mk II, so one assumes that Canon is actively supporting the awards, and therefore... 

Also given his line of work, he only wants fast n few primes - that's just practical


----------



## digital-jesus (Feb 19, 2016)

He could have made the photo with a mobile phone with camera and the result would be the same


----------



## Ivan Muller (Feb 19, 2016)

No it would not have been the same....


----------



## Berty Rampkin (Feb 19, 2016)

Ivan Muller said:


> No it would not have been the same....



;D so true


----------



## LDS (Feb 19, 2016)

Stu_bert said:


> The first prize is a 1DX mk II, so one assumes that Canon is actively supporting the awards, and therefore...



"Founded in 1955, the World Press Photo Foundation is an independent, non-profit organisation based in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. The foundation receives support from the Dutch Postcode Lottery and is sponsored worldwide by Canon."

http://www.worldpressphoto.org/about

It's not a surprise Canon does sponsor a photographers' organization. Maybe to push Canon sales they should have give the prize to a camera actually on sale, intead of an older model?

There were also several other prizes, people can always investigare with which camera they were taken... instead of understing why it was taken.


----------



## Rahul (Feb 19, 2016)

LDS said:


> Stu_bert said:
> 
> 
> > The first prize is a 1DX mk II, so one assumes that Canon is actively supporting the awards, and therefore...
> ...



The winner get a 1DX Mark II - not yet up for sale. What are you on about?


----------



## Maximilian (Feb 19, 2016)

Mark D5 TEAM II said:


> I can predict the reaction of the equipment measurebators already: "How did that picture win, you can see the obvious banding from the low-DR 5D2 sensor in the dark areas of that winning shot!" Teh Lulz! ;D  :


+1000 and *lol* no need to lift any shadow here ;D ;D ;D

And once again it shows:
"The best camera is the one in your hand." 
It's what you make out of it.


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Feb 19, 2016)

digital-jesus said:


> He could have made the photo with a mobile phone with camera and the result would be the same



Jesus, no, unless you have a mobile phone that has a 24mm-equivalent lens with an f/1.4 aperture that can take usable ISO6400 shots at 1/5 sec. shutter speed. 

The phone that can come closest to do that would be the LG G4 with an f/1.8 lens and full-manual controls. But you won't be taking usable IS06400 shots with that, guaranteed.


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Feb 19, 2016)

Maximilian said:


> Mark D5 TEAM II said:
> 
> 
> > I can predict the reaction of the equipment measurebators already: "How did that picture win, you can see the obvious banding from the low-DR 5D2 sensor in the dark areas of that winning shot!" Teh Lulz! ;D  :
> ...



Haha, I blame the DR-obsessed SoNikon fanboys that I even noticed the pattern banding on the dark areas of the winning shot even in the reduced-resolution version shown in the article.


----------



## geonix (Feb 19, 2016)

It is a great shot, no question. But if he doesn't believe in monster cameras and lenses what is he to do with a 1DX II ? Will he keep it or sell it?


----------



## nightscape123 (Feb 19, 2016)

Sure, the shot won for its emotional impact, but the technical quality of the photo is pretty poor. If he had been using the 1DXII the picture would have been significantly better in a technical sense.


----------



## Rahul (Feb 19, 2016)

nightscape123 said:


> Sure, the shot won for its emotional impact,



That's exactly that. Great photographs are remembered mostly, if not entirely, for their context. To me photography is always about connecting with the viewer, shadow noise and other technical astuteness be damned. 

Does one now shooting with a 1DX look back at photographs of their children taken with a 4mp point and shoot at some point of time in the past say - what a crap photo?


----------



## Maximilian (Feb 19, 2016)

nightscape123 said:


> Sure, the shot won for its emotional impact ... If he had been using the 1DXII ...


If he had... then maybe the emotional impact would NOT have been that good and he would NOT have won that price.

And if you had written 1DX instead of 1DXII it would have been better, too. 
Because right now there are only just a few people that possess a 1DXII as it's release is still ahead.


----------



## MintChocs (Feb 19, 2016)

It's probably black and white due to noise and banding but still a very emotive shot which the grittiness suits. I'm sure he'll upgrade to a better camera but maybe not so soon. My guess is he'll get the 5dmkiv when it releases. Once you get familiar with the controls and the way the metering is you instinctively know what settings to use and a new camera takes time to learn.


----------



## dak723 (Feb 19, 2016)

Rahul said:


> nightscape123 said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, the shot won for its emotional impact,
> ...



Good points that the SoNikon fanboys just don't understand. Cameras are made to produce photos - not to conduct tests with. And despite the pixel peepers claims, cameras just haven't changed that much since the first DSLRs. I used the original rebel (6MP) for nine years then upgraded to a 6D. Also bought a SL1. When I print 8" x 10"s, you cannot tell which pic was taken with which camera. I do shoot in daylight, and yes, I realize that there have been some improvements in more demanding lighting conditions, but your older DSLRs are perfectly capable of taking excellent photos.


----------



## M_S (Feb 19, 2016)

I just looked at the pic. The story told overal, is good, very emotional. That said, I find it quite bad to be honest in quality. Focus is somewhere on the barb wire, all blurred. Grainy as hell. Could have been an iphone shot. And this is the world press photo? In the past I could agree a lot more with that descision...


----------



## slclick (Feb 19, 2016)

How many folks here have said or use the tag line 'The best camera is the one in your hand' or something to that effect? 

Not much wiser is ever said on CR.

I'll be out shooting with my Holga 120 and when I need to come in and take a dump I'll wipe with that MILC spec sheet I keep hearing about.


----------



## LDS (Feb 19, 2016)

Rahul said:


> The winner get a 1DX Mark II - not yet up for sale. What are you on about?



I mean that if Canon had been using the contest sponsorhip to promote its own products, it would have been promoting actual cameras, not an old one. Thereby I don't believe the winner has been selected because he uses Canon. 

Then Canon can afford to give away to the winner of such a contest the greatest and the latest (to promote it, sure, why not?) - or should it have given him a Sony?


----------



## zim (Feb 19, 2016)

Could have been a shot straight out of WW2, my how the human race has advanced


----------



## gsealy (Feb 19, 2016)

First of all, let's give credit to the man for being out there on location in a highly volatile situation and doing the best he can. The man was working it. Second, he was using tools that he knew well and and that were part of his work flow. And then there was the recognition factor and his sense of place and time. While it was dark he understood the human turmoil going on and he was able to capture that moment and perhaps, many others. I can understand why the photograph won as it was about the point of transition from one country to another, from no life to maybe a new one, and a single, innocent human being passed from one person to another. We instantly know and understand the story. It is powerful.


----------



## ritholtz (Feb 19, 2016)

DPR slowly turning into a zero hedge of photography.


----------



## Phenix205 (Feb 19, 2016)

When you don't have the dramatic content, you have to win by fancy gears and/or crazy post processing. 

People can tell striking stories by sketches.


----------



## livingunique (Feb 19, 2016)

I was trying to explain to a friend the other day why I was considering the 6D for a back up camera. He was going on about how it only has one card slot, the simplistic AF system and other stuff I can't even remember. I told him it was just a backup camera and I only need 1 focus point to take a photo, so what's the big deal?

We've been using the old "focus and recompose" trick for about 40 years now. It didn't suddenly vanish because Sony has 399 AF points on their cameras.

Kudos to him.


----------



## Alastair Norcross (Feb 19, 2016)

M_S said:


> I just looked at the pic. The story told overal, is good, very emotional. That said, I find it quite bad to be honest in quality. Focus is somewhere on the barb wire, all blurred. Grainy as hell. Could have been an iphone shot. And this is the world press photo? In the past I could agree a lot more with that descision...


Hilarious. A classic case of someone who knows nothing about the art of photography. As for the focus being on the barbed wire, did it ever occur to you that perhaps that was intentional?


----------



## pedro (Feb 19, 2016)

MintChocs said:


> It's probably black and white due to noise and banding but still a very emotive shot which the grittiness suits. I'm sure he'll upgrade to a better camera but maybe not so soon. My guess is he'll get the 5dmkiv when it releases. Once you get familiar with the controls and the way the metering is you instinctively know what settings to use and a new camera takes time to learn.



I am not sure if you are right. I couldn't see this photograph being in color, it is a classic pj b/w candid. Talking about banding and noise, go and look up Robert Frank's "The Americans". It is one of about three photobooks I have on my shelf. And Frank's 60+ years old iconic work enabled by a getty foundation grant set the mark for my understanding of candid b/w photography. Since then, I did every type of lowlight despite of the modern day banding/noise discussions and never looked back.
This is photography at its purest and most authentic level. I don't know about you, but I started photography about 35 years ago. Back then we used to push a Kodak Tri-X 400 or 800 to ISO 3200 and called it a day. So, whatever type of banding occures in camera bodies of these last ten years is nothing in comparison to what we saw back in the day 8) Regards, Peter in Switzerland.


----------



## EOBeav (Feb 19, 2016)

Wait a minute, somebody on this forum recently referred to this camera as 'abysmal'. I guess we forgot to tell this photographer.


----------



## Besisika (Feb 19, 2016)

Alastair Norcross said:


> M_S said:
> 
> 
> > I just looked at the pic. The story told overal, is good, very emotional. That said, I find it quite bad to be honest in quality. Focus is somewhere on the barb wire, all blurred. Grainy as hell. Could have been an iphone shot. And this is the world press photo? In the past I could agree a lot more with that descision...
> ...


I am not so sure about him being someone who knows nothing about the art of photography.
Photojournalism is not the only genre of photography that matters - you better remember that when you are asked to take a portrait of the miss universe.


----------



## mrzero (Feb 19, 2016)

geonix said:


> But if he doesn't believe in monster cameras and lenses what is he to do with a 1DX II ? Will he keep it or sell it?



He said his next project is in the Arctic. I'm guessing he'll keep it.


----------



## NancyP (Feb 19, 2016)

Classic photojournalism, would have been fine with an even older camera.


----------



## NancyP (Feb 19, 2016)

This also highlights the utility of just picking a prime or two and going with it, in PJ situations where one is trying to get "up close". Yes, the cordoned-off hostage situation needs a 70-200 or 300. But, if you are in the thick of things, a single wide angle prime is going to be pretty versatile, and will allow you to keep your wits about you and thinking only about anticipating a good photo situation. You aren't going to have a lot of time on your hands to change lenses. If you like to work close, 24mm is a good choice.


----------



## dolina (Feb 19, 2016)

I never owned a 5d mark iii. I have the mark 2 and those 3 lenses he mentioned.


Mark D5 TEAM II said:


> Throw away your latest equipment, you gadget-collecting dilettantes!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Etienne (Feb 19, 2016)

nightscape123 said:


> Sure, the shot won for its emotional impact, but the technical quality of the photo is pretty poor. If he had been using the 1DXII the picture would have been significantly better in a technical sense.



No ... he would have missed the shot by about 1 year.


----------



## Etienne (Feb 19, 2016)

M_S said:


> I just looked at the pic. The story told overal, is good, very emotional. That said, I find it quite bad to be honest in quality. Focus is somewhere on the barb wire, all blurred. Grainy as hell. Could have been an iphone shot. And this is the world press photo? In the past I could agree a lot more with that descision...



Seriously? You can't see why this would win? Hint: It's a photojournalism, not a brick-wall-test award. An iPhone would have generated a near-black splotch on a black background.


----------



## dcsimages (Feb 19, 2016)

I wish brides would see and understand this. They're being told by wedding sites and wedding forum members to to ask what cameras will be used and reject photographers that don't have the latest and greatest. I've lost work because I hadn't upgraded quickly enough.


----------



## Alastair Norcross (Feb 19, 2016)

Besisika said:


> Alastair Norcross said:
> 
> 
> > M_S said:
> ...


I have no doubt that the winner of this contest could take a fine portrait of Miss Universe. It's a lot less likely that those who make their living taking posed portraits with all kinds of lights and reflectors could ever take this powerful shot. As for me, I have absolutely no interest in taking a portrait of Miss Universe. And yes, it's clear that the person who made the idiotic comment about the noise and the focus in this winning shot knows nothing about the art of photography. You don't have to be an expert in photojournalism to realize that what is called for in that genre is not the same as in other genres. Perhaps the poster I was replying to could produce a perfectly proficient, and no doubt horribly dull, portrait. The science of photography is different from the art of photography.


----------



## hubie (Feb 19, 2016)

Ey yo, wtf? With a 5D mk II? That is insane. That's a shitty camera - in fact it's already more than 1 year old. How can you take good photos with it? Can't get it into my mind.


----------



## pedro (Feb 19, 2016)

Etienne said:


> nightscape123 said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, the shot won for its emotional impact, but the technical quality of the photo is pretty poor. If he had been using the 1DXII the picture would have been significantly better in a technical sense.
> ...



Dear Etienne, I guess you are about to miss the point...


----------



## scyrene (Feb 19, 2016)

Etienne said:


> M_S said:
> 
> 
> > I just looked at the pic. The story told overal, is good, very emotional. That said, I find it quite bad to be honest in quality. Focus is somewhere on the barb wire, all blurred. Grainy as hell. Could have been an iphone shot. And this is the world press photo? In the past I could agree a lot more with that descision...
> ...



You're right on both counts. But of course, the second puts paid - at least to some extent - the mantra 'it's the gear you have to hand'. Because obviously, a camera (an iPhone, say, or a much older DSLR) that didn't have ISO 6400 wouldn't have been able to take this shot. So yeah, of course this competition - and really, most photography competitions - hinges on the content and emotion of a shot, but also some shots are only possible with certain gear (wildlife is a case in point, where most winning shots in competitions I follow use fairly high end cameras, lenses, sometimes underwater housing, and often travel to far flung places - they also need knowledge, both photographic technique and fieldcraft, etc). I suspect this shot won because it perfectly captures the human aspect of one of the most important current events in an instantly understandable and relatable way. Technical aspects wouldn't be considered, but they still contributed to the ability of the photographer to take the shot.


----------



## GuyF (Feb 19, 2016)

dcsimages said:


> I wish brides would see and understand this. They're being told by wedding sites and wedding forum members to to ask what cameras will be used and reject photographers that don't have the latest and greatest. I've lost work because I hadn't upgraded quickly enough.



Next time just tell them what they want to hear. I doubt any bride on her wedding day will say, "Hold everything! The photographer claimed he used a 5D3 but that's just a mk2, the wedding's off!!!".

If anyone calls your bluff just say your Hasselblad is in for repair and carry on with the job.


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Feb 19, 2016)

This DPR post about this same story reminded me once again why I've avoided that site for years:



> By RedFox88 (11 hours ago)
> 
> Taken on an iPhone and greatly push the shadows ? Pattern noise big time. No wonder it was clicked over to b&w. Very front focused. Can't see this as the winner being so technically flawed no matter the story. This is the demise of photographers in press positions. Now it's anyone with an iPhone.



The sad part is the poster is serious. :


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Feb 19, 2016)

> He did win the brand new EOS-1D X Mark II, will he sell it to get another 5D Mark II and a nice week away?



Craig, he doesn't need to sell it since he also won US$10,000 to go with the 1DX2 body. He can take a vacation somewhere balmy, far, far away from areas of conflict & suffering.

BTW, I have noticed majority of the other winning shots, not just for this year, were taken with UWA & WA focal lengths (<35mm).


----------



## ScottyP (Feb 19, 2016)

I think this one won on its current/topical subject matter rather than on the photo. There is something emotional going on in the photo, and it is a big humanitarian/political news story, but no one would value this particular photo that highly were it not for the context.


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Feb 19, 2016)

Another brilliant thread from Sony Photography Review:



> By Neez (19 hours ago)
> 
> He should have brought an A7S
> 
> ...



Hilarious. ;D


----------



## unfocused (Feb 19, 2016)

ScottyP said:


> ...no one would value this particular photo that highly were it not for the context.



Is there anything but context?

[quote author=Edward Weston]
Now to consult rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk. Such rules and laws are deduced from the accomplished fact; they are the products of reflection and after-examination, and are in no way a part of the creative impetus. When subject matter is forced to fit into preconceived patterns, there can be no freshness of vision. Following rules of composition can only lead to a tedious repetition of pictorial cliches. [/quote]


----------



## LDS (Feb 19, 2016)

Besisika said:


> I am not so sure about him being someone who knows nothing about the art of photography.
> Photojournalism is not the only genre of photography that matters - you better remember that when you are asked to take a portrait of the miss universe.



This was a contest about press photography, thereby that was the context of submissions. An highly constructed image would have been rejected. Sure, there are other genres. But even photographing miss america you can go the fashion cliché way (and then heavily photoshop it to get that very "natural look"), something you maybe would be forced to do if commissioned the usual marketing material, or, as other photographers who took images of the beautiful and the famous, go your own way and produce images that say what you want to say, if you have the needed freedom.


----------



## Famateur (Feb 19, 2016)

Can't help it...must...chime...in... 

To those who casually say, "Could have been taken on an iPhone," just pause for a moment to think about that statement. You're saying that _in identical conditions_, an iPhone would have produced an image of the _same _quality. 

Really?

Let's just pretend that there's no difference in field of view, shooting ergonomics, et cetera. Do you really think that in lighting so dark that a _full frame_ sensor produces this (technically) poor of an image a tiny smartphone sensor would keep up?

I think you mean, "An iPhone is capable of taking an image that looks crappy like that, too." Just understand that that is VERY different. I would expect that a smartphone image in identical lighting would be next to useless.

Feel free to conduct a controlled experiment to prove me wrong, though..

All that said, this thread just goes to show how some see a story, some see art and some can't get past pixel peeping...

PS: We should probably tell Adobe that they can drop the "grain" slider. After all, why on earth would anyone ever ADD grain to an image??? Oh yeah...art.


----------



## roguewave (Feb 19, 2016)

"do you need the latest and greatest gear to get great images. We know the answer, yet a lot of us continue to ask it and ignore the universally known answer."

Exactly. Of all the folks in this thread proclaiming that gear does not matter and it's all about emotional impact, etc, how many actually shoot with a previous-generation Rebel and a cheap prime and how many have invested multiple thousands in expensive gear, honestly ?


----------



## adventureous (Feb 19, 2016)

MintChocs said:


> It's probably black and white due to noise and banding but still a very emotive shot which the grittiness suits. I'm sure he'll upgrade to a better camera but maybe not so soon. My guess is he'll get the 5dmkiv when it releases. Once you get familiar with the controls and the way the metering is you instinctively know what settings to use and a new camera takes time to learn.



I agree, he might ask Canon to keep the 1DX2 and give him the 5D4 when it's available.


----------



## J.R. (Feb 19, 2016)

adventureous said:


> MintChocs said:
> 
> 
> > It's probably black and white due to noise and banding but still a very emotive shot which the grittiness suits. I'm sure he'll upgrade to a better camera but maybe not so soon. My guess is he'll get the 5dmkiv when it releases. Once you get familiar with the controls and the way the metering is you instinctively know what settings to use and a new camera takes time to learn.
> ...



-1 

He can easily sell the 1DX2 and buy the 5D4 with some change left to grab another lens.


----------



## M_S (Feb 19, 2016)

Alastair Norcross said:


> M_S said:
> 
> 
> > I just looked at the pic. The story told overal, is good, very emotional. That said, I find it quite bad to be honest in quality. Focus is somewhere on the barb wire, all blurred. Grainy as hell. Could have been an iphone shot. And this is the world press photo? In the past I could agree a lot more with that descision...
> ...


Quite frankly? No. Because from the looks of it, it looks like he didn't get the shot done. Since the baby is the important part or the helping hands, this would have been more obvious.


----------



## LOALTD (Feb 19, 2016)

I had no idea the 5D Mk II had a black and white image sensor!


Or maybe he just made it B&W to hide the noise?


What is in focus here? The arm?


Too bad there wasn't IBIS, could've had a photo without obvious camera shake.


It's a great photo of a decisive moment, but let's not act like this couldn't have been done with dozens of other cameras. (and done better with some)


----------



## M_S (Feb 19, 2016)

LOALTD said:


> I had no idea the 5D Mk II had a black and white image sensor!
> 
> 
> Or maybe he just made it B&W to hide the noise?
> ...


+1


----------



## LDS (Feb 19, 2016)

roguewave said:


> Exactly. Of all the folks in this thread proclaiming that gear does not matter and it's all about emotional impact, etc, how many actually shoot with a previous-generation Rebel and a cheap prime and how many have invested multiple thousands in expensive gear, honestly ?



As usual, "do what I say, not what I do"... ;D


----------



## LDS (Feb 19, 2016)

M_S said:


> Quite frankly? No. Because from the looks of it, it looks like he didn't get the shot done. Since the baby is the important part or the helping hands, this would have been more obvious.



No, the wire fence is the important part. What gives strength to the image is the act of passing the baby *across the fence*. Put the fence out of focus, and it's just two people exchanging a baby.


----------



## M_S (Feb 19, 2016)

LDS said:


> M_S said:
> 
> 
> > Quite frankly? No. Because from the looks of it, it looks like he didn't get the shot done. Since the baby is the important part or the helping hands, this would have been more obvious.
> ...


And that makes sense in what way? An inanimate fence is more important than the young human being "rescued" here? Since part of the barb wire is already out of focus and is easily recognized as such, the 5 cm sharp focus on a part of it won't make up for a great interpretation improvement. But anybody to his opinion.


----------



## Maximilian (Feb 19, 2016)

M_S said:


> LDS said:
> 
> 
> > M_S said:
> ...


I don't know if the focus was set as it is on purpose or if he really missed it. 
But let's admid he was able to "plan" the settings:
Ever thought that keeping the people out of focus was part of the plan to keep them anonymous?

I tend to the theory that he just did the shot at this moment - several shots (I would have done that in these light conditions to get at least ONE decent one) - and afterwards decided that this was the one telling his stroy the best.


----------



## M_S (Feb 19, 2016)

Maximilian said:


> M_S said:
> 
> 
> > LDS said:
> ...



Can be. Could be. I don't know. And I really don't want to know. I just looked at the pic and it didn't resonate with me because of the technical issues. Thats what I wrote in the first place. Done. And some pal here thought to lecture me for that. Ever thought that there could be better photos than this one out there? I mean, how many great photos of great moments, with emotions clear visible and there to grab are out there and have been taken in the last year? Millions? More? And this...really this....is the BEST journalistic one the come up with? I can't see that, not in this day and age.


----------



## Maximilian (Feb 19, 2016)

M_S said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > M_S said:
> ...


Fully understood! 
It seems the jury was more on a stroy then on a technically perfect (sterile?) picture.


----------



## slclick (Feb 19, 2016)

Maximilian said:


> M_S said:
> 
> 
> > Maximilian said:
> ...



Because an image is not a reflection of a spec sheet but of light.


----------



## Famateur (Feb 19, 2016)

Could the image have been sharper, less grainy and with less camera shake if shot with "better" technology? Of course!

Does it make one shred of difference for this photographer and the judges who were moved by it? Not. One. Bit.

The "war zone" feeling of this image is reinforced (for me) by the graininess and camera shake. It makes it feel like a desperate moment was captured.

Artistic photographers often use cameras/settings that create less than a "technically perfect" image capture for the sake of creating a work of art that communicates a message.

Examples: 


Which portrays a scene of drunkenness and frenzy (Mardi Gras, anyone?) with more impact to the viewer, a sharp image with level horizon, or a tilted image, smeared with motion from a dragged shutter?



Which gives a feeling of speed at the racetrack, a perfectly sharp image with a deep field of focus, or a panning shot at lower shutter speed?

Was this particular photographer intentionally creating an image with noise, grain and camera shake for the sake of art? Probably not. He was probably just trying to capture a moment with what he had before it was gone. Does that "harm" the image? Only to those who are convinced art can't reach magnificence without the best technology.

Of course, this is all a side-track. Art is a matter of opinion and taste. Trying to convince individuals that a piece of art is not good enough because of technical flaws is kinda silly. Critiques of technical image quality are irrelevant in a contest judged on art and emotion, particularly one in which the judgments are already final.


----------



## M_S (Feb 19, 2016)

Famateur said:


> Could the image have been sharper, less grainy and with less camera shake if shot with "better" technology? Of course!
> 
> Does it make one shred of difference for this photographer and the judges who were moved by it? Not. One. Bit.
> 
> ...


Just one correction: This is the Serbian - Hungarian border. There is no war zone there, just a fence, to keep the refugees from entering the Hungarian motherland. 
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/06/17/21/29B7AE6D00000578-3128631-image-a-3_1434573489004.jpg


----------



## eml58 (Feb 19, 2016)

NancyP said:


> Classic photojournalism, would have been fine with an even older camera.



Yes, and if we look back on many superb Photojournalists images, we find just that, and I might add a predominance of Leica's, a load of Nikons etc, but if your in mind to win the WPP award, you had better be shooting with a Canon because anything else won't be in the picture, Canon after all support this venue so no surprise there.

It's a good shot for what it is, a nighttime high ISO quick pull Image, having said that, in my own view mind, it's just not a great Image, and if you have a look at the other Images (I didn't look at all of them, there's 57,000 ??) there does seem to be a lot more worthy, but again, having said that the Judges (some very respected Photographers among them) thought this Image had enough to Win, and for the Aussie Chap that Won, this will help his Career and his future financial situation a great deal, so my congratulations to him.

In my view the Image won a lot more based not on it's technical greatness, but on what is currently a very emotive issue, especially if your European. I was recently 6 weeks in Europe and this story of the Middle East (Mostly) migrants or refugees, is of huge concern to pretty well everyone that lives in Europe. Last year alone there were 1.3 Million Refugees/Migrants trying to cross Borders into Europe, mostly trying to get into Germany, it's a Disaster no question.

He mentions he's off to Antarctica, I can definitely see a spot for his current Kit, I've used the same gear in the past on at least 3 trips to either the Arctic or the Antarctic, but I think the 5DsR would have to be on his list of new purchases, plus a Lens or two that has a longer reach than 40mm. And that's not a disparaging comment on his 5D2, it's a wonderful Camera and will continue to take amazing Images, but the 5DsR is about as close as you will get to a Medium Format Sensor in a DSLR, so it does have some benefits over an older tech Camera in particular for anything being shot in the Antarctic, and I do still have a 5D2, the Sensor has had mods though for Infrared Photography.

Actually I just read this chap is walking to the Arctic Circle, so maybe his current Kit is perfect, plus some good Hiking Boots, hope he's not walking from Australia, could be a swim or two involved.


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 20, 2016)

The equipment ii means nothing.

What matters is the rule F8 and be there


----------



## Luds34 (Feb 20, 2016)

GuyF said:


> dcsimages said:
> 
> 
> > I wish brides would see and understand this. They're being told by wedding sites and wedding forum members to to ask what cameras will be used and reject photographers that don't have the latest and greatest. I've lost work because I hadn't upgraded quickly enough.
> ...



Yeah, that doesn't add up. The content of one's work is what matters. If some guy has a $500 hockey stick is he good at hockey? How about a $1000 snowboard. Hey, that guy has a super fast car, probably a good racecar driver.

Like I said, I find this doubtful, it should be about the portfolio.


----------



## weixing (Feb 20, 2016)

LOALTD said:


> I had no idea the 5D Mk II had a black and white image sensor!
> 
> 
> Or maybe he just made it B&W to hide the noise?
> ...


Hi,
Ya... technically, all sensor are black and white... it's the color filter and the camera that interpolate them as color.

Anyway, IMHO, if the photo is clean and technically perfect, it'll just be another photo... it's the dim and imperfection of the photo that enhance the mood and probably win him the award...

Have a nice day.


----------



## Woody (Feb 20, 2016)

Breakdown of camera brands used for 2016 World Press entries:







- from http://petapixel.com/2016/02/19/here-are-the-cameras-that-won-world-press-photo-2016/

"DSLRs continue to reign supreme when it comes to photojournalism. At least 40 of the winning shots were captured using full frame DSLRs — mirrorless, compact, and action cameras accounted for one winning photo each.

Quesabesde did this same data crunching last year after World Press Photo 2015 winners were announced. There was less diversity in the winning cameras this year compared to last year. Olympus, Apple, Hasselblad, Phase One, Ricoh, Leica, and Mamiya cameras were used by winners last year, but they were entirely absent from this year’s contest — Sony, Pentax, and Fujifilm took their spots."


----------



## Refurb7 (Feb 20, 2016)

I'm not surprised that the photographer uses only 3 primes, but I am surprised that one of them is ultra-wide (14mm), and that none of them are over 40mm. That's a photographer who really wants to be up close.


----------



## krisbell (Feb 20, 2016)

Not sure what the surprise is about, the 5DII has a great sensor. All images from this famous landscape photog are taken with one...

http://www.erinbabnik.com/


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Feb 20, 2016)

Refurb7 said:


> I'm not surprised that the photographer uses only 3 primes, but I am surprised that one of them is ultra-wide (14mm), and that none of them are over 40mm. That's a photographer who really wants to be up close.



Probably he takes to heart this Robert Capa quote: *"If your pictures aren't good enough, you aren't close enough."
*

But kids, don't take that too literally, Capa died on the job in a warzone.


----------



## LDS (Feb 20, 2016)

M_S said:


> And that makes sense in what way? An inanimate fence is more important than the young human being "rescued" here? Since part of the barb wire is already out of focus and is easily recognized as such, the 5 cm sharp focus on a part of it won't make up for a great interpretation improvement. But anybody to his opinion.



It looks to me you or don't know what's happening there, or you don't care. That fence didn't exist before, and didn't grow up by itself. It was being installed there by other men, governments, to stop the very people who are crossing it. It's a symbol of new divisions inside Europe. A barb wire out of focus doesn't show its hard spikes. Inanimate? Is Auschwitz gate inanimate? Think about it...


----------



## scyrene (Feb 20, 2016)

Famateur said:


> PS: We should probably tell Adobe that they can drop the "grain" slider. After all, why on earth would anyone ever ADD grain to an image??? Oh yeah...art.



Lol, additionally adding grain/artificial noise can help when resizing images and after applying certain kinds of blur or noise reduction, to improve the impression of sharpness and reduce posterisation - at least in my experience, I have no empirical data to support that assertion. It's why I wonder about people who object to any noise at all - a little, especially luminance noise, can enhance an image.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 20, 2016)

Famateur said:


> Could the image have been sharper, less grainy and with less camera shake if shot with "better" technology? Of course!
> 
> Does it make one shred of difference for this photographer and the judges who were moved by it? Not. One. Bit.
> 
> ...



+1


----------



## Busted Knuckles (Feb 20, 2016)

First, I am truly glad that there are those who will undertake the deprivations to bring all of us such images. Perhaps through their efforts we all can move toward a better world.

Related to the image, I am critical of the judges, is this a contest of photojournalism overall, or just those who submitted their images? I have seen many images far more compelling than this - not that this image lacks in message, it is others have so much more.

Related to the equipment discussion, I +10 those who express the sentiments of the best camera is that which is in your hand, that echo Capa's call to get closer - both physically and emotionally. Recall the portraits of the same guy with six different stories. The messaging of this image is independent of the equipment. Surely, any of the current crop of "prosumer level" cameras could have captured this image, regardless of brand.

No, I have explicitly chosen not to pursue a career in photojournalism, I will not likely be joining those who pursue such endeavors. I am able to support them with contributions and drawing attention to their work.


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 20, 2016)

eml58 said:


> And that's not a disparaging comment on his 5D2, it's a wonderful Camera and will continue to take amazing Images,



+1 to this comment. I've added the 6D to the 5DII but to be quite honest at lowish ISO the 5DII is, if anything, cleaner when used competently. In fact it can be quite surreal. I tend to add some film grain / noise into my images now to stop them looking too artificial. 



krisbell said:


> Not sure what the surprise is about, the 5DII has a great sensor. All images from this famous landscape photog are taken with one...
> 
> http://www.erinbabnik.com/



Great images in that link Kris, and I am still favouring the 5DII over more 'modern' stuff at lowish ISO. I don't know where the unholy comments regarding the 5DII low ISO performance in terms of "banding" "shadow noise" and "poor DR" that we read on here by some individuals comes from. You have to under expose to the point where you hit zero data to create this, and how you do that unintentionally when the camera has an accurate expose meter and a rear LCD with histogram I have no idea. 




Famateur said:


> The "war zone" feeling of this image is reinforced (for me) by the graininess and camera shake. It makes it feel like a desperate moment was captured.



I agree on this point; the picture quality is on the edge, and it emphasises the feeling of clandestine desperation in the shot.


----------



## crank47 (Feb 20, 2016)

To people questioning over the focus on the fence, maybe it was the only thing the focus point could catch on to in a limited timeframe. I've had situations where in very low light a human face is just too plain for the camera and the focus hunts back and forth. I could see the journalist using the fence in a fast situation to get any photo at all, I've done the same thing in many occasions where I prefocus on what I can. Since we don't know the lightning situation we can only speculate that this was intentional or not. Don't just talk sh*t but think what would you do if you were there. 

Yeah a -4ev focus point might get better focus, but he didn't have that, so that argument isn't valid.

This is only my opinion but I can it as a possible explanation. Like "get some kind of picture" or "no picture at all" scenario.


----------



## slclick (Feb 20, 2016)

crank47 said:


> To people questioning over the focus on the fence, maybe it was the only thing the focus point could catch on to in a limited timeframe. I've had situations where in very low light a human face is just too plain for the camera and the focus hunts back and forth. I could see the journalist using the fence in a fast situation to get any photo at all, I've done the same thing in many occasions where I prefocus on the thing I can. Since we don't know the lightning situation we can only speculate that this was intentional or not. Don't just talk sh*t but think what would you do if you were there.
> 
> Yeah a -4ev focus point might get better focus, but he didn't have that, so that argument isn't valid.
> 
> This is only my opinion but I can it as a possible explanation. Like "get some kind of picture" or "no picture at all" scenario.



Who knows, it's just cool.


----------



## johninsanantonio (Feb 20, 2016)

I literally have hundreds of pictures I took during my 39 months in combat during my three deployments to Iraq. Most of the time they were with a crappy Nikon E2200, and when that stopped working during my second deployment, I stepped up to a Canon Powershot SD780. I also owned a Digital Rebel XTi, but was too scared to bring that with me for fear of breaking it. Now days I shoot with a 5DMK3. 

My first deployment was with the 3rd Infantry Division to the Sunni triangle, and this was before the Abu Ghraib incident, so we were able to film pretty much anything we wanted to. I consider that my bloodiest deployment, due to the amount of casualties my unit took. By Brigade lost 89 and had close to 900 wounded. I forgot to mention that I am a Combat Medic. 

During my second deployment I was Senior Medic assigned to Charlie Company 1-504th Parachute Infantry Regiment 82nd Airborne Division. My unit was the first unit to arrive to Baghdad during the 2007 Surge and we made History by who we were and what we accomplished. I was able to take some truly remarkable pictures. 

My 3rd deployment we made history again. This time with 2-504th deploying to Ramadi Iraq as the first American unit to train the Iraqi Army. Again I took some amazing photos.

I need to clarify that I always maintained my professionalism with every picture I took. I retired from the Army in 2013 so all the restrictions I have are self-imposed. My wife keeps telling me to submit my pictures, but I haven’t made up my mind yet. I may be biased, but being a soldier put me in many unique situations that journalists might never be able to obtain.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 20, 2016)

johninsanantonio said:


> I literally have hundreds of pictures I took during my 39 months in combat during my three deployments to Iraq...My wife keeps telling me to submit my pictures, but I haven’t made up my mind yet. I may be biased, but being a soldier put me in many unique situations that journalists might never be able to obtain.


John, 
A comment and some unsolicited advice.

Realistically, it would be impossible to submit photos from 2007 to any news-oriented competition. It's just too long ago. In fact anything not taken within the past year will not generate much if any interest.

However, what you could certainly do, and I would encourage you to do, is to go through your pictures and pick out the absolute best ones you have. Be ruthless. When you are done, take an honest look at what you have left and decide is you think there are enough for a book or if a magazine article might be more appropriate. 

At the same time, start writing your own story. Write a first hand account of what it was like to be a medic during the surge. What you saw and what you would like to tell Americans about your experience in Iraq. It's clear that the U.S. Involvement there is not going to end and it will probably need to escalate after the presidential election no matter who wins. So, start writing now and you may have a very marketable product when you finish.

i would go ahead and assemble a book using a site like Blurb, so you can show potential publishers what it could look like.

Even if no one is interested in it, it will be a great exercise. You will learn a lot about storytelling with words and pictures and at a minimum, you will have something you can share with your children and grandchildren.


----------



## slclick (Feb 20, 2016)

johninsanantonio said:


> I literally have hundreds of pictures I took during my 39 months in combat during my three deployments to Iraq. Most of the time they were with a crappy Nikon E2200, and when that stopped working during my second deployment, I stepped up to a Canon Powershot SD780. I also owned a Digital Rebel XTi, but was too scared to bring that with me for fear of breaking it. Now days I shoot with a 5DMK3.
> 
> My first deployment was with the 3rd Infantry Division to the Sunni triangle, and this was before the Abu Ghraib incident, so we were able to film pretty much anything we wanted to. I consider that my bloodiest deployment, due to the amount of casualties my unit took. By Brigade lost 89 and had close to 900 wounded. I forgot to mention that I am a Combat Medic.
> 
> ...



John,

Thanks for sharing your images and experiences with us. You have had a unique perspective many of us cannot even begin to imagine. I agree with the above posters statement to begin to compile, document and archive in what ever manner you can...since every angle, every perspective helps us understand , 'us' whom were not there, and those stories are invaluable. 

Thanks for your service!

B


----------



## Famateur (Feb 21, 2016)

slclick said:


> johninsanantonio said:
> 
> 
> > I literally have hundreds of pictures I took during my 39 months in combat during my three deployments to Iraq.
> ...



+1 Thank you for your service, John.


----------



## Valvebounce (Feb 21, 2016)

Hi John. 
My father served in WW2, I have 2 photos of him from during that time, I would love to have had more. May I suggest that if you know any of the personnel you offer to make the photos available to them if you are not going to publish them. I suspect many family members would appreciate seeing their own hero in action. Just a thought and no wish for you to do anything you don't feel comfortable with. 
Again thank you for your service. 

Cheers, Graham. 



johninsanantonio said:


> I literally have hundreds of pictures I took during my 39 months in combat during my three deployments to Iraq. Most of the time they were with a crappy Nikon E2200, and when that stopped working during my second deployment, I stepped up to a Canon Powershot SD780. I also owned a Digital Rebel XTi, but was too scared to bring that with me for fear of breaking it. Now days I shoot with a 5DMK3.


----------



## M_S (Feb 21, 2016)

LDS said:


> M_S said:
> 
> 
> > And that makes sense in what way? An inanimate fence is more important than the young human being "rescued" here? Since part of the barb wire is already out of focus and is easily recognized as such, the 5 cm sharp focus on a part of it won't make up for a great interpretation improvement. But anybody to his opinion.
> ...


I guess the troll can't let it go. Your argument is beyond the point and beyond logic, beyond reason. Since I am a resident of Europe, I know what is going on, because it affects my life (see other answer). And it beats me what Auschwitz has to to with it here and above all with the quality of the pic. -> cut and edited....what ever. Thought about it and no: can't see your point, and am not interested in enlightenment as this is not about right or wrong but of personal taste and it's more than obvious that we won't agree upon how good or bad that picture is in our eyes. It simply doesn't resonate with me because of the technical issues.


----------



## AshtonNekolah (Feb 22, 2016)

MintChocs said:


> It's probably black and white due to noise and banding but still a very emotive shot which the grittiness suits. I'm sure he'll upgrade to a better camera but maybe not so soon. My guess is he'll get the 5dmkiv when it releases. Once you get familiar with the controls and the way the metering is you instinctively know what settings to use and a new camera takes time to learn.



All the folks that talk about gear and how bad the image is and he should of used this and that, they should have gone in to the awards and submit to win, however If you can use your camera with your eyes closed or in the dark all button positions and know its weakness and strength you will pull off better photos under any condition over anyone with a newer camera any day. when you and the camera is one that's when magic happens. folks that fiddle and always looking at what to press and set in the dark are no better than the camera without a battery in it that they use.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 22, 2016)

Sigh....... it's not the gear, it's being there, with a good eye, and the right mindset. The camera does not matter.... these people could do the job with whatever is available. Let's celebrate their accomplishment and not suck sour grapes while saying that we could have done better, because we didn't.


----------



## Roo (Feb 22, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> Sigh....... it's not the gear, it's being there, with a good eye, and the right mindset. The camera does not matter.... these people could do the job with whatever is available. Let's celebrate their accomplishment and not suck sour grapes while saying that we could have done better, because we didn't.



Amen to that Don!


----------



## ecka (Feb 22, 2016)

1. Gear matters.
2. 5D2 is a great camera.
3. Camera is a tool. Better cameras are better tools.
4. Populism like "it's not the camera ...", is an artsy narcissistic BS. Trust me.

Art is about feelings, but it's useless without information. Image quality = information, more information = better quality. In art the information is often too much, because it is not about the real world, it is dreamy, it is fantasy, it is illusion, it is deception ... while photojournalism is quite the opposite, it is as real as it gets, or at least it should be. It's the information that makes your blood boil, not the artsy fartsy noise. Therefore I think a better tool would have made the picture only better.
I've used 5D2 with some primes and then I switched to 6D, because it is a better camera for the same price (or was, back then). For most people price is the major limiting factor. I'm not a professional, but I would buy the 5D3 if it wasn't twice the price of 6D, I would buy the 5DSr if it wasn't three times more expensive than 6D. It is always a compromise and there is always a better tool. I love technology. It is the only way to make the world a better place. And if you see art and beauty in war and poverty, then there is something very wrong with you.
http://cdn.meme.am/instances/250x250/24152963.jpg


----------



## Roo (Feb 22, 2016)

ecka said:


> 1. Gear matters.
> 2. 5D2 is a great camera.
> 3. Camera is a tool. Better cameras are better tools.
> 4. Populism like "it's not the camera ...", is an artsy narcissistic BS. Trust me.
> ...



Just no. I'm really sorry that you just don't get photojournalism because it is very little to do with the gear, only the story the resulting image tells. I was at a shoot with a friend at the weekend and we both had a similar idea for a shot inside a pod on an observation wheel at dusk. We were in different pods and had no idea we were going for the same type of candid shot. She took hers with a 70d and 18-55 lens while I was using the 5D3 and 16-35. Which was the better image? Well, mine might have had the better framing with the 16mm and where I positioned myself but hers was far better because her timing was spot on and the subjects were better positioned to convey the story.


----------



## ecka (Feb 22, 2016)

Roo said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > 1. Gear matters.
> ...



So, you've failed shooting some pictures, what does that has to do with anything? Maybe you would fail even more if you'd use a lesser camera. 70D is not bad camera and if it was good enough for the job, that doesn't mean your 5D3 is a total overkill. You don't buy a separate tool for every situation. Well, I don't, maybe you do, I don't know, but I think it would be a waste. I just buy the best tool that fits my needs at a reasonable price and I'm not rich enough to buy cheap stuff. OK, I admit, I do like cheap small primes, like my 40 STM, but the cheapest thing about it is the price, so I don't feel guilty .
There are good people doing bad things and there are bad people doing good things (sometimes), so, I guess, in your view, it doesn't matter what you do, you can always consider yourself a decent human being anyway (like while doing something bad for a change). Perhaps that's what terrorists think ... and they fail. Because everything matters.
Finally, why don't you just stop being hypocritical, get rid of your fancy photography toys and use your phone camera instead, for everything.


----------



## Famateur (Feb 22, 2016)

Roo said:


> Art is about feelings...



Agreed!



Roo said:


> ...but it's useless without information.



Well, yes, it's useless without ANY information, but it can be spoiled by too much information.



Roo said:


> Image quality = information, more information = better quality.



Hmm...Files at higher ISO are often larger, aren't they (technically, more information)? Shouldn't that make the image we're discussing even it better? There's more "information". 

Or do you mean something beyond the sensor data? Do you mean trivia/knowledge? The more literal things one can know from an image, the better the image?

Question: Do you ever shoot with a shallow field of focus?

Shallow depth of field blurs out the background. That's great for focusing the viewer on what is important to the photographer -- what's relevant to the message she/he is sending. With a definition of "more information = better image quality," a blurred background (pleasing to most people) loses information and is therefore an inferior image to one in which everything is in focus.

To each their own, but for me, too much information can often spoil an image by distracting from the subject or message. I will often remove a stray hair or lint from a sweater or a tree branch that crept into the frame, et cetera, because they're unnecessary pieces of information that add nothing useful to the image and visually distract the viewer from what I want them to see.

I think you might mean that you feel there could have been more information in the scene from which the image we're discussing was taken and that, with better technology/technique, that information would have been captured to better satisfy you. 

Two thoughts:

1) Perhaps the photographer didn't want to include the other information. If that's the case, and if you want more information, it's up to you to produce the photo you like better (or hire a photographer to shoot what you're after).

2) Though I don't know the actual circumstances, it seems unlikely to me that the photographer in this case had any artsy fartsy intentions and was just trying to capture a moment before it was gone. Perfection is often the enemy of success. Here, capturing an image was not only better than no image at all, enough people thought it was the best of submitted images that it won. Sounds like a success to me!



Roo said:


> ...if you see art and beauty in war and poverty, then there is something very wrong with you.



So in your opinion, art can only evoke good feelings? If it evokes negative feelings -- and you appreciate that effect -- it's either not art or there's something wrong with you? Hmm...Maybe it's an issue of nomenclature. How 'bout we call it "poetry" instead of "art?" Would that exempt us from the being considered malfunctional when moved by something that makes one's blood boil?

Perhaps one sees beauty in the infant, which beauty and innocence is made all the more poignant in its juxtaposition with barbed wire and conflict. 



Roo said:


> ...while photojournalism is quite the opposite, it is as real as it gets, or at least it should be.



It should be, yes (if by "real" you mean "honest"). But then again, do you trust the story being told because an image is in focus and high in technical image quality? How do you know you're not just seeing the "story" the photographer wants you to see? Reminds me of Mark Wallace talking about people from India asking why he only took pictures of the poor and the ghettos. They felt it misrepresented the vibrant spirit of India and all it has to offer. That was a learning moment for Mark. 

Anyway, this is an interesting discussion -- thank you! Been good food for thought...

Cheers!


----------



## unfocused (Feb 22, 2016)

ecka said:


> In art the information is often too much, because it is not about the real world, it is dreamy, it is fantasy, it is illusion, it is deception ...



Most true artists would laugh at that statement. Of course, it might be true if you think of art as the kind of schlock produced by Thomas Kinkade or the tens of thousands of Ansel Adams wannabes who take a long exposure picture of a stream or waterfall and think they've produced art.

But, most artists who are recognized as such would say they are trying to find truth. It may be a deeper truth than the eye can see or the truth beneath the apparent reality of the surface. In the photographic realm, I would expect that recognized artists like Martin Paar, Robert Frank, Stephen Shore, Paul Strand, Edward Weston, etc. etc. etc., would argue (or would have argued) that they were seeking to reveal truths, whether they be universal truths or truths about society. In fact, I think even someone like Jerry Uelsmann would say his images seek to reveal truths.


----------



## ecka (Feb 22, 2016)

Famateur said:


> Roo said:
> 
> 
> > Art is about feelings...
> ...



Files at higher ISO are often larger, because they are full of noise, not information. Yes, by information I mean the actual details of the real world subject you are shooting, not the sensor data. Yes, art can be spoiled by too much information. 
Shallow DoF or not, I'm talking about using different tools for shooting the same image. We don't normally shoot the blur, so there must be something in focus and if that something is represented by a greater amount of correct information, then it is higher quality. Low quality images tend to attract all kinds of controversy, doubt, mistrust and suspicions, but it can work for art pretty well actually.
Art evoking negative feelings? - no, thank you. I can just watch TV if I'd want that . Kind of a pointless thing to do, I don't enjoy stress. And you might be "broken" if you do . Seriously, there are psychopathic individuals who really enjoy this stuff. It's a mental disorder.
Thanks for the response.
Cheers!


----------



## ecka (Feb 22, 2016)

unfocused said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > In art the information is often too much, because it is not about the real world, it is dreamy, it is fantasy, it is illusion, it is deception ...
> ...



Well, I'm always trying to be critical and realistic. I don't wear "pink glasses".
The truth is that there is only one truth. No separate, different, individual truths for each and everyone. You won't find any other truths besides the one and only. Two contradicting statements cannot both be true. It's either one of them is correct, or they both are wrong.
I don't think they are trying to find truth, but to hide it. Art is the devil, which makes you think there are many different truths. There is always a riddle, a lack of information, a missing piece of a puzzle, which is created by your imagination. Different people imagine different things, or the same things differently, because of the different life experiences. So it is kind of a brain massage, useful stuff .


----------



## eml58 (Feb 22, 2016)

Mmmm, ecka it might be time for a break


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 22, 2016)

ecka said:


> The truth is that there is only one truth. No separate, different, individual truths for each and everyone.



Yet somehow, two people standing side by side, can see two different things in the same picture.....


----------



## ecka (Feb 22, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > The truth is that there is only one truth. No separate, different, individual truths for each and everyone.
> ...



... and they both could be wrong.


----------



## notapro (Feb 22, 2016)

I've noticed this thread only recently. Interesting comments, there are. With respect to some of what you have written, Ecka, can you add to or help in my/our (we who are readers and participants in this thread) understanding of what you believe to be "right" or "proper" in or for photography as art (if indeed you hold such a view--it is possible that you hold a different view)?

Is it your position that "truth" is necessary for art? Is it possible, by what you mean to express to the forum (might mean to express to the forum), for art to express/portray/manifest/etc. a truth/any truth? I ask because you wrote earlier that "Art is the devil, which makes you think there are many different truths".

If it happens to be your position that art must (?)/can only (?) express a single truth, is it the case that such truth be correspondent with "reality"--i.e., a deliberate attempt or endeavor on a photographer's part (in this case) to "just show what the camera sees", without any wish or intent to be "artful", without any wish or intent to "distort" what has been photographed?

If that is the case, then what might you say the difference is between "art" and non-art ("reality")? If there is no difference, then can art be a devil when it happens to portray reality in a "truthful" way? If there is a difference, and art by definition "lies", so to speak--and in keeping with your Art-as-Devil proposition--then is it folly to fault/critique/analyze/criticize/theorize/etc. art in terms of a truth concept if one holds that art does not or cannot express truth?

I ask these questions merely in order to understand what you wish to communicate more specifically to the forum with regard to art, information, truth, photography, and so forth.

Most Sincerely,

Notapro


----------



## ecka (Feb 23, 2016)

notapro said:


> I've noticed this thread only recently. Interesting comments, there are. With respect to some of what you have written, Ecka, can you add to or help in my/our (we who are readers and participants in this thread) understanding of what you believe to be "right" or "proper" in or for photography as art (if indeed you hold such a view--it is possible that you hold a different view)?
> 
> Is it your position that "truth" is necessary for art? Is it possible, by what you mean to express to the forum (might mean to express to the forum), for art to express/portray/manifest/etc. a truth/any truth? I ask because you wrote earlier that "Art is the devil, which makes you think there are many different truths".
> 
> ...



Art needs no truth, photojournalism does. The multi-truth concept doesn't work in reality. People (like politicians) often try to implement it, but all we get are lies and deception, which can only lead to destruction and war. Artists are like politicians in many ways. Only artists act in the realm of art. So their lies can be safe and you can play with the Devil. We need that to expand our imagination. The truth is in our heads, art is just provoking us to go there and look for it.
Art can be spoiled by too much information, while there can't be too much information in photojournalism. There are many extraordinary and unbelievable photographs, but not all of them are art. Many people think that photography itself is art, but they are wrong. Photography is a tool.

Thank you for commenting


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 23, 2016)

My take on the matter is that photography captures a moment in time. What it captures is truth, but that truth is only partial truth. If you followed my photography from canoe trips you would get the impression that the country is over-run with wildlife, but it is not so. The sightings are few and far between, but by heavily choosing the displayed images from that small subset, reality is distorted and the viewer is deceived.

Just the act of pointing the camera in one direction and not the other is editing "the truth" to show the subset of it that you wish to present. I point my camera one direction and you think I am paddling in a pristine, untouched wilderness.... I turn around and point it the other direction and you see that I am paddling in Downtown Ottawa, a city of over a million people...

What photography does do, is to tell a story. Not some absolute all-encompassing truth, but a story that the photographer wishes to tell...... and that is what the World Press photos of the year are.... stories.


----------



## Luds34 (Feb 23, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> My take on the matter is that photography captures a moment in time. What it captures is truth, but that truth is only partial truth. If you followed my photography from canoe trips you would get the impression that the country is over-run with wildlife, but it is not so. The sightings are few and far between, but by heavily choosing the displayed images from that small subset, reality is distorted and the viewer is deceived.
> 
> Just the act of pointing the camera in one direction and not the other is editing "the truth" to show the subset of it that you wish to present. I point my camera one direction and you think I am paddling in a pristine, untouched wilderness.... I turn around and point it the other direction and you see that I am paddling in Downtown Ottawa, a city of over a million people...
> 
> What photography does do, is to tell a story. Not some absolute all-encompassing truth, but a story that the photographer wishes to tell...... and that is what the World Press photos of the year are.... stories.



Absolutely correct here. The contrary opinion that photo journalism is capturing this empirical truth is, if I'm being frank, naive.


----------



## NancyP (Feb 23, 2016)

Don, a 360 degree panorama of your paddling would tell an interesting story about a city and its preservation of presumably clean waterways for public recreation.

If a PJ-type photo is taken without an obvious narrative, the viewer either ignores it or constructs their own narrative. We are story-telling creatures.


----------



## Famateur (Feb 23, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> My take on the matter is that photography captures a moment in time. What it captures is truth, but that truth is only partial truth. If you followed my photography from canoe trips you would get the impression that the country is over-run with wildlife, but it is not so. The sightings are few and far between, but by heavily choosing the displayed images from that small subset, reality is distorted and the viewer is deceived.
> 
> Just the act of pointing the camera in one direction and not the other is editing "the truth" to show the subset of it that you wish to present. I point my camera one direction and you think I am paddling in a pristine, untouched wilderness.... I turn around and point it the other direction and you see that I am paddling in Downtown Ottawa, a city of over a million people...
> 
> What photography does do, is to tell a story. Not some absolute all-encompassing truth, but a story that the photographer wishes to tell...... and that is what the World Press photos of the year are.... stories.



+1, Don. Well put!


----------



## notapro (Feb 23, 2016)

I have another question for you, Ecka.

You write above that “There are many extraordinary and unbelievable photographs, but not all of them are art. Many people think that photography itself is art, but they are wrong. Photography is a tool.”

It helps to have greater understanding of your perspective, and with your statement that photography is a tool, not art, it is clearer why there has been discussion regarding some of what you have written.

Still, you write that “not all of them [photographs] are art”, following with a statement that persons are wrong in thinking that photography itself is art. If that is the case, how would you classify or conceive of the photos above not encompassed by your statement?

More specifically, if not all photographs are art, then are *some*/*any* photographs art? If so, then is that incongruent with your view of photography as non-art? If by your perspective no photographs are art, then–to iterate–what is your classification of the photographs above not encompassed by your statement?

Respectfully,

Notapro


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 23, 2016)

NancyP said:


> Don, a 360 degree panorama of your paddling would tell an interesting story about a city and its preservation of presumably clean waterways for public recreation.
> 
> If a PJ-type photo is taken without an obvious narrative, the viewer either ignores it or constructs their own narrative. We are story-telling creatures.



Exactly! The narrative is all important for establishing context, but even there we have to trust the integrity of the storyteller. For example, I have posted a few pictures.... I could use them to tell the story of wilderness canoeing in Ontario, or I could use them to show what a good job the City of Ottawa has done in protecting natural areas. BTW, 6 of the 8 pictures are taken within city limits, one picture on the non-city limits side of the Ottawa river, and one from out of town...


----------



## J.R. (Feb 23, 2016)

Truth in photography? There are whole essays on this topic. The most interesting one for me is - Cause of Death ... "elegant forensic evidence that, although the camera cannot lie, photographs tell different truths" - John Hilliard 

Quote
"John Hilliard’s ‘Cause of Death’ provides a useful textbook example of the ways the meaning of a single image can be altered by its cropping and caption. This piece of work demonstrates how meaning in the photograph is achieved by selecting the appropriate information. From a single negative, Hilliard has selected and titled four possible ‘causes of death’ that might explain the situation of a body shown lying on a beach. These ‘explanations’ have been captioned: crushed, drowned, fell, burned and gain their effect purely through the way Hilliard has decided to present the facts. The spatial relationship between each fragment and its frame indicates that each image has been cropped from a larger image, which (if ever shown in its entirety) would prove to be ambiguous. Upon viewing Hilliard’s work, we can not only discover that we may have been deceived by the four possible interpretations, but the way that they have been displayed provides us with the means to find out exactly how we might have been misled."


----------



## ecka (Feb 23, 2016)

notapro said:


> I have another question for you, Ecka.
> 
> You write above that “There are many extraordinary and unbelievable photographs, but not all of them are art. Many people think that photography itself is art, but they are wrong. Photography is a tool.”
> 
> ...



Photography is a tool. You can do whatever you want with it - documentary (like you own life history, events, travelling, sports ...), event photography (parties, weddings, festivals, ...), cataloging (like product photography, snowflakes, food, evidence, astrophotography ...), nature (wildlife, macro, landscapes, ...), photojournalism (like all the horrible stuff we see on TV, telling the story, ...), paparazziing , art, ... .
Pushing the button doesn't make you an artist. Some say - "it's not art, if you didn't create it" - and the only variable here is what that "it" is. The subject, the composition, the mood (I think this one is the most common), the post processing, etc. So you can just pick one (or more) and work on it, if you feel you are an artist that is.
Some people want all their pictures to look artsy and fancy, so they photoshop everything into some kind of "art-like gallery". Others got artistic style, they stage their shots, use all kinds of lighting setups and stuff. Some people (like me) just enjoy collecting memories.
I understand that it is hard to fully comprehend someone's reasoning, but trying to explain yourself with words may be even harder . That's one of the reasons I'm into photography. I'm no artist.


----------



## ecka (Feb 23, 2016)

J.R. said:


> Truth in photography? There are whole essays on this topic. The most interesting one for me is - Cause of Death ... "elegant forensic evidence that, although the camera cannot lie, photographs tell different truths" - John Hilliard
> 
> Quote
> "John Hilliard’s ‘Cause of Death’ provides a useful textbook example of the ways the meaning of a single image can be altered by its cropping and caption. This piece of work demonstrates how meaning in the photograph is achieved by selecting the appropriate information. From a single negative, Hilliard has selected and titled four possible ‘causes of death’ that might explain the situation of a body shown lying on a beach. These ‘explanations’ have been captioned: crushed, drowned, fell, burned and gain their effect purely through the way Hilliard has decided to present the facts. The spatial relationship between each fragment and its frame indicates that each image has been cropped from a larger image, which (if ever shown in its entirety) would prove to be ambiguous. Upon viewing Hilliard’s work, we can not only discover that we may have been deceived by the four possible interpretations, but the way that they have been displayed provides us with the means to find out exactly how we might have been misled."



So, if your picture doesn't tell the story (or the whole story), then you are a liar or just a lousy photographer?


----------



## eml58 (Feb 23, 2016)

ecka said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > Truth in photography? There are whole essays on this topic. The most interesting one for me is - Cause of Death ... "elegant forensic evidence that, although the camera cannot lie, photographs tell different truths" - John Hilliard
> ...



Post a self portrait ecka, we are likely to see both.

I seldom look in on CR anymore, because of people like yourself.

Knock yourself out with your nonsensical replies.


----------



## eml58 (Feb 23, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> NancyP said:
> 
> 
> > Don, a 360 degree panorama of your paddling would tell an interesting story about a city and its preservation of presumably clean waterways for public recreation.
> ...



You do your City a service Don, lovely Images that tell me, at least, that Ontario would be a great place to live.


----------



## ecka (Feb 23, 2016)

eml58 said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > J.R. said:
> ...



What is wrong with you? Why are you so mean?


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 23, 2016)

eml58 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > NancyP said:
> ...


By and large, it is a wonderful place.... but I could just as easily go out and take a dozen images of graffiti, despair, neglect, and poverty that would show the opposite. The bias of the storyteller and their agenda can be used to distort reality. There is what I call "the Queensway effect". You drive down the Queensway and see 10,000 other drivers..... 9,999 are good and sensible, one drives like a total idiot..... and that is the one you remember! By focusing on things that are abnormal, we distort our view of reality and if left unchecked, we start to believe that the abnormal events are either normal, or far more common than they are.


----------



## notapro (Feb 23, 2016)

Hello again, Ecka, and a nod as well to the readers of and contributors to this thread.

You have written that “Pushing the button doesn't make you an artist.” That compliments the sense you seem to express that photography is not art merely by virtue of being photography, and furthermore–you contend–photography is (only?, merely?) a tool. Am I understanding you correctly?

If I have understood you correctly, I surmise that many persons would agree with you on the idea of one’s not being transformed into the status of artist simply by virtue of having pressed a shutter. However, what seems to be at issue here is the matter of photography as art. It appears to be the case that you hold that photography is not, and cannot (?) be art. Is that what you wish to express precisely and definitively?

I ask because, for example, one can dance without the dance being art or without the dancer being an artist. One can paint without the painting being art or without the painter being an artist. One can sculpt without the sculpture being art or without the sculptor being an artist. Once can write without the writing being art or without the writer being an artist. You have given examples of how you believe one can take/make/compose/create/etc. a photograph without the photograph being art or without the photographer being an artist.

It happens to be, though, that dance, painting, sculpture, and writing (in their various forms) *can* be art in relevant and appropriate contexts. There are programs at universities world-wide in those areas, and they are taught explicitly in and within the context of art. It happens as well that there are M.F.A. and other graduate programs in photography where the photographic medium is treated, rendered, analyzed, presented, and so forth explicitly as art.

Is it your position that aestheticians, artists, curators, and academics (for example) who treat photography within an art context are wrong-headed and–in addition–that it is an absolute impossibility for a photographer in relevant and appropriate contexts (e.g., university art programs, art galleries, other associated/similar/related contexts/venues) to be an artist or for photography to be art?

If so, what, specifically, is the rationale you hold that renders that of those or of any other such persons logically, conclusively, or definitively misbegotten? Through providing one in this thread, you can help us understand your position.

Sincerely,

Notapro


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 23, 2016)

Timing is everything.... This just came from a good friend who is most definitely an artist and also a professional photographer (even studied it at R.I.T.)

It is titled "Transient Ripples in Water in Blue Bowl, or The Cat is Thirsty"


----------



## ecka (Feb 24, 2016)

notapro said:


> Hello again, Ecka, and a nod as well to the readers of and contributors to this thread.
> 
> You have written that “Pushing the button doesn't make you an artist.” That compliments the sense you seem to express that photography is not art merely by virtue of being photography, and furthermore–you contend–photography is (only?, merely?) a tool. Am I understanding you correctly?
> 
> ...



Well, the world is not black and white. You are oversimplifying it to the point of error. I don't know what exactly you are trying to prove, but photography is not either art, or non-art, it's a tool. There is no conflict. Normally, people don't produce art if they don't want to. It's a choice. You can dance artistically, or for sport, or for some kind of a ritual, or for money ... you decide. Life is simple as it is, with simple rules. Sometimes it's not about learning something you don't know, but learning that you don't know a thing about something. Then you just have to learn the whole thing from the beginning. I never said that a photographer cannot be an artist. I said that photography, as a tool, can be used for a lot more than just art.
Fundamentalism is false and bad for mental health, you must question everything.


----------



## benperrin (Feb 24, 2016)

ecka said:


> 1. Gear matters.
> 2. 5D2 is a great camera.
> 3. Camera is a tool. Better cameras are better tools.
> 4. Populism like "it's not the camera ...", is an artsy narcissistic BS. Trust me


+1

People who say the camera doesn't matter are full of it. Not to say it's the only part that matters but it certainly does. The problem lies where people think that only your gear matters. That is just as incorrect as saying gear is not important. Better gear can open up new and exciting opportunities. Post processing also can. There will be plenty of photos that no amount of post processing can save but it can enhance great images as well. Take them to a new level. People make far too big of a deal about new cameras. I've had people tell me that the 5d2 can't take good images, of course talk like that is bs. 

Also people often argue these points from their own favourite photographic genres. Photo journalism will have different requirements to landscape and sports photography will have a different set of requirements again. This needs to be remembered when arguing the point. The best camera is not the one you have with you, it is the right tool for the job. I'd hate to use an iPhone for bird photography.


----------



## notapro (Feb 24, 2016)

Ecka,

Thank you for elaborating further your position in Reply #115.

Let us all look forward to what the next World Press Photo of the Year brings us.

Sincerely,

Notapro


----------



## J.R. (Feb 24, 2016)

ecka said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > Truth in photography? There are whole essays on this topic. The most interesting one for me is - Cause of Death ... "elegant forensic evidence that, although the camera cannot lie, photographs tell different truths" - John Hilliard
> ...



Neither. Everything is subjective and as for "entire story" in photography, it is neither here nor there. 

Too bad you feel like that ecka. If all you want is to show the entire story, feeling that not doing so will make you a liar or a lousy photographer, you are missing out on a lot of creative opportunities in your photography.


----------



## ecka (Feb 24, 2016)

J.R. said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > J.R. said:
> ...



Perhaps my photography is not creative, it is situational. And I really don't feel bad because of it, neither should you. 
I think I'll just keep working on the "lousy photographer" part and try to get better in progress, because (IMHO) lying is for artists (and liars, and politicians, obviously) and I'm not interested in improving those skills. There is plenty of it already, maybe even too much, no need for one more.


----------



## ecka (Feb 24, 2016)

notapro said:


> Ecka,
> 
> Thank you for elaborating further your position in Reply #115.
> 
> ...



No problem 
Let's do that.
Cheers!


----------



## ecka (Feb 24, 2016)

benperrin said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > 1. Gear matters.
> ...



+1

"It's not the camera, it's the tool behind it."
:


----------



## dolina (Feb 28, 2016)

ecka said:


> benperrin said:
> 
> 
> > ecka said:
> ...



+1000

Will use that saying next time.


----------

