The HIPA controversy

[David Kilpatrick 318]

You can't have missed this, but I am not sure all the attacks on the photographer are backed by solid evidence. The picture doesn't look quite right, but I've taken plenty of straight pictures which did not look right.

 

 

Here's my analysis, including photographing myself in the same pose and overlaying the result - proving that the 'impossible anatomy' aspect is either just badly informed, or I'm a Chinaman...

 

http://www.dphotoexpert.com/2014/03/19/taking-hip-shots-at-hipa/

 

And for $120,000 if I was the photographer, given the huge internet scuffle about this, I'd be hoping that physics and light as seen through a 24mm lens produced all the effects which others say are fake, even down to the scale of the subjects and the cast shadows. Sure!

 

 

[Jose Elias 74]

Considering how loose, layered and confusing his clothes are I think it's quite possible that the image is not photoshoped, and a simple result of the previous with the angle and the slightly diffused light around him that eliminates strong shadows around the arm that could create shapes and volumes..

 

Plus the angle of his hands seems perfectly natural to me since we do not see him holding anything, but simply pointing. The light colour in the tip of his finger seems to be the nail and not the chalk so there's nothing wrong with the position or anatomy of the hand. I can put my arm and hand very easily in that position.

 

Not saying that it wasn't manipulated, but I think there's a strong possibility that it wasn't.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Jose Elias

[Phil Crean 883]

Having read the piece and looked at the images it seems possible that it is a straight shot in difficult conditions. 

However is it a competition winner on such a level? I wouldn't have chosen it

Phil

[Martin P Wilson 1,378]

I love it as great example of photographic storytelling; no need to get too hung up on the noise etc; the image and story are all. I am even fairly relaxed even if the arm has been photoshopped although as David has shown that is not necessarily the case. I don't think it is, hope it isn't but it does not alter the story.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Martin P Wilson

[Bill Brooks 1,500]

Early users of Photoshop 2 had a problem with both editors and their digitally ignorant fellow photographers who could see photoshopping in areas of images were no photoshopping existed.

 

Jealousy then, and for $120,000, jealousy today.

 

Look at the image!!! It is a great photographic image regardless. The no photoshopping rule is simply stupid.

 

The teacher looks female, the kid on the left is not a child but a dwarf, and the jacket on the piggybacked child can be purchased at your local Walmart. The entire photo was posed in a New York studio. So what!

 

Suffering jet lag. Off my meds.

[John Mitchell 5,666]

I really like the photo. It contains a great deal of cultural information. The more you study it, the more you see. If the photographer did use PS, he should have left the image the way it was. Even without the teacher's arm, it would have been an effective image IMO.

[David Kilpatrick 318]

OK, all the investigation has revealed that the shot is at a 'boilerplate' photo location where you pay take pictures of a faked classroom run by the village to raise funds - groups of photographers visit. It's basically a photo workshop type thing and should never have been entered in an internationa contest, and the Chinese photo community is up in arms about this:

http://fangzhouzi.baijia.baidu.com/article/8259

[John Mitchell 5,666]

OK, all the investigation has revealed that the shot is at a 'boilerplate' photo location where you pay take pictures of a faked classroom run by the village to raise funds - groups of photographers visit. It's basically a photo workshop type thing and should never have been entered in an internationa contest, and the Chinese photo community is up in arms about this:

 

http://fangzhouzi.baijia.baidu.com/article/8259

Hmmm... It did look a bit too good to be true. I certainly fell for it.

Edited March 21, 2014 by John Mitchell

[Martin P Wilson 1,378]

OK, all the investigation has revealed that the shot is at a 'boilerplate' photo location where you pay take pictures of a faked classroom run by the village to raise funds - groups of photographers visit. It's basically a photo workshop type thing and should never have been entered in an internationa contest, and the Chinese photo community is up in arms about this:

 

http://fangzhouzi.baijia.baidu.com/article/8259

 

Shame (in so many ways)

[Bill Brooks 1,500]

It is still a great photograph.

 

Most photography these days is done in boilerplate locations. Go to most great image locations, in town or in the wilderness anywhere in the world, and you will see indentations from other photographers tripod legs.

 

I know Canadian locations well, and know the locations, within a few feet, for most published images of Canada. Yes that great image is taken lakeside only a few feet from the Chateau Lake Louise Hotel. The last time I was at the best location for the Toronto skyline shot, there were 10 photographers taking the same image.

 

Animal photography has become like big game hunting. Your guide gets you in position and does everything except push the shutter button/trigger.

 

This has been going on since the beginning of photography. It's the $120,000 that bothers some people.

[dustydingo 873]

So it's staged . . . but not photoshopped . . .

 

I like the image, but do agree that 人造贫穷是可耻的 , especially as there is so much that's a daily reality for so many around the world. On the other hand, staged images to highlight particular points of view, including social issues such as poverty and lack of educational resources are most definitely not uncommon . . . but I don't know if entering such in this competition is within the rules--anyone know?

 

dd

Edited March 22, 2014 by dustydingo

[Ed Rooney 4,756]

The thing I find most interesting about this post is that it seems that it is not possible to say with certainty if an image has been Photoshopped or not. Not being that sharp with Photoshop myself, I vaguely assumed that a skilled techie could spot Photoshopping. Was I wrong?

 

The question of how much "directing" is okay has been around as long as photography itself. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Falling_Soldier

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/photo_database/image/a_sharpshooters_last_sleep

http://blogs.photopreneur.com/worlds-most-infamous-staged-photos

 

Remember all the phony stuff that came out after 9/11? 

 

But again, how much directing is okay? This China schoolroom snap is most surely directed/staged. Even without looking at the images David has found . . . not one of these kids is looking at the photographer; for them that would be the most interesting thing happening in that room. So they are being disciplined, controlled, heavily directed. "I'm shocked, shocked, there's (directing) going on here!" 

 

One more thing: this HIPA competition does not seem to be about photojournalism, so the guidelines would be much more relaxed.

 

I'm mostly shooting street stock here in NYC now. I pickup candy wrapper when spotting. I consider this to be okay -- some folks do not.

Edited March 24, 2014 by Ed Rooney