Aftermath of a RTA tonight in Dublin.

Exactly, the images were removed.
I never gave out about who removed them, I just don't think they needed to be removed.

Anouilh

Deleted User wrote: »

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

That is what I had in mind in this thread:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055559303

There seems to be little problem really.

AR uploaded photos and then had a change of mind.

Anouilh

Anouilh wrote: »

That is what I had in mind in this thread:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055559303

There seems to be little problem really.

AR uploaded photos and then had a change of mind.

Exactly!

AnimalRights

Anouilh wrote: »

AR uploaded photos and then had a change of mind.

When the guy said it was his relative yes*, to me them on my pixie account was probably enough under the circumstances.

*Although he has since has had a change of heart and said it was ok to put them up but pix.ie is where they will lay!

smelltheglove

A little off the topic, as I said before I dont find this distatsteful but there are times when it can become distasteful.

A few years back the Star as far as I can remember had the front page covered with one photo. The photo was of a body turned upside down in the river liffey, a body that had been recovered. The body was of what you could say a relative in ways of mine. That paper went to print before the family were informed of the death. One family member worked early hours and saw the picture and recognised this person and intervened by reaching the immediate family before they left the house in the morning. It is cases like this that are distasteful.

Ar has nothing to be ashamed of!

Borderfox

No probs on the pictures, some of the links posted up from the Boston newspaper would be far harder subjects.

smelltheglove

smelltheglove wrote: »

Ar has nothing to be ashamed of!

:eek::eek:

charybdis

Borderfox wrote: »

No probs on the pictures, some of the links posted up from the Boston newspaper would be far harder subjects.

They're also usually excellent photographs, I'm sure they don't just throw up any photo of corpses blown limb from limb.

thebaz

Can't believe the hyserterical over-reaction, to what in the album looks pretty tame, in comparison to what we would see in most dailys - the man was ok - photography doesn't need to shock , but sometimes images need to challenge us out of comfort zone . Janer has taken much better images, but thats just my opinion, but lets put it into perspective - when someone is murdered or there is a fatal car crash, the dailys send a photojournalist straight around, just a fact of life

melekalikimaka

thebaz wrote: »

Can't believe the hyserterical over-reaction, to what in the album looks pretty tame, in comparison to what we would see in most dailys - the man was ok - photography doesn't need to shock , but sometimes images need to challenge us out of comfort zone . Janer has taken much better images, but thats just my opinion, but lets put it into perspective - when someone is murdered or there is a fatal car crash, the dailys send a photojournalist straight around, just a fact of life

just because a paper does it that doesnt make it ethically or morlally right to the masses...

everyone has different standards... personally, i think that sorta thing is a bit voyeristic and such... but i'm sure alot of people like it... pictures of a man hit by a car and blood... haphazard composition... so its really all bout the content... an injured man hit by a car photographed for the viewing pleasure of others...



...mneh

copacetic

melekalikimaka wrote: »

just because a paper does it that doesnt make it ethically or morlally right to the masses...

Agreed, using what appears in daily rags or the ethics of professional photographers as a guide is hardly a good basis for what is right and wrong.

thebaz

melekalikimaka wrote: »

personally, i think that sorta thing is a bit voyeristic and such... h

I think most photgraphers are voyeristic, we may not like the term , but .....

melekalikimaka

that also might be the cause for the divided opinion on this... some are...some not so

TPD

Mega overreaction here if you ask me. Some of the (in my opinion) best pictures ever taken wouldn't exist if everyone wanted to play doctor. To be shocked when someone, who documents life, takes a picture of a down rather than an up - it's ridiculous.

melekalikimaka

TPD wrote: »

Mega overreaction here if you ask me. Some of the (in my opinion) best pictures ever taken wouldn't exist if everyone wanted to play doctor. To be shocked when someone, who documents life, takes a picture of a down rather than an up - it's ridiculous.

well what do these photos document??? to you...genuinely? i appriciate a good war/famine shot when i see it...

smelltheglove

Deleted User wrote: »

:eek::eek:

What are you shocked about? the fact that I don't find it shameful and in my opion Animal Rights should not be ashamed of his pictures? It's a pretty silly way to respond to a quoted section of text by just putting a smiley, text would help!

ThOnda

Quotation: Originally Posted by smelltheglove View Post
Ar has nothing to be ashamed of!

Well, I met AR in person and he is not flawless...

This thread should be selected as the Thread of the day.

soccerc

The hypocrisy of some here in relation to the images taken and upoaded by AR doesn't surprise in the least.

Had it been someone else, perhaps there may have been more tolerance and bringing it down to morals and ethics is way off the mark IMHO - they are documentary images, nothing more, nothing less.

The OP explained he took them in less than ideal circumstances and as such people should not expect them to be of technical merit.

If you didn't wish to view them the post title gave some indication that they may not be everyones cup of tea.

humberklog

soccerc wrote: »

The OP explained he took them in less than ideal circumstances and as such people should not expect them to be of technical merit.

Gotta disagree with you here Soccerc. It is a photography forum so there's no better place to discuss the technical merits. Surely this is a big chunk of the reason of its existence?
Without that type of input surely AR's post belongs in the Dublin forum or After Hours etc.
I've given AR a bit of C+C on the shots. This as always can be taken on board or discarded as is the case whenever anyone posts up an individual thread.
I can see where AR is coming from in that he would hhave been nervous exposing himself taking photos in front of the crowd for fear of further repercussions. I still say I would have stood on top of the car for a better vantage point.
But surely THIS is the place for such commentary on technical merits.

Also in AR's defense it hard not to get the yips at such a moment.

smelltheglove

smelltheglove wrote: »

What are you shocked about? the fact that I don't find it shameful and in my opion Animal Rights should not be ashamed of his pictures? It's a pretty silly way to respond to a quoted section of text by just putting a smiley, text would help!

I meant in general - it was a joke.

charybdis

If you'll permit a trip down metaphor lane...

Let's say I take some photographs of an some exposed genitals I see in public. They're not particularly good photographs as the circumstances were difficult, but they're sufficient proof that there were genitals apparent. I then proceed to use them to make a thread here titled "OPG in Dublin tonight. NSFW", as per the rules of the board.

Do you think people would rally around the cause of shouting down anyone who suggested the subject matter was questionable or that the poor technical quality of the images wasn't redeemable due to subject matter or circumstance?

Furthermore, let's say someone let's say someone takes a photograph of a celebrity or public personality and does the same thing. The images are technically poor and uncompelling due to the circumstances of the event.

Should they be excused from criticism because they are a documentarian?

soccerc

humberklog wrote: »

Gotta disagree with you here Soccerc. It is a photography forum so there's no better place to discuss the technical merits

Ordinarily I'd agree, but the OP didn't seek C&C

AnimalRights

charybdis wrote: »

.....

AnimalRights

soccerc wrote: »

Ordinarily I'd agree, but the OP didn't seek C&C

Exactly, how the hell would I want C&C on something I had to snatch at while working and in those conditions!!
shheeshh :rolleyes:

Perfect fit

People are over reacting to this sooooo much, its no worse than you'd see on a news website/newspaper etc.

IMO it makes you a good photographer, isnt that what its all about? capturing moments?

If you had medical training and stood back taken pics then its a different ball game, but im sure if you could have helped you would have, you couldnt - so you done what you do!

sheesh

heres a nice picture of a sun set to help everyone calm down mmm red




heres a nice horse picture.


now isn't that better.


tbh I don't have an an opinion on the images. I just haven't posted any pics in a while have a nice evening all

humberklog

AnimalRights wrote: »

Exactly, how the hell would I want C&C on something I had to snatch at while working and in those conditions!!
shheeshh :rolleyes:

Yeah ok but come on...you stuck them up in a photography forum not After Hours.

Don't be getting precious on us now.

AnCatDubh

a lot of good reasoned debate from everyone in fairness. a couple of common themes beginning to reoccur from earlier. I think we may be getting to a point of 'fizzle out' on this?

AnimalRights

humberklog wrote: »

Yeah ok but come on...you stuck them up in a photography forum not After Hours.

[/IMG].

I have never posted on AH....
This is my forum on boards..my friends and fellow wafflers!

Slidinginfinity

AnimalRights wrote: »

I have never posted on AH....
This is my forum on boards..my friends and fellow wafflers!

WAFFLES... I want waffles...Where are the waffles?!?!:D

humberklog

AnimalRights wrote: »

I have never posted on AH....
This is my forum on boards..my friends and fellow wafflers!

Indeed.

In other news AR: I noticed that guy you bleached the head off in the City Arms the other day and his roots are showing badly.

Buzz Lightyear

Jeez, go to work for a couple of hours and I miss all the fun

To be honest I came across this thread initially through seeing a new posting on pix for AR and had a glance. Definitely not your usual cuppa AR. It was Baz's comment that drove me here, wondering what all the fuss was about !! Nine blooming pages. Well done AR. Next time we'll give you a shovel instead of a wooden spoon

While the images wouldn't be to my taste, and they werent up to AR's usual standard, they are documentary and should be allowed on this forum. There is a fine line between taste and lack of decency. These images fall way outside of this line, and portray documentary at a distance. As has been said by previous posters, there are images far more offending of dismembered bodies in other countries which are considered photo journalism.

I appreciate that AR didn't feel comfortable either standing on top of his car or mingling with the crowd being a journo, however they are not bad for a first attempt. Maybe if you had gotten the first attempt by being in work, these might have been - more detailed ?

soccerc wrote: »

The hypocrisy of some here in relation to the images taken .......
Had it been someone else, perhaps there may have been more tolerance and bringing it down to morals and ethics is way off the mark

I'd have to argue with you on this point soccerc. I think if a relative noob had posted the images here they would either have been ignored or they might not have gotten the full support that AR has. AR has been around here quite a while and has earned the respect of fellow boardsies. I don't think a noob would have quite recieved the same welcome, based what I've seen here at times.

Final word - fair play AR. Takes guts to come out of your comfort zone especially in your own 1020.

Mycroft H

As usual i miss what all the fuss was about..... Anywhere to see the offending photos?

AnimalRights

landyman wrote: »

As usual i miss what all the fuss was about..... Anywhere to see the offending photos?

Er my sig?? :rolleyes: :P

Buzz Lightyear

landyman wrote: »

As usual i miss what all the fuss was about..... Anywhere to see the offending photos?

Thats it come in at the end of the thread without reading it and ask the obvious question - what it all about
\smacks head

Ok who is the OP ? Have they posted on this page ? Have they a sig ?

Sorry man, but at least take the time to read some of the thread ......

Mycroft H

Buzz Lightyear wrote: »

Thats it come in at the end of the thread without reading it and ask the obvious question - what it all about
\smacks head

Ok who is the OP ? Have they posted on this page ? Have they a sig ?

Sorry man, but at least take the time to read some of the thread ......

Ok buzz dont jump down my throath or anything.

by default sigs are turned off, to which i hadnt realised. I didnt realise there was an option to turn them on.

I'm glad to see the person lived, and the photos simply show a the events leading to that, fair play AR, i certainly couldnt have taken out the camera and took those.

AnimalRights

I owe you an apology, I forgot not everyone has their sigs on.

Buzz Lightyear

landyman wrote: »

Ok buzz dont jump down my throath or anything.

by default sigs are turned off, to which i hadnt realised. I didnt realise there was an option to turn them on.

Sorry man, I also forgot that sigs are turned off by default. Didn't mean to jump down your throath. I was just surprised by your questions.

Cabaal

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.

But you could just as easily have some relative of somebody killed in Afghanistan browsing this forum and somebody could post links to the story which includes photos.

Regardless of who is or is not on this forum photos of that sort are bound to be upsetting to those related to the person, but yet we allow it for other events?

So its just ok if we don't know the people then?

Cabaal

Borderfox wrote: »

No probs on the pictures, some of the links posted up from the Boston newspaper would be far harder subjects.

I have to agree, over the years there has been far more graphic photos posted on this forum which nobody has complained about it but yet at the end of the day the people in them where still somebodys brother, sister, cousin etc.

If we start going down the road of not showing these because of this are we failing as people to report on reality and tell things as they are?
Its not like the images are bloody or gory or of a dead man, the man lived (so surely this is good news?) and its certainly not like the falling man during 9/11 which the media (for the most part) choose out of respect not to re-use over and over.

Borderfox

charybdis wrote: »

They're also usually excellent photographs, I'm sure they don't just throw up any photo of corpses blown limb from limb.

So by that rational if they are excellent pictures then it doesnt matter??

Calina

There's a part of me wondering idly if I shouldn't do some surgery on this thread, split it out into the ethics debate and the photography bit and fling the ethics bit over the humanities.

AnimalRights

I'd just kill it, it's repeating itself at this stage.

Calina

Okay. Done.