Klavs Bo Christensen's "too much Photoshop" disqualification.
This year's Danish photo contest "Picture of The Year" is now getting quite an attention in photo communities worldwide. All because of the controversial RAW conversion with following colour, contrast and tonal enhancements made by one of the participants—photojournalist Klavs Bo Christensen.
Several years ago, the rules for the Danish "Picture of The Year" were updated: "Photos submitted to Picture of The Year must be a truthful representation of whatever happened in front of the camera during exposure. You may post-process the images electronically in accordance with good practice. That is cropping, burning, dodging, converting to black and white as well as normal exposure and color correction, which preserves the image's original expression. The Judges and exhibition committee reserve the right to see the original raw image files, raw tape, negatives and/or slides. In cases of doubt, the photographer can be pulled out of competition". (source)
Original RAW file converted to JPEG using the Default setting in Adobe Camera Raw. Photo: Klavs Bo Christensen.
Jens Tønnesen, the Webmaster for the Danish Union of Press Photographers, attended the National Press Photographers Association's "NewsVideo Workshop" in Norman, where he told News Photographer magazine about the heated Photoshop debate that's going on back in Copenhagen.
During the course of judging and selection, the judges saw some pictures that were enchanced in such a way, that they could not "be a truthful representation". Some of the photos were therefore rejected on the spot, but for some of them they requested original RAW files—to see the difference.
"Photojournalist Klavs Bo Christensen just landed at Kastrup Airport after a long travel abroad, when his cell phone rang. It was a representative from the Danish photo contest Picture of The Year, who asked him to submit his RAW files from his Haiti story to the judges. (…) Klavs Bo Christensen has received his luggage at the airport and has rushed out to his office to find his RAW files, burn them on to a CD and deliver it to Gl. Strand in the center of Copenhagen, where the judging takes place." (source)
But the requested files did not remove the judges' suspicion of immoderate adjustments. Especially the three images (photographed using Nikon D700), that are shown throughout this article, invoked the judges' anger.
"I think that people should be judged on what they send in, but this is just too much," said Miriam Dalsgaard, as she pointed at some concrete, on the above picture, that is steel blue. As judges said, "the colors almost looks like they have been sprayed onto the picture. Some clothes that are brown in the RAW file are now bright red". Below you can see the original.
Original RAW file converted to JPEG using the Default setting in Adobe Camera Raw. Photo: Klavs Bo Christensen.
As for the photo below, "he deliberately selected a chair and made it yellow, and so he selects the wall and makes it blue"—said Peter Dejong, the second judge—"For me it is unacceptable."
Submitted version. Photo: Klavs Bo Christensen.
Original RAW file converted to JPEG using the Default setting in Adobe Camera Raw. Photo: Klavs Bo Christensen.
The third judge, Carsten Ingemann suggested that they perhaps could give a prize to one of the images to open a discussion about how to use Photoshop, but that idea is rejected by the other two judges. But we see that the discussion is pretty heated now, anyway. :-)
After a short discussion the judges decided to vote out the whole Haiti series by Klavs Bo Christensen. "It should not mean that we do not accept or recognize editing in Photoshop, but this example is really extreme", said Miriam Dalsgaard.
Klavs Bo Christensen believes there are significant differences in RAW files from the different cameras. He experienced it when he switched from Canon to Nikon and it is even clearer when he pulls out his Leica M8. "In my opinion, a RAW file ... has nothing to do with reality and I do not think you can judge the finished images and the use of Photoshop by looking at the RAW file" (source), he said. Also, as he stated, "second, there are also huge differences between RAW conversion tools, and on how the files from different cameras are converted. And there are significant differences in the profile you choose to use in the conversion tool for each camera" (source).
The photojournalist also remarks that ""one can for example choose to overexpose his images, making them more saturated in color when you close them down in the RAW converter. It seems to me in line with choosing a specific film to each assignment in the old days. (…) You can also choose to expose after highlights and raise the bottom afterwards or you may choose to shoot in JPEG with the camera ready set to 'High contrast' or other fiddlings"
Klavs Bo Christensen is also questioning whether the judges are to judge the images on the basis of RAW files. "What is the task of the judges? Is it to look on our Photoshop or is it to value the photo journalistic content and angle of the story? Pellegrin for example, would not have had a chance in POY with his way of post processing"." (source)
"Subsequently, he has also acknowledge that the images may have been given "full throttle" in Photoshop, but not more than it still is inside his limits for image processing. (…) However we will probably not see Klavs Bo Christensen's color pictures submitted to next year's Danish version of Picture of The Year, because he made a promise to himself only to participate with black and white pictures in the future." (source)
A question: What do you think? Were the judge correct, which side, do you think, has more compelling arguments? Feel free to comment. To fight the spam, comments appear after aproval.
Sources
http://www.pressefotografforbundet.dk/index.php?id=11708 (click on VOTERINGEN)
http://nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2009/04/denmark.html
http://www.fotoco.dk/POY_2009/index.html
http://www.lightstalkers.org/klavs
http://www.klavs.dk
Comments
2 Maik Kleinschmidt and others
Some interesting points you raised here. Thank you for sharing your views and opinions—much appreciated.
I agree with the judges
The comments above seem to come from photographers, regarding this issue from their point of view with all the knowledge about the role of post-production in today's photographic image world. The extend and heat with which manipulation (and that's what it is, pseudo-philosophic argumentation à la "you can't capture truth anyway" is pointless because no one can honestly tell me that the RAW images are not closer to what these places actually looked like when Christensen photographed them) is defended here is quite telling, as it seems they have to argue against their own conscience as a result of running with the herd and polishing photographs more and more because 'everyone does it'.
Some mention that Ansel Adams did the same. The important difference is that Adams made art photography. He wasn't a photojournalist. One of his aims, according to his wikipedia entry, was 'to elevate photography to an art comparable with painting and music'. If a photograph is presented unter the category art, viewers are aware that it is not necessary a realistic representation because the photographer may manipulate to his own will. But if the same photo is used in context with a press article on the life situation in Haiti for example, you expect it to give you a truthful impression of how Haiti looks like and how the situation is there, and not an exemplary of how cool photographs can look nowadays and what a photoshop guru the photographer is. Hence, it is beside the point to argue that manipulation possibilities are no different in the darkroom (which btw. disregards the much higher effort that is needed doing it the analogue way), as the point is that yes, one can and should expect a significant amount of representative authenticity to a press photograph.
While films vary in tonality, contrast sharpness and so on, there certainly is no film that would have an effect that is comparable to the extreme photoshop work of christensen. And if it would, it would not fullfill the requirements of a press photograph anymore.
Christensen's profile picture actually says quite a bit about how a photojournalist's job looks like these days. How much time is spent in front of the computer furnishing images in relation to being out with the camera, in touch with the subject?
The whole discussion is effectively about moral. Since the digital era the emphasis has been put on the aesthetics of an image, and photographer by photographer feels obliged to follow the 'call of beauty' and use hdr and other techniques which are effectively nothing but tastes or fashions. In a press photograph, what should be of importance is not how good it looks, but how closely and truely it represents it's subject or topic, just as the journalist who writes the article should focus on delivering facts and information as objective as possible and not how to write down his opinion most entertainingly. If the fundamental truth of a photograph is not affected by making it look as if it was an advertisement for a new colour printer, then when would it be?
Christensen did the same as many other established photographers, he wanted to make his photos look as beautiful as possible. He's certainly not alone there; the guy who was commission to take the archival photographs of Ground Zero in NY equally made images full of pathos, that surely serve Americas self-confidence, but are superficial in their representation of the event. The honest photojournalist should ask himself: do I want to inform, or do I want a trophy for the most beautiful picture that has the colours of the oil paintings of soandso? Keeping in mind the trust that a possible press audience puts into it being a truthful representation, the answer should be clear. If not, become art photographer and enter respective competitions.
Pointless
I think the argument is as pointless as the digital vs film argument of some years ago.
The photographer chose to stand at a position, at particular time of day, to point the camera in a direction, to have some settings to suit his desire, to shout at the subject to make them look at the camera and then to press the release. All that caused the image to represent the message that the photographer desired. PP is just an extension of what happened up to the point of release, the photographer has continued with his message. Does the PP alter the fundamental truth of the image? Not in the examples I see before me. Some of the most iconic images we have were manipulated more than these. It is a sterile argument and history will show the judges to be Luddites.
Personally I find the images a bit over done but disqualification is like a form of censorship.
IMHO the
IMHO the 'straight-out-of-cam' term is nonsens.
a digital camera processes an image in a similar way the photographer processes an image afterwards using an image editing software. you can choose from a bunch of in-camera-settings e.g. color, sharpness, d-lightning... etc etc.
what is the difference compared to photoshop? the only difference all is done 'automatically' while using PS you have to do it manually (as long as you don't use any according action...)
photo editing, no matter if in- or outside the cam, is the digital equivalent to analogue wet darkroom work. so what.
do someone think eg. Ansel Adam's photography was straight out of the cam?
at what point starts 'too much photoshop' or processing?
is it possible to set a specific scientific definition for 'too much'?
does photography picture reality at all?
I do believe the judges
I do believe the judges seemed to lack knowledge of the process of shooting RAW files and the many options the camera provides, plus the process of converting the files from RAW.
Given it was a Nikon D700 then by using Photoshop as the converter the files were not shown as shot anyway. Beyond that it is best practise to shoot to the right to maximise dynamic range and bring the exposure down in the RAW editor later.
If it was file shot with Velvia the colours would look about the same and the judges would see nothing wrong with that. I suggest judges need to present a 'written resume' detailing their knowledge of the digital process before being accepted to the judging panel.
HDR is not photography?
I guess Ansel Adams would never win a picture of the year. What he did is the exact same as HDR except the technology was different. His majestic mountains and omnious clouds would be just as bland as Christensen's RAW files if he were forced to submit a one-time exposure on a single piece of photo paper. The difference between that "negative" and Adams' final product would be profound. But whatever, I guess he wasn't doing photography, right?
HDR-like photos
Dodging and burning has been done for ages, and tonemapping is the same except that automated tools are used to a certain extent (I don't know if Christensen did it manually or not). If HDR-like photos aren't photographs then there are many famous photos that doesn't count :D
they simply disqualified him
they simply disqualified him because HDR-like photos is NOT photography.
Post new comment