A website which I liked a lot


maisatomai

Deregistered
Oct 26, 2006
357
0
0
#1
Just to share this website

http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/

Don't understand the famines part. Why don't the photographer gives food to the dying instead of just standing there to shoot?
 

Octarine

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 3, 2008
12,488
26
48
Pasir Ris
#2
Don't understand the famines part. Why don't the photographer gives food to the dying instead of just standing there to shoot?
This is your assumption, nothing else. How much do you really know about those moments and situations when the pictures were taken?
 

maisatomai

Deregistered
Oct 26, 2006
357
0
0
#3
You mean all these are fake? He hired "Model" to act?
 

catchlights

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 27, 2004
21,903
46
48
Punggol, Singapore
www.foto-u.com
#5
Just to share this website

http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/

Don't understand the famines part. Why don't the photographer gives food to the dying instead of just standing there to shoot?
to help in a famines is not just simply give food to these people, there are hundreds or thousands of victims, how much food or aids can you give?

beside, most of the famines is cause by human, so even you can send aids over, how can you make sure the food will reach the needy?
 

Jul 31, 2010
114
0
0
25
Singapore
flickr.com
#7
Just to share this website

http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/

Don't understand the famines part. Why don't the photographer gives food to the dying instead of just standing there to shoot?
photojournalists are actually not supposed to interfere directly with the things they see..
 

maisatomai

Deregistered
Oct 26, 2006
357
0
0
#8
That cruel.

Sorry for my ignorance but I really cannot see logic here. Recently there is one case in China which shows dying moments of a firefighter. You mean the photojornalist, if he is able to help, should stand there and snap snap where seeing the firefighter sinking lower and lower?
 

cutecdo

Senior Member
Feb 13, 2005
561
0
16
Lala Land
www.modelmayhem.com
#9
That cruel.

Sorry for my ignorance but I really cannot see logic here. Recently there is one case in China which shows dying moments of a firefighter. You mean the photojornalist, if he is able to help, should stand there and snap snap where seeing the firefighter sinking lower and lower?
How do you know he didn't help? And is he able to help in the first place being untrained and all?
 

ed9119

Moderator
Staff member
Mar 11, 2002
11,012
35
48
56
Singapore
www.walkeast.com
#10
To participate or to not get involved or intervene personally is a personal decision that each will need to make for themselves.

Photographers have taken their own lives not being able to come to terms with it .... Kevin Carter whose picture of a vulture stalking a starving Sudanese girl in 1992... won the Pulitzer prize in 1994... killed himself 2 months later
 

ahwing84

New Member
Jun 24, 2005
43
0
0
wing84.deviantart.com
#11
Kevin Carter did chase the vulture away...just that he took the photo first...

Photo-journalist educate and show the rest of the world what is happening...he, as one man won't be able to help much...

To TS: no offence...but if u know that the DSLR u bought...could have fed 10 starving families of 4 for a month....does that mean we're all cruel.....?
 

ahmad0420

New Member
Mar 6, 2010
657
1
0
27
Yishun
www.shadefotoworks.com
#12
Food cannot anyhow give to these people. Once they never eat for a long while, you give them food, they'll be in a lot of pain, because of the shock their digestive system receive. so cannot anyhow.
 

Jed

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
3,911
0
0
UK
Visit site
#13
This is sounding a lot like a dissertation I once wrote :p

The question of morality is something all photojournalists need to tussle with. In some instances the photographer simply isn't able or qualified to help - he might have a degree in Photojournalism for example, but he probably wouldn't have a degree in Medicine - and in other cases you have to ask what the best thing you can achieve is.

Your role as a photographer is to tell the story. If you can help someone along the way then great, absolutely. But if a house is burning down, do you take the picture or get in the way of the firefighters? If there's no one in the house the answer is probably straightforward; if there was a child trapped in the house then it's a different scenario, but even in that situation assuming firefighters are on the scene, you'd probably just get in their way. It's a constant situation whereby you need to assess the situation on the ground; it's a massive grey area and there are no hard and fast rules.

History is littered with exampls of iconic photographs that played a major part in affecting the outcome of important events. Everyone is probably familiar with Nick Ut's photograph of Kim Phuc that was one of several that really played it's part in turning the tide of public opinion against the war in Vietnam. Should he have put his camera down to try to help her injuries? He wasn't medically trained.

But taking the photograph there is a credible case that he saved countless other lives. Kim Phuc herself credits him as "saving (her) life". It shot her to prominence and allows her to carry on her work as a "messenger of peace", as a Goodwill Ambassador of Unesco. Nick Ut himself went on to receive the Pullitzer Prize.

It's a fine example of what can be achieved; he took the photo, and he didn't have to endanger her by doing so. He took the photo first, and then helped her to a hospital after she fainted in his arms.

Do we question why someone isn't a policeman when a crime is in progress? And why they decided instead to become a teacher or a fireman or something that isn't even a public service? We all have roles in life, and we have a finite amount of time and resources. Used in the right way, photography can do a great amount of good.

Dorothea Lange (Migrant Mother), Stuart Franklin (that image of Tiananmen Square), Joe Rosenthal (Iwo Jima) are just some examples of photographers and their images that even non-photographers would recognise, due to the impact that they have played in shaping the world as we know it today.
 

maisatomai

Deregistered
Oct 26, 2006
357
0
0
#14
From Wikipedia, FYI:

In March 1993 Carter made a trip to Sudan. The sound of soft, high-pitched whimpering near the village of Ayod attracted Carter to an emaciated Sudanese toddler. The girl had stopped to rest while struggling to a feeding center, whereupon a vulture had landed nearby. He said that he waited about 20 minutes, hoping that the vulture would spread its wings. It didn't. Carter snapped the haunting photograph and chased the vulture away.[3] However, he came under criticism for just photographing — and not helping — the little girl:

The St. Petersburg Times in Florida said this of Carter: "The man adjusting his lens to take just the right frame of her suffering, might just as well be a predator, another vulture on the scene."[4]

The photograph was sold to The New York Times where it appeared for the first time on March 26, 1993. Practically overnight hundreds of people contacted the newspaper to ask whether the child had survived, leading the newspaper to run a special editor's note saying the girl had enough strength to walk away from the vulture, but that her ultimate fate was unknown.

On April 2, 1994 Nancy Buirski, a foreign New York Times picture editor, phoned Carter to inform him he had won the most coveted prize for photojournalism. Carter was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Feature Photography on May 23, 1994 at Columbia University's Low Memorial Library.

 

Jed

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
3,911
0
0
UK
Visit site
#15
And you are of the opinion that the Carter was indeed a vulture? Or are you trying to make a different point?

The fact is that you can view that whichever way you look at it. The excerpt that you've provided also furnishes enough clues about the good the photograph has done; "hundreds of people contacted the newspaper" for example, meaning that it touched hundreds of lives about the plight of the people in Sudan, plus many more that didn't phone in. Some of those might well have been moved to contribute financially in the same way that they were moved to phone in. People like you and I are seeing things that hit home in ways that wouldn't be possible if Carter hadn't taken the images, the fact that we're having this discussion in the first place is there because of the photo.

I have no idea if you are a charitable person or not; but it's not an unreasonable possibility that Carter's image has done more for the people in Sudan than you (and certainly I) have.

You seem to be quite angered by the fact that photographers don't necessarily help those in front of them, but at the same time death and suffering is going on all the time, we just don't feel it going about our everyday lives, and it's therefore easier to sit there and forget about them. How many of us can honestly say that we give as much as we can to charity? Images like this make it harder for the world to sit there and forget about them, and that will do more good than you or I unless you are one of the richest people in the world.

Could Carter have helped the girl afterwards? Of course he could. Should he? Maybe. But was the reason he didn't help the girl afterwards because he took the photo? I don't think so.
 

maisatomai

Deregistered
Oct 26, 2006
357
0
0
#16
Thanks for your insight. I really don't know as this is a complicated answer. Carter is fortunate that the girl survived. What if the vulture makes a move and kills the girl? You are right about the point that Sudanese are helped indirectly because of this photo. But allow me to draw another analogy.

Your 80 years old neighbor, who is living opposite you, suddenly had a heart attack. Will your first move be to take out your camera to shoot the dying moment (later you can send it to the press to highlight the problem of lonely old folks which may touch thousands hearts) or will you call 995? I think Carter did the latter.
 

Top Bottom