link to world's best press photos - a slideshow

[tsienni]

A friend of mine sent this link to me. After seeing it, I feel compelled to share here as it may be of interest to others as well.

(looks like you need to copy and paste the link in a new web browser to view the flash, ie not directly from Pbase forums.)

http://www.vg.no/foto/perpignan07/

Life is a miracle, isn't it.

[andrys]

tsienni,
Thanks very much for this link...

[sean_mcr]

Hi tsienni,

World press photo has been running since 1955. You can see the gallery here

http://www.worldpressphoto.org/index.ph ... width=high


This is where this years winners will be displayed

http://www.worldpressphoto.org/index.ph ... th=high#49


You can see interviews with some of the winning photographers here

http://www.worldpressphoto.org/index.ph ... width=high

[tsienni]

Andrys, I agree, it was an experience to view the photos. Normally good photos are a rare thing but you see so many just in 7 minutes! Tyler Hicks of New York Times, Gaël Turine from Belgium are two photographers I discovered from this show. They are still young, so my unrealistic hope is that in due time each will establish a Pbase account here.

Sean, I wasn't aware of last year's contest winner shot, thanks for the link, which I have bookmarked. There're too many things that can be pondered - I will come back to study them more thoroughly. Thanks, Sean. You know, these days where I live they are showing a film called "This Is England ". Together with this movie there's a separate photo exhibition on the British skinhead culture. Brilliant work, I do, on the other hand, wonder how a photographer get close enough to a sub-culture to photograph stuff like this without being part of the circle? Any ideas?

[sean_mcr]

Hi pal

I've seen this is England and grew up in the 80's and saw all that.

The skinhead movement got hijacked by people like National Front. It was about music

My pal trev is still one and he's black.

http://www.pbase.com/sean_mcr/image/77780792

That culture is pretty much a thing of the past. The music changed and times changed, there's still a few die hards, Trev being one of them. But for the most part when people now think of skinheads they think of racists ect and that was not what it was about.

It was a style driven by music and youth culture.

This was England gallery
http://www.pymca.com/index2.pgi

[sean_mcr]

Anyway, back to the WPP

One of my favourite photographers is Steve McCurry

The only photographer ever to have won 4 first prizes in the world press photo contest in same year.

Easy for me to forget now that he's one of bravest photojournalists alive today, because he has taken some amazingly beautiful images in the midst of carnage. No matter where he is in the world he can pull beauty out of thin air or air filled with death and burning oil.

Have a look at his middle east gallery below

http://www.stevemccurry.com/main.php

On magnum
http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/c.a ... 7O3R1PWYZX

Photojournalism is just a genre of photgraphy and does not guarantee an artistic outcome. It's difficult to combine art and photojouralism, you can view a photo and the power of the event can sweep aside all mistakes made in the camera, such as Robert Capas shot on D day. It's a great photo but i don't believe it to be art (but he was a great artist) it's a document of the chaos of war.

Nick Uts iconic shot of Phan Thi Kim Phuc, running after her village was naplamed in 72, is one of the most famous war images ever taken, but is it art? It documented an important event, but an important event is not enough by itself to create art nor does art it have to be a concern

There's no one genre that is more artistic then another. There are no dull subjects, only dull ways of capturing them.

I know that's not the debate you started, it's just something that i feel is worth discussing

My all time favourite photographer W. Eugene Smith, once said:

"Humanity is worth more then a picture of Humanity, which ultimatley can serve only for exploitation"

Some photojournalism is simply that;

[tsienni]

Nowerdays it's the youtube age...home video, you know...whatever big incidents happened, probably someone other the press people already caught it in the camera accidentally. I think this is a revolution for the masses, giving us amateurs a new opportunity that wasn't possible erstwhile. Of course the current technology is still not there yet, picture-quality wise. But if you think of what really makes a photograph good - I say it's the intensity of the moment captured, (just check out the vast majority of that world press photo list you provided), if you are in the right place at the right time, yeah, you may have the chance. You mentioned Capa's D-day shot, the film development simply went wrong, but still, without doubt, it was one of the greatest photos ever made. This calls for a more evolved standard by which we judge a photo. It doesn't have to aesthetically beautiful to make it a piece of fine art. lt can be so because it's meaningful in one way or the other through the lens of Realism.

I must quickly add I don't suggest anyone will necessarily be able to nail the shot just because he/she is presented with the right chance, exactly like you don't make good photographs just because you are equipped with the best gear. I heard Steve McCurry is going to host digital photography workshops in Asia. Techniques everyone can learn and imitate, but the real difficult part is the same old thing that distinguishes him and makes him a great.

Back to my original question, I guess what I have wondered, and most likely won't find an easy answer, is how they planned to make photos. Their end result is surely stunning, the photo bears a unique style, but the photographer seems disappeared in the photo and don't talk too much about this afterwards, very much like the secret of the craft ...

Sean, I type this in a hurry as I need to leave home soon. Thanks for the thoughts and I'll catch you when I'm back.

Have a nice weekend.

[sean_mcr]

You'll enjoy this (if you haven't seen it already)

http://inmotion.magnumphotos.com/essays/mccurry.aspx


I know you like shooting the street and this is a real gem.

Gary Winogrand

http://www.jimarnold.org/downloads/winogrand/flash/




I don't believe that an important event will make an important photograph. Nor do i believe that an important photo has to art. But the two combined is the zenith, but it’s not the norm.

The D day shots are very important, the majority of them destroyed sadly during development as you rightly pointed out. But the reason why the remaining were as they were was because he had to hold the camera high to stop the camera from taking in water and his hands were shaking with fear, repeating to himself "Es una cosa muy seria" again and again. They are important, but by no means his best work

I loved Capa, he was a great photographer and a brave man. His most famous shot "Spanish loyalist" (The shot has a few names but this is said to be capas own) is discussed in Robert Adams Beauty in photography


http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/search/ref=p ... ex=blended

The book's back in print and it's ridiculously cheap for such a fine (not to mention famous) book. I urge you to buy it, what's in it will stay with you for the rest of you photographic life. I'll send you copy if you give me your address as i really think you should have one. Adams speaks of art and journalism in ways that I’m not capable of.

Another Great War photographer Don Mcullen, who’s in the list of WPPC winners once said:

"Soldiers firing rifles in war make ordinary pictures because without the action, the smell and the noise, you have no truth"

As i said before, W Eugene Smith is my favourite photographer.
Here he gives his thoughts on photojournalism ( I think he was the greatest of them all)

http://jnevins.com/smithreading.htm

I don't know how long the reprint of Dream Street will stay in print. But if you really want to see a photographer put every ounce of his being in to something, you'll see it in that book and again it's ridiculously cheap.


http://www.luminous-landscape.com/revie ... mith.shtml



Cheers

Sean

[tsienni]

That's a lot of reading. Hey, I'm not a college student any more. Just let me take the time to sort them out. I think I have seen that Robert Adam's book in the library, pretty sure actually, because of that cover photograph, but thanks, I'll check.

Tell me, how can you like Steve McCurry and Eugene Smith at the same time, that's almost like saying you like both National Geographic and Life magazine. Just kidding. They both gave us wonderful human portraits. It's a bit incredible to me at times though - I understand they were shooting in available light, but if you look at their photos, the light was invariably paintingly-like, unbelievable. If you consider the situation of their reportage, I find it simply impossible to learn the trick!

Take another look at the original link. That perfect light is there, too. Sure, you can always adjust the exposure, but I suspect those people won't be satisfied with a mere "getting the photo done"... Besides, they are bound by journalistic standard and can't do photoshop at will. Look at the contrast in those photos, how do you get results like that without manipulation??

[tsienni]

eh, I found that book this morning. Thanks again!

// Tsienni

[sean_mcr]

That's a lot of reading. Hey, I'm not a college student any more. Just let me take the time to sort them out. I think I have seen that Robert Adam's book in the library, pretty sure actually, because of that cover photograph, but thanks, I'll check.

Tell me, how can you like Steve McCurry and Eugene Smith at the same time, that's almost like saying you like both National Geographic and Life magazine. Just kidding. They both gave us wonderful human portraits. It's a bit incredible to me at times though - I understand they were shooting in available light, but if you look at their photos, the light was invariably paintingly-like, unbelievable. If you consider the situation of their reportage, I find it simply impossible to learn the trick!

Take another look at the original link. That perfect light is there, too. Sure, you can always adjust the exposure, but I suspect those people won't be satisfied with a mere "getting the photo done"... Besides, they are bound by journalistic standard and can't do photoshop at will. Look at the contrast in those photos, how do you get results like that without manipulation??

Lol

I've never in my Life had a copy of Life or National Geographic.

One thing they had in common was real integrity and compassion for their fellow man, they're are real masters of light and members of Magnum. Smith was notoriously hard to work with, he was a perfectionist in the truest sense of the word. He was also a master in the print-room, which is an art in itself. He wasnt a one shot guy, he'd often be tangled up in as much as seven cameras. He took around 17,000 shots for Dream street. Which is a Master piece and i'm lucky enough to own the first print. 17'000 images tells you that those shots are no accident, they are from relentless dedication to his art.

Though i do enjoy McCurrys work, it's Smiths that has left left his mark on me.

"Tomoko Uemura in Her Bath" is the most powerful photograph i have ever seen

http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.c ... -2_30.html

Smith took an awful beating while trying to expose this tragedy. But it didn't stop him and that photo is just beautiful beyond words. I'm always amazed and touched by the power that photograph has. Such photographs are rare, such men are rare

Yeah i'm fan