It's time
http://www.worldpressphoto.org/collection/photo/2016
This year's winner
Camera: Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Shutter Speed: 1/5
Aperture: f/1.4
ISO: 6400
Thoughts?
>>2772069
Its an impressive photo and i think the slow shutter speed and horrible pattern noise actually add to it.
First Place contemporary Issues
Haze in China by Zhang Lei
Shutter Speed: 1/500
Aperture: f/10
ISO: 100
First Price daily lives
China's Coal Addiction by Kevin Frayer
Shutter Speed: 1/1000
Aperture: f/6.3
ISO: 800
>>2772102
forgot picture
>>2772100
When did they add weather and time of day to Sim City?
>>2772185
>compo
What do you do with all your extra free time?
First Place general News
IS Fighter Treated at Kurdish Hospital by Mauricio Lima
Shutter Speed: 1/250
Aperture: f/11
ISO: 1600
First Place nature
Storm Front on Bondi Beach by Rohan Kelly
Shutter Speed: 1/1024
Aperture: f/10
ISO: 100
>>2772189
doubtful
First Place people
Waiting to Register by Matic Zorman
Shutter Speed: 1/250
Aperture: f/5.6
ISO: 500
First Place sports
FIS World Championships by Christian Walgram
Shutter Speed: 1/2500
Aperture: f/8
ISO: 800
One more because I love this one
2nd place nature
Whale Whisperers by Anuar Patjane Floriuk
Shutter Speed: 1/1000
Aperture: f/1.8
ISO: 200
Focal Length: 10.4mm
>>2772185
So you frequent /pol/ as well.
i dig the winner a lot, glad they dgaf about noise and blurr
(fucking 1/5 shutter speed is pretty slow for such a steady photo)
the long-term story about the parents with cancer is superb also
bretty good pics overall
>>2772185
>compo is ass, colors too
no they aren't you pleb
>>2772201
My favourite photograph, I'll never get tired of staring at this
>>2772069
When I saw that I thought it was nice that the new ridiculous ISO's are contributing to photo journalism.
Then I saw
>6400
>Canon
Press photography is not the only kind of photography bros.
>>2772264
couldn't you already tell from the banding in the shadows?
>>2772271
What?
>>2772185
There's always this guy in these kinda threads.
>>2772277
look at the website
>>2772189
This is the best joke I've ever seen on /p/
>>2772236
Just an observation.
>>2772247
>fucking 1/5 shutter speed is pretty slow for such a steady photo
I'm guessing the photog was using the ground as support.
>>2772069
>ISO: 6400
>>2772190
Note to self:
>when fighting wars, wear some fucking clothes so your skin doesn't get roasted off
>>2772069
>muh chillens
>>2772448
In most cases, your clothes will roast, and fuse with your skin, and they'll have to peel it/cut it out of you.
these are mostly bad and would get torn apart if posted anonymously on /p/
>>2772472
Says more about /p/.
>>2772069
>muh chillens
oh the humanity snapshit
>>2772100
meh
>>2772103
not bad, somewhat interesting
>>2772190
pic on wall makes it interesting/comical at least
>>2772193
kinda cool
>>2772197
dumb as shit
>>2772199
photo of some turd eating it, not impactful at all
>>2772201
streets ahead the best of the bunch, 10/10
I know IRL I'd have to fawn over the plight of the refugees and see how terrible their struggle is, but honestly I don't give a flying fuck and just want to see pictures about animals and nature.
>>2772185
Exactly. An utter snapshit wins based purely on subject matter.
>>2772072
Yeah, I think everything that sucks about this photo-which is everything-also adds to its shittiness. kek
>>2772206
>too straight foward journalist here
Isn't that the whole point of journalism?
>>2772591
You're right. The World Press Photo Collective needs to take their tips from "Anon 74/200 from /p/ with no photos being posted" I can't believe they didn't contact you about the decisions...
>>2772069
It's powerful. It works. Strong meaning. Really direct. Cool bw.
Noise pattern is not he best part but who cares
Technique means shit, photography is something else.
>>2772170
underrated post
>>2772201
What do you think is going on post process wise here?
>>2772671
Dehaze
>>2772103
>http://www.worldpressphoto.org/collection/photo/2016
I've never understood how white photographers get great photos in non-white locales. Is it not strange or disruptive to have a white guy staring at you through a lens?
>>2772675
white people are superior, so nobody questions them.
>>2772675
Being white is like wearing a hi-vis jacket. People assume you're doing what you're doing for very good reasons that have nothing to do with them.
>>2772069
I like it.
>>2772069
that is wag the dog tier
A lot of these, especially the "press" ones, seem like just being in the right place at the right time. I don't think a random snapshitter would have fared much worse in their place.
Also, after a while of looking at these, it seems like they all follow some stupid photo journalist cliches. Is it just me or is it true?
Like, blurred people against some background, my third world country nig-nogs, people looking despondent against war-torn b/gs, all that shit.
>>2773163
>A lot of these, especially the "press" ones, seem like just being in the right place at the right time. I don't think a random snapshitter would have fared much worse in their place.
The skill that is important to being a photographer is not how well you can work a camera, or how well you know test charts. It's the ability to put in the effort to be where the photos are. Be it landscapes, model photography, or reportage.
>>2773163
>some stupid photo journalist cliches
i mean you cant just tell someone "oh give me some time" "can you do that again buttt----"
taking shots of then spontaneous fall more on person: trying to expect and best guess where the next great shot will be - than just "always lucky"
>>2773164
>the most important skill to being a photographer is having the money to travel to exotic places
?
>>2773265
You don't have models in your area? Nor cityscapes, or humans living stories? You can only imagine these things in conjunction with "travel to exotic places"?
>>2773277
>street photography / staged & contrived model shot memephototos
no thank you
>>2773164
this
>>2773280
Okay? So you're complaining that exotic photos don't take place in your house? or what... What are you actually arguing with here...
or are you being /p/, and suggesting that good technique and sharp lenses are enough to make photos good, and that's why the stuff you take in your living room is actually a lot more deep and high quality than my pleb mind is capable of understanding?
>>2773285
I'm saying that /p/ will shit on 99% of photo subjects you take that are reasonable to get to
>>2772264
>When I saw that I thought it was nice that the new ridiculous ISO's are contributing to photo journalism.
It's a 5DII, nothing new about it. I'm no Canon fanboy, but it's not really fair to take shots at them based on a camera from 2008.
>>2772069
>poor niglet photography strikes again
As expected.
>>2772201
>Focal Length: 10.4mm
Nice.
I smell too much /pol/ in this thread.
>>2772069
I have nothing against noise, but the banding here really detracts from the picture. Otherwise really nice - maybe not best-of-the-year-nice, but a great picture.
>>2772223
you must frequent reddit then
>>2772103
Fixed.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 2560 Image Height 1707 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:02:20 12:50:25 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 2560 Image Height 1707
>>2773318
The presentation was brought to you in glorious LUDDITECOLOR
>>2773164
That's not what I'm saying. Most of those are just pictures of people from countries considered exotic in the occidental world. And wherever the war is.
Those pictures are boring from a photographic standpoint. They probably serve a different purpose, like "showing us the horrors of the world", but looking at corpses and demolished buildings gets boring real fast. I guess it's just a different way of looking at it, photography as art vs CONTEMPORARY ISSUES.
>>2773318
muh blacks
>>2772069
The sad thing is, when you look at the submissions
> most of them are technically brilliant
> most of them document actual serious stuff like WAR IN SYRIA
But no, the one picture that had to win was a staged snapshit of somebody climbing a fence. Shot on a digital camera and converted to b&w..
WPF should judge the submissions based on their artistic, technical and documentary merits, not on the political views of the commitee.
>>2772193
>>2772069
WHAT IF
[jetfuel]
They decided to choose this noisy digital photo because they knew people would've bitched about it, uploading the photos everywhere making it popular (love or hate it, still famous) and somehow hope some people will help muh poor refugees? Also with something that controversial you can create stronger supporters (muh money for muh poors) and stronger haters (who will share it everywhere anyway, creating more supporters).
[/jetfuel]
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Model PENTAX K-30 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Exposure Time 1/800 sec F-Number f/5.6 ISO Speed Rating 200 Focal Length 18.00 mm
>>2773544
Hmm.
>>2773318
soo much better in color.
>>2773286
/p/ shits on 99% of the photos here because /p/'s definition of "reasonable to get to" is defined by the people here as "occurring directly in front of me at any given time during my daily routine without me having done anything to make it happen"
/p/ is full of people who never, ever, leave their comfort zones and seek out something worth capturing. It's a board chock full of "daily life photographers" leading the most standard nerd recluse "daily lives" imaginable.
>>2773454
These are press photos. Do you want the press to spend their time where there AREN'T any stories going on? The wars going on in the world are where most of the stories are. The rest are mostly technological advancements and political changes, which would be posed lighted portraits. Would you prefer that? I'll also point out that the second photo in the thread is not of a person, or a war. The fifth is of nature and weather. The seventh is sports. The eighth is literally a whale. So your interpretation of the photos is (expectedly, on /p/) pretty fucking skewed towards what you want to be seeing, in order to disagree with it.
>>2773544
this'ing this.
Good God, this thread is a clusterfuck. Some people should just stay in the gear threads.
>>2773641
>i want to defend objectively shit images but are unable to do so
I recommend reddit.
>>2773642
The great thing is though, your opinion is, by definition, SUBjective.
>>2773626
Please post a photo that says "2015" and not "2014" or "2016" without any sort of text or context, that is of something interesting and important going on in the world?
>>2773611
I disagree. I think a lot of the photographers here are rich faggots who go on ridiculous 6 months tours of Europe and then show off pictures they took with thousands of dollars worth of equipment that daddy bought for them. It's a little too tumblr in here, tea bee haych.
No one wants to see your hipster-aspirant snapshits from yewrope, Tristan.
>>2773265
More like
>The most important skill a photographer can have is enough social intelligence to build the connections that get you a front seat to important political or social events. Or enough daring to circumvent barriers or bribe officials to get up close. Those Syria photos require a bit of both. You need to be brave enough to chump around in a war zone, and smart/likeable enough to work your way through social connections to where you need to be.
>>2773665
?
they didn't even take good photos lol
the main thing is just going to exotic ~epic~ locations that most normies can't get to
>>2773668
btw exotic means 1st world, or if you go to a third world, don't have any people from there in the photo
they definitely ruin them tbqh
>dude minorities and poors lol *instantly blogs to tumblr, reddit, imgur, facebook and twitter*
>>2772100
My new wallpaper
Thank you
>>2773265
>the most important skill to being a photographer is having the money to travel to exotic places
the guy who took the photo actually didn't have almost any money and had to sleep outside at times or live with the immigrants because he couldn't afford a hotel. He actually put in an effort of getting to know his subjects and their stories instead of just going >look, snap, done
>>2773668
>they didn't even take good photos lol
that's your opinion
>the main thing is just going to exotic ~epic~ locations that most normies can't get to
I must've missed the moment where "normies" couldn't go to Greece anymore
>dude minorities and poors lol *instantly blogs to tumblr, reddit, imgur, facebook and twitter*
can you name any other issues that were bigger than the refugee crisis last year? I sure can't
>>2773668
Most major cities, from which you could travel to places where things are happening, are in a 400-600$ range for round trip flights from almost any big American city. I live on the Northeast coast, and it would cost me about 400$ for a round trip flight to Lima, for example. That is accessible to normies.
>>2773668
Yeah, nobody skies, or looks through baricades, or lays on beaches near clouds, or sneaks over barbed wire fences, or walks around near smoke stacks anywhere in the united states at ALL. Totally good point.
>All of this shit is happening right outside the photographers doorstep so it's easy for them. The world handed everyone everything why didn't it hand it to me? Why didn't the world hand me the money to travel like it did to everyone else who is successful?
Finding interesting things to photograph is the true test of a photographer. not gear, or knowledge of guidelines and rules, or processing ability, or sharpness. It's content. Get out of the house, find some interesting people (of which there are millions within a six hour drive of you) and take their photos. Stop making excuses. everyone has it just as hard as you. the difference is, some people actually care enough about their passions to put some effort into them.
>>2773714
Also I may be wrong but I think there are photographers in Greece and other european countries too
>>2773753
Well yeah, but they had all the luck and fortune handed to them by having to live in these conditions whereas I'm fucked over having to live in comfort and safety, so really, they're terrible photographers and I'm a good one.
>what
Also all his snapshit were prized somehow
>Christian Ziegler
>>2772206
You're a moron
>>2773867
why would you say that is a snapshit?
>>2773551
>WHAT IF
There's no "if", all the media moves in that direction.
Funny to see the smaller fishes trying too hard and found guilty, like that retard who claimed a "refugee" died in the cold waiting for a pass in Germany (yeah, in a year with no winter).
Results: given the claim, police had to investigate, they found the retard just lied, TVs stayed silent about it as always while it was sad top story just the day before :^)
>>2773883
that's not an answer why you would say it's a snapshit. Is is the motion blur that's bothering you?
>>2773883
>ever deleting in camera
Enjoy your fucked filetables senpai.
Who /p/ol/ here?
>>2773719
>only pictures of people are relevant meme
a crutch of a bad photographer
>>2773544
>I can only think in memes
i wonder what a trip to the grocery store is like for you
>>2773917
>people's shitposting on 4chan is how they think
love this meme tbqh, it shibboleths people who aren't 4chanian
>>2773876
2nd
>>2773642
>objectively shit images
>objectively
According to some ignorant twat on /p/. Thanks a lot for your input.
>>2774405
I could write a few paragraphs about the OP alone. About its ability to transport one of the most important contemporary issues, how that is embedded to world politics and how they are reflected and contrasted in that one picture and its story, the framing, and the high iso and bw giving the viewer the feel of wearing night vision goggles and actually being there. That's the topics I could write about just from the top of my head.
But I'd much rather see you explain why the photo that was chosen by people more experienced and invested than you will ever be in journalistic photography is shit, more probable than not based on IQ, masturbation over gear and your shitty understanding of composition.
>>2774443
>oh but youre regurgitating what the major media outlets are saying about this photo, word for word.
You see, the funny thing is, I haven't read anything about this other than this thread and the short description on the site. Maybe give it some thought why different people are saying the same thing independently of one another. You don't have to like it, but at least try to understand why other people do.
>>2772103
What the fuck is going on with this pic. It looks like a composite or HDR or some shit.
>>2773318
looks like some shitty bandcamp album art
>>2773665
Nah you nailed it
You can go to plenty of war zones without money, You lot make it sound like they're ona beach in Thailand, 'exotic'.. No 'normal snapshitter' could take those pictures because its far more about the social skills & mental drive.
You guys reckon the composition is off, If you had been around explosions and skinless men screaming at you you'd probably come back with PTSD rather than a better centred subject.
>>2773544
GENERIC SHITPOST COMPRISED OF ONE SENTENCE OPINIONS
>>2773296
it's taken on a Sony RX100 which explains the tiny focal length. Probably ~28mm but underwater photos are widened.
/p/ is /pol/ all over this place and based on opinion on the art I can see that Hitler was not the only fascist that had no business doing art.
>>2775007
infowars.com
>>2772247
without the noise and blur, all of the dramatic effect would be lost.
>>2775007
>your opinion should never match the one of a multinational conglomerate, because when that happens youre no longer an individual.
This explains a lot about people's taste around here.
Do you literally disagree with anything that a large number of people think? Just for the sake of being different? You must be AWESOME to be around.
Being 22 isn't as cool as it feels at the time. Just so you're aware.
>>2775274
And you literally believe that 100% every single word that anyone on any television network, magazine, or newspaper says comes directly out of the mouth of a single person who is controlling the minds of the nation. That seems reasonable to you. Despite the fact that nearly everyone who gets into news and press does it to tell the truth and tell stories and share information, every single one of them gives that up in order to be a mouthpiece to manipulate you. Including their opinion on photos. Yeah?
I am looking at the pre-digital winners and man.. the photos look so much better. Take a look yourself.
This photo looks like a painting.
>>2775317
So you prefer low contrast, low detail, high levels of grain/noise. All things that people spend thousands to avoid when shooting digital.
>>2775318
He appreciates the attention given to composition and subject matter over things like image quality, not to mention the discipline required when shooting film and the risks involved in shipping hundreds of rolls back to whoever you were working for.
>>2775317
>I am looking at the pre-digital winners and man.. the photos look so much better. Take a look yourself.
this somuch
Check out this series on the lives of slovakian yuropoor dirt farmers.
>http://www.worldpressphoto.org/collection/photo/1995/daily-life/anthony-suau
>>2775383
well, I don't see how working with film makes you better at composition, imho photographers just got worse in recent history.
>>2775383
Because things like image quality are clearly important these days, what with the winning photo being an ISO 6400 shot with a 5Dmk2 covered in noise and banding.
Saying that film in your camera makes you better at composition is like saying that having diesel in your car makes you better at checking your wing mirrors.
>>2775431
>imho photographers just got worse in recent history.
Photos just got a lot more ubiquitous. back then, your grandma would take one disposable camera worth of photos per year, and then they would sit in a book and only a few people ever see them. Now, everyone is a photographer, everyone has a Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Flickr, Snapchat, etc. You see everyone's photos. The same number of good photographers are out there, and are doing just as much awesome stuff. Much MORE awesome stuff, if you take into account stuff that wasn't possible with film 30 years ago.
>>2775448
Nigger do you even tech pan 25? It's a fucking travesty that we can't use it 30 years later.
>>2775454
I'm new to film, and it seems like every week I'm finding out about another film that isn't produced any more. I vote we do a kicksarter to buy the formula for a bunch of old Kodak film and start manufacturing small batches again.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand
>>2775454
For astro, you need high ISO, not lower ISO.
Also, 14fps bursts allow for more stuff, editing capability is also HUGELY improved, the learning curve is a lot faster when you can see your results right away, and don't have to weigh your curiosity for experimentation against your wallet. The very idea of an EVF, improved AF systems and metering leading to better exposure accuracy.
Any photo requiring a usable image over ISO 3200 fits handily into the "wasn't possible with film 30 years ago" category.
>>2775534
http://www.filmferrania.it/
v a p o r w a r e
>>2775547
>For astro, you need high ISO, not lower ISO.
Uh, only if you're a poorfag dabbler who doesn't have an equatorial mount. If you're a serious astrophotographer, the exact opposite is true. You want fine-grained low iso media.
>>2775551
LIKE THE FUCKING WINNING PHOTO OF THE WORLD FUCKING PRESS AWARDS 2015 YOU FUCKING RETARD.
>>2775563
Because all the awesome deep field telescopes in the world are using film, right? The specialized astro digital sensors are better than any film that anyone ever used.
Why are film fags so determined to be ignorant about their shit?
ALL YOU HAVE TO SAY IS "I know it's worse, but I enjoy it more".
That's it! There's no arguing against that!
>>2775570
Which ISO 6400 films were there in 1985? Or are you pushing your ISO 800 B&W film four stops in developing?
>>2775568
The issue isn't "which is better", the issue is that you said you couldn't do cheap astro 30 years ago when that was patently false. Just cop to the fact that you don't know everything about everything. It's cool baby. I do it all the time. Feels good.
