World Press Photo 2003 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

moonstrucksoul · 05-02-2004, 10:01 AM

link with photos *images of children, do not post*

Quote:

The Associated Press
Updated: 9:58 a.m. ET Feb. 13, 2004AMSTERDAM, Netherlands - A color image of a masked Iraqi war prisoner holding his 4-year-old son at a U.S. detention camp by Associated Press Photographer Jean-Marc Bouju won the World Press Photo of the Year award Friday.

The winning photo, taken on March 31 in the holy city of Najaf, was selected from more than 63,000 images by 4,176 photographers from 124 countries.

A record 81 percent of the entries for 2003 were taken with digital cameras, as was the winning photo.

Prizes were awarded in 10 categories during 12 days of judging in the Dutch capital. Bouju will receive the award and $12,700 at a ceremony in the Netherlands on April 25.

The 61 photographers who won World Press Photo prizes came from 23 countries. The categories ranged from general news to daily life and action sports. Their work will be displayed around the world and published in book form.

Reuters photographers won the spot news singles and general news categories. Ahmed Jadallah of the Palestinian Territories took first place in the spot news singles category with a picture of a raid by Israeli forces in the Jabalya refugee camp.

Another Reuters photographer, Dutchman Jerry Lampen, won the general news category with an image of a woman mourning her dead husband in Gaza. In spot news, Noel Quidu of France won first place with a picture from Liberia for Newsweek, taken while on assignment for Gamma.

War prisoner holds distraught son
Frenchman Bouju, 42, spent nine weeks in Iraq in March and May of last year for the AP. He was embedded with the U.S. 101st Airborne Division, 3rd Brigade. An AP photographer since 1993, he won or shared Pulitzer prizes for work in Africa in 1995 and 1999.

“It’s taking me a few hours to realize it’s real. I wanted to win this prize. It’s a big one,” Bouju said in a telephone interview from his home in California.

The photo was taken during a rare moment of humanity in a war zone, Bouju said, when a father who had been taken prisoner by American troops was allowed to hold his 4-year-old son. The boy also was taken when the man was arrested.

The boy, Bouju said, was panicking and crying, so an American soldier cut the plastic handcuffs off.

“My little girl was four at the time and I couldn’t help thinking what would she have thought in the same situation,” he said. Bouju wasn’t able to get the prisoner’s name and doesn’t know where he or the child is now.

“I was in a camp in the desert somewhere in south central Iraq and they (U.S. forces) were bringing prisoners to put them in a holding area.”

On that day, Bouju was only able to transmit one image to his editors because of problems setting up a satellite link to his laptop. It was that photo which won the prestigious international award.

Among those placing in the top three in multiple categories this year was Erik Refner of Denmark, winner of the top prize two years ago. Refner came second in the category daily life stories and third in people in the news stories.

mainly i guess i was really suprised that 81% of the entries were digital, as much as i love digital cameras, is there no place for film in the world anymore?

Speed_Gibson · 05-02-2004, 10:49 AM

Quote:

mainly i guess i was really suprised that 81% of the entries were digital, as much as i love digital cameras, is there no place for film in the world anymore?

My guess is the convenience factor as all one needs is fresh batteries/laptop or card reader/USB cable out in the field rather than waiting to develop in a darkroom full of chemicals later.
And those new(er) Digital cameras with the SLR bodies and shutters and 6-13 Megapixels resolutions do take some very sharp pictures.

tricks · 05-02-2004, 11:05 AM

What I've heard with digital instead of film is you lose those pictures you delete on your digital camera that could possibly be significant at a later time.

I believe some of the pictures of President Clinton at meet and greets outside the White House where you see Monica Lewinsky in the background were taken on film.

If only you could develope film at home, simply and easily.

Nachimir · 05-02-2004, 06:36 PM

(Losing digi pics isn't really a problem if you have enough memory cards

)

I think there is definitely still a place for film. Digital is very convenient and I think it can be great for just about everything from journalism to tourism. I'm using a digi for cheap practice right now. However, a few of my friends who are either photography graduates or artists who produce work with photography reckon that film is still the way to go for quality. It's an opinion I encounter frequently.

Even a 5 megapixel digi shot will only give you a (roughly) 16cm high landscape print at 300 DPI, whereas scanning transparencies can yield very large image sizes. I've seen exhibitions with digital images that looked awful, and also some really good medium format portraits printed from negative scans. If a photograph is meant to be produced as an aesthetically pleasing object, it seems that film usually wins outright.

I suppose digital will eventually surpass the advantages of film, but not right now.

animosity · 05-02-2004, 07:15 PM

i have a digital camera... its only 2 mega pix so the quality is horrable, but it wins over my other camera because it is so much easier and i only have to print the photos i really want.

05-02-2004, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tricks
What I've heard with digital instead of film is you lose those pictures you delete on your digital camera that could possibly be significant at a later time.

Yes, but I am sure they are archived on to their computer (and possibly disc as well) for backup.

Derwood · 05-02-2004, 07:58 PM

I have a 4 megapixel Canon Power Shot G2 and I haven't bought or developed film in 2 years...

moonstrucksoul · 05-02-2004, 09:12 PM

there is no doubt in my mind that digital is a easier, faster and more convenient method. I couldn't imagine trying to take pictures in a war zone, and having to reload your camera every 36 shots. I have heard that medical examiners, and forensics labs still only use film because it holds up in court easier. which makes me wonder about truth. At what point do we stop believing what we see?

Cynthetiq · 05-03-2004, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by animosity
i have a digital camera... its only 2 mega pix so the quality is horrable, but it wins over my other camera because it is so much easier and i only have to print the photos i really want.

horrible? I have a rose covered in snow blown up to 20x30 taken from a 2.1 mp Olympus camera.

don't fall for the 5mp trap. Sure you can zoom into the finished digital picture to crop out someone, but if you block your photos right you'll be just fine, and not have 1.2 Mb file sizes for each picture... mine are just above 400k.

as for losing them? if the person doesn't delete them (like me, I keep all pictures) then you'll not worry about that.

Nachimir · 05-04-2004, 05:00 AM

Quote:

At what point do we stop believing what we see?

Film certainly is more believable, though what I fist did when I was given a manual SLR was take postcard type shots of sunsets and civic buildings.

Those subjects lost interest for me when I realised I was using the camera to distort reality rather than represent it, e.g waiting for good weather, cropping ugly signage and buildings out, maximising greenery. You're editing and distorting the world as soon as you raise the viewfinder to your eye.

People seem to accept images as "true", yet the way we see them is very different to the way we see the world.

Quote:

Originally posted by Cynthetiq
don't fall for the 5mp trap. Sure you can zoom into the finished digital picture to crop out someone, but if you block your photos right you'll be just fine

I agree. "Shoot wide and crop later" seemed like a good idea with digital action shots, until I had to spend hours on end cropping in photoshop

05-02-2004, 11:05 AM	#3 (permalink)
tricks Crazy	What I've heard with digital instead of film is you lose those pictures you delete on your digital camera that could possibly be significant at a later time. I believe some of the pictures of President Clinton at meet and greets outside the White House where you see Monica Lewinsky in the background were taken on film. If only you could develope film at home, simply and easily. __________________ People Are Stupid. People can be made to believe any lie, either because they want it to be true or because they fear that it is.

05-02-2004, 07:58 PM	#7 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	I have a 4 megapixel Canon Power Shot G2 and I haven't bought or developed film in 2 years... __________________ "You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

05-02-2004, 09:12 PM	#8 (permalink)
moonstrucksoul hovering in the distance Location: the land of milk and honey	there is no doubt in my mind that digital is a easier, faster and more convenient method. I couldn't imagine trying to take pictures in a war zone, and having to reload your camera every 36 shots. I have heard that medical examiners, and forensics labs still only use film because it holds up in court easier. which makes me wonder about truth. At what point do we stop believing what we see? __________________ no signature required

05-02-2004, 06:36 PM	#4 (permalink)
Nachimir Upright Location: UK	(Losing digi pics isn't really a problem if you have enough memory cards ) I think there is definitely still a place for film. Digital is very convenient and I think it can be great for just about everything from journalism to tourism. I'm using a digi for cheap practice right now. However, a few of my friends who are either photography graduates or artists who produce work with photography reckon that film is still the way to go for quality. It's an opinion I encounter frequently. Even a 5 megapixel digi shot will only give you a (roughly) 16cm high landscape print at 300 DPI, whereas scanning transparencies can yield very large image sizes. I've seen exhibitions with digital images that looked awful, and also some really good medium format portraits printed from negative scans. If a photograph is meant to be produced as an aesthetically pleasing object, it seems that film usually wins outright. I suppose digital will eventually surpass the advantages of film, but not right now.

05-02-2004, 07:15 PM	#5 (permalink)
animosity on fire Location: Atlanta, GA	i have a digital camera... its only 2 mega pix so the quality is horrable, but it wins over my other camera because it is so much easier and i only have to print the photos i really want.