This is the shot of Tom Daley. It is dramatic and captures the sense of movement of a dive very well. However what I am unable to work out is how both the diver and the background are blurred. Usually the main subject is blurred and the background remains in focus or the subject is in focus and the background blurred. Both are common ways to indicate movement. I may be doing the photographer an injustice but my guess is that this is a composite picture and/or has been heavily manipulated. Whether this matters or not is a judgement for the individual viewer but for me enhancement has been taken too far. Perhaps in a sense this makes it an 'honest' picture because the manipulation is so obvious that very few people would be fooled into thinking it was anything other than a very good artistic picture.
The image won second prize in the single portraits category. It cannot be denied that it is a very good photograph but it is difficult to see anything that lifts it out of the ordinary. To the non-Russian viewer there is the sense of the unknown. I found myself thinking about the many stories in the Press about the harsh treatment meted out to conscripts in the Russian military and wondering whether this young man had suffered. Here is a clear case of the viewer interpreting an image using his personal knowledge not of the individual in the portrait but of stories in the press. This interpretation could be well wide of the mark and demonstrates the gap between the intent of the photographer and the interpretation of the viewer.
The image was second in its category Spot News Stories. Whilst recognising the immediacy of the image and the skill of the photographer capturing the image at the moment of maximum tension the image is, for me, unbalanced. The person with the catapult is isolated from the rest of the image and could have been placed there in post-processing. There appears to be some discrepancy in the scale between the main figure and the three other people clearly in the image, none of whom seem to be in the slightest bit interested in the main subject and in fact seem quite relaxed. There is also some strange lighting effect on the shirt of the half hidden person underneath the arm of the main subject. Of course this is pure speculation on my part and presumably the judges were satisfied that it was a genuine photograph of the moment. It just doesn't work for me.
I find this image disturbing but I am not really able to say why. I think it is because I just don't like it. To me it is not a very good picture not least because of the strange blue cast and the way that there appears to be separation between the bodies of the geese and their heads. The eye finds it very difficult to settle in any one area because of the confusion of beaks and legs and feet. I should perhaps state that wildlife photography does nothing for me even when I can recognise the technical excellence of the image.
The first prize winner of the General News category. I really like this image. The decision to use monochrome adds to impact. The figure in the right corner is in tension with the leaning of the burning building that seems about to collapse. The downcast eyes and apparent apathy of the figure gives the sense of hopelessness in the face of a natural catastrophe.
This image is the overall winner. Unless you are aware of the background story you are left to wonder why it was so well thought of by the judges. It is a competent photograph but looks as though it is a studio shot with a great deal of attention paid to the lighting and the posing of the woman.
The one thing that came out of this and should have been expected is that the context is all in press photography. I have deliberately left out the background story (I have read them) to allow the viewer to judge the images on their merits. Of course if the story is already known or there is some knowledge, such as that I used in the portrait of the Russian sailor, then the viewing will be affected by that knowledge. We try to make sense of any image with which we are faced and usually do this by seeking clues within the image and then seeing if that matches what we already know. The winning image makes a lot more sense if you know the story behind it which, to Western eyes, is horrific.
I still do not know what makes a good press image and perhaps that is the answer. There may not be such a thing and what makes it good is the story that it supports.
I would strongly recommend to anyone that is interested to visit the web site mentioned above. There are others and an internet search using World Press Photo will provide a rich vein for study.
No comments:
Post a Comment