The difference between winning and losing? Six-tenths of a second...

<p>Fascinating article from the Dallas Morning News about two of the photographers at the Oswald assassination. Too bad Beers never seemed to recover from the moment.<br>

<a href="http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spe/2003/jfk/stories/063002dnmetshot.378ed.html">Six-tenths of a second, two lives forever changed</a></p>

<p>Oops! Forgot to include this link, which is a side by side comparison of the two photos:<br>

<a href="http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/LHO9.htm">Beers and Jackson side by side</a></p>

<p>I find it rather laughable that eather got a prize for this. Anyone paparazzi shooter could have done this who was there. Pure luck really. And i find nothing great about ether shot. Morbid fasination is all i can see it's appeal as.<br>

If success means winning a prize for this then I shun any organisation that regards it as such. </p>

<p>It sort of “rubs it in” that one was using a rangefinder (the decisive moment) and one an SLR (mirror causing delay). Not that it matters; any camera could've captured that moment.</p>

<p>HCB was right when he said that photographers deal with fleeting moments…or something like that.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I find it rather laughable... ...Anyone paparazzi shooter could have done this who was there. Pure luck really.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Knowing how to use a camera and being at the right place at the right time and capturing a critical visual moment makes one unworthy of a Pulitzer Prize? Well, there's always landscapes.</p>

<p>

 

<p>Yea Hugo, He also said it's luck and love... or something like that. I cant see much love in this, or skill. Just a kind of frenzied crowding that any celebrity gets. And if one should (with luck) get a shot like this then they are all of a sudden given the highest accolades? </p>

<p>Its a shame the (looser) took it like that. </p>

 

</p>

<p>What's a "looser"?</p>

<p>Someone who thinks they are...?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I cant see much love in this, or skill. Just a kind of frenzied crowding</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Have you performed any of this loveless any ole' hack shooting fighting off "frenzied crowding" in the process and successfully getting the one moment, lasting less than a second, in a competent manner? If so, do you have any samples?</p>

<p>A <em >looser</em> is a loser who can't spell "loser".(:<br>

Sorry I do try.</p>

<p>Hate to rain on parades here, but it wasn't the fact that 1 was using a SLR vs a Rangefinder that got the prize photo - if you read the articile - both were using strobes which in 1963 took 5 - 6 seconds to regenerate - even if both had rangefinders -</p>

<p>The difference was / is / will always be - what caused them to shoot when they did? Mr Beers clearly reacted to the movement and seeing the gun... He pressed the shutter... The other photographer reacted to something completely different - most likely due to his position on the incline...</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<p>Well I don't spend much time in crowds but I have captured decisive moments, yes. I don't feel the need to prove it to you. But I would say even the best (people who add something more) get plenty of missed shots. But they take plenty so they will get more. </p>

<p>

 

<p><a href="

"it's always luck"</p>

 

</p>

<p>I doubt the recycle time of the flash was that significant a factor. BTW, I've read other reports that they used bulb flash, not electronic flash. It'd be interesting to hear a definitive answer on that bit of trivia.</p>

<p>Having access to a camera that fires up to 8 fps and a flash unit that can keep up at short range for brief bursts hasn't improved my number of keepers as much as I'd expected.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"Anyone paparazzi shooter could have done this who was there. Pure luck really."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's an oxymoronic statement that presumes paparazzi are unskilled and inexperienced. The fact that they consistently produce money making, published shots indicates that there's more to it than luck. They're good at what they do because they work at it. Those without the aptitude don't make money and are weeded out. Same as photojournalists.</p>

<p>Experience, instinct and timing are as important as luck. Plenty of great peak moment action photos have been taken with even slower, less nimble cameras and flash bulbs that had to be changed for every photo - while trying to avoid serious burns fumbling with the molten glass.</p>

<p>One of my most memorable missed shot incidents occurred because I was so stunned by what I was seeing that I simply stared and forgot to snap the shutter. That's where the instinct and experience of a truly good photojournalist come in. The best PJs remember to take the shot rather than simply staring.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Anyone paparazzi shooter could have done this who was there. Pure luck really.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In a way, I agree with you. But as Beers himself said: "Luck is a product of being prepared." I have read so many times photogaphers saying 'I don't know why I pressed the shutter at that instance'. The reason is often instinct borne of experience and as a sports photographer will tell you 'if you see it in the viewfinder it is already too late'.<br>

Enough of the quotes. Assuming that the Pullitzer was won for breaking news photography, the prize is not to reward technical excellence but for having a picture that represents a major event. No comment on the achievement, just the fact that the picture exisits.</p>

<p>Think also of all those award-winning natural history shots, especially of birds in flight where everything fro the position of the eyes, the position of the wings and everything else falls into place - luck or anticipation? I guess we will have to scrap all those awards too as worthwhile.</p>

<p>According to Pulitzer.org...</p>

<p>"There are no set criteria for the judging of the Prizes. The definitions of each category are the only guidelines. It is left up to the Nominating Juries and The Pulitzer Prize Board to determine exactly what makes a work "distinguished."</p>

<p>Well I don't mean to belittle anyone's craft. But I will make a judgement as to who (or what) I think is valuable within it. Lets face it, these photographers shoot machine gun style (even with old slr's, or range finders) at an event like this. Just because an unexpected thing happens to wonder into one of there shots holds little if any value to me. <br /> I'm sure they claim (or others for them) to have these extraordinary honed instincts. I imagine it's closer to the truth to say they did not even realize till well after what they had.<br /> No, this is not hard, anyone who has been into a similar situation with a camera more then a couple of times will be used to just shooting. Why should they freeze up? It's not as if they new this guy was about to be shot. They just reacted to the movement, or the flash or whatever. Like anyone who works in this field does without a problem. <br /> Just sit by the side of your house or down an alley and shoot the things that pop into view. You'll soon get better. I simply don't believe one was any better than the other in this case. One just happen to get luckier.</p>

Aside from the THRILLING debate about what finite motivation and conditions make a "worthy" image, this is a pretty fascinating story.

 

Having missed and made shots by difference of a tenth of a second, I can only imagine what it had to be like to be one or the other of these guys. I wonder how rare or common this sort of thing is with a prize such as the Pulitzer? A very interesting story about men who were two of the few to see a moment in American history unfold. Had neither been there, history and photography would have been lessened because of it.

<p>Well personally I don't see anything interesting or of particular valve in seeing another person being shot. It's Just the fame game in this case. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Well personally I don't see anything interesting or of particular valve in seeing another person being shot. It's Just the fame game in this case.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The point of the article isn't about the subject of the image itself, the article is about two men taking virtually the same photo of an event happening. One got worldwide attention and a place in history, one took a photo that I bet few of us have ever seen. The only real difference was 6/10 of a second of timing.</p>

<p>Arguing about what makes a great photo is nothing interesting, it happens a thousand times a day and is nothing more than a bunch of opinions on an award that was given decades ago. In comparison, when was the last time you read a story like this one about photography? Never I bet.</p>

<p><em>In comparison, when was the last time you read a story like this one about photography? Never I bet.</em><br>

All I though was what a shame the loser took it that way, and i replied with what i thought.<br>

What's so interesting about loads of people getting to see one shot or the other, or one becoming famous and one not, because of a slight time difference. Ignoring the subject as you suggest. I don't see it. <br>

In fact i'd rather not contribute to a culture that proposes success as being this, chance or fame. Or at least i'll have my say if that's ok Josh. (: <br>

Maybe if everyone did not regard it as so important the "losers" would not have such a bad time. </p>

<p>Offhand I can't recall a truly comparable situation involving a Pulitzer winning photo. There are many where several photojournalists were present taking similar photos. But I can't think of another that was decided by split second timing.</p>

<p>In some cases, such as Larry Price's 1981 Pulitzer winning photos from the 1980 Liberian coup, he had virtually no competition from that particular incident because most PJ's had their film confiscated as they left the country. Price used a clever ruse to get his film out of the country - resealing the exposed rolls in the original film boxes to make them appear unopened and unused, while passing off unexposed rolls to be confiscated. (I might be disremembering some details - I was a journalism student in the early '80s when Price spoke to our class.) Incidentally, Larry Price is among the very, very few journalists to win a Pulitzer more than once.</p>

<p>In the case of the Oklahoma City Murrah building bombing, there were many photojournalists around but, if I'm recalling correctly, the Pulitzer winner was taken by a freelancer.</p>

<p>While not a Pulitzer winner, only one photographer at the assassination of Anwar Sadat managed to get any publishable photos. Most journalists ducked for cover when the gunfire started and grenades were tossed. One Middle Eastern photojournalist stood his ground and kept snapping. They weren't great photos but were remarkable for the audacity it took to keep snapping during the attack.</p>

<p>I was thinking Robert Capa, but there must be other similar examples that don't evolve shootings that do involve split second timing. I just cant think atm.</p>

<p>I guess it depends if you think of a decisive moment as being historically so or not.</p>

<p>It also seems closely related to the scarcity of the technology at that time. Nowadays i bet there are many captured, but because they are captured by amateurs or cctv they are no longer though special. 911 for instance. I bet there where a few lucky ones (if i can say such a thing related to that) who made it by split second differences is timing.<br /> Plus I like to think many times these things just don't get shown because we have got over the novely of what a camera can catch, and appreciate more as a society the slight meninglesness of photes to say anything about such things. No matter who is involved, it's still what it is.<br /> And this is just my opinion, but it's also something I don't feel adds anything to photography. You may as well use robots.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Lex -</p>

<p>The more I think about - I think you're right - they probably would have been using bulbs at the time (I remember shooting with them when I was a 10 year old using my dad's Kodak) - then they would have been 1 shot and pop the used bulb out - and pop in a new one.</p>

<p>Those things were never cool to the touch - for about 3 -5 minutes after you shot - you couldn't touch one - so you had to do the turn it over, push the button and shake it out - letting it drop where ever.</p>

<p>Dave</p>