53rd Annual World Press Photo Winners

Robert Gauthier, Yankee fans try to distract Angels left fielder Juan Rivera, Yankee Stadium, 25 October 2009 (Los Angeles Times Magazine)

On February 12th, the jury of the 53rd World Press Photo Contest announced the winners of the 2010 contest.

However, the images presented on the organizer's website are only available either in small, low- resolution JPEGs or larger ones that are heavily watermarked.

Fortunately, the Polish website fotopolis.pl (the same site that used to publish the articles I wrote for Black & White Photography magazine, translated into Polish by Lukasz Kacperczyk) has a collection of 21 winning photos in high resolution and without watermarks. Just go to the fotopolis World Press Photo page and click on any thumbnail on the right to enlarge the picture. At the top you will find the navigation arrows and the captions (in English).

I particularly liked Robert Gauthier's picture above—and it's definitely better bigger. In fact I'll bet it would be better even bigger than fotopolis is showing it.

Mike
(Thanks to Marcin Bieszczanin)

UPDATE: This post is star-crossed. Hard to believe I could make so many mistakes in such a brief post. Anyway, it looks like the fotopolis set originated at the Lens blog of the World's Best Photography Magazine. Credit where it is due....

Send this post to a friend

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...

Featured Comment by robert e: "After browsing both slideshows, I was confused because they seemed to have different photos.

"I eventually figured out that while the World Press site shows all the prize winners in each category, the fotopolis slideshow is an incomplete selection, with a single photo representing each category, and that not always the winning photo. In several categories, fotopolis chose to show the 2nd prize photo rather than the winning photo.

"I was further confused by the fact that in the 'story' categories, fotopolis had many possible photos in the winning story to choose from. But even here, they sometimes chose to feature a work from the 2nd prize story rather than from the winning story.

"I'm not complaining, nor faulting the editorial decision, but people who skip the contest site in favor of fotopolis ought to know what they're missing.

"Like many people, I have a difficult time 'judging' news photos, but I did notice and appreciate these judges' predilection for the unusual and original, especially in the less fraught 'Nature' categories.

"Perhaps more importantly, this contest, as it does every year, brought to my attention a number of deserving stories that I'd missed."

Comments

[David Lilly]

You do mean the 2009 contest?

[Mike Johnston]

David,
It's a bit confusing. For starters I had the date wrong in the caption; sorry! However it appears the title of the overall winner is "World Press Photo of the Year 2009," while elsewhere the winners are referred to as the "2010 winners," and the jurors and traveling exhibit is also referred to as 2010, presumably because that's when the judging is done and when the show actually travels? There doesn't seem to be much discernible consistency here. However, the year in question--in which the photos were taken--is 2009, and they seem to be generally referred to as the 2010 winners.

Mike

[Steven Ralser]

They appear to be a reasonable size and not watermarked when I looked at them tonight

Steve

[Markus Spring]

Mike, thanks a lot for the links to the site with the high-res images. Presenting the winning pictures in the style of the official website is really doing a disservice to this photography.

[Stan B.]

I only wish Eugene Richards' photo was posted in every recruitment center.

[robert e]

After browsing both slideshows, I was confused because they seemed to have different photos.

I eventually figured out that while the World Press site shows all the prize winners in each category, the fotopolis slideshow is an incomplete selection, with a single photo representing each category, and that not always the winning photo. In several categories, fotopolis chose to show the 2nd prize photo rather than the winning photo.

I was further confused by the fact that in the "story" categories, fotopolis had many possible photos in the winning story to choose from. But even here, they sometimes chose to feature a work from the 2nd prize story rather than from the winning story.

I'm not complaining, nor faulting the editorial decision, but people who skip the contest site in favor of fotopolis ought to know what they're missing.

Like many people, I have a difficult time "judging" news photos, but I did notice and appreciate these judges' predilection for the unusual and original, especially in the less fraught "Nature" categories.

Perhaps more importantly, this contest, as it does every year, brought to my attention a number of deserving stories that I'd missed.

[erlik]

How about that kingfisher photo? I wonder whether it's auto-triggered or remotely triggered? :)

And sadly, in the view of the wolf thread and the link to the stories about faked kingfisher photos from Hungary, what passed through my mind when I recognised the subject was "is this real?"

[Luke]

They are also available large(ish) at:
http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/
Choose "full screen".
-Luke

[thom uhlmann]

Mike

Thanks for the link. I am just a poor amateur photographer but the image that won first prize just doesn't do it for me. There seem better photos in the other sections.

Got to admit that I find it amazing that they present the photos so poorly - surely they could have something better. It is a disservice to the photographers, their craft and their subjects.