Warzone photojournalism.

0verblood

I saw a photo recently of some feckin' warzone, there's so much chaos in Africa these days I can't remember which one, but it was a shot of a dead womans hand laying across the ground, in focus, then her family in the background looking on, slightly out of focus... very "artistic".

I was just wondering, what the ambitions of that photographer were, and the hundreds of war photographers before him that have created countless pics like that. For that particular photo, I'm sure his goal was NOT to tell a story. It was to make a cool photograph out of pain and suffering. He was setting a personal best photo, a selfish act.

Here's a very famous one that's along the lines of what I'm trying to explain.

Effects

http://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2009/08/12/vulture-stalking-a-child/

Ghost Train

Well without photographers there risking their own life to show the world what's happening we wouldn't see what's going on. Saw some photos of the ivory coast yesterday, hadn't realised how bad it was there and the recent violence before seeing photos.

melekalikimaka

The photographer commited suicide who took this, in his note he wrote “I am depressed … without phone … money for rent … money for child support … money for debts … money!!! … I am haunted by the vivid memories of killings and corpses and anger and pain … of starving or wounded children, of trigger-happy madmen, often police, of killer executioners”

Kevin Carter was heavily criticised for not helping the girl, very difficult job with very little reward IMO.

TelePaul

0verblood wrote: »

I was just wondering, what the ambitions of that photographer were, and the hundreds of war photographers before him that have created countless pics like that. For that particular photo, I'm sure his goal was NOT to tell a story. It was to make a cool photograph out of pain and suffering. He was setting a personal best photo, a selfish act.

I think you're being over-critical here. The purpose of the media is to sensationalize, to present otherwise ordinary occurrences as extra-ordinary. from a moral standpoint, I think that images of this type have the potential to do a great deal of good and ask little by way of return. Intervening, chasing away the vulture, it doesn't alter the reality of the Sudanese famine.

magicbastarder

0verblood wrote: »

Here's a very famous one that's along the lines of what I'm trying to explain.

you seem to be criticising photographers for being too arty, but the example you used is not a good example of an arty photo.

the job of a good photographer is to produce arresting, eye catching photos. the above is one.

clouds

It's something that I have wondered about for a long time.

Yes your job is your job. But jesus it's the worst sort of work-to-rule to walk away from a starving child, say, over and over again. Dead people can't be helped. But a photographer lugging a piece of kit worth a families annual income, and a family eyes looking at them.... I don't know. The disparity of it. And what difference does it for us to know? It's not like many of us leap up immediately to save those children. What do those photographs achieve that a shiny coin in the moment wouldn't?

Sorry for my miserable first time post in this forum. I'm a long time lurker and have learnt alot, so thanks. But this post has chimed with me today.

magicbastarder

clouds wrote: »

Yes your job is your job. But jesus it's the worst sort of work-to-rule to walk away from a starving child, say, over and over again. Dead people can't be helped. But a photographer lugging a piece of kit worth a families annual income, and a family eyes looking at them.... I don't know. The disparity of it. And what difference does it for us to know? It's not like many of us leap up immediately to save those children. What do those photographs achieve that a shiny coin in the moment wouldn't?

the issue of photographers walking away without assisting is a separate one from the one about the style of the photographs.
influencing opinion - if it can be achieved - is a long term solution. handing someone a coin in a country is a short term solution. if there is any food to buy with that money.
if every photographer put his or her camera down, there would be a marginal difference to the relief effort. by keeping hold of the cameras and documenting it, the marginal difference they make is probably more pronounced.

there are plenty of arguments to be had about the benefits of public interest and how aid is best achieved, but few of them are photographic.

PCPhoto

clouds wrote: »

It's something that I have wondered about for a long time.

Yes your job is your job. But jesus it's the worst sort of work-to-rule to walk away from a starving child, say, over and over again. Dead people can't be helped. But a photographer lugging a piece of kit worth a families annual income, and a family eyes looking at them.... I don't know. The disparity of it. And what difference does it for us to know? It's not like many of us leap up immediately to save those children. What do those photographs achieve that a shiny coin in the moment wouldn't?

Sorry for my miserable first time post in this forum. I'm a long time lurker and have learnt alot, so thanks. But this post has chimed with me today.

Sorry for comparing apples and any other fruit.... but ..... do you give money to someone on the street begging?

If yes - why don't you give the same to every beggar that you encounter....if you do then well done, if you dont then at some point you pass into the "no" section (see below)

if no - you are happy enough to walk away from someone who is potentially starving and homeless

Also - for anyone who has ever visited some third world countries - you are told do not give anything to the children....
if you start with one.... where do you stop.

Yes - famine, homelessness poverty etc are a dreadful thing but unfortunately we (sometimes) give to charities who we believe are making a difference - unfortunately in most cases these charities absorb most of the money.

but getting back on topic .... yes, sometimes a war photojournalist has to stick to the rules and not help those he/she is photographing..... they are an observer.... as cold as it seems - you must just do your job..... like the article said - you risk spreading disease etc.

Borderfox

A gun can kill a person but a picture can change the world

clouds

I see your points PCPhoto and I was thinking of them as I posted. But there's a slight difference in that I'm not using their distress as my own platform, even if it is for the greater good.
Magicbastarder I am looking at it from more of an instinctive person to person interaction rather than intellectualising it. Intellectually I do know that the truth should be documented and aid of whatever sort should be distributed in a thoughtful and efficient manner. But on a human 'in the moment' level I wonder how do the thought processes work.

I realise I sound like I'm bashing photographers, which I am not doing. (Not brave enough on a photography forum, for one thing ) Just curious I guess.

pete4130

The mere fact that such an image is still causing debate many years after about ethics, the issues at hand and what would you/I/he/she/they/us do is testament to the image itself and it has achieved exactly what it set out to do. To document, allow people to see, educate, enlighten and to make much more of a difference to the bigger picture than if the photo wasn't taken and had Kevin Carter chosen to carry the child to a hospital, where in all probably circumstances the child might have not survived?

To say it was a selfish act is very harsh. It's impossible to help all the people all the time. It's not a work to rule as has been discussed. A photograph can tell the truth and the truth isn't always beautiful.

This thread is one reason why the image was captured. It's making people stop, think and take notice.

Thecageyone

As grim as these images are, I think they hit much harder than merely reading a loose description in a tabloid. Pictures like the above always sadden and disturb me, but I'm glad I seen them, I would say I've put more money into boxes because of them, not because of any brief news story.

0verblood

Borderfox wrote: »

A gun can kill a person but a picture can change the world

LOL! Did you just make that up? A gun can change the world too, like the one that blew JFKs head in half, or the one that shot hitler in the head... and countless others.

I know the history behind that photo I posted, it's just a general example. I can trawl through google images for the day but you already know what I mean. I just find it strange that these photojournalists try to make beautiful and well composed photos out of misery.

"Oh my god the horror... the horror!!!" *composes shot to get perfect angle of misery*

Borderfox

Watch this http://www.shootingrobertking.com/

It depends on the individual photographer, Robert King freely admitted he wanted a Pullitzer prize by a specific age and he felt operating in a war zone would get him there. I suppose each photograph is tinged with the ideals of portrayting something to shock people otherwise it wouldnt make it into print

Thecageyone

It's just impact. I'm sure the images Are morbid and shocking from other angles, but the phot journalists job is to ensure the images has some impact/drama/mood

magicbastarder

0verblood wrote: »

I just find it strange that these photojournalists try to make beautiful and well composed photos out of misery.

because badly composed shots are closer to the truth and more ideologically pure?
is it really surprising or objectionable that a photographer will try to record the issue in a way which makes a good photograph?

lets say a photographer was just snapping away randomly - which shots of the ones they take do you think should be sent on to the agency, or whomever they are working for? the bad ones?

jpb1974

I just find it strange that these photojournalists try to make beautiful and well composed photos out of misery.

As opposed to what... terrible, badly composed photos out of misery?

*EDIT* Same as the bastarder said.

magicbastarder

Borderfox wrote: »

Watch this http://www.shootingrobertking.com/

also worth reading unreasonable behaviour by don mccullin.

or my war gone by, i miss it so by anthony loyd. that one in particular is tough going; he was a journalist, not a photojournalist, but a lot of the same issues apply.

magicbastarder

0verblood wrote: »

I just find it strange that these photojournalists try to make beautiful and well composed photos out of misery.

"Oh my god the horror... the horror!!!" *composes shot to get perfect angle of misery*

on a more serious note, you may find that switching into 'photographer' mode is a protection or coping mechanism. a photographer running around in floods of tears is not someone you should be sending into such a situation.
if you're used to working in famine or war zones, you will be inured to a lot of what goes around - and that's no criticism of the photographer. it's a fact of life, and necessary.

pete4130

smells of troll? *sniffs*

0verblood

pete4130 I have a feeling that you'are actually trying to troll me.



Look at that guy telling the photographer to stop taking pictures, to have some respect.

smelltheglove

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/201...arthquake.html

I read the off topic thread and thought this link would have relevance here... I heard all aboiut the quake, terible as it was it didnt affect me until seeing these images, especially number 29 then the 2 kids who lost their mother further down.

Photography has a huge impact. Libya is under immense pressure at the moment. I read a few stories but not until I saw images and live coverage did I think to call and enquire about family members over there and every time I see another image I keep thinking, get home safe get home safe as third, fourth, fifth, one hundreth hand story will never give the same affect that an actual image or footage will give, yes I heard from my husband are your cousins safe, have you called looks like its bad but I thought nothing more than sensationalism until I saw the few images availabe.

Is it bad that people go out to warzones and do this, I think they deserve a pat on the back, fair play to them for being able to stand there and photograph people in the worst moments of their lives as it is through those photographs, that documentation that the world realises it needs to step up and do something.

Borderfox

Whats your point Overblood, from what you say you dont want any pictures of war zones or misery or killings well arty ones anyway. How would you like it reported to the world?

In the above picture you only surmising what the man is gesticulating to

melekalikimaka

0verblood wrote: »

Look at that guy telling the photographer to stop taking pictures, to have some respect.

1/250th of a sec freeze frame of possibly a lengthy discussion. your interpretation is clearly influenced by your personal opinions, thats the beauty of photography, everyone sees their own story...

TelePaul

melekalikimaka wrote: »

1/250th of a sec freeze frame of possibly a lengthy discussion

Nah it's much slower than that, motion blur on his right hand....


...


Okay, I'm taking the mick.

ThOnda

I can only recommend movie War Photographer about James Nachtwey. He did some great work in war and what I call "people affected by war" photography. He is one of the original members of VII Photo agency that specializes on documentary photography.
There are always eejits running into the rain of bullets, ditching their gear into blood and even paying locals to cry over stranger's graves. But there are also people who found that there are normal people put into unexplainable situations mostly not by their own cause and will, and those people's stories must be told to bring change. And help.

stunt_penguin

As an aiside, can I ask how old you are, 0verblood?

baby and crumble

If war/documentary photographers didn't do their job, there's a lot in history we would have no record of- the liberation of the nazi camps, etc. You're doomed to repeat what you don't remember. People don't believe that other humans are capable of the kinds of atrocities we often are- not without proof and historical record.

As a historian-type-person, the need to document anything and everything is a valuable thing. Even me, who's doing research into asylums and institutions in ireland... I read 10 papers and I think "Oh right, it was bad then", and I see one picture of the conditions in 1890 and I think "holy christ, HOW was this seen as ok????" Images move us more than words. Anyone can alter words. It's more difficult to alter an image so that the alteration can't be detected.

It's also not just war photography, I remember seeing some amazing documentary photography of peoples dying days, one guy who took photos of his dad as his mind unravelled thanks to alzheimers, and the other was a mum who invited a photographer to document her 10 year old sons last days. Now, neither of those sets are easy to look at, but by god they make you think. And appreciate not only what you have yourself, but also the work that nurses, etc do.

I know my Dad used to do some press photography, mostly news stuff in my home town. To this day he still talks about a big bank robbery that happened. He was up on the top floor of a building looking onto the scene. Cops everywhere, detectives, you name it. The bank was under seige. Eventually they got all the people out, and there ended up a shoot out with the robbers and the cops.

One of the robbers got shot in the head. Dad had one frame left (back in the film days!). He saw the ambulance driver was about to change to a new sheet under the guys head. He held off his shot so he could get the fresh blood onto the white sheet. he still talks about it, how he hates himself for being so... practical, as he calls it. I mean, the guy was seriously injured. But Dad had his job head on. You have to. Otherwise, things get forgotten.

Anyway, that was a bit of a ramble! Sorry.

0verblood

ThOnda wrote: »

I can only recommend movie War Photographer about James Nachtwey. He did some great work in war and what I call "people affected by war" photography. He is one of the original members of VII Photo agency that specializes on documentary photography.
There are always eejits running into the rain of bullets, ditching their gear into blood and even paying locals to cry over stranger's graves. But there are also people who found that there are normal people put into unexplainable situations mostly not by their own cause and will, and those people's stories must be told to bring change. And help.

I'm watching that docu right now, don't ask me how I managed to buy the dvd at one o clock in the morning... :pac:

What he does is exactly the sort of stuff I'm talking about. He's an exploitative fecker, his apartment has a lovely view of the Manhattan bridge, then he goes to indonesia to take photos of poverty, where he follows a one armed one legged guy around the city, documenting him begging at traffic lights, before he returns home to his house, which is a piece of cardboard on the ground, no roof... and he lives on that piece of cardboard with his wife and three kids... in between two train tracks. If this photographer is going to make enough money to pay for his New York apartment I hope he gives something back to the poor decrepit subjects he lives off.

PCPhoto

overblood - it appears that no matter how other people justify the photographer doing their job, you seem to try to find "fault" claiming that at the end of the day the poor person is still poor.

not a whole lot we can do about that is there ..... photographs/video are taken in war/famine countries - these images allow the rest of the world to see what is happening in these countries and in a way kind of guilt trip those who have excess money (and a heart) to contribute..... yes it is unfortunate that the contribution may not make it to the countries affected, but in some countries that the blame lies with the government/police there.

People do try to help - unfortunately due to greed, bribes etc are a part of daily life in some countries so aid money does not make it to assist those that need it, in recent years aid agencies have been sending food/medical supplies and people over to help assist those whom they can help..... sometimes professional photographers volunteer their time/equipment and experience and document the aid agencies...... if people do not see what a change the aid agencies can make.... how will they know that the agency is worth contributing to?

out of interest .... have you ever volunteered to help with an aid agency ? (Niall Mellon trust etc)

clouds

I think Zoeghs post is at the nub of where I am with this.

A good photo tells a thousand words, it's affecting and moving. It's that intimacy and immediacy that makes it art and touches us, imo. So it follows that you wonder what happened in that moment between those 2 people. Where did the intimacy and immediacy go, was it even real at all, maybe the viewer feels a bit cheated because they got affected by fake feelings. Somehow. I dunno. Rambling.

johnmcdnl

without these types of photos would anyone believe the poverty that happens in africa and whereever else...

sure the photographer could just help the people there by buying food for a week for a family or something - but what happens the week after when he's gone??

at least we in the west get to see to some degree what life is like out in a warzone/famine struck region so it might move some people enough to try to help...

clouds

Not mutually exclusive though.

magicbastarder

it seems a bit tenuous to accuse someone who spends weeks or months documenting and publicising these conditions, of hypocrisy for living in a nice apartment, while someone who does nothing about the situation is blemish-free, in their nice apartment.

clouds

No magicbastarder it's not the same thing at all.

If you're right there in the thick of the misery, if one small action of yours can change someones life so much and you are standing there looking at that person, framing them, objectifying them really, what are you thinking?

Different different dynamic to moaning on the internet (hands up here)

PCPhoto

clouds wrote: »

No magicbastarder it's not the same thing at all.

If you're right there in the thick of the misery, if one small action of yours can change someones life so much and you are standing there looking at that person, framing them, objectifying them really, what are you thinking?

Different different dynamic to moaning on the internet (hands up here)

yes - but change the place and same thing occurs - every time you walk past a homeless beggar and don't do anything....yet still go home to your apartment.

just because its not a war-zone doesn't mean people are not suffering - and are photographed on a daily basis.

0verblood

I've actually done quite a bit of volunteering over in Africa, lived in Kenya almost a year helping out with a local center for street kids which is not affiliated with any NGO, so everybody can get off their high horse, or if you want to stay on your high horse, please feck off to another thread.

PCPhoto

I think you'll find we were in the photo section of boards before you turned up with your thread/opinion.

to be honest - most people here are trying to give you their opinion the way they see it... being the photographers side.

you seem to be unwilling to understand it from their/our side.

jpb1974

if you want to stay on your high horse, please feck off to another thread

Yeah... piz off Spot.

clouds

edit - This is to PCPHoto btw, sorry not clear.

You missed my response above to the last time that point was made. The difference is I am not gaining anything from the beggars misery.

Zoegh above described his/her father's reaction to taking a photo of someone maybe dying. He felt awful for his 'practical' mindset even though he was not in any position to help.

I commend what disaster zone photographers do. It's neccessary and does a lot of good.
But it rattles me how someone can stand there and NOT lift a finger to help even though it's in their power to do so. Do they think Well, my role is to raise awareness of the plight of the Somali people. Your individual plight as a Somali person is not in my remit. That rings hollow to me. (I'm just using that example as it was posted above)

magicbastarder

clouds wrote: »

If you're right there in the thick of the misery, if one small action of yours can change someones life so much and you are standing there looking at that person, framing them, objectifying them really, what are you thinking?

to split this out - and to answer the latter part of the question - what you're thinking is 'how do i get a good shot?'
i don't agree that you are objectifying them, if you are attempting to capture their situation for the education of others. you might not be helping them directly, but hopefully you will help people in general who are in a similar situation.

as regards giving people money, or assisting them; a good photographer will generally have a neutral relationship with the subjects. one who is known to hand out money or take orphans home will not get photos which are 'true' in the sense that people will react to them in a way which is no longer indicative.
changing someone's life involves more than a fleeting act such as a gift (unless you're talking about the specific situation of actually saving their life); if mo amin had put the camera down in ethiopia he might have been able to help half a dozen people with some food (as he may well have done); as it was, he brought their plight to the attention of the world with his photography.

smelltheglove

On the other side, when you see a wartime picture, or a picture of someone dying, how do you know that after the image was taken the photographer did not go to help? You are assuming that he/she is there to document and turn their back yet I bet there arent too many war photographers around that will turn their back on a dying child!

magicbastarder

this debate reminds me (very tenuously) of an article i read about climbing everest; if you climb everest, you do so with just enough equipment to get yourself up and down. any more, and you risk not getting up there in the first place.
so people who climb everest do so in the knowledge that fellow climbers will not have the kit to rescue them should they fall into difficulty; and it's more often than not fatal to oneself to stop to assist someone else. so it's understood that you don't stop to rescue people, and you don't expect people to stop for you.

so if you want to climb the highest mountain in the world, you have to place yourself in a scenario where you potentially have to be a dick of the highest order, by passing a dying human so you can reach your goal. but the person you pass accepts that.

0verblood

stunt_penguin wrote: »

As an aiside, can I ask how old you are, 0verblood?

I'm 25. Why?

dazftw

0verblood wrote: »

I'm watching that docu right now, don't ask me how I managed to buy the dvd at one o clock in the morning... :pac:

What he does is exactly the sort of stuff I'm talking about. He's an exploitative fecker, his apartment has a lovely view of the Manhattan bridge, then he goes to indonesia to take photos of poverty, where he follows a one armed one legged guy around the city, documenting him begging at traffic lights, before he returns home to his house, which is a piece of cardboard on the ground, no roof... and he lives on that piece of cardboard with his wife and three kids... in between two train tracks. If this photographer is going to make enough money to pay for his New York apartment I hope he gives something back to the poor decrepit subjects he lives off.

exploitive.. right. I presume you watched the rest of the documentary?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4f30ah3ss8

I honestly think you're trolling you have to be like.. You can't be a photographer thats for sure.. Any photographer would realise its a ****ed up situation but what really and realistically can they do about it? Nothing! Its there job to photograph not help.

ThOnda

Thanks, daz, for finding this bit.
It is always important what you do, but sometimes your intentions are even more important.

mrboswell

ThOnda wrote: »

I can only recommend movie War Photographer about James Nachtwey. He did some great work in war and what I call "people affected by war" photography. He is one of the original members of VII Photo agency that specializes on documentary photography.
There are always eejits running into the rain of bullets, ditching their gear into blood and even paying locals to cry over stranger's graves. But there are also people who found that there are normal people put into unexplainable situations mostly not by their own cause and will, and those people's stories must be told to bring change. And help.

0verblood wrote: »

I'm watching that docu right now, don't ask me how I managed to buy the dvd at one o clock in the morning... :pac:

What he does is exactly the sort of stuff I'm talking about. He's an exploitative fecker, his apartment has a lovely view of the Manhattan bridge, then he goes to indonesia to take photos of poverty, where he follows a one armed one legged guy around the city, documenting him begging at traffic lights, before he returns home to his house, which is a piece of cardboard on the ground, no roof... and he lives on that piece of cardboard with his wife and three kids... in between two train tracks. If this photographer is going to make enough money to pay for his New York apartment I hope he gives something back to the poor decrepit subjects he lives off.

War Photographer is a fantastic but grim record of the life of someone who makes a photographic record of the lives and living conditions of people in some of the worst and most barbaric conditions imaginable.

As someone already pointed out it is the impact that these people have by doing their jobs that makes it possible to change the lives of people/subjects in conflict and dangerous situations.

In reality is other people who see the images that have the potential to make a change that will affect the lives of these people in a positive way.

Another poster also made the point that if you helped the child in the photo with the vulture where would it stop? Would you have to help every other child you saw on that trip. How would you ever leave?

The photographer in the picture in the original post committed suicide but you have to wonder with all the bad press that was put his way would he have to have spent his whole life ensuring the safety of that child, in order to satisfy his accusers or even his own conscience, in order to be able to live with himself?

Photographers who put themselves in these stories are brave or foolish - it doesn't really matter how you judge them. The fact is that they do a job, whether it be lucrative or not that provides us with information in a creative way, that allows us to know what goes on in isolated parts of the world.

Many people out there wouldn't be able to do it and personally I am too selfish to do it as I want different things from life.

That is exactly why I respect them so much. They don't have a life apart from doing their job.

RubyRoss

magicbastarder: I don't see the analogy: everyone on Everest had chosen to climb the mountain but residents of a war zone don't choose to be there like the photographer does.

I do like photography, and I believe it can have a purpose, but people here are being a bit naive about the merits of their chosen discipline.

Nick Carter's photo is in no way like walking past a beggar on the street. He spent a long time setting up that photo - not intervening but waiting for the right alignment.

I don't believe intervening for one child helps but that's another point.
Think of the Vietnam girl photo or McCurry's Afghan girl - people became obsessed with saving the one girl and lost sight of the conditions in the countries. For that reason I think it's naive to maintain that photos somehow reveal truth or help.

Finally, Holocaust survivors were not happy to have their photos taken - Arendtn recalls this from the Eichmann trial. They wanted it to be known but they also felt exploited.

Again, I'm not trying to dismiss your passion but...

magicbastarder

RubyRoss wrote: »

magicbastarder: I don't see the analogy

i wasn't trying to draw an analogy, so that's understandable.

RubyRoss

magicbastarder wrote: »

i wasn't trying to draw an analogy, so that's understandable.

Ah I see - you were just introducing a situation but not in any way suggesting that it was related to the one being discussed?