Warzone photojournalism.

0verblood

dazftw wrote: »

I honestly think you're trolling you have to be like.. You can't be a photographer thats for sure..

Haha! I am a photographer! Well, I'm like many people on this forum: I have an expensive camera and I think I'm good at taking photos.

Anyways, I was just saying that he could have given some cash to the one legged guy, and lets just pretend he did.

Mark A

Borderfox wrote: »

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

Good thing no-one took a photo of Franz Ferdinand eh?

Oh wait...

TinyExplosions

zoegh wrote: »

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.

Unfortunately, I can't agree with that sentiment... humankind is easily capable of atrocity, and remembering has nothing to do with it -look at Saddams treatment of the Kurds, Abu Ghraib, Ethnic cleansing in Eastern Europe (not to mention the fact that the Concentration Camp was a British Invention during the Boer War)

-I know that's slightly off topic, but I had to point it out...

0verblood wrote: »

Haha! I am a photographer! Well, I'm like many people on this forum: I have an expensive camera and I think I'm good at taking photos.

Anyways, I was just saying that he could have given some cash to the one legged guy, and lets just pretend he did.

And how do you know he didn't? Just because it's not explicitly said doesn't mean he didn't try to give some help.

Or what if you've spent the day shooting, and giving money/aid/assistance to everyone, and then you run out of cash -should you stop taking pictures at that point?

While I don't think you are trolling OP, I do think you've got a very black and white view in your mind (which is fine) and aren't willing to consider that anyone else's viewpoints are valid (which isn't so fine)

One more question, do you think Bono is a good ambassador for world poverty? Sure he talks about it, but while having his nice tax haven of a house in Holland (and one in Dalkey) -if he was serious about it, should he be giving all his cash away and living in a council flat? Where do you draw the line?

ThOnda

Out of topic for a moment, I've just realised two things. The nicknames in this thread: Overblood and TinyExplosions.



What better nickname could come to a thread on War Photography? :D:D

0verblood

TinyExplosions wrote: »

While I don't think you are trolling OP, I do think you've got a very black and white view in your mind (which is fine) and aren't willing to consider that anyone else's viewpoints are valid (which isn't so fine)

I'm willing to consider that he may have given some financial aid to the one legged homeless guy. I'm just hoping it wasn't the spare change in his back pocket. I'm not saying that he should be saving every poverty ridden person he comes across, BUT if he gets world wide recognition, fame and fortune from the misfortune of one poor soul, I think that the photographer should go out of his way to help that one poor soul. (and of course, maybe he did - who knows)

TinyExplosions wrote: »

One more question, do you think Bono is a good ambassador for world poverty? Sure he talks about it, but while having his nice tax haven of a house in Holland (and one in Dalkey) -if he was serious about it, should he be giving all his cash away and living in a council flat? Where do you draw the line?

Meh, Bono is ok. He's gone a bit quiet nowadays but he did help raise awareness of poverty around the world. He wasted a lot of money on that "One" campaign though. Funny thing is, when I was in Africa I asked around and nobody had ever heard of him, or U2!

humberklog

0verblood wrote: »

I'm willing to consider...

...that not everyone holds up to your high moral standards?

If I, as a photographer, was in a position to record something gruesome with a camera I'd snap away and not really give a toss about the subject. I'd do the same if, for example, it was me with the camera and the starving African kid with the big buzzard behind him were in near shooting distance.

Ok, ok I wouldn't do nothing, I might flick my cigarette in the general direction of the hungry bird as I poppped my rump back into the jeep before heading back to the comfy hotel for a few well earned G+T's.

That's just the way I roll. I genuinely couldn't give a bollix.

mdebets

0verblood wrote: »

I'm willing to consider that he may have given some financial aid to the one legged homeless guy. I'm just hoping it wasn't the spare change in his back pocket. I'm not saying that he should be saving every poverty ridden person he comes across, BUT if he gets world wide recognition, fame and fortune from the misfortune of one poor soul, I think that the photographer should go out of his way to help that one poor soul. (and of course, maybe he did - who knows)

I have to totally disagree with you here.
By taking these sort of photos and publishing them, the photographer has done much more to help these people (probably not the individual, but his group), by raising the awareness of their plight. If all photographer would stay at home and would only take pictures of landscapes and animals, people in the Western World would never hear about famine, poverty and other plights in the Third World, because no photographer would picture them and now writer would write about them (by your logic, no story should be written about this poor guy either, because this would exploit him). If the Western people didn't know about these tragedies, no charities would exist to alleviate them and no public money would be spend to help the poor people in the third world.

If photographers or journalists would start paying money to these people, it would soon start to change the conception of people who see these photos. They would think whether they are real or staged for the money. It would also create a climate in these countries, where people would see this as a valid source of income and try to exploit this (e.g. look for example how beggars in certain countries disfigure themselves to get more income from their begging) and aren't trying to come out of poverty.

grif04

0verblood wrote: »

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.

First of all m8, I just want you to understand that, that image is from a photographer called Kevin Carter (already mentioned) in a sudanease food camp in Sudan. He took it while on assignment along with Joao Silva, two of the 4 members of the Bang Bang club. He won the Pultzer Prize for it and was heavily questioned about what happened to the child afterwards, a difficult image to take in, let alone photograph professionally. Yes he commited suicide, but it wasnt directly to do with that photograph.
The image is extremely powerful and raised awareness of the starvation in africa tremendously, he was questioned heavily constantly about what happened the child. The result was unknown as the camp he was in was populated with starving children and people, hence why it wasnt up to him, the photographer, to assist.

let me explain the image and why its so famous and popular:

the vulture landed behind the child, who is starving, hungry for food hinting that it might eat the child, the whole image is ironic in a sense, as the child starves too, disgusting of course, but hits the point perfectly, it isnt set up and it actually happened, it raised so much awareness for African Starvation and became an iconic image around the world - The Times taking the first pick at it.

The photographers actions, of why he might choose a photograph over helping someone, is basically for one reason, its his or her job, chosen profession, although difficult to comprehend, it would be more important to take an image then to help at all unless of more complicated situations.
The photograph was taken in a food camp, his job at the food camp was to document it, he did it, and he got that image out of it, simple as.

photography is a very powerful tool, and to understand what one can do with photography is important to understand, saying that, its important to understand whats important, why its important and how to portray it through the medium of photography accurately and professionally. The image again of the starving child is accurately composed to portray the starvation of the country.

all this said, we can look at images of warphotogaphers running around chasing violence, finding blood and looking for that next big shot, but realistically they arent getting anywhere. if you think all these guys are some hot shot well paid lads, you would be completely wrong.

There is no money in it, its a dying trade to some because of that, if you are invovled in it, you are probably paying your own way and you probably have several jobs to support yourself, its an extremely difficult job that requires alot of determination and knowledge of whats going on in the world.

The last image of the hand you showed, you cant just say its an artisic image by some idiot in a suffering country thinking he is changing the world. its most definatley not, there is complete reason and logic behind it all. Photographers have their ethics and their dignity, they know what they are doing and they understand their job better then anyone who shoots, lets say, the likes of landscapes.

They understand they are documenting and reporting. A photojournalist doesnt go and shoot one or two photos of these kind of things, they document everything, the image again of the hand ,is probably most definatley out from a series of images or photo essay (look a photo essay up if you dont know what that is ) it is probably part of a collection of photographs that might be a story of rape/murder/drugs etc etc.

The job, although sounds like a hot number in photography, the fightjet pilot of the navy, something that might boost your status, but realistically its not. All the photojournalists i know are professionals, know what they are doing and all have their own distinct style of photography they work with and pacific stories and directions they are going in, be in conflict photography, social documentary etc etc.

Dont mix up all the images you see that are disgusting with just war photography, its very ignorant, alot of it would be to do with social issues and problems, conflicts, natural disasters etc. all things that we need to be aware of in a society as well as all things that need to be documented accuratley by professionals.

<snip>

a photograph wont change the world, it will tell us what needs changing.

RubyRoss

Hmm, I don't know why those on the defence need to call people who don't see their light ignorant and idiots.
Nevertheless, to quote Grif04: The image is extremely powerful and raised awareness of the starvation in africa tremendously

The idea that photos 'raise awareness' is the fulcrum from which all the arguments above spin. But what does it mean to say that this photo made people tremendously aware of 'starvation in africa'?

I think it is a great photo - because it is so disturbing - but I don't accept that it raises awareness about Sudan being a particular part of Africa with a long-standing geo-political problem. That kind of necessary info comes from news reports.

The news and skilled photography need not be opposed but as I said many on this thread are too keen to evelate the position of photography.

It's not a black and white issue but can you not see why some find such photos a tad exploitative?

0verblood

grif04 wrote: »

First of all m8, I just want you to understand that, that image is from a photographer called Kevin Carter (already mentioned) in a sudanease food camp in Sudan. He took it while on assignment along with Joao Silva, two of the 4 members of the Bang Bang club. He won the Pultzer Prize for it and was heavily questioned about what happened to the child afterwards, a difficult image to take in, let alone photograph professionally. Yes he commited suicide, but it wasnt directly to do with that photograph.
The image is extremely powerful and raised awareness of the starvation in africa tremendously, he was questioned heavily constantly about what happened the child. The result was unknown as the camp he was in was populated with starving children and people, hence why it wasnt up to him, the photographer, to assist.

let me explain the image and why its so famous and popular:

the vulture landed behind the child, who is starving, hungry for food hinting that it might eat the child, the whole image is ironic in a sense, as the child starves too, disgusting of course, but hits the point perfectly, it isnt set up and it actually happened, it raised so much awareness for African Starvation and became an iconic image around the world - The Times taking the first pick at it.

The photographers actions, of why he might choose a photograph over helping someone, is basically for one reason, its his or her job, chosen profession, although difficult to comprehend, it would be more important to take an image then to help at all unless of more complicated situations.
The photograph was taken in a food camp, his job at the food camp was to document it, he did it, and he got that image out of it, simple as.

photography is a very powerful tool, and to understand what one can do with photography is important to understand, saying that, its important to understand whats important, why its important and how to portray it through the medium of photography accurately and professionally. The image again of the starving child is accurately composed to portray the starvation of the country.

all this said, we can look at images of warphotogaphers running around chasing violence, finding blood and looking for that next big shot, but realistically they arent getting anywhere. if you think all these guys are some hot shot well paid lads, you would be completely wrong.

There is no money in it, its a dying trade to some because of that, if you are invovled in it, you are probably paying your own way and you probably have several jobs to support yourself, its an extremely difficult job that requires alot of determination and knowledge of whats going on in the world.

The last image of the hand you showed, you cant just say its an artisic image by some idiot in a suffering country thinking he is changing the world. its most definatley not, there is complete reason and logic behind it all. Photographers have their ethics and their dignity, they know what they are doing and they understand their job better then anyone who shoots, lets say, the likes of landscapes.

They understand they are documenting and reporting. A photojournalist doesnt go and shoot one or two photos of these kind of things, they document everything, the image again of the hand ,is probably most definatley out from a series of images or photo essay (look a photo essay up if you dont know what that is ) it is probably part of a collection of photographs that might be a story of rape/murder/drugs etc etc.

The job, although sounds like a hot number in photography, the fightjet pilot of the navy, something that might boost your status, but realistically its not. All the photojournalists i know are professionals, know what they are doing and all have their own distinct style of photography they work with and pacific stories and directions they are going in, be in conflict photography, social documentary etc etc.

Dont mix up all the images you see that are disgusting with just war photography, its very ignorant, alot of it would be to do with social issues and problems, conflicts, natural disasters etc. all things that we need to be aware of in a society as well as all things that need to be documented accuratley by professionals.

<snip>

a photograph wont change the world, it will tell us what needs changing.

First of all... I'm not your "m8".

Second of all, you're just reiterating everybody else's points, except in your effort to impress everybody you've fleshed them out way too much... and you've done it in a condescending manner.

sheesh

So the op thinks photographers should be nicer people.

I would imagine that the kind of person that goes into a war/disaster zone as a photo journalist especially on assignment from a large news company is going to be the kind of person who will single mindedly go for the best shot they can get and they will spend all their time looking for that one great shot and completely zone out the horror around them.

Lets face facts here there are content producers hired by media organisations to do a job of getting pictures that will convince people to buy newspapers

They are not hired for being sensitive human beings.

the best time of day to take a picture is going to be either sunrise and sunset

in the lower latitudes that is probably going to be a total time of 2-4 hours a day suppose you were put over there for a 2 weeks (which would be a long time as the story might have gone stale.) you have (at most)28-56 hours of good light to get your prize winning shot, the shot that pays the media organisation to send you over there.

If you don't get a good shot I would imagine that you might not get one of those gigs again.

grif04

0verblood wrote: »

First of all... I'm not your "m8".

Second of all, you're just reiterating everybody else's points, except in your effort to impress everybody you've fleshed them out way too much... and you've done it in a condescending manner.

Apologies, I merely scanned over the whole thread to find very mundane answers to your question. The idea of photojournalism is dying out if you've been following it, I was just giving my own insight into something ive been following for quite some years. Believe me, its not worth doing at all, I wouldnt dare talk up this side of photography and push people into it, as id only be pushing them into a hole with no ladder - I was just trying to get across the understanding of the difficulty of this type of work in photography and that the people involved in it take it very serious and understand their role and position better then someone from the outside who merely just criticizes them without understanding them. Although the criticism is of course an important part, sometimes the amature ideas being spread around about the morals and ethics of photographers are just a little dated and id recommend some research in this field rather then speculating.

I agree with RubyRoss, it doesnt show problems in pacific countries, maybe because there is no clear landmark or image in the photo to relate it to a pacific country, but Africa is of course something that would pop into ones mind when viewing this image, or any famine ridden country.

The Images are not exploited, how the images are presented to the world is done very professionally, usually locked from other wire agencies where in this case, Time were the ones to release the image explaining what happened. Captions of course, very important to help tell the story of the image and Time released it to the world stage in a very professional manner.


If you want to find out more about the image, i highly recommend the book "the bang bang club" although not all directly related to the photograph but rather the members of this "club", it explains how when where and what happened when the photograph was taken, talks about the photographer and the whole book itself is about photojournalists documenting within south africa, africa and eastern europe in the 80s and 90s. Written by both Greg Marinovich and Co Written by Joao Silva.

Apologies if I came across condescending, it wasnt my intention but its just the way i write when it comes to correcting what has been said.