Not impressed.

phillybikeboy

I can't say the winning World Press Photo of 2009 does much for me. Even after listening to the judge's comments, I am nonplussed. Am I missing something?

DeeCajun

IMO The judges voted for the story that went with the photo. I think it was a powerful moment and they felt the photo represented it. The tone of tension/stress is what they liked. Without the story the photo is not that extraordinary.

Not saying I agree but thats my take on it.

Tina Manley

phillybikeboy wrote:

I can't say the winning World Press Photo of 2009 does much for me. Even after listening to the judge's comments, I am nonplussed. Am I missing something?

To me, this is a photo that doesn't work without a caption.

Tina

BizShotz

I've seen more interesting shots on flickr, even with the story. just my opinion

Flyinggina

Tina Manley wrote:

To me, this is a photo that doesn't work without a caption.

Tina

+1.

The women are too small in the frame. I had to look for them, then look for their facial expressions. With the help of the caption, I "got" it. Without the caption, I would have missed the newsworthyness of it entirely, even being aware generally of what was going on at the time it was taken.

Lovely light though. A nice cityscape.

Virginia

vintagemxr

I found a link on The Online Photographer to a Polish website that has all the winning images in a higher res version: the fotopolis World Press Photo page.

(Website text is in Polish.)

Update: The Polish site is showing only selected photos and not necessarily all the winners in each category.

Doug

The_Fat_Zebra

The one with the exploding phosphorous shells in inhabited areas flouting basic rules of international humanitarian law is much more powerful IMO.

bdcolen

phillybikeboy wrote:

I can't say the winning World Press Photo of 2009 does much for me. Even after listening to the judge's comments, I am nonplussed. Am I missing something?

Sorry folks - but this is a truly gorgeous image - without a caption. But this is a journalism competition, so it can have a caption. And when the stunning visual is combined the the caption, I can certainly see why this is the winner. Sure, there are other more obviously dramatic photos. But is there any one of them that you have not seen before in a slightly, barely, different form? As well shot as those other images are, they are, for the most part, predictable. But this one is...unique. It combines the visual aesthetics of a Hopper, with terrific bit of reporting.

But thanks for pointing it out.

zoomer

I agree with the OP.
If a photo has no drama without the caption it is a loser.
This is just a picture of some people on a roof....

phillybikeboy

vintagemxr wrote:

I found a link on The Online Photographer to a Polish website that has all the winning images in a higher res version: the fotopolis World Press Photo page.

(Website text is in Polish.)

Update: The Polish site is showing only selected photos and not necessarily all the winners in each category.

Since my original post, WPP has posted galleries of the winners in all catagories,

phillybikeboy

bdcolen wrote:

Sorry folks - but this is a truly gorgeous image - without a caption. But this is a journalism competition, so it can have a caption. And when the stunning visual is combined the the caption, I can certainly see why this is the winner. Sure, there are other more obviously dramatic photos. But is there any one of them that you have not seen before in a slightly, barely, different form? As well shot as those other images are, they are, for the most part, predictable. But this one is...unique. It combines the visual aesthetics of a Hopper, with terrific bit of reporting.

I'll agree it's a lovely image. There's some wonderfully subtle storytelling going on there, right down to the green trim on the roof top and windows. The symbolism is understated, yet unmistakable--no caption required. It was instantly readable, but almost as instantly forgettable. There's nothing there that keeps me coming back to it.

In contrast is Kent Klich's photo of a Gaza Strip living room. As devoid of life and sterile as the cover of Dwell magazine, yet I can't help but think of it every time I sit on my couch.

For me, the best work of the year was Eugene Richards' War is Personal. Is every shot there special and unique? Probably not. Are they unforgettable? Absolutely. Obviously, your mileage may vary.

bdcolen

zoomer wrote:

I agree with the OP.
If a photo has no drama without the caption it is a loser.
This is just a picture of some people on a roof....

This photo has drama. What it doesn't have is blood and guts. Go through the other winners and tell us what other photo has not been offered up hundreds, if not hundreds of thousands, of times before. Yes, there are many dramatic, strong photos that required the photographers to take great personal risks. But every one of them is predictable. This is an original view of an important event. That it requires a caption for you to know what is happening is irrelevant; this is photo journalism, and writing captions is part of the photo journalism process. (The fact that what is posted on this site may well be confusing to some people - very, very, very little of what is posted here would be considered photo journalism ).

Look at the winner as a photograph. Look at the composition, the color, the tonality, the scene; it is stunning. Then think about what we know - from the caption - it shows. And stop and ask yourself if this was a 'photo' of Sam Adams and two of his associates in a second story window of a house overlooking the Boston State House, on the eve of the Boston Massacre, and you needed a caption to tell you precisely what it was, how you'd feel about it.

michswiss

I looked at this on NYTimes Lens when they were first announced. I'm having a hard time understanding how this community is lambasting these images. Especially the winning photo. It's like all the people in the museum that see a Jackson Pollock saying "I could do that..." Come on, we should know better.

Some of us might have the technical ability to capture these images. But we didn't put ourselves in the position to get them, or the story.

I agree completely with B.D.; The winning picture is stunning and knowing the context makes it even more so. I know my SiL, who grew up in Tehran before and through the revolution, truly appreciates the coverage that manages to make it out.

zoomer

So I went back and looked at it again and tried to make it a great photo...nope just nothing there.
Composition is unremarkable, light is unremarkable, any storytelling or drama is just not there.
She could be yelling across to the next rooftop to tell her kids to get home, we only have the photographer telling us his verision of what we are watching, and we all know photographers always tell the truth...

Obviously opinions will vary.

phillybikeboy

zoomer wrote:

She could be yelling across to the next rooftop to tell her kids to get home....

"Hey kids! Stop trying to overthrow the government and get your arses home for supper! It's kebabs!"

bdcolen

zoomer wrote:

So I went back and looked at it again and tried to make it a great photo...nope just nothing there.
Composition is unremarkable, light is unremarkable, any storytelling or drama is just not there.
She could be yelling across to the next rooftop to tell her kids to get home, we only have the photographer telling us his verision of what we are watching, and we all know photographers always tell the truth...

Obviously opinions will vary.

Light is unremarkable? Composition is unremarkable? No drama or story telling? Really? Interesting.

And as to having to depend on the photographer's explanation - it's called photo journalism.

michswiss

phillybikeboy wrote:

"Hey kids! Stop trying to overthrow the government and get your arses home for supper! It's kebabs!"

I'm actually quite sure that's been yelled there before. Part of what makes it special.