Leica rescue in New Orleans

[david_l3]

I have to share this part of a story from New Orleans. "One woman loaded up her boat

with ... the 1957 Leica camera that belonged to her grandfather." The full story is here:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/topstory/3339965

 

I spent the first half of today volunteering at the Astrodome in Houston. I had my M4-2

and a 35mm Summicron but we were explicitly told that no photographs were allowed.

Even cell phone camera shots weren't allowed. This was out of respect for the guests, the

citizens of Louisiana. So respectfully I kept the Leica in the waist pack and didn't take any

shots of the numerous excellent photo opportunities I saw. Oh well, but the amazing

stories I heard more than made up for the missed photos.

 

If you are over 18 years old, and live in the Houston area, please consider volunteering.

http://www.volunteercenter.us/rsvp6.htm

[_cire_.]

"...but we were explicitly told that no photographs were allowed."

 

when i was kid, well, i still do it, but whenever i see a "Do Not Touch Wet Paint" sign, I just have to touch. Excuse the difference of opinion, but i would have been firing away.

[feli]

>This was out of respect for the guests, the citizens of Louisiana.

 

This is so ridiculous. This PC bull is going to assure that there is no record of these events

for future generations. Because of this ridiculous behavior we will not have pictures like

this:

 

 

http://history1900s.about.com/library/graphics/gd45.gif

 

http://www.masters-of-photography.com/L/lange/lange.html

 

 

By the way, good show, for helping out.

 

 

feli

[david j.lee]

respect my ass......this is called censorship.

[rich815]

I do not see any mention of a Leica in that article. Did I miss it?

[bart feliciano]

A few pics may help ensure that future disasters are better prepared for...

[jtdnyc]

I think that professional photojournalists have the right and indeed the obligation to document the conditions at the Astrodome, for all the reasons expressed above...but, if there are already photojournalists present, volunteers who come to help the homeless might reasonably be expected not to exploit their caregiver status by pursuing their photographic hobby. I would hold doctors and police officers to the same rule.

 

It isn't that photographing these unfortunate people is wrong; it's just that it might be inappropriate for people in these particular care-giving roles.

 

I'm all in favor of breaking the rules before succumbing to illegal censorship. But in this case, assuming David isn't a professional photojournalist, I think he did the right thing. And if he is a pro and yet decided that in these particular circumstances there was something more important to do than "get the shot," he still has my respect. In any event he has my admiration for volunteering.

[RobertChura]

Richard if you read the last paragraph it states she grabbed the 57 Leica

[RobertChura]

That should be the third from last paragraph

[h._p.]

"I would hold doctors and police officers to the same rule."

 

According to an eyewitness report on the BBC, not only were policemen taking pictures of the victims, they were sexually harrassing young women asking for help. Not a good image, I'm afraid.

[andrew robertson]

It's beyond censorship. It's pure psyops 'information control'. Politicians would prefer that

raw uncensored images not escape NO.

[tvih]

Well, prohibiting such shooting is wrongful censorship indeed. Unless the subject doesn't want to be photographed, no one can really lawfully deny such photographing as far as I know. Still, in such a situation it probably would be a good idea to ask each subject before taking a shot, even if this would lose a bit of the "originality" of the shot. THIS would be the proper way of respecting those people, instead. Of course you probably wouldn't even need to ask if the subjects don't seem uncomfortable by the presence of a photographer.

 

What comes to professional photojournalists vs. hobbyists, I think in such cases it doesn't matter which you are. Anyone with a camera can be a photojournalist in a given situation - it doesn't have to be your profession. In the end what matters is the shot and the message it conveys, not who took it.

 

And as for "taking advantage of a care-giving role", well, isn't taking photos and thus telling the world about their situation caring as well? Besides there's nothing wrong with taking a few pictures in addition to your other duties as long as you still do your other duties. A care-giver can actually probably better present the situation than an outside photographer, at least if he/she is into photography.

[Alex_Es]

"Respect for the guests" is rubbish. Obviously the Bush people do not want the world to see the horror that Federal sloppiness is in part responsible for.

[clauder]

will we see a 'war on weather' now after the 'war on terror'?

[frank_meeker]

You people politicize anything and everything. It seems that your hate for George Bush trancends everything ; this behavior is so tedious.

David L. went there to volunteer to HELP. From the info in the thread, it appears that he was not there as a pj but as a VOLUNTEER. I suspect that whoever allowed him to enter expected him to help, not hang around taking pictures. Why is this so hard to understand?

BTW, David, hats off to you for your service.

 

Perhaps the complainers here would prefer the antics of Sean Penn and his rediculous behavior in a rented boat. His entourage (that included a personal photographer) was so big that it was impossible to fit many rescuees in the boat. He also forgot to put the plug in the boat so most of the effort by the entourage was spent in bailing. He did get his attack soundbite out though not many people were rescued. ABC TV even made fun of his obvious public relations ploy.

Disgusting behavior.

 

Get out your checkbooks and send some money to the Red Cross. Do something to help instead of complaining and whining about politics.

We've all heard it before...

 

Regards,

 

Frank M.

[clauder]

Frank,<br>

get off your high horse (does that phrase exist in english?)... Europe was covered in natural disasters this year (most of portugal and spain burned down by bush fires, severe flooding in east europe), and none of you holier than you guys even noticed that, not to even mention offering any kind of help. so stop telling everyone else whos the good and the bad! I paid my fair share to medecins sans frontieres, so who are you to tell me what I should do, without knowing ANYTHING about me?!

[35mmdelux]

The photogs job is to get the shot, whether they like it or not. Would be nice if the same standards were held to those dying all over the world. We're talking hip shooting now. Shoot first, ask questions later.

 

Authorities never like important shots because it demonstrates how incompetent they are. The king has no close.

[frank_meeker]

Thanks Claude; you've made my point...

[patrick l.]

As a photographer that shoots for a living, both editorial and advertising work, I know

there is a time and place for everything. If one volunteers to help victims of any type

of catastrophe, then that is one's role there. Persons exploiting victims of a natural

disaster, the homeless on the street, or any one of a number of sad situations should

remember the golden rule. With a legitimate assignment from a publication and the

permission of the managing agency and the PERMISSION of the subject, yeah, then it

is okay to make a picture. Otherwise one should respect the individuals who are not

even sure of where they will be living is six months.

[preston_merchant]

There are plenty of photos from the Astrodome.

 

http://tinyurl.com/dfkcu

[douglas k.]

Feli's post is hilariously illogical. He writes that "Because of this ridiculous behavior we will not have pictures like this:" and then gives links to just those pictures that "we will not have."

 

If you volunteer to help people, it seems perfectly reasonable that authorities expect you to actually help people -- even if you are Al Kaplan. And for those ignoramuses who are wailing that censorship will prevent us from having pictures of this tragedy, I can only ask if they have seen TV and any newspapers in the last week? The images are inescapable, really.

[jtk]

Douglas is right. And David responded honorably by respecting the people.

 

BBC did a beautiful job, including direct personal involvement in rescue operations...above and beyond. The important news isn't the suffering of these people, it's what's next...

 

I remember how shocked my father, a USAF Colonel, was when he finally understood the villany of his Commander in Chief, Richard Nixon. We seem to be in a parallel situation today.

[nathaniel_pearson]

Frank, just curious:

 

Do you consider George Bush's barnstorming of the hurricane-ravaged area to be as

ridiculous a PR stunt as Sean Penn's? Do you hold Bush and his entourage

accountable for not fitting many rescuees onto whichever press-filled, fuel-guzzling,

runway/airspace-hogging vehicle he arrived in?

 

In answering, please spare us any 'respect the office of the presidency' platitudes --

we all know that no matter who you are, if you invite the press to cover your morale-

boosting tour of a disaster site, PR is PR. This is not to say he shouldn't have gone or

that he should be spending his time in a flightsuit attempting rescue maneuvers he

might have actually known how to do had he obeyed orders as a National Guard

enlistee; I'm just curious whether you apply your standards of celebrity scorn

uniformly or not.

[david_l3]

Hey all, the need is great for help and hard work from individuals. I looked into those people?s eyes and heard their stories of unimaginable hardships and loss. I wouldn?t trade 100 rolls of exposed Tri-X for the things I saw and heard. In fact I?m going back (without camera) if I can get time off my job. The work will have an affect on you, if you care.

 

The images will be in my mind, where it matters most.

[jonathan_houser]

David, I think you did the right thing. I understand why they would confiscate camera

phones and whatnot. There is a BIG difference between David's M4 and some jacka**

snapping some photo's of an unfortunate girl with his camera phone. Where do you draw

the line? BTW Feli, when those photos were taken only a handful of people had cameras.

Those who did knew how to respectfully use them.

 

Only David would know if it felt appropreate to him or not. What would be running

through MY mind as a pulled my Leica out would be, what if someone IS unhappy about

me taking their picture. People under extreme stress do unreasonable things. That could

be the last time you see your M4, or at least in one piece.