« Engadget Says Sigma Wants You to Focus on the Sensor | Main | So Far »

Friday, 14 February 2014

Comments

Stunning. And a great example of a photo which really requires a caption to work well.

I think the photo needs a caption to be interpreted "correctly," but I think it works very well as an evocative work with no caption at all. While the viewers internally constructed stories will vary; I consider the strength of the photograph to be in the degree to which it evokes that urge to construct a story.

A devoted, hard-working fellow with a very talented eye-hand reflex. Congratulations John!

"BJP understands that eight percent of the images that reached the final round were found to have been manipulated."

http://www.bjp-online.com/2014/02/eight-percent-of-final-world-press-photo-entries-were-manipulated-and-disqualified-say-judges/

The rule by the way is:

https://submit.worldpressphoto.org/.../entry_rules___declaration_2014_photo_contest_-_english_0.pdf‎

15. The content of the image must not be altered. Only retouching which conforms to currently accepted standards in the industry is allowed. The jury is the ultimate arbiter of these standards and may at its discretion request the original, unretouched file as recorded by the camera or an untoned scan of the negative or slide.

Curiously the filename says 2014 but the content refeers to 2013.

Here's the whole group. IMHO nearly all require captions.
http://www.worldpressphoto.org/awards/2014

Well deserved.

The cynic in me would caption this "Nigerian scammers try to get a cell signal so they can continue to send spam...." Or something along those lines. And as if holding the phone up to the sky would make any difference in getting a signal or not.... Please.

Great photo. Also of note is that 8 percent of the images that made it to the final round of judging were bounced for being overly-manipulated in post-processing:

http://www.bjp-online.com/2014/02/eight-percent-of-final-world-press-photo-entries-were-manipulated-and-disqualified-say-judges/

Wow great photo, tells a story.

Another example of a photograph whose significance is greatly enhanced by a caption.

Such a beautiful and powerful photo.

Reflecting on John Stanmeyer’s win in World Press Photo: a triumph for the important over the merely urgent. This will probably be controversial because it is not traditional war, pestilence, and pillage photography, but it might just open up the debate about what time frame we should be using to look at what is truly important in our world. The people in this picture represent the great river of humanity constantly changing courses as it moves over the planet. Almost all the things we call "news" are sub-stories in this greater narrative.

Also, John is a nice guy.

From "The World's Best Photography Magazine" a link to prize winners in the competition: http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/14/the-worlds-best-unaltered-photos/?_php=true&_type=blogs&hp&_r=0

Without knowing the background, it is a nice enough picture I suppose. Doesn't strike me as an award winner, but that's just me. The explanation makes me wonder if, with the dysfunction, disease, hunger and exploitation in that part of the world, the lack of cell phone reception really cuts to the heart of the situation.

Great composition, with the caption adding to it.
One of the great things about mobile phones is that poor communities can have one phone in the local store and individuals just have to own a sim card to make a call.
best wishes phil

Fantastic and the image straddles inot a much broader scope of meaning

Interesting post on the NY Times Lens blog: http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/14/the-worlds-best-unaltered-photos/

8% of the entries were disqualified for Photoshopping.

I've seen this award noticed on several of the "usual" blogs and message boards and while I share the opinions of most of the positive comments I'm frankly shocked at some of the vitriol being directed at what I consider a very worthy image. It feels like there is almost a generational line being drawn among many of the comments. To many of the younger folks it's a borderline travesty that such an "amateurish" (their word) shot could win. There is no consideration as to the context of the shot and the significance of it. I guess I'm officially an old fart for "getting" it. Strange days indeed.

I like the photo above but this blog entry:

http://duckrabbit.info/blog/2014/02/world-press-photo-great-pics-and-the-usual-incest/

claims that:

The chair of this year’s jury is Gary Knight (the furthest person from the camera in the pic above). He is a founder and shareholder of the limited company VII photo. The winner, John Stanmeyer, is also a founder and shareholder of the limited company VII photo. Knight and Stanmeyer are business partners. A clear conflict of interest compounded by the fact that their business stands to profit from the decision of the jury led by Knight.

and

Did Knight recuse himself? According to the New York Times the answer is no.

‘Mr. Knight said that although he had asked to be removed from the final judging because of his friendship and professional relationship with Mr. Stanmeyer, the World Press rules did not allow for it.’

The blog entry is worth reading.

After checking out John Stanmeyer's website, I am filled with two emotions: awe and humility. One inspires me to go out and create stunning images, while the other makes me want to sell all my gear and give up on the whole futile effort. His body of work is that good.

While it's a nice photo, there seems to be a bit of fishiness in the selection process:

"The chair of this year’s jury is Gary Knight (the furthest person from the camera in the pic above). He is a founder and shareholder of the limited company VII photo. The winner, John Stanmeyer, is also a founder and shareholder of the limited company VII photo. Knight and Stanmeyer are business partners. A clear conflict of interest compounded by the fact that their business stands to profit from the decision of the jury led by Knight."

Full article on the subject:

http://duckrabbit.info/blog/2014/02/world-press-photo-great-pics-and-the-usual-incest/

What a fantastic photo!

A great photograph. A great photographer.
But the explanation is hard to believe. Has no one used a cell phone? Holding it high at arm's length makes little or no difference to the signal strength. Besides, how to you use it in that position, anyway? On speakerphone?
And what does getting a signal from Somalia exactly mean? I've never waved around my unlocked phone in any country trying to get a lock-in to the carrier of my choice.

I hate to be cynical of such talent, but the cynic in me does wonder if this photo was posed.

The comments to this entry are closed.