Aftermath of a RTA tonight in Dublin.

Tallon

If you looked at all the picts o pix.ie, and the descriptions, AR said that the guy got up and was able to walk away.

Sorry, I, stupidly, assumed he had died. Appolagies to the OP

Paulw wrote: »

You see these kinds of images frequently in the newspapers, etc. Why can't they be posted here too???

As above, I thought id would be unfair on the family.


I really should read things before voicing my opinion

Cabaal

I'm shocked at people's over re-action to this thread, so its ok for somebody to take pictures in a war zone or of some disaster or accident in another country but you can't in Ireland?

Is this not one of those "Not in my backyard" situations,

Its reality lads, if you don't like it stop looking at it its as simple as

City-Exile

Cabaal wrote: »

I'm shocked at people's over re-action to this thread, so its ok for somebody to take pictures in a war zone or of some disaster or accident in another country but you can't in Ireland?

Is this not one of those "Not in my backyard" situations,

Its reality lads, if you don't like it stop looking at it its as simple as

Cabaal, we had a member of this forum who is related to the victim.
The images could be very upsetting in such circumstances.
There's less of a chance of someone in Ireland knowing the victim of shelling in Afghanistan.

Anyway, the images are on his pix.ie page, if anyone wants to see them.
Such a fuss, I've never seen before!

superflyninja

sorry but what is an RTA?

AnCatDubh

road traffic accident

Paulw

superflyninja wrote: »

sorry but what is an RTA?

RTA = Road Traffic Accident.

superflyninja

ohhhhhh

Calina

The issue here is not so much that the photographs are distasteful - I don't think they are per se - but how much of an invasion of privacy they could be construed as.

Me personally, if I see photogaphs like them - they're the ones your pix.ie stream I assume - I stop and wonder "if it were me, how would I feel about a complete stranger taking photographs of me in that situation". I'd hate it. And for that reason, I wouldn't take the photographs, wouldn't post them on the internet. For that reason I fully understand where miju is coming from.

To some extent, in a story of public interest, if you're involved, you generally have a good idea what media to avoid to avoid upsetting yourself. Something like this - a specialist photography forum - is slightly from left field. With the best will in the world - and AR might agree with me, I don't know - the photographs are not technically great photographs, they don't stand on their own and they don't even much tell the story in my view (assuming C&C is welcome).

Ultimately there isn't anything in the charter that says you can't post the photographs but the charters aren't so much legislation, but guidelines. Realistically speaking, common sense and values have to come into it too. Me, I'd be guided by "would I like to have these random photographs of me published anywhere on the web?" Answer = No, then I don't do it.

mehfesto2

City-Exile wrote: »

Cabaal, we had a member of this forum who is related to the victim.
The images could be very upsetting in such circumstances.
There's less of a chance of someone in Ireland knowing the victim of shelling in Afghanistan.

I don't mean to sound rude, but if the mods were to take down all posts that could potentially offend people all over boards.ie, there'd be feck all to read/look at.

It's unfortunately somebody's claiming to be related/know ther person, but that's just bad luck and I hope it doesn't affect people posting images like this in the future.

challengemaster

Calina wrote: »

I stop and wonder "if it were me, how would I feel about a complete stranger taking photographs of me in that situation". I'd hate it. And for that reason, I wouldn't take the photographs, wouldn't post them on the internet. For that reason I fully understand where miju is coming from.

As for thinking about others taking pictures of you in such situations...well, I don't generally think about being hit by a car or anything... Think happy thoughts :pac:

But in reality, you really have no say against it if someone does decide to take pictures. It's not invasion of privacy because you're in a public domain, and even if you can be seen from a public area you can be photographed. If you really feel that strongly about pictures of you being taken, then I'd suggest you stop going outside, and remove all windows from your house. Just incase.

Calina

You miss my point CM. I govern my behaviour by the way I'd like others to treat me and act accordingly.

challengemaster

mehfesto2 wrote: »

I don't mean to sound rude, but if the mods were to take down all posts that could potentially offend people all over boards.ie, there'd be feck all to read/look at.

It's unfortunately somebody's claiming to be related/know ther person, but that's just bad luck and I hope it doesn't affect people posting images like this in the future.

Have to agree here. It's getting a bit too PC around these parts if this is OTT. Come to think of it, What about pictures of Auschwitz that are posted here every few months by various people? I don't see anyone hopping in and claiming they're disgusted about that. It's possibly offensive to any Jewish people though. If you get too PC though, you couldn't even record history properly because it might be offensive to someone else.

Personally I think there needs to be a bit more of this kind of photography on the site. Maybe people might wake up and smell the coffee then, and crawl out from the rocks they seem to be hiding under.

Oh, and City-Exile. It's only Irish people that need to be related or know people who're being killed daily in Afghan? Universe does not revolve around Ireland, and y'know, there's other people in the world.

humberklog

Just a bit of C+C on the pix.ie stream AR. It's a pity you didn't get in on the subject matter more. It's not too often one finds oneself in such a position and if your not squeemish and the subject matter doesn't question your personal ethics then it's a pity to let such an opportunity slip by.
I think I would have pulled in and stood on the roof of the car in order to get more of a feel of the event.
I did this on Tuesday at Leeson St. bridge where a taxi man had a suspected heart attack and was recieving CPR by the side of the road. I couldn't get an angle from my car and didn't want to get in the way of the medics so I pulled in and jumped on the roof of the car and I think I got a more favourable position. The little touch of elevation can really improve the overall scene.

I don't know how they came out yet as it was on film.

AnimalRights

You don't and cannot do this in Summerhill, trust me, unless you'd fancy being lynched.
I am very serious too.

humberklog

AnimalRights wrote: »

You don't and cannot do this in Summerhill, trust me, unless you'd fancy being lynched.
I am very serious too.

I know Summerhill very well AR. One of my necks of the wood. No bother at all. Sure you'd be away in no time too.

I was only shooting crack addicts firing up there last week, now that did get a little spooky but very interesting too.

A very photogenic process but what a nutty, nutty drug. Subjects get pretty scary when coming up. But lots of little details, fire and silver etc.

Dan Jaman

Censorship stinks.

bigeasyeah

Bad form not matter how many small minded controverialists defend it.

AnimalRights

humberklog wrote: »

I know Summerhill very well AR. One of my necks of the wood. No bother at all. Sure you'd be away in no time too.

I work in the area (13 years), very public shop...everyone knows that.

DaireQuinlan

Dan Jaman wrote: »

Censorship stinks.

Sure does ! Lucky that the only censorship going on here is self-censorship then, isn't it !

humberklog

AnimalRights wrote: »

I work in the area (13 years), very public shop...everyone knows that.

Then we both know the place. Snap.

Nice phots on your site btw. Just had a little rummage about.

AnimalRights

You're missing the point, it's one thing photographing addicts and another thing photographing publicly a local person knocked down.
Ta for the compliments, your stuff is not too shabby either.

Dan Jaman

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Sure does ! Lucky that the only censorship going on here is self-censorship then, isn't it !

No it wasn't. It was the retraction of a perfectly normal human-interest set of pics caused by pressure from a couple of over-sensitive types.
Self-censorship my aunt fanny.

humberklog

AnimalRights wrote: »

it's one thing photographing addicts and another thing photographing publicly a local person knocked down

Good point well made. That could have been a little sticky for you.

Still and all...a little more height would have framed the shots that smidgen bit better.

DaireQuinlan

Dan Jaman wrote: »

No it wasn't. It was the retraction of a perfectly normal human-interest set of pics caused by pressure from a couple of over-sensitive types.

Which sounds like the textbook definition of self-censorship to me. Besides, you're the one bleating about censorship in the first place ...

AnimalRights

humberklog wrote: »

Good point well made. That could have been a little sticky for you.

Still and all...a little more height would have framed the shots that smidgen bit better.

You're comments make sense from your POV!
Especially when you look at your stuff!
You're a goddamned perfectionist.
The one thing that really did gall me Humberklog is the 2 gang members shot in Summerhill earlier this year, they were done on my night off, I drive that road so many times a night!

Thanks to everyone for PMs, I'm too knackered to reply to them all but will try and get round to it later.

Valentia

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Sure does ! Lucky that the only censorship going on here is self-censorship then, isn't it !

Ah, if only. Some of the comments are astounding. AR is perfectly right to have posted and the only bit of his judgement I'd question is taking them down. If we were going to be "sensitive" about what people thought photography and journalism would be very bare cupboards indeed. This place........sometimes I wonder:rolleyes:

DaireQuinlan

Valentia wrote: »

Ah, if only. Some of the comments are astounding. AR is perfectly right to have posted and the only bit of his judgement I'd question is taking them down. If we were going to be "sensitive" about what people thought photography and journalism would be very bare cupboards indeed. This place........sometimes I wonder:rolleyes:

That's more or less what I was saying when Dan Jaman was bleating on about censorship. From what I can see, there hasn't BEEN any, AR took it upon himself to take them down. No-one made him take them down, there was no mod decision to do it, AR did it himself.

Valentia

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

That's more or less what I was saying when Dan Jaman was bleating on about censorship. From what I can see, there hasn't BEEN any, AR took it upon himself to take them down. No-one made him take them down, there was no mod decision to do it, AR did it himself.

True. It's some of the comments I mean.

charybdis

This is not censorship.

I don't have a problem with the posting of graphic images.

I do not consider these images "graphic".

I find the volume of posts bleating about over-reactions and censorship ironic.

I stand by what I said:

charybdis wrote: »

This has no merit whatsoever.

Valentia

This has no merit whatsoever.

But it has. It's just that you think it hasn't. Big difference.

copacetic

Valentia wrote: »

But it has. It's just that you think it hasn't. Big difference.

No, You think it has, he thinks it hasn't. Another big difference.

charybdis

Warning: Subjectivity may not be objective.

Paulw

I think it's clear that the majority of photographic boards posters think it has merit.

And, as has been stated, it's up to the photography section to take care of itself.

So, clearly the topic and images have merit.

CabanSail

Really ..... What really matters is that AR thought they had Merit. Beyond that everyone else can have their own opinion.

DaireQuinlan

charybdis wrote: »

This has no merit whatsoever.

But why bother even saying this then if you don't have a problem with their being posted ? I've seen images posted here for C&C that I thought similarly about, I certainly didn't wade into the thread and declaim that. If anything I might be tempted to provide some constructive criticism or something, I certainly wouldn't go "these are crap" and just leave it at that. Doing THAT certainly has no merit whatsoever ...

Valentia

copacetic wrote: »

No, You think it has, he thinks it hasn't. Another big difference.

Wrong (I think). If I think it has then it has (for me at least). If I think it hasn't I could be wrong......

seanybiker

AnimalRights wrote: »

The one thing that really did gall me Humberklog is the 2 gang members shot in Summerhill earlier this year, they were done on my night off, I drive that road so many times a night!

Ah thats a balls. Now thats a photo I would love to see.
yeah yeah might sound horrible but I like all these scumbags getting shot.

melekalikimaka

i think you can say these have no merit and leave it at that, clearly hes an issue with the subject and the idea of publishing something like this on a public forum...

not a fan of the images myself... the composition and the subject kinda screams sadistic voyerism to me... but i guess to another person they can see it as photojournalism... its more a moral issue than anything else

humberklog

melekalikimaka wrote: »

its more a moral issue than anything else

I'd plump for ethical rather than moral.

charybdis

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

But why bother even saying this then if you don't have a problem with their being posted ? I've seen images posted here for C&C that I thought similarly about, I certainly didn't wade into the thread and declaim that. If anything I might be tempted to provide some constructive criticism or something, I certainly wouldn't go "these are crap" and just leave it at that. Doing THAT certainly has no merit whatsoever ...

When someone or their art is being attacked on grounds of taste and decency it's important to attempt to look at it as objectively and as removed from the morality of the situation as possible. Too often, worthy art has been derided due to simplistic ideals of taste. Similarly, some really crappy art has used controversial subject matter as a crutch.

If you do not think uncontroversial art isn't very good, then it'd probably be in everyone's best interest if you said nothing. However, I think it is important to make a distinction outside the realm of morals when the morality of some art is called into question. It is important to voice detraction lest the work's only opposition be on moral grounds. To do anything else is disingenuous.

DaireQuinlan

charybdis wrote: »

When someone or their art is being attacked on grounds of taste and decency it's important to attempt to look at it as objectively and as removed from the morality of the situation as possible. Too often, worthy art has been derided due to simplistic ideals of taste. Similarly, some really crappy art has used controversial subject matter as a crutch.

If you do not think uncontroversial art isn't very good, then it'd probably be in everyone's best interest if you said nothing. However, I think it is important to make a distinction outside the realm of morals when the morality of some art is called into question. It is important to voice detraction lest the work's only opposition be on moral grounds. To do anything else is disingenuous.

So, if I may paraphrase here to remove unnecessary verbiage, you're maintaining that precisely BECAUSE people were going to object to it on ethical grounds you felt obliged to point out that they were also crappy pictures ?

I think that's as pointless as anything else ...

melekalikimaka

i can see a locking soon

charybdis

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

So, if I may paraphrase here to remove unnecessary verbiage, you're maintaining that precisely BECAUSE people were going to object to it on ethical grounds you felt obliged to point out that they were also crappy pictures ?

I think that's as pointless as anything else ...

People were objecting to it on moral grounds. Yes, I felt obliged to point out they were crappy pictures as I think the distinction between immoral and not particularly good is important. Of all the posts in this thread, I think mine are far from the most pointless.

In before lock.

Slidinginfinity

Locking would be a shame. If for no other reason than, people and talking and thinking and debating about the very subject this board is supposed to be about.

AnCatDubh

We'll leave the debate open for a while longer I think. Thanks to everyone for keeping it civil which is why a lock isn't needed quite yet.

Eventually it may head off topic and at a tangent when we may do a close down but I think at present it's a reasonably healthy civil debate.

Keep it civil and moderate.

Thanks.

AnimalRights

melekalikimaka wrote: »

i can see a locking soon

People are using very big words too.

Slidinginfinity

AnimalRights wrote: »

People are using very big words too.

:eek:

melekalikimaka

AnimalRights wrote: »

People are using very big words too.

i think its really about people and Dystychiphobia :D:D:D

I don't think the images should have been removed, but since they weren't removed on the poing of taste (they were removed by a CMOD based on reported posts) then that point is moot.

If that were me, would I like to see pictures about it? No, not really
If I were AR would I have taken the picture? I don't know, but probably yes.
Should AR have been lambasted in the way which he was? No, I don't think so
Did I understand a word charybis said in that post? No!

Perhaps a lock on this thread and the creation of a new one based on the topic of posting such images? One where AR is not the base.

charybdis

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think the images should have been removed, but since they weren't removed on the poing of taste (they were removed by a CMOD based on reported posts) then that point is moot.

If that were me, would I like to see pictures about it? No, not really
If I were AR would I have taken the picture? I don't know, but probably yes.
Should AR have been lambasted in the way which he was? No, I don't think so
Did I understand a word charybis said in that post? No!

Perhaps a lock on this thread and the creation of a new one based on the topic of posting such images? One where AR is not the base.

The images were voluntarily removed by the OP and nobody ever suggested he do so. A moderator removed links to the images from quoted portions of the OP's text after the initial post was edited. What don't people understand about this?