Once again the documentary section is littered with either heavily processed images, or with photos that subject-wise have nothing to do with documentary. At least 3 of the last 4 images don't belong in that category.

Some diligence by the photo screening team would be appreciated.

Same goes for member screeners.

And a bit of serieux by the people uploading their so called documentary images would also be appreciated. Even if it happened by mistake, then it is up to you to be a bit more careful. I believe the site has certain 'guidelines' regarding manipulation. It takes but a few lousy minutes to read them. Feel free to send the OE team an e-mail and ask them to place the photo in the right category.

rant over !

Hi Koen!

I really appreciate your feedback and I can see your valid points here.

Changing categories is one of the more common screener duties - we really need to improve the information about how to select the right category for the uploads.

Perhaps you can provide me with some more info on OEmail which shots you feel should not be in Documentary.

Thanks

i do agree with the processing but i dont see how documentary can be defined by subjects. every photo is a documentary photo as long as it is not a creative edit?

sure Remo. So I'll put up my next portrait in nature then ? and if it's a really wrinkly face I'll upload it under landscape ?

ah... so that's how they do it

:-)

you're missing the point Robert. but ej... don't let that bother you ;-)

So, let me see if I get it now... according to Remo it's not subject related, and according to Robert it's not manipulation related.

i see your point. so the definition of a documentary photo is that it tells us a story about somebody or something?

I think that documentary can only be based on the subject of the image. But IMO that's the difficulty: how do you define exactly the content and the limitations of a documentary shot.
As far as image editing is concerned I basically agree with Robert. What's aceeptable editing? Only levels and sharpening? What about dodge and burning (as done in the darkroom times)? What about cloning to eliminate dust spots or slight blurring of some areas?
Having quite some PS knowledge, I can do a lot of editing that you wouldn't be aware of if you don't see the original image...!

Jef

I have seen shots not go through because they were not edited enough..and other shots because there is too much editing.
I know of one documentary shot that has sat on the front cover of Time Magazine and yet not made it through the screening process here.
Clearly it's time to drop it from the site or educate screeners and perhaps more importantly staff so that they know how to deal with documentary shots.

Again I'd like to call for weighted screening. Documentary photographers should have more sway in screening than landscape photographers and vice versa.

no editing that changes the message of a real moment should be done with docu's. that means (to me) nothing should be cropped in or coppied out of the photo, no colors should be changed and so on... also the photo should only show things that he has not arranged (like the famous toys that you see very often in fully damaged houses).

The fact that something has been on the cover of Time magazine is completely irrelevant. That does not mean that it is a photo for 1x.

And we might need education. But we do what we do on our free spare time, and we do our best. Sometimes we do mistakes. Sometimes a photo ends up in the wrong category, but earth continues to spin anyway. Just send a short oemail with corrections to any screener if a photo is misplaced and it will be moved in no-time. I will work on the information to make sure that the uploaders can find the right category, and also make it easier for screeners to change the category in the screening process.

/ Jacob

or maybe not. Maybe Obama is a white dude wearing make up :-)


both editing and subject-wise there are always little gray areas. Muddy areas where things aren't that clear anymore and that make it impossible to give an exact definition. What I don't like is people hiding behind those little muddy gray areas and ignoring that most photos I'm talking about have nothing to do with those tiny gray areas but are in those vast areas where things are reasonably clear, once you're willing to be reasonable at least. You're trying me to get to define the exact borderline between Belgium and Luxembourg whereas I'm speaking about Mexico and Russia.
I don't see how the fact that you can edit in PS if you're really good, so that we wouldn't be aware of it, is relevant here Jef.

Koen I think I'm probably the only one to agree with you. I believe that many of the past photos in the category have been set up, and yes, manipulated, like 90% of all photos on here. Whether or not they were manipulated to the point of extinction, I cannot say, however I would not blame the screeners. The site works wonders, and has, like every other site, its flaws. The only thing you can really do is ask for the photographers to be honest, or be forced to write the editing process.
regards,
Alex

:D

he "happened" to be black!

i dont think they have been set up. and not 90% are manipulated, but depends on what you would call manipulating. changing contrast, saturation, brightness, sharpness is not manipulating, its a choice every photographer has to do.

Documentary, by dictionary definition, means the objective presentation of facts and circumstances without editorialization. Looking at photos, one could say that something as simple as the "perspective" from which a picture is taken introduces subjectivity, and therefore editorialization. But if we give some lattitude to that aspect, a documentary photo is the presentation of the facts/circumstances of the situation. This does not mean the photo cannot be touched up or cropped, nor does it mean it must be taken at a certain focal length or dof. Rather, I think it means the documentary photo needs to stay as true as possible to the situation so that the particular situation is being communicated to viewer as is. Another way of putting it is that how the viewer "sees" the captured moment should not be influenced by the insertion of something "extra" that is not naturally occurring in the picture. Just my two cents.....

The Category police are out. Watch out now! I know, because I've been there too. I have since let it go. Life is too short for that one.
I understand what is being said here. So let's maybe look at the intention of the photograph. This is an art site. Not a journalistic one. We all can get in to discussions about what is manipulation and what is not (Philosophy wise). Does it REALLY matter? I don't particularly want to be a policeman and I doubt that the screeners want to be. They would just be set up for debating their choices to anyone that wants to come along and debate.

Oh and he loves talking! :D

Yes, thats what I meant. :D

Jerry, screeners - including you - are policing all of the time during screening.

Isn't it time for a proper definition of "documentary"? I think I've seen somewhere here something that says "not edited", sorry didn't find it now. What is not edited?
Contrast, sharpness etc usually have to be edited if it is coming from raw.
Crop? I'm sure a lot of the famous photos from the "masters" was cropped in the darkroom.
Of course, adding objects are not documentary, but where's the limit?'

This is not meant as complaining, but I have seen this issue coming up regularly and it should be easy to set some kind of guideline/rule. "Not edited" just don't work!

I can't be bothered to read all these.....it is a shame that so many countries and thus their residents mind sets on rules and law are based on the civic legal system of rules and definitions and legislation and statutes and by laws...........Yawn.

Let's stick to the more worldly English common law approach of precedence, prior example and the "common man" test".

"If it is a photo that is capturing a moment and a story that goes along with it and the main meaning is the story and the moment and how it is more beneficial to society than not that it is documented - then it is documentary."

I shot this one and it was commented by a viewer as "Too snapshot". It is 10000% more documentary than half the other shots in documentary and for those that wish to learn something and open their eyes a bit to the world, would have by looking at the image and then reading the caption. Hell I learn't something when I asked my wife when I got home because I had no idea what I was shooting. I thought it was a street BBQ!

http://1x.com/queue/r64408-fullsize.jpg

Documentary should on some level educate and inform and record "For the record".

That is where the "Document" part of the name comes from. As opposed to "Theatrical" or "Art". This topic doesn't need so much rule based over analysing like some German or Chinese office tea room milk and cookie re supply procedure. It needs a bit of common man approach.

/Rant.

PS: For those that want to learn - pop over to my personal 1x homepage for a length piece about the subject of quoted photo.

After visiting the documentary section, I have to agree with Koen that two of the last 4 images aren't what I'd call "documentary" unless the term is applied to just anything recorded with a camera.
I sometimes have doubts as to which section my images belong to (like most members, I'd like to think!), but as said above that's where the crew can be of help.

By the way, though maybe a bit off-topic, it might be a good idea to define where to place zoo photos: everyday? documentary?

My personal view is that art is all about breaking the rules.
So it seems a bit out of place to try to apply a rigid taxonomic classification to artworks. These categories are there just to help sorting the images out, no more.
Also if you are too rigid than it means that a good amount of photos will either fall in more than one category or none. What would you do, then?
The editing that should be forbidden is the one that manipulates History.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071119213945.htm

As a photographer that has done work both in the artistic way and in journalism in documentary photography i can tell that newsdesk all over the world are discussing this issue as for what is a manipulated "not documentary" shot. In Norway and most other countries the "normal" editing as light/contrast and correction of colours are ok. Also the cropping of images is ok. They make it a point to not crop out anything that alteres the shot in a way that it might not be showing the whole truth of a situation. The discussion about digital editing should now be put to rest. The digital darkroom can make wonders but documenting anything should mean that the image tells the truth as the photographer shows it in camera. altering colourtone is an artistic approach to make a image feel different or giving it a special mood. Cleaning up dust is always done when necessery both with analogue and digital tecniques. And what gives the documentary photography more value than others? none IMO. The purpose with each image either its an artistic creative edit or docu is that the photographer is trying to show something or tell something. As for the documentary section here at OE of course it will be up to each photographer to upload in the right category. But to exclude images from that category because of minor cropping,light/contrast or minor colourcorrection is a bit harsh IMO :) as this always is done even on the frontpage images on time magazine......:)
All the best --w--

That seals the debate for me. Very succinct.

Exactly!



Don't know what has actually been excluded here for that kind of reason, but I've seen comments like "not cropped away that (empty space) because it is documentary.."

Good discussion!

I found it hard to find a description of the documentary category on OE. The only place I could find it was at the top of the documentary photo section. Having the descriptions available (by mouse-over maybe?) when you are editing, at the categorization stage, would be helpful.

Several have suggested that people just need to be honest when they upload. However, when I see a photo that seems to me to be in the wrong category I would give others the benefit of the doubt and assume that there is a misunderstanding or just a difference of interpretation.

Lots of the discussion is about editing, but I think there's less of a gray area when it comes to photos that are obviously staged or set-up. Staged photographs can be wonderful (although not when I try to take them) but they are not documentary. Some comments seem to suggest that documentary and story telling are the same but I think they are often very different. Staged photos can be good at telling stories but they do not document. The OE description for the documentary category includes "photostories" as an example, but I don't think this is a very good example.

On the topic of editing I think Willy Marthinussen gives an excellent summary and I appreciate hearing from someone who has journalistic experience. It doesn't sound to me like anyone here suggesting that "minor" editing (contrast, dust spots, colour correction) disqualifies photos from being documentary.

Don

i think there is still a problem with this category. if i look at the photos published there i hardly find any "documentary" photos.
if you shoot a portrait of a poor person it doesnt change the portrait into a documentary photo, also a dead horse on the street is no documentary photo, its everyday.

i think the screeners should be more carefull with the sections or even transfer the photos from documentary to portraits, street, everyday and so on. its hard anyway to document a story with just one photo.

As a newcomer I admit I sometimes have difficulty choosing what category to put a photo into unless it is really obvious. Sometimes a photo can go into 2 or 3 categories. Maybe the crew could give a better description of what to put ( or better not put) in each category.

I would like to see a more specified description of what postprocessing can be done on a documentary shot. I thought there was some kind of description in "about section" that specified no editing, but couldn't find it now.
In case it's still there. No editing? Do you really mean that the many famous documentary shots used in magazines over the years has no editing done? No contrast/color etc. adjustment?

What I mean is that some of my published shots, the ones from offshore are documentary. But, I could not post them under documentary as there has been done some serious editing on contrast, and the rule was there..

My meaning is: As long as you don't remove or add objects, and then make the image "fake" it can be documentary. Anyone who would object? Crew?

I agree. I don't want to beat a dead horse... especially when there was a photo recently of a whispy woman like ghost image walking into a door way... in street category. :-s

But this is as simple a break down as I have found that may eventually help people to understand that an apple is an apple and you can't call it an apple and serve up a fruit salad and then complain that people expect apple to mean apple and don't care that the fine print states that in this case as far as we are concerned the apple is a fruit salad. ;-)

http://www.sevensevennine.com/?p=429