I’ll post a slideshow when I’m back at the office next week. In the meantime, here’s a few frames.

All images EPA/JULIAN ABRAM WAINWRIGHT

I think this is problematic for two reasons.

(above from the National Press Photographers Association Code of Ethics)

The first is that removing content from an image is an undebatable violation of photojournalism ethics, whereas overzealous toning and cropping is not.

First day at any contemporary photojournalism ethics class, and you’d probably see this scrawled on the blackboard: “Do not, under any circumstances, no matter what, and I mean NEVER!, remove or add content to an image in post-production. NEVER EVER EVER!” It’s a very black and white issue – I cannot conceive of a possible scenario where a photographer could add/remove content from an image unwittingly, or under some sort of misguided interpretation of this golden rule. Stepan’s heavy-handed use of toning and cropping may be interpreted as over-the-line by some, but it could also be interpreted as within the bounds of acceptability by others (who may argue that photographers have heavily toned black and white film prints for decades without much discussion of ethics). There can really be nothing but 100%, iron-clad consensus that Stepan’s removal of content from the image violates photojournalism ethics, and thus deserves disqualification. And yes, removal of content IS the more egregious offence.

The second reason why disqualifying Stepan for over-toning and cropping is problematic is more about pragmatism and practicality – if you were a presiding judge at WPP, would you go with the option that maybe 60-70% of the photojournalism community would agree with you on (and therefore bring a firestorm of debate and criticism to the organisation from the other 30-40%), or would you go with the iron-clad option where everyone agrees with you? It’s the safe choice, and, I think, the right choice. If WPP were to use the toning/cropping argument, it then opens a HUGE can of worms that up to this point no one has wanted to open first. They would then have to defend their decision, which they can’t really do quantitatively (“He toned/cropped 60% of the image, and our rules say you can only tone/crop 50%.” How the hell do you judge that? It’s totally interpretive, and therefore deeply flawed and open to criticism.) Then the same debate would flare up year after year, detracting from the great work that the contest is really about.

This way, it’s “Hey look, he broke a very clear, written, quantifiable rule. Case closed.” And we can move on.

Next morning, feeling inspired, I got up early and wandered over to my local market to make some pictures.

Stepan wasn’t disqualified for the toning, but for the removal of a foot from the original file. More on the issue here and, as always, on the NYTimes LENS blog. Although this will no doubt spark some debate, this is a clear cut situation, and the WPP organization did the right thing.

He should have known better, but I can’t help but feel a bit bad for Stepan, who went from a career-changing award to (maybe) a career-ending disqualification because he A) broke one of the cardinal rules of photojournalism and B) was being anal about creating the “perfect” picture. Should have just left the image alone. Leaving that foot in would have had no bearing on the series as a whole. Or he could have shot a few more frames to get it just right. Or he could have left that particular image out of the series altogether. This is definitely symptomatic of the modern urge to spend more time on the computer editing and toning and less time actually out there making great images. Kudos for WPP for catching it (a little late), and calling him out.

However, I also want to thank Stepan for having the cojones to admit his error and not contest the jury’s decision: “I am the author of the disqualified series. You can see the original photograph here. The “removed” detail is a part of the foot which can be seen under the wrapped hand of the fighter – photopolygon.ru NB: I don’t argue the decision of the WPP jury.” There have been some blatant digital manipulation issues recently, with some photographers refusing to admit fault in the face of overwhelming evidence. It’s refreshing to see someone man up and admit his mistake without all the defensive gesturing.  I know a lot of photographers won’t offer up any sympathy to someone who knowingly broke the rules of the contest (and thus bringing the contest and entire industry into disrepute), but he  got caught, he admitted it, and hopefully we all learn a valuable lesson. Future content alterers beware: the judges are now on red alert.

That’s because this year’s top winner was Pietro Masturzo’s “From the Rooftops of Tehran, June,” an image of a few Iranian protesters shouting from a rooftop at night. Selected, it appears, because it was a unique image that captured a moment before the biggest news story of the year. Already, the comments are streaming in online, questioning its selection. I was surprised to see David Hume Kennerly (and icon of photojournalism) weigh in on the NYTimes Lens blog:

The World Press Photo of the Year is stunning for its lack of content or any other journalistic values. The jury’s selection is yet another setback for a profession that is already in deep trouble. If that was the best of the best, they should have made no selection at all, and I’m hoping next year will bring a more professional group of jurors.

“The photo shows the beginning of something, the beginning of a huge story,” jury chair Ayperi Karabuda Ecer said of the photo. Right. Well how about showing pictures of the story itself, and there were plenty of powerful images from the Iranian protests, if that was what they wanted to show.

A fellow photographer said it was like seeing a photo of Paul Revere putting on his shoes before his midnight ride. There are those of us who still want to see the ride, not the”haunting and eerily prescient” prelude.

— David Hume Kennerly

I think the judges at WPP always strive to be forward thinking in their approach, and not select the most obvious images (though, in some cases, like Adam Ferguson’s spot news selection, often the obvious choice is the right choice) for the awards. And every year has its controversial selections. But perhaps the contest is becoming overly esoteric, with images that appeal to a small cadre of editors, and with almost no appeal to the public. I have trouble seeing the general public understanding or appreciating this selection, and if the contest can’t appeal to the public, the consumers of the media, then it becomes increasingly irrelevant. As David notes, there was a lot of strong imagery from the Iran story last year, and I’m not sure this is the standout. Great picture, but…. .. .. .. Interestingly, a few years ago I though the uprising in Burma was the story of the year, and it was completely ignored by WPP (though Reuters’ Adrees Latif won a Pulitzer for his coverage).

Some other notes…. Not sure why pictures of corpses win awards, when there are far far better, creative and powerful ways to illustrate a story:

It is also time for the WPP organizers to update their website. If this is the best of photojournalism, we need to see it displayed much larger, maybe 900px across on the screen. Most people can’t go see the exhibition (but if you can, GO!, it’s fantastic), so the website is how the majority of the world sees these images. And they’re tiny. It’s 2010, let’s move forward. . . .

I’d also like to see (better) captions with each winning entry. Some images or stories can stand alone, but many need explanations. Does anyone have any idea what this image is about? (1st place Contemporary Issues):

Again, if you try to make the contest relevant and accessible, this kind of selection isn’t helping. Not that we have to lower ourselves to the most populous choices, accessible, lowest common demonenator choices, but I’m at a loss on this one. How about a caption to explain it to me?

…Another year, more amazing work from AFP’s Walter Astrada, surely one of the most courageous and dedicated contemporary conflict photographers, working mostly in Africa :

…. Big congrats to my friend Rodderick Henderson , who placed first in the Portraits Stories category….

And, as always, the Nature category impresses with amazing imagery. Probably the least controversial category, year in, year out.

Lots of amazing photography, many deserving winners, congratulations to all!

Really just a quick and dirty way to test my new ringflash.

The following slideshow is a selection of images from the past two weeks in Melbourne, covering the Australian Open with epa. It’s a quick and dirty edit, but I think it reflects what it was like to cover an event like this for a news wire. Shooting tennis – and most sports – comes down to the briefest of moments, from a racquet crushing a ball or a bead of sweat falling of the tip of a nose. Sometimes those moments present themselves in stunning late afternoon sunlight, but most often they occur under dim tungsten bulbs at night, with advertising billboards as a background, or in the blinding light of noon with television crews positioned directly in front of you.  Sometimes you’re lucky, sometimes not. In the end, you cover the angles that you can, get your images out and hope that somewhere along the way, you capture a few moments that last beyond the 24hr news cycle.

(You can view as a fullpage slideshow with larger images by clicking the third icon at the bottom right of the slideshow)

Finally, a quick shout out to the wicked team at epa – Franck Robichon, Francis Malasig, Mast Irham, and the AAP boys – Julian Smith, Martin Philbey, Joe Castro and Paul Miller. Without a doubt, we had the portable with the best tunes, and the funkiest smell.