| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
contest (news section), anyone else uncomfortable?
Gary Parravani, Photographer
 |
London Woking | Surrey | UK | Posted: 10:57 AM on 06.30.06 |
->> i'm preparing to get shot down in flames here, but i just wondered what people think of the 'news' section of the the SS contests.
i'm quite new here but i have noticed that the majority of the entries are photos of people at their lowest. i.e. at grieving at funerals, getting out of car crashes, watching their property burn to the ground etc etc
am i the only one who is uncomfortable with photographers using other peoples grief to win prizes? i know if my house was burning down and someone stuck a camera in my face they would need to win a new camera because theirs would be stuck somewhere they couldnt retrieve it from :) :)
dont get me wrong, i'm not ranting, merely trying to start a discussion as i'm interested to hear what people think
cheers
gary p |
|
Paul Anderson, Photographer
|
Münster | Germany | Germany | Posted: 11:09 AM on 06.30.06 |
->> Hello Gary,
How much would you have been paid for the last picture of Diana alive?
How much would you have been paid for a picture of her in the car?
Important news pictures have value.
Important pictures should be rewarded.
PDA |
|
John Riddell, Photographer
|
Toronto | ON | Canada | Posted: 11:15 AM on 06.30.06 |
->> Gary,
Photojournalism for the majority of our members includes covering breaking news as part of the daily grind of news photography. The fact that it's called hard news is not lost in the photographs.
I don't see it as photographers using these images to win prizes. The images were captured to report the news and have been entered as good images captured in a time that is difficult to shoot.
The same could be said that we're all profiting off the misery of others when being paid to photograph tragic events and then publish them in newspapers for others to buy and read. It's been an ages old argument that just spills over into the entering of contests with the same images.
The prizes are incentive to get photographers to participate. Showing these photographs and sharing with our peers helps the profession and each person that gets to view the image and possibly learn something from it also.
It shows professionalism and a great amount of skill to get a different, good, well made image of a breaking news scene whether it's a car accident, murder scene or forest fire.
The best of these get entered and the best of the best are voted for and the end result is the winner walking away with a new camera. Something we all could do with! |
|
John David Emmett, Photographer
|
Fort Myers | Fl | United States | Posted: 11:15 AM on 06.30.06 |
->> Gary,
Although it may seem we are capitalizing on other's people's misery, you would be surprised at the amount of support these photos can generate. I took a photo of a woman and her husband breaking down in tears after their home burned down. I also won a clip for it. The photo informed the community about this family's loss and the couple received new clothes, toys for their kids, groceries, furniture, free housing for six months and $5,000 (at least) in cash.
My editor always tells me never to hesitate to run on spot news because you never know whom your photos can help. |
|
Ron Erdrich, Photographer
 |
Abilene | TX | USA | Posted: 11:53 AM on 06.30.06 |
->> Well, the first thing you have to understand is that photojournalists aren't sticking cameras in people's faces to win prizes - most of them, anyways.
Spot news, in the NPPA at least, is defined as an unplanned news event which pretty much limits it to crashes, fires, etc. News is a planned event for which you might have had some preparation. Funerals, press conferences, board meetings, court coverage, etc.
One of the most difficult things to do is to make a photograph that depicts someone grieving. It's hard on the photographer and it can be hard on the subject. Thankfully, most times the subject isn't aware of the photographer because they are so focused on what is going on.
It doesn't always work that way, though, and the subject will take notice. Surprisingly, they aren't always hostile. In this it depends on the photographer, if you are empathetic and respectful, that goes a long way to letting the subject know you're not there to exploit them.
And you aren't. If you are photographing a fire or other tragedy for publication, then you are a working photojournalist documenting your community. Never is your job more important than it is at that moment. Life isn't all happy days and feature photos, it's pain and suffering as well.
People tend to avoid having to face suffering because it hurts. But it falls to you the photographer to have to show them this. Not all the time, but when it's necessary.
I've told this story before on this forum, but I'll tell it again:
Back in '98 I was working in Utah and there was a drowning on the Weber River. It was mid-Spring and the river was really moving. A county youth group had gone there to go swimming, which was incredibly dangerous, and had paid for it with the life of a 13-year-old boy.
I got a call in the morning that rescuers had found the body and was sent to photograph the retrieval. When I arrived other media were around and I positioned myself where I could photograph them bringing the boy's body up the steep bank. It was in a body bag, so the graphic nature of it would be lessened.
The family was waiting, about 5 or so people ranging in ages from 8 to 50. His mother stood by herself with her young son next to her. When I was photographing the rescuers bringing the boy's body up I heard this scream and looked over my shoulder and saw the entire family stomping their feet, spinning around in circles, crying up to the sky with their eyes closed and clenching their fists.
I had never seen such a raw expression of grief, it took me right back to the time when I learned someone close to me had died from a gunshot wound to the head. It was so raw and so unexpected that I found the strength to lift my camera and photograph just draining out of my arms. I couldn't do it, even though I was in a perfect position and was far enough away that I certainly wouldn't be physically intrusive.
Later the family was sequestered to one side behind some police tape and they were grieving a little more quietly then. I was some distance away and put on my 300 f/4.5 to get a picture of them together.
But it still felt wrong and I remember this pressure in the front of my head, like someone was yelling at me. I still went through the motions, however. I brought the camera up, focused, adjusted for exposure, and despite a now almost overwhelming feeling that I was doing something very wrong, depressed my shutter button.
What happened next, I can't explain. I had an anthropology professor tell me a story once how he had tried to sneak a picture of a shaman woman on her doorstep and his camera made a wierd sound and stopped working when he tried to do it. When he sent it to Honeywell, they asked him how he had managed to remove all the screws from the shutterbox while it was still inside the camera.
So I hear this sound and I'm immediately thinking of this story. My camera, my trusty F4s, has just decided to stop working. No lights, no shutter, nothing. It's at this point that I decide I need to have a sit-down with myself.
I told myself to calm down and to remember why I am here, what my role in society is, what my job is, and finally to believe that there is some higher purpose that I can't immediately see that demands I make these pictures. I didn't know what that purpose was, but I had to trust in it. I fiddled with my batteries, turned the camera off and on a couple of times, and it came back on.
That was difficult to do, to trust without knowing anything about it, but it's what I did and I made those pictures. It turned out, that was the right thing to do.
When I got back, ran and scanned the film and they put a four-column vertical of the grieving family on the front page, I learned that the spot where the boy had died was notorious for drownings and another woman had lost her son in that exact spot two years earlier.
A sign had been posted warning of the danger, but as happens, vandals had defaced and removed it. When confronted with why the sign wasn't replaced, the county supervisor's response was basically, "Oh, they'll just take it down again, so what's the point?"
The purpose of my pictures, then, was not only to document this family's tragic loss, but to inform the citizenry of the county's complete lack of responsibility in keeping such a dangerous location marked.
Your question on these kinds of pictures is a natural one and it is valid, so I'm not inclined to berate you over it. It's a question that everyone in this business sooner or later has to address.
-Ron- |
|
Gary Parravani, Photographer
|
London Woking | Surrey | UK | Posted: 11:58 AM on 06.30.06 |
->> cool - this is exactly what i was hoping for.
i just wanted a healthy discussion and to see the other side of the story
with regards to Diana it could actually be argued that that it was the people trying to get a photo of her that contributed to her demise. but thats probably a little off topic
some of the photos that do disturb me in the news competition look like the photographer has been on the spot when a car crash has happened. what bothers me is that some photographers might reach for their camera before even helping out with the accident.
i'm a motorsport photographer myself, i consider myself lucky that i've never taken a photo of a serious crash, but i do wonder what i would do if i was in the situation.. would i sell the photo or would i just delete it? to be honest i hope i never find out |
|
George Bridges, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Washington | DC | USA | Posted: 12:16 PM on 06.30.06 |
->> Gary,
Another "positive" story from a grief moment.
I photographed the funeral of a 9-11 victim, a military officer at the Pentagon. To photograph funerals at Arlington National Cemetery you must have permission of the family so they knew I was there. Even with that, after the main service a high-ranking officer walked over and asked that I stop taking photos. I did, the funeral was pretty much over and it was near time to leave anyway.
The widow saw the photos in the newspaper and called me thanking me for the pictures. The whole day for her was a blur and she did not remember much of the service or who was there. She asked for more photos so I printed a few and gave her a CD of my take. She thanked me profusely and said she was putting the CD in her safety deposit box so she would never lose it.
At the 1-year anniversary at Arlington Cemetery I stopped her and introduced myself as the families were leaving. She came back later to talk, gave me a hug and thanked me again.
Covering grief, loss, etc. at a breaking news event does not bother me. It is what is happening there, it's important, it tells a story. However, I always feel a bit uncomfortable at funerals. Yes you are there with permission, but it is a very private moment you are being let in on. But this instance gives me faith that we are doing some good at those times. |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
 |
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 1:02 PM on 06.30.06 |
->> Gary
Whether it's spot news or sports or whatever, the nicest thing anyone has ever said to me wasn't "great shot" or "wow how did you get that picture", it was someone who I know who asked me once; "Do you realize how much impact your pictures have? Do you know how much happiness they bring?"
The toughest assignment in the last few years, the funeral of the first local kid killed in Iraq - had my arms feeling just like Ron Erdich's. When I talked to the mother later, all she could do was thank me.
We're there to tell what happened. Whether it's happy or sad.
Michael |
|
John Lee, Photographer
|
San Francisco | CA | USA | Posted: 1:08 PM on 06.30.06 |
| ->> news coverage by accredited journalists is necessary for the public's need. shooting news pictures of people's misery solely in an effort to pad one's portfolio and accumulate awards is wrong. |
|
Barry Curtis, Photographer
 |
Laguna Beach | Ca | | Posted: 2:04 PM on 06.30.06 |
->> Gary
I am with you all the way
All the money in the world is not worth that to me.
In my opinion much if not ALL of the misery photos
are purely for financial gain and ratings.
Soon will come a day when we all will be judged in front
of the Lord all mighty.
The problem is I believe, so many live like there is no God.
That would be a good picture to see the expression on their
faces when they see him
face to face.
Thank you for letting me express my opinion and thank you
for being tolerant and considering my opinion. |
|
Larry Vaughn, Photographer
|
Gainesville | FL | | Posted: 2:14 PM on 06.30.06 |
->> I always thought spot news was in fact emphasizing someone's misery. Your average NPPA news photo contest rewarded these photos and helped advance your career.
There are other ways of photographing tragic events without exploiting people in their time of need. |
|
Alicia Wagner Calzada, Photographer
|
San Antonio | TX | USA | Posted: 12:37 PM on 07.01.06 |
->> I always used to struggle with this. But I have had some meaningful experiences that have changed the way I feel.
For example, at the beginning of the Iraq war, a kid in a nearby town was among the missing in action from the unit with Jessica Lynch that was ambushed. I soon got an assignment to try to track down his family. I was very nervous about bothering them, but I was respectful. They were very open. From the family's perspective, the more attention they could draw to the case, the easier it would be for them to get answers and support.
The next day, I had another assignment from another publication to see the same family. And later in the week another one came in. Each visit I was respectful of their crisis and of their privacy. They began to refer to me as "their photographer." On the day that the news came that he had been killed, I was the only media person that they would allow in their home. After the funeral, the father came up and hugged me.
Why am I telling you this? The relationship between media professional and person involved in tragedy does not have to be a predatorial relationship. Families appreciate that the world believes their personal loss is important. If they know that your coverage keeps one person from drowning or being killed by a drunk driver, it helps them cope. If they know that your coverage helps bring results or justice for their loved one it helps them. Knowing that their tradedy is important to their community is meaningful. But it all begins with the photographer approaching the family with respect, and in some cases, recognizing the need to walk away. I have also walked away from grieving families who were unable to cope with the media.
The difference is in treating the families with respect. |
|
Matthew Rosenberg, Photographer
|
Philadelphia | PA | United States | Posted: 1:30 PM on 07.01.06 |
| ->> A few weeks ago a young woman was found murdered behind a fire department building. It happened outside of the county and we didn't cover it. A week or so later the parent's of the girl called and invited a reporter and myself out to there home so they could tell the community about their daughter. While this isn't exactly spot news I think its was almost therapeutic for this family to tell the story of their duaghter's lapse into drug abuse and eventual murder. Two of the pictures from that interview are on my member page. It was a very hard thing to shoot. |
|
Corey Perrine, Photographer
 |
Manchester | NH | USA | Posted: 1:32 PM on 07.01.06 |
->> I think if your motivation is to win awards then you need to get a new motivation. Are awards nice for what we do? Sure. However, for those out there doing it for the right reasons, i.e. cause positive change, community awareness, love the people despite misfortunate situations, then those photographers need to keep doing what they are doing. Being a conduit for good is why we do what we do, despite the difficult, the uncomfort and the misfortune of others. Good comes out of photographs.
I've seen accidents where, because of photography, roads have been straighten. From history we can see the impact of photography change the course of a war. From photography social issues have come to the forefront of public interest.
We are there when people want us there, we are also there when they don't want us there (i.e. tradgedies, misfortune, devastation). They may not know it at the time but after that tradgedy has passed we are there echoing that moment to create awareness of what happened, to be an impact so it doesn't happen to another. For the sake of history keep shooting. Love the people, capture the moment. My two cents. |
|
Ron Erdrich, Photographer
|
Abilene | TX | USA | Posted: 2:41 PM on 07.01.06 |
->> I've never shot anything because I believed it would earn me an award. If you're really familiar with the awards process then you'll know that contests are the biggest craps shoot out there. You can't account for taste nor for what a judge will find worthy.
It is true, contests do advance your career and may help you get a better job. But that better job is still a job taking pictures which means you have more opportunity to make meaningful photographs which ultimately serve the reader, not you.
Did Todd Heisler's story on the Marine's body coming home benefit him financially? Sure it did, he won $10,000 from the Pulitzer committee for it. So should he have not done that story because he knew it would probably earn him an award? Absolutely not, because that's not why you do stories like that.
-R- |
|
Jeremy Harmon, Photographer
 |
Salt Lake City | UT | USA | Posted: 3:46 PM on 07.01.06 |
->> Most photographers aren't shooting these photos for personal gain. Journalsim is about helping your community understand itself better, and that's why sometimes we have to shoot the bad stuff.
I was the first still photographer to arrive on Elizabeth Smart's street the morning she was kidnapped.
I had never been in a situation like this before. Up to this point I think the only spot news I had shot was a bomb squad blowing up some kids homework assignment at my university.
Anyway, that morning was tough and I took a photo of some of her friends crying. The paper came out in the afternoon so I had to hurry back to the office to get a photo in before the morning deadlines.
As I made my way back to the car the mother of one of the girls who was out there approached me and actually tried to steal my notebook from me so that I couldn't use the girls name in my cutline. Mind you, I hadn't even photographed this womans daughter but she didn't want me using photos of her daughters friends.
I kept telling the woman I wasn't going to let her have my notebook and we actually did a little tug of war with it. She demanded to know my editors name. I told her and even gave her the phone number, but told her I had to leave. I was on deadline.
I called my editor to warn him about the angry mom who would probably be calling him before I got back to the office. She called.
The next day the photo was huge on A1. I'm sure that mother thought I was just awful.
But the thing is, that photo needed to be seen. Not because it was some amazing piece of artistic vision, but because it showed how real the situation was. I firmly believe that as people learn to understand each other better humanity is made a little better. Not a lot better, because people do some pretty awful things, just a little. People need to see real emotion, and not just the happy kind. We would never have this kind of discussion about shots of people celebrating something.
That mother may think I'm an awful person. Maybe she's forgotten about me. But whenever she sees a photo of someone suffering in the paper, she'll remember that morning and remember how she felt. Hopefully she will feel a little compassion for the people she is reading about. |
|
John Lee, Photographer
|
San Francisco | CA | USA | Posted: 8:58 PM on 07.01.06 |
| ->> heisler's story was a wonderful piece about an invisible aspect of the war. it was wonderful solid storytelling that was compassionate and insightful. there was nothing exploitative about it. |
|
Michael McNamara, Photo Editor, Photographer
 |
St Louis (Chesterfield) | MO | USA | Posted: 2:26 AM on 07.02.06 |
->> Barry Curtis,
Thank you for cursing me and everybody I've worked with at a newspaper to eternity in hell. I really appreciate it.
Any reputable photojournalist documents the world around them so the readers of their publication can gain a greater understanding of topics. Sometimes we have to photograph things that aren't nice...in fact, sometimes they make us repulsed. But almost everybody I know or who has worked in photojournalism hopes their photographs can change society so bad things don't happen so often. Is it a utopian view? Probably. But to think that when somebody covers a fatal car wreck, house fire or other preventable tragedy that they're thinking about a clip contest is completely wrong. Try working in journalism sometime and see for yourself. Then cast your stones. |
|
Darin McGregor, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Greeley | CO | USA | Posted: 11:03 AM on 07.02.06 |
->> As the photographer who took the photo that I think started this discussion I would like to throw in my two cents. First of all I am shocked that so many people would assume what my intentions were and that they would assume the circumstances under which the photo was made.
I did not simply stick my camera in someone's face. That is not my style. I am not just one of these agressive animals with a camera. When I got to the fire I took several photos of the fire itself then I took the time to find who lived there. It turned out it was a large family consisting of many children all living with their grandmother. Several other aunts and uncles lived there too. Anyway, when I met them I introduced myself and spoke with them for more than a half hour before making the first photo. They were comfortable with me being there and understood what I was doing.
The next day when the photo ran on the front page it generated a huge community reaction. Since then people have stepped forward to help get this family's life put back together.
That was my motivation. As a journalist I never think of ratings or profits for the paper. That is not my job. My job is to make meaningful photos that tell people about the world/community they live in good, bad and ugly. My job is also to give a voice to the voiceless. If I would have shot a more sterile less impactful photo then a lot less people would have cared about this fire and this family.
I entered the photo into the clip contest because it is a way of getting feedback on my work. For better or worse the contest is geared to judge photojournalism and the judges (all of you) are some of the best in the business. I am not all that concerned about the prize of the camera. I get supplied with all the equipment I need. For me competitions are meerly one way of many for me to self evaluate my work and then have it evaluated by others. Contests do not give me my self worth nor my motivation for doing what I do.
We have a lot of spot news here in Greeley where I have worked for the past four years. If you want to read what else I have written on this matter go here:
http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=19824
And read what I wrote about shooting accidents and showing bodies in photos. Thanks for letting me have a chance to explain myself.
-Darin McGregor |
|
Gary Parravani, Photographer
|
London Woking | Surrey | UK | Posted: 2:57 PM on 07.02.06 |
->> Darin, just so you know it wasnt any particular photo that made me start the thread. It was just a general thing
but its turned out to be a good thread i must say. some interesting points have been made that i hadnt considered
i'll write some comments on some of the posts a bit later when i have a spare few hours :) |
|
Jeffrey Haderthauer, Photographer
|
Wichita Falls | TX | USA | Posted: 5:23 PM on 07.02.06 |
->> That was REAL tolerant of you, Mr. Barry Curtis.
Mike McNamara is right- whenever these topics come up, it seems like there is always someone who has no real journalism background condemming what others do. They have no idea of the decisions that photographers make at the scene of an accident, or fire, or murder. It's obvious to me that people who aren't photojournalists rarely understand the business.
So Barry, if you were shooting a surfing competition, and a competitor became injured and had to be rescued, would you just stand there and watch, or would you document what was happening? |
|
Gary Parravani, Photographer
|
London Woking | Surrey | UK | Posted: 7:22 PM on 07.02.06 |
->> i dont think you need to have a jounalistic qualification to have an opinion on whats right or wrong.
and although the people gutsy enough to argue their point on this thread have given good reasons why they arent as selfish as i had implied, it doesnt mean there arent photographers out their who will do absolutely anything for a photo. hopefully none of them are SS members.
when i started this thread i thought that all photographers taking these kind of pictures were selfish people, but now i understand that like most things in life its not all black and white. |
|
Adam Vogler, Student/Intern
 |
Pittsburg | KS | USA | Posted: 8:45 PM on 07.02.06 |
->> I'd like to know who is receiving fame and fortune from photo J. Personally I'm in it for the abject poverty and public disdain.
Seriously though. As a journalist I see my duty, and I do see it, as a duty, a public service, is to create a sense of understanding among my readers through my photography. This sometimes requires shooting in some difficult (emotionally) situations such as house fires and funerals. (Two events that I have personally photographed. When you hit that shutter button it can take an emotional toll on you something that has become apparent even in my limited experience. I'd like to know where we are supposed to draw the line. Should no one go to refugee camps and Darfur because it would be exploitive? What we do is exploitive by it's very nature. We make our living documenting what others are experiencing. It is why we are there that makes the difference, something that can't always be seen from looking at a photo. Personally I will shoot and publish just about anything if I believe that it will illustrate the events that I witness be they good or bad. To paraphrase James Natwhey "its about the subject not me". I would highly recommend watching "War Photographer" and War feels like War" both available on net-flicks to learn a little more about these photographers that take these exploitive photographs and why. I know I'm just a thirty-year old student and my real entry into this profession is not until (hopefully) my graduation in December but this is how I see it. I know that I'm a naive idealist thinking that I might make a difference in the world via my photographs but that's how I feel. The day that I stop feeling this is when I'll need to get out. A contest win will only have the meaning that my colleagues feel that I have captured a compelling photo that would be better able to accomplish my true goal, bearing witness and showing the world.
Aspiring exploiter of the masses |
|
Gary Cosby, Jr, Photographer
 |
Decatur | AL | USA | Posted: 10:39 PM on 07.02.06 |
->> Especially for Barry and anyone else who struggles with how God feels about shooting in misery situations.
First, my spiritual qualifications are that I am an elder in my church and have been a dedicated Christian virtually all my adult life. Now, my photojournalistic qualifications are that I have been a newspaper photojournalist for 16 years. I have also served my community as a volunteer firefighter and EMT. Let me say that I have absolutely no doubt that I was called by the Lord to be a photojournalist. That includes the good, the bad and the ugly that goes with it.
There is no easy way to deal with tragedy as a photojournalist. Let me use the 9/11 incident because that is the one that we are all familiar with. Had the media not done the tough job of covering that tragedy the nation could not have entered into a time of mourning together and a time of healing together. Note that the scriptures say for us to mourn with those who mourn. Although it may seem very wrong at the moment things are going wrong to be shooting and not helping you really are helping because your function is to tell the story. You never really know what impact the story will have. The basic truth of the matter is that, like many of the guys have said, good often comes from tragedy and by documenting the tragedy you are furthering the ultimate good. One more thing; anyone coming on a scene arriving before professional help comes lays aside the camera and helps a person in need.
One of the greatest virtues of the Lord Jesus was His compassion. I have found that there are times when compassion causes me to take a picture that is difficult. There are many other times when compassion has caused me to turn my back and walk away. Earlier this year there was a fire that claimed the life of two firefighters in a nearby community. It was night and when I arrived on the scene I could hear a woman wailing in the darkness. I could see her but to photograph her in that moment would have been the height of callousness. Just a few moments later I shot a very telling photo of another woman, an EMT, sitting dejectedly on the bumper of the fire engine. Story told compassionately and I allowed the community to grieve together with the people actually experiencing the event.
Is it difficult to do this job? Absolutely! Is it right to do this job? Also, absolutely! Lest I begin to preach I will cut this off but let me leave you with one final thought. No matter whether you decide to shoot or decide to turn away you are not wrong as long as you are being ruled by compassion because we are people first and photojournalists second. For those who would cast stones at us who have to shoot in some very uncomfortable spots let me remind you that the book of Romans says that there is now therefore no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
Be Blessed.
Coz |
|
Jim Urquhart, Photographer
 |
Salt Lake City | UT | USA | Posted: 11:28 PM on 07.02.06 |
->> Gary, No, it's not black and white.
Barry Curtis, please don't pray for my salvation. I don't need another cross to bear or anything else to explain to Saint Peter.
As photojournalists we are obligated to show the truth, even if it may be uncomfortable. If not, we would have no-credibility and we could all just be PR flacks. I have been on both sides of this issue and to just make a blanket judgment is very self-righteously wrong.
Several year's ago I worked in Beloit, Wisconsin for a paper that thrived on spot news at the time. In that market, the one person fatality was a lead story. I was always on the run racing to other people's worst tragedy. I did my best to tell the story accurately and with as much compassion as possible. There were several times I cried behind the lens. No one can ever tell me I did it for the glory. I felt as much as I could and then some. Then at times I would go home and cry some more. I even caught myself being a prick to the woman that loved me because I was so upset with what I had seen earlier.
Yes, I won awards for my paper for the work I had done, but the best awards, the ones I kept, were a couple letters from the Red Cross and the Salvation Army that stated my work and my photos helped bring in more donations to helps these people out. The one's I carry in my heart were the tearful hugs a family member would give me after they saw my work in a victim impact story or funeral.
But myself and my family have also been on the other-side of the story. In November 2002 my family's home here in Utah was burned down by an arsonist. I was still in Wisconsin when it happened. A local paper covered it on their front page and my current paper also covered it. Local television networks covered it live and showed tight shots of my little brother crying and looking for his dogs that died in the fire. The live coverage was how my mom found out what was taking place. She was at the hospital with my step-father who had a heart attack earlier in the day when she glanced up at a television in the waiting room. This was tough to digest. But were are a strong family and we stuck together. The news coverage helped incite change. Up until that moment, the residents of that neighborhood fought the planning and construction of a fire department near them. But after the coverage of the pain and destruction, the neighborhood had a fire department within a year.
In 1996 I lost a brother in a hit and run motorcycle accident. The local media also covered that. He was wearing a helmet, but if anyone took a moment to pause and think about the risk of motorcycles for just a moment before they made their purchase, then the coverage was worth it.
In this industry you will find many others with stories like mine. So to make a blanket accusation that we are in it for the fame is morally offensive. Many of us do this because we want change. We have real compassion in our hearts. We want a better world and we need to serve as a voice for those that can't speak. If I can tell a story through my photos that can make you think and reflect for an instant, then I have done a good job.
Photojournalist have changed this world and continue to do so. Look at a stack of Pulitzer Prize winning photos from the last 60 years. I am sure you can find one that had a direct impact on your life or your loved one's lives. I am sure you can find one that changed your life and your loved one's for the good.
Jimmy Urquhart |
|
Lucas Jackson, Photographer
|
Los Angeles | CA | USA | Posted: 4:20 AM on 07.03.06 |
->> "In my opinion much if not ALL of the misery photos
are purely for financial gain and ratings."
?????????????????????
I spent 6 weeks in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina and out of the hundreds of people I shot I think I was told once not to shoot. EVERYONE there wanted me to shoot everything, them looking at their home for the first time, them crying b/c a relative had died, everything, they wanted it shown, it was their fear that people would not realize how horrific the event was. Their wanting other people to understand what they went through was their incentive, now you have to shoot very carefully, but when you sit and talk to your subject you would be suprised how much access you can get.
Photos of "misery" were major factors in ending the Vietnam war, Jim Crow laws in the south, and getting billions and billions of dollars within weeks to the countries devestated by the Tsunami in 2004. W/o these images we would not as easily comprehend the pain and suffering that happens every day in every city in the world. I would way rather see a photo that makes me cry and feel just that much more human than another shot of a baseball player or baskerball player or some other over-entitled athelete. |
|
Gary Parravani, Photographer
|
London Woking | Surrey | UK | Posted: 5:43 AM on 07.03.06 |
->> ok, i'm starting to understand a bit more about why these kind of photos are taken.
but i'll be honest, trying to say that you are doing it as a public service is pushing it a bit far. If you want to be a public service then i can think of better ways like becoming a nurse or fire fighter. Next you'll be telling me that when you call 999 (911) they ask you if you need ambulance, police, fire brigade or a photographer :)
i'd be interested to know what would happen if you got that big money shot of lets say Princess Di in her last moments.. would you give the money to charity? or keep it all? I must say i cant even answer that myself |
|
Matthew Rosenberg, Photographer
|
Philadelphia | PA | United States | Posted: 9:01 AM on 07.03.06 |
->> I'm not really sure why this thread is starting to irk me so much. Maybe its because I didn't sleep well? I am just not sure what you don't understand? Understand this, last year I was unfortunate enough to be involved in the bombings in London. I wasn't very far from the 30 bus when it exploded. When it exploded I ran towards the bus and mostly everyone else ran away. In fact one of those people called me an asshole for taking photos as he was running away. I was on scene almost before the dust settled and captured some of the only high resolution photos. I then stayed and helped BMA personnel clear the wounded why the Met exploded what they thought was a bomb to kill first responders. Where was the guy that called me an asshole? In a pub somewhere probably watching the BBC's coverage? I'm not faulting the guy for running away, I mean hell, somebody exploded them-self on a bus. Let's get past all this hypocrisy, we shoot it and you look at it. Oh and for public service. Scotland Yard asked me for the photos and I gladly handed over copies so they could use them in their investigation. The pictures ran in hundred of publications and yes I made money. I did my job and I was paid for it.
The one year anniversary is coming up four days from today.
I apologize for the angry post, but I (the media in general too) am just sick of being everybody's whipping boy. |
|
John Lee, Photographer
|
San Francisco | CA | USA | Posted: 10:56 AM on 07.03.06 |
->> matthew,
you did your job as a journalist, and no one has the right to criticize you for doing what you do. and i agree with you that this thread has gotten off course. no one said that we shouldn't cover tragedy, especially in these times. i think the original question was whether we should be gleefully sticking these pix in poy, world press, etc...
for those who call us vultures or paparrazi for what we do, they're probably the first ones to seek the latest info by picking up a newspaper/magazine, or stick their nose online or watch tv news.
people can be hypocrites. |
|
Gary Parravani, Photographer
|
London Woking | Surrey | UK | Posted: 11:55 AM on 07.03.06 |
->> matthew
you are exactly the kind of person i am talking about
you heard the explosion, and ran to the bus to take photos! Then helped afterwards!
I bet you thought it was your lucky day that someones blood was splattered all over the BMA.
How do you know the other guy was sitting in a pub?
Of course people were reading the news to find out what was going on, I lived in London at the time and i was trying to find info on friends and family. News and info is one thing, taking photos of the dead and wounded just because you knew you could make money out of it is another thing altogether.
If you were taking the photos to help the police then thats good, but something tells me that wasnt the first thing on your mind. $$ |
|
Gary Parravani, Photographer
|
London Woking | Surrey | UK | Posted: 12:16 PM on 07.03.06 |
->> by the way, i'm assuming you arent a londener. if you were you would be used to the amount of bombings we have had in the past and you would know that you are instructed to get the heck out of their to a) give the emergency services as room as they need b) to not get blown up by secondary devices
the emergency services dont need any more dead or wounded be they public or photographers |
|
Gary Parravani, Photographer
|
London Woking | Surrey | UK | Posted: 12:21 PM on 07.03.06 |
| ->> and i cant even spell Londoner :) |
|
Ron Erdrich, Photographer
|
Abilene | TX | USA | Posted: 12:33 PM on 07.03.06 |
->> Okay Gary, I am definitely convinced you are not a journalist. If you were, then you wouldn't have made the accusation that you just did.
I'm sorry, but shooting cars around a track, something you appear to be good at, isn't photojournalism and it is inappropriate for you to judge the work of someone else in a field in which you have no experience.
Photojournalism is about documenting the world, not seeing dollar signs in someone else's misery.
You keep harping about Princess Di. First off, no photographers were found at fault in that terrible incident. Rather, it was the driver who's blood alcohol level was way past legal.
Second, those guys who chase celebrities around aren't photojournalists. They are about as different from me and you as an architectual or pure fine art photographer is.
Photojournalists are first responders, they relay information that the public needs to see. If I had not seen those London bombing photos I wouldn't have taken the story nearly as seriously as I did.
It takes courage to face a spot news situation and make photographs, not greed. There is very little money to be made covering news, spot or otherwise. Oh sure, you can make a living at it, but you're not going to get rich no matter what you photograph.
As a matter of fact, you probably pull down more in a year than I do. But that's okay, as long as I can keep the bills paid and see a movie ever other week, I'm happy.
-Ron- |
|
Marie Hughes, Photographer
|
Fremont | CA | USA | Posted: 12:53 PM on 07.03.06 |
->> I really don't understand how people can be so judgmental towards others based on seeing a few images in a clip contest. There is no way you can look at an image and instantly know everything about the person who took it and the circumstances of how it was taken. So why assume the worst? Why assume the person was salivating at the chance to photograph some blood and make some money? That they didn't do what they could to render aide?
Gary takes Matthew to task for assuming some other guy is sitting in a pub watching the bombings on the news (an assumption very likely to be at least partially true), but then makes a lot worse assumptions about him -- assumptions much less likely to be true. I think this says a lot more negative about Gary (and others who think like him) than about Matthew and other news photographers.
Everyone has their own way of contributing to society. Some of us have a talent for photography and that's our way. Compelling images do contribute too. You don't have to be a fireman or a nurse to make a positive effect on society and getting paid for it doesn't negate the contribution either. After all, first responders get paid too. Sometimes they even win awards for their efforts. It's just as ludicrous to call them glory hounds and postulate that they get all excited when they hear the sirens thinking maybe this time they'll get to respond to that big emergency that makes the international news as it is to get on photographers cases for doing their jobs.
Personally, I get much more annoyed by people who submit sports feature photos into the sports action category (and vice versa). Now that's a crime against humanity. ;) |
|
Bob Ford, Photographer
 |
Lehighton | Pa | USA | Posted: 12:55 PM on 07.03.06 |
->> Gary Parravani, for someone "merely trying to start a discussion" you tone with Matthew was very accusatory.
I cover a lot of spot news in my position at the newspaper, and believe me, I'm not in it for the money. Breaking news needs to be covered for many of the reasons listed above, and I'm actually quite shocked that another photographer can't understand that.
Check out Autumn Cruz's recent update for another example of how her coverage of a traumatic event helped the subjects of the photographs. http://www.sportsshooter.com/members.html?id=805 |
|
Thierry Gourjon, Photographer
 |
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 1:03 PM on 07.03.06 |
->> Gary,
Even if this thread sidetracked from the original question and evolved into an interesting dialog on one of the most difficult aspect of this profession, your last two posts make me wonder if you are either on medication or just too dense:
“…taking photos of the dead and wounded just because you knew you could make money out of it is another thing altogether.
If you were taking the photos to help the police then that’s good, but something tells me that wasn’t the first thing on your mind. $$”
How dare you assume that Matthew was thinking about money when he got thrown into that situation? If I follow your very flawed line of thinking then, James Nachtwey, Eugene Smith, Eugene Richards and Mathew Brady (just to name a handful) are/were nothing but money hungry photo whores? If you ever get out of your hole one day, take a look at “INFERNO” by Natchwey or “Cocaine True, Cocaine Blue” by Richards and then come back and tell me that those books have no social value and are not a testimony of our times…
I’ll stop here, as I don’t think you ‘ll ever grasp the difference between a paparazzi and a photojournalist…
Have a nice life.
T. |
|
Matthew Rosenberg, Photographer
|
Philadelphia | PA | United States | Posted: 4:39 PM on 07.03.06 |
->> Gary,
I am sorry that you cannot fully understand what it is that we (photojournalists) do. I have a clear conscious and I stand by my actions that day. I did the best I could both as a human being and a photojournalist in a very confusing and difficult situation. I hope you found all of your family members safe and unharmed. |
|
Michelle Posey, Photographer
|
Little Rock | AR | United States | Posted: 5:33 PM on 07.03.06 |
->> I'm truly sorry to see the tone of the debate established here. I'd like to throw in my 2 cents.
First, you need only to read some of the archived stories from the NPPA magazine to know that photojournalists consider it their obligation to help first, and only shoot when they know they cannot help in any other way. I have seen photos of photojournalists holding IVs for the paramedics, knowing that other photojournalists, sometimes their competition, were getting the photos but still putting their cameras down in the name of humanity.
It's not really possible to tell what the photographer's circumstances were from looking at the pictures.
I have been confronted by this situation in both a big and a small way.
Once, I was attempting to make a turn from the freeway onto a local road when I heard a crash and saw some things flying past. It was a really bad wreck, (it actually turned out to be a fatality) and as I pulled my car over, the first thing I did was grab my cell phone and call 911. They said they had already had a call about the accident, so I hurried across the street. When I got across the street to the scene of the accident, there were already three people comforting the woman who was in the passenger seat, so I hung back to shoot. I did this because I was on the clock and it was my job. If I thought I could have helped in any way, I would have forfeited the photos.
Last year on the way to Colorado, my husband and I saw a bad wreck. The guy was trapped in the car. We called 911 and stayed on the line to talk to emergency personnel. I was not working and never considered getting my camera.
Finally, last year I was sent by my paper to cover Hurricane Katrina. During the time I was in Mississippi, I found out that some of my own family members were missing. I talked to some of my newspaper friends down in Biloxi, and they also had family members missing. Yet we all continued to work. Yes, there was a lot of suffering at Katrina, but I was glad to be covering it. The comment I heard most often was, "I hope my photo makes it into the paper, because then maybe my relatives will know I am okay." People suddenly realized that media was more than just entertainment; it was an important way to impart valuable information. I didn't talk to a single person there who didn't thank me. The only ones criticizing the coverage of Katrina, from what I could see, were the ones totally removed from the disaster.
Suffering is part of the experience of life. I agree that we as photographers need to pay attention to joy as well as suffering, but don't knock someone for doing their job. It may be more necessary than you think.
BTW, all my family members were eventually accounted for, though some lost their houses. |
|
Dick Van Nostrand, Photographer
|
Bay City | MI | USA | Posted: 8:54 PM on 07.03.06 |
->> I started shooting photos for newspapers and wire services over forty years ago and perhaps I can add some perspective from my years shooting spot news as well as general news, features and sports. One photo I took early in my career was at an apartment house fire. I took a photo of a lady clutching a kitten, the only possession she managed to save. My flash going off caused some rather harsh comments from spectators, who incidently were doing nothing but gawking. I was in my 20's at the time and if I had to face the situation over again today I'm not sure I'd take the photo despite the outpouring of sympathy for the woman after the photo ran. I feel that as I've aged I've become more conservative in my approach to spot news. One of the last spot news photos I took before retiring showing a man and his two grandsons at an accident scene with the man holding on to his pet dog and the young boys holding on to stuffed bears given to them by police officers to clam them. I titled the photo "Holding On" and it received great play in newspapers and MSNBC. The scene was one I might have overlooked during the early days in my career when I looked for more dramatic photos. Every photojournalist must decide their own boundaries in those situations.If you are a freelancer you can certainly turn down spot news jobs if that offends you, but a staff photographer doesn't have that luxury. If the publication includes spot news photos as part of the daily news budget a staffer must produce them when faced with those situations. I wouldn't criticize any photographer for choosing another type of photographic career if they had to make that decision.
Certainly Matthew Rosenberg's dramatic London bus bombing photos as well as Todd Heisler's U.S. Marine casualty notification unit photos may be hard to look at now for some but they will increase in importance as future generations learn from those photos. Both Todd and Matthew did a great job under very difficult circumstances. Comments about photojournalists making money off tragedy is as ridiculous as questioning the salaries of emergency room doctors.
Remember these are just my opinions so no hate mail please. One opinion I expressed recently generated a some hate mail and I'm more offended by the tone of the mail than that person's opinions. |
|
D. Ross Cameron, Photographer
 |
Oakland | CA | USA | Posted: 9:43 PM on 07.03.06 |
->> Did somebody mention spot news for money?
I like to push helpless pedestrians in front of school busses loaded with handicapped children and then shoot the results.
I'm hoping that someday, Satan willing, I shall win the coup d'grace of awards, the Baby's Arm Holding An Apple.
But it's only because I'm a God-less, money-grubbing, Capitalist freak. And an immoral vulture without a shred of common decency.
There. That should pretty much cover all the bases for anybody out there who thinks we should ignore all the "misery" in life and just photograph all the pretty butterflies.
Sardonically,
DRC |
|
Erik Markov, Photographer
 |
Kokomo | IN | | Posted: 10:54 PM on 07.03.06 |
->> Here is the way I look at photos of spot news and other traumatic events after doing this for nine years.
People go into journalism as reporters, photographers and editors because they have an interest in other peoples lives, sometimes that interest isn't wanted by the public but its our job to delve into situations like a spot news event of a fire or accident.
Some people who go into journalism maybe shouldnt because they don't have the right social and empathetic skills to do their job without pissing someone off, but for the most part many journalists are compassionate people who are trying to help their fellow man, either by putting down the camera and making that 911 call or by picking up the camera and shooting an event that might have some importance to others in the community.
When a photojournalist sees a spot news event of a fire or accident, you can't usually decide at that moment whether it is an event that will have implications down the road for the community. So yes, sometimes the public sees a photojournalist shooting an event that the public thinks is private. And sometimes after getting back to the office and looking at the photos, a photog or editors will decide the event isn't newsworthy and a photo shouldn't run.
But that decision can't be made at all if the photographer got to the accident and decided to put the camera down without shooting a frame.
So photographers show up at all spot news scenes, assess it and go ahead and shoot it if it looks as tho it has importance, making the decision to run it or not later.
Unfortunately, especially in the town I work in, the public wants their cake and too eat it to. There are going to be spot news events some people on the west side of the street think we should cover and people on the east side of the street who think we shouldn't cover it.
The best a photojournalist can do is be understanding and show compassion.
And I have lost count the number of people standing by watching the scene unfold have stopped me to ask what is going on. They figure b/c I work for the paper I must know immediately, usually that isn't the case. I shoot what the news is and after the emergency personnel have had time to deal with those injured do we get to find out what is going on. The public says they don't want to read about such events but often times that isn't the case, at least judging by the number of people I usually see standing near the scene of an accident waiting to see what happens. |
|
Ron Erdrich, Photographer
|
Abilene | TX | USA | Posted: 11:11 PM on 07.03.06 |
->> Okay, I just received an off-list email from Gary with a reply to everyone. Apparently he can't post to this thread anymore, if at all to SS.com because, I guess, of the 13 marks for "Inappropriate" on one of his postings. Gary wrote me that when he tried to press "Send", he got a message saying he was banned. I would assume it's the same for Barry Curtis as well.
I'm a little disturbed by this. Yes, I was offended by Barry's religiosity and I would agree that it was inappropriate on some level. For both Barry and Gary, I think their sin was in voicing a common misperception of photojournalists.
It bothered me, for sure, but I don't think as much as having their voices banned from the discussion boards. I've read other folks on other lists (NPPA-L, for one) that really did offend me over and over and over again and they were still allowed to post. I certainly don't want to go through that experience again, but I wonder about the character of this Sportsshooter community that we have made.
Can't somebody make a fool of themselves among friends? Can't we give them the lattitude to be foolish, stick a foot in the mouth, be totally asinine and still keep them in the family? I'm fine with somebody being like that - hell, I remember when I was bellowing about how I believed SS.com should go the non-profit route and the flame-mail I got out of that debacle. I don't mind such a person once or even twice as long as they eventually learn how to behave on our playground.
Multiple offenders I can understand, but if it's just a rookie, I don't want to see that photographer banned. For a place where people discuss Journalism and Free Speech, it ain't right.
-Ron- |
|
Matthew Rosenberg, Photographer
|
Philadelphia | PA | United States | Posted: 12:39 AM on 07.04.06 |
| ->> I certainly disagree with some of the posts in this thread but I think they should have the ability to post them. |
|
Darin McGregor, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Greeley | CO | USA | Posted: 12:44 AM on 07.04.06 |
| ->> I agree with Ron. Respecting the discourse between differing opinions in one of the foundations of journalism. While I did not agree with some of the comments made, most all of them were made in a respectful manner and I see no reason for anyone to be silenced. |
|
Jim Urquhart, Photographer
|
Salt Lake City | UT | USA | Posted: 1:32 AM on 07.04.06 |
->> Let'em post!!!!!!!
I was offended by the comments, but I believe he has every right to post and to limit someone's ability to communicate is wrong. We as journalists are here to defend the 1st amendment, even if the opinions make us uncomfortable. |
|
Ron Erdrich, Photographer
|
Abilene | TX | USA | Posted: 1:34 AM on 07.04.06 |
->> Okay, I was just reminded by Jason Burfield that a person is banned from posting for 14 days after a first offense for too many "Inappropriate" marks.
It is an automatic function, which I hopefully implied in my earlier post but if not I publicly apologize if what I wrote instead implied that direct action was specifically taken against Gary or Barry.
Here is the link for a refresher:
http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1281
-R- |
|
Juliann Tallino, Photographer
 |
Los Angeles | CA | usa | Posted: 1:36 AM on 07.04.06 |
->> I don't think it was a differing opinion that got Gary the 13 inappropriates, it was his remark towards Matthew;
"you heard the explosion, and ran to the bus to take photos! Then helped afterwards!
I bet you thought it was your lucky day that someones blood was splattered all over the BMA."
That was just nasty and that's when the thread turned ugly. Before that it was just ignorance on Gary's part on the role of photojournalism in society and his question started a pretty interesting thread. If Gary can't post it's probably because he's in a cooling off period from the board. This article explains the rules and how they work.
http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1281
Differing opinions are one thing, personal attacks are another. There has to be some sort of safeguard on the boards so threads don't get too ugly. |
|
Mark Scheuern, Photographer
 |
Grand Blanc | MI | USA | Posted: 7:34 AM on 07.04.06 |
->> As Gary's SS sponsor, I feel I should comment. We've never met but we've both done some shooting for the same people, I've liked his motorsports work, and he emailed me asking if I'd sponsor him and, after a few more email exchanges, I agreed. I thought his original question and some of comments after that were pretty reasonable--not the way I would have kicked things off but his questions seemed sincere--but I certainly wasn't pleased when I saw his comments to Matthew.
I think you'll find that most motorsports shooters have an aversion to blood and guts shots and, as he himself said, I'm sure he was coming from that perspective. A friend of mine expressed it as "car parts yes, body parts no" and, while I hadn't formulated the thought that succinctly before, that pretty well sums it up for me, too. When bad things happen, news outlets that never cover racing sometimes suddenly have an interest and I wouldn't want any part of helping them publish gore. If, heaven forbid, I ever shot such a thing, those shots would never see the light of day, anywhere. I fully understand that things are different in the broader world of photojournalism and many have you have expressed that very well in some of the posts in this thread.
Differering opinions are fine but I think Gary, probably in the heat of the moment, went over the line with Matthew and that a time-out is appropriate.
Mark |
|
Brian Blanco, Photographer
 |
Bradenton | FL | USA | Posted: 1:59 PM on 07.04.06 |
->> I've never hurt anybody by taking a spot news photo. -I never will.
I've never gotten in the way of rescue workers. I never will.
I've never been insensitive to family members. I never will.
I've never made an extra NICKLE by shooting a painful spot news photo. I never will.
I've never enjoyed taking painful images. I can assure you that I NEVER WILL.
In fact, I HATE shooting spot news. But I do it because I care about the people in my community. I do it because I feel a sense of responsibility to my community. I do it because I'm a professional and as a professional I don't need anybody's blessing, approval or even their understanding to do my job. I shoot spot news because I'm my father's son and I was raised to believe that everybody has a responsibility to contribute to their community.
--Brian |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
 |
New England | | USA | Posted: 2:24 PM on 07.04.06 |
->> Gary
News is not always pretty. News is unscripted moments, sometimes they are fun images sometimes the images are painful to look at.
A news photographer should shoot to tell a story, not win a contest. The job of a news photographer is to record the moments, the truth and be resposible for letting the public know what is going on. It can be local or global, but news is news and great photos should be recognized. |
|
This thread has reached the maximum number of posts
If you would like to continue it, please create a new thread.
[ Create new thread? ]
|| Sponsor Special Deals
Got USED gear?
|
Available from:
Adorama Camera
|
Price: $0.00 |
Notes:
We all have some cameras & lenses sitting around collecting dust right?...Or you work at a Newspaper that has downsized?...What to do with your excess photographic equipment? Adorama's Used Dept is looking for your used gear to purchase or take in trade. Contact me directly jsnyder@adorama.com or 1-800-223-2500 X2435 and I can fill you in on the details. Cash in your pocket is better than sitting on the shelf, right?
|
|
-- More Info -- |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|