Learning from the Pros

I attended the judging for the White House News Photographers Association Eyes of History contest on Sunday. I was surprised by a lot of what I saw there, not by the video entries as much as by the judges' reactions to the entries.

One criterion the judges mentioned in their final selection of contest winners was whether particular entries could be considered "enough of a challenge".

This seemed to be the reason the "Sputnik" entry did not place at all in the short-form category; the judges liked it but decided that its use of historical video footage made it "less challenging." They said the same of "A Wave of Uncertainty," a long-form entry about Cuban immigration. The issue came up a third time with regard to "The Joberts," a long-form entry the judges called "seamless" and praised for its wildlife footage, but ultimately said was "not challenging". "Brazil Ethanol," on the other hand, was called "way more challenging" than "Sputnik," and it placed third in the short-form category.

Another issue the judges dealt with was just how gruesome video footage could be before it crossed the line.

The long-form entry "Surgical Fires," for example, showed three women whose faces had been burned during surgery. The gruesome nature of the footage seemed to be part of the reason that video did not place in the contest.

Another long-form entry, "Evidence of My Existence," also contained upsetting footage. The video is a photojournalist’s story of his experiences working in various dangerous situations, and the footage was at some points so disturbing that I no longer wanted to watch.

The judges, though, decided it reflected the reality of the harsh conditions without "overdoing it". The judges also mentioned that the video had good pacing; one commented that the story "drew me in."

"Evidence of My Existence" was given an Award of Excellence.

I guess showing gross footage isn't always a bad thing.