Now that the dust has settled, can we just agree that this is a very bad photo?
>>2831576
>DUDE "REFUGEES"
Fuck this pathos bullshit.
How much that baby sell for?
What's the story here?
>>2831576
It's a bad photo technically, but the story it captures makes it a good photo if that makes sense. Unless it's staged, then it sucks dick.
>>2831593
You've never seen a game of pass the baby?
Lets do an exercise, start here:
http://www.worldpressphoto.org/collection/photo/2016/long-term-projects/nancy-borowick
Browse all the projects (arrow to the right) and descriptions until you reach the winner (OP pic), then tell me how robbed you feel. I dont even want to imagine how the rest of the photogs felt.
it's not a bad photograph, it's in line with a history of photography from Emerson to Capa. Much better than the faggots who just take a supersharp pic of a manipulated frog giving a peace sign or whatever the fuck else wins awards
>>2831576
lol come on man, it's a fucking great photo.
Light is good, you can practically feel the movement, it's dramatic, it's well composed, the wire makes it really interesting, and it just has that special feeling you get from a well timed photo.
Feels almost similar to the photo's Koudelka took during the invasion of Prague. Sure it's shot at ISO one million and is noisy, but whatever, who cares.
Very good photo. A moving moment. Good (maybe lucky) composition. Why would you think otherwise?
>>2831668
Dis
>>2831670
Wasn't taken with a sony, was it?
>>2831668
>Light is good
sides in orbit
>>2831603
They probably felt a little bummed out for not having worked on what is unquestionably the story of the year.
It's an excellent photo. Nothing for anybody else to be salty about.
>>2831705
5D iirc
>>2831704
Since when is art only about aesthetics? Sounds like you've been reading too much Roger Scruton.
>>2831666
I can fucking imagine that too. Thanks for the mental image.
>>2831706
Please elaborate.
>>2831866
Um, the light isn't good.
It's the middle of the night, and there's no real light source, which means the whole scene is mushy and low contrast.
>>2831923
>middle of the night
That's the point. The fact, that illumination comes from the moonlight is one of the things that make this photo great. It sets the time and place, creates a mood. What would you define as "good"? Professional studio lights and setting sun?
>>2831576
Do we really have to through this again? Didn't I explain it well enough the last time around? How is it so hard to understand journalistic photography?
>>2831923
What do you think "good" means in terms of light? It works to transport a certain mood. And that's all it needs to do in this context. That makes it "good".
Also, good God people, take a look at one of the most iconic photos in photojournalism's history and understand that you could apply the exact same arguments this thread is using to claim it's shit. Maybe that'll get you lot thinking.
>>2831958
Or Nick Ut's Vietnames girl.
>>2831960
Or Adam's Vietcong assasination.
>Good god. Look at that shadow in his face.
>And the framing. Have any of these photographers ever heard of the rule of thirds?
>And that shitty grain. Should have gone for based iso 25 ortho.
>Capa can't even hold his camera still. No based IBIS. What an amateur.
>Ut clearly missed focus on the girl. Not even using 0.1s autofocus, the faggot.
Seriously, all of you, in the best of cases, catpics to RPT posters and, in the worst, gearfags, kindly shut the fuck up when you are way out of your depth. Your "critiques" only make your ineptitude evident.
>>2831960
This one is good, because of nice, soft, diffused light :^)
No, that's still raciss.
>>2831966
They are not exceptional as studio portraits that are not trying to imitate a journalistic style, if that's what you mean. As a journalist you can't choose your light, you can't choose the arrangement of the subjects. You have barely any time, most of the time, to create a composition. It's journalistic photography and should be seen in that context. But a lot of people here love shitting all over pictures because they do not fit an aesthetic they are not trying to fulfill.
And the awards were the fucking world PRESS photo awards. How hard can it be to understand that?
>>2831968
Thanks isi.
>>2831970
I'm just going to reference you again for shits and giggles. I hope you write another reply calling me stupid for not realizing you can't read this.
Gotta say it's really funny how people like you always turn up in these cancer threads. Never for the life of me have I seen these kinda comments in threads with actual photographs. Says a lot, I guess.
>>2831970
You have to be a troll.
>>2831704
>no artistic merit because it's shit in every contrivable way relating to aesthetics
>art and aesthetic are in any way related
read about marcel duchamp and dada
It's pretty good as a journalistic photo, and that can be more important than muh aesthetics and ISO.
>>2831923
so, when something like this happens, what would you do you little piece of shit? Ignore it? Set up studio lights? What the fuck would you do?
>>2834054
OP photo is staged, no need to get upset over a fraud.
>>2834054
No, the moment can be good while the light (and therefore the aesthetics) is bad. The photo isn't about the light, or looking good. It's about the moment, and what's happening in that moment.
>>2831576
This is a great picture:it's rough and "real" but symbolic, also the 3d depth of the image (hands reaching out for the baby) is really neat.
That, for this picture.
The fact that this is highly successfull propaganda and that frau Merkel is more fitting hanging on a lamppost than as a head of a ruling party is a different matter altogether.
It's a good journalistic image. I mean it's a bit disgusting that he waited around for that one moment with a baby (too bad it isn't held by a woman) instead of documenting all of the young single men, but it certainly is a strong moment.
>>2834104
>instead of documenting all of the young single men
don't blame the photographer, blame the media. I'm sure he had terabytes of other content too
>>2831576
C A N O N
A
N
O
N
B A N D I N G
A
N
D
I
N
G
>>2831866
I think the shot was 1/8 @ f/1.4, ISO 6400, and clearly pushed in post to show something of a tonal range.
That's not 'good light', that's NO light.
Like people have said over and again, about all of these famous shots, it's nothing to do with artistic merit.
It's all content and context. Without those things, this wouldn't even be a delete in camera shot; it would never even be a shot.
