2017 Pulitzer Prize winners for photography announced

You know, my first reaction when I saw these photos were something along the lines of distaste because these people's suffering have helped these photographers become celebrated and awarded. But what you said is absolutely correct and enlightening.

@fullstop: You say that without actually saying anything. How is it different? There still needs to be people who goes to these places and record these events. Just because we're looking at them on our smartphones and tablets now doesn't make any difference regarding the actual taking of these pictures. The only difference now is that anyone, anywhere can take these pictures with their smartphones and upload them for the whole world to see.

I'm not sure if there isn't the same social outrage. After the recent chemical attack in Syria, the worldwide reaction was enormous. The problem now is that there is too much other noise distracting everyone. Brangelina's divorce, Taylor Swift's new haircut, Ghost in the Shell didn't use an Asian leading lady blah blah blah
This ties in with what you said regarding how media is different these days but I don't see how it should affect awards for photojournalism when they can have the same emotional impact on a viewer.

So what is viewed as the real source of news and information then? If people are interested in something other than celebrity gossip, what do they turn to? I'm just interested in what you think has replaced it because maybe I'm a bit slow but I feel you haven't actually said it yet. You said people networking on "the internet" (I'm guessing you mean social media) is affecting the course of history, but these people are mostly sharing articles featuring...photojournalism.

I'm afraid that I disagree. I've looked at the work shown at the link posted by "quietrich" below; to me, the post-processing he (likely) used enhanced the effect and outcome of each photograph.

What's more, he seems to have a clear understanding of when to "light shadows up" and when not to do so.

More generally, I thought the framing and composition of his photos also helped to tell stories (he seems to understand that conveying movement, moment and atmosphere doesn't necessarily require the use of fancy slow-shutter techniques, but a sense of "natural staging"). And, yes, I get that the photos appearing on his website represents the best of what was (probably) a lifetime trove numbering in the tens-of-thousands.

Even so, I still think that achieving that kind of "staged" yet natural look under uncontrolled conditions requires more than just luck and a good eye.

you need a new monitor

Tragedy is part of life, BlessingsX ….

Yes, we shouldn't upset the snowflakes with a reality check.

Indeed, Sean :)

It is unhappy. But it's not porn and it's not gossip. It is real and it's victims deserve this voice.

Money making photojournalism? Gimme a break.

I understand your concern, but let's be real here. What had a greater impact on public sentiment in other contexts, Vietnam for example. Was it dry war casualty statistics about a far away place? Or was it gruesome pictures such as Nick Ut's photo of a young girl with burns running from a napalm attack. And that's just one example among many.

There is a distinction between press photographers who run with the pack and photojournalist. Photojournalist are exactly that, journalist who passionately believe in stories that need to be highlighted for the purpose of bringing about change. There's very little money in it and you just wouldn't put yourself in those situations for anything other than humanitarian reasons. There may be a few exception but very few.

Jack, I think you missed a little sarcasm there.

Unless of course, you'd be braking HIPAA regulations by taking photos of patients.

Those are certainly artful, but they're not journalism by any stretch of the imagination. Most definitely not Pulitzer material.

It's not misery that wins awards, but excellent work. I remember when Jim Brandenberg won the Magazine Photographer of the Year award from the Picture of the Year contest. I was there watching the judges. They said his White Wolf series was probably the single best natural history photos they had ever seen.

The reason news seems to slant to the darker side of life is because that aspect of life calls for exposure with more urgency than beautiful pictures.

The Pulitzers are aimed at news. Other contests celebrate the brighter side of life. Photojournalists pursue urgent stories. So PJ contests will be slanted in that direction. To complain about it shows a significant misunderstanding of the role of journalism in the world. Photojournalists are going to feel fashion models feeling angst is not nearly as compelling as people are being massacred in Syria.

These photos are poorly composed snap shots of people smoking, masquerading as art due a blurry film grain and historical context. Somebody walking around with a camera.
They are not In the same league as Berehulaks shots, either in difficulty, quality, thoughtfulness, or skill. I know it takes all sorts, but your post is an example of 'emperor's clothes' gone mad. Arty snobbery at its worst.

Someone lock this idiot up before he drives over a baby.

Show your work...

"In your humble opinion, I take it?"

Indeed. Wonderfully restrained of me, I might add. :)

"And you sound like a callous phallus, mate."

That's some rather self-righteous presumption there.

He's making a legitimate criticism, short a succinct; nothing callous about it at all. Rather a criticism of the cynicism of the Press. Arguably this kind of intrusive journalism shouldn't be published.

Bond - Self righteous? I'd say that keyboard warriors sneering at internationally recognised photojournalists might fit that epithet more accurately.

Are they sneering? I think not.

And so what if they are internationally recognised, so are many bad people using others for their own gain, like these pics.

Quiet - It isn't like I made that phrase up. There's a reason that google returns over 7.5 million hits for that phrase...

https://www.google.com/search?q=if+it+bleeds+it+leads&oq=if+it+ble&aqs=chrome.0.0j69i57j0l4.2904j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

@Mark Turney: You should totally move over there, then.

And let random police officers decide who is "guilty" and sentence them to death?

Mark Turney - I'll assume you haven't read the article. The war on drugs isn't per se the problem. It's how it's being carried out. The idiotic president of the Philippines is an aspiring Hitler who seeks to destroy his own nation because being negative and salacious is easier to grab the attention of the ignorant masses than an intelligent, subtle approach that takes all sides into consideration.

Wonderfully said. I was disgusted after the first two pics.

@Hugo808 : Because you think the only positive things in this arsh reality are "kittens-like"? Thankfully the world is not so binary.
Things are changing all over the world, lot of atrocities, yes; but also lot of positive experiments. While our old "modern world" run towards its ends faster and faster, some people are trying other path in every domain.
So I agree with Quantum Scientist, we need more focus on positive things that are happening right now.

Your reference to fluffy kitten is a bit naive ...........rewarding and showcasing the positives of humanity is ignored by this once great organization that has become dodgy

Couldn't agree more. I think the reason for that is bc negativity attracts more views. That't what news agencies do all the time. Fuel on peoples' negativity.

I'm a bit torn. I understand where QuantumScientist is coming from, and I agree somewhat. In general, there is a clear bias towards documenting the bad in the words - to such an extent that people even equate the good with 'boring'. I think that's undesirable. It's really the old parable of the two dogs: the one that wins is the one you feed the most.

Yet I still believe these pictures serve a purpose as tools for creating awareness and empathy. So many of these horror stories boil down to statistics ("X people died in the battle between Y and Z"), which are easy to ignore. Putting a human face on the suffering is, at least to me, not simply a ploy to sell more newspapers (or whatever it is people buy these days).

Sounds like your cat pictures were passed over for an award yet again?

@Hugo - Yes, because the only thing we remember from ancient Greece is how many Spartans the Athenians killed...
Random street death and macabre are interesting to people, but it is not "history."

@Suntan That's how YOU remember ancient Greece. I remember it for the greatness of Alexander and the extent of lands. And Victories. And their success on running the lands.

But if you were photographing ancient Greek wars of expansion would you champion the glory hunting pirates or have sympathy with the victims?

These photo's are of the people who suffer because of the ego's of others who's actions affect us all. To ignore that and champion only the positive would be to ignore forces we might be able or desire to control if we knew the likely cost.

My:"Finally" implied the fact that for years many award-winning photos looked like copy/paste of the same refugee images over, and over, and over again. Last year (or was it 2015?) for landscape images of the year there was a snapshot of lifevest apparently being left somewhere in Greece to show:"the impact of migrants on nature" or something like that. Seing different images winning important prizes feels like some fresh air.

One boy drowned in Greece. Another boy was shot in Chicago. What is the difference? One boy dies of gas in Syria. Another boy gets shot in the Philippines. I see no difference.

TyphoonTW,
You do yourself dishonor with callousness that reflects a total uninvolvement with anything that penetrates what must be a truly wonderful stress free life. In the words of that Vulcan philosopher Mr. Spock, "Live long and prosper" because to someone who makes a remark such as yours, long life and prosperity must be all that matters. How very sad.

It's always nice to express happiness regarding the variety of subjects in photography prizes, only to be given a lesson in politically correct morality. Thanks, now I'm clearly a better person. Clearly.

<Ding ding> Bring out yer self-righteous moralizers. Bring out yer..... No love, that's just a dead body. We want stinking moralizers, dear.

Fullstop, you must be kidding. The kind of photography above is not easy. It is emotionally draining, and in many cases is dangerous. One could say, as an argument, that any photography NOT involving danger is "easier to do."

It may be dangerous to the individual but photographically and creating images is like fishing in a bucket. Raw emotions and a bit of blood mixed is easy to portray just as telling story about polluting is easier than creating a story about cleaning up a environment. Pulling the audiences heartsrings and empathy is a age old advertising ploy ............. a tried and tested format.

fullstop - Oh yeah? Ever try getting a photo of happy puppies on a rainbow?
I tried .... and failed every time.

maxnimo that should be a smack easy for any rank and file CG artist

Fullstop, we'll have to disagree again. Photographically it's very difficult to create those kinds of images. You often get one shot on getting the moment, and holding down the shutter button in AI mode is probably not going to go over well with the people in the room or situation. Having the right settings, shooting discretely, working to even get the trust of the people, finding the right situations, and more are incredible obstacles.

What is challenging photographically? I'd say anything that takes a lot of time and planning, along with skill, creativity, and patience.

Here's a Pulitzer Prize winner from 1993 showing a starving girl and a vulture. The photographer took his own life 6 months later. He just couldn't witness the suffering anymore. But he brought us an image that could, perhaps, help others to take action. We need messengers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_vulture_and_the_little_girl

Nothing about the above photograph was easy.

You must not read much. There are many examples that prove you wrong. Browse the photo galleries of the New York Times and Washington Post some time. There's plenty of beautiful, positive work. It's just not as important or compelling, or it would win.

LOL

ROTFL!!! What's with the angry Trump idiots?

I'm treating dennis tennis' post above as satire.. because he can't possibly be serious with labeling the US media with that many disparate ideologies..

He's pretty sloppy, I mean, no quip about #thefailingNYtimes? #pulitzerwinningfailingNYtimesphotog deserves your best satirical effort, lean into it!

The problem is it's nearly impossible to tell sarcasm from standard operating procedure, with the current administration.

Dennis: Oh boy.... was there no photographer present in the Trump tower when Obama personally laid down those wires?

Perhaps you meant it as satire, the problem: today we don't know anymore, and it isn't funny.

It goes to show that the subject amd composition triumphs over image quality. I'm not trying to downplay image quality's importance, but I feels as if people put too much emphasis on image quakity sometimes. The pictures were noisy but trust me that is the last thing someone is thinking of when viewing that devestating piece.

It's called Photoshop.

I believe Berehulak uses m43

But real subject separation can only be achieve with FF or MF!!! M43 has far too much sensor noise for real photography!!!

(I'm kidding, for those who don't know)

For the Philippines photos, Berehulak used a Nikon D5 and probably a 24-70/2.8 lens. The exif appears under his photos on the World Press Photo web site. Photos were made at night at very high ISO. M43 would look worse at ISO 12,800.