Anti-War Demonstration Photos

[t_t1]

I covered the Anti-War protest at UC Berkeley Sproul Plaza today.

Here are a few select photographs from that event. Both

'Anti-War' and 'Pro-U.S. action' supporters were present. In one

of my shots, you can see some heated debate taking place.

 

<p>

 

All shots were taken with Leica M6 TTL and 35 and 50

Summicrons. My cheapy flatbed scanner and one hour

processing probably doesn't do them justice though.

 

<p>

 

 

 

<p>

 

<http://tristantom.com/berkeleyprotest/>

[t_t1]

http://tristantom.com/berkeleyprotest/

[jackflesher]

Tristan:

 

<p>

 

Nice work!

 

<p>

 

First, let's make this link <a

href="http://tristantom.com/berkeleyprotest/">click-enabled</a>.

 

<p>

 

Second, I can't help but wonder if the anti-war protesters of

Berzerkeley have any kind of real life...

[t_t1]

Thanks. The UC Berkeley newspaper had a better photo;

 

<p>

 

<a href="http://www.dailycal.org/article.asp?id=6584">Daily

Californian</a>

 

<p>

 

but hey, it was my first protest..

 

<p>

 

i'm not going to comment on the politics of it, my aim was just to

cover the event...

[peter_hughes1]

<i>Second, I can't help but wonder if the anti-war protesters of

Berzerkeley have any kind of real life...</i><p>Just because one

doesn't agree with the politics here doesn't mean that one has to

make fun of these people, who are, I'm sure, quite sincere in their

beliefs.<p>As for the photos, I would personally try to get in

closer, isolate the subjects, pay attention to the lighting, etc.

This type of photography is very difficult to do well.

[eliot]

I'm with Jack. No one is arguing with their right to protest. I

just think we shouldn't exaggerate their importance by means of news

coverage and photography.

[samir]

Eliot,

You seem disturbed that one can show pictures of people that do not

share your opinions. While I will certainly not regret the Taliban's

regime, I am not convinced that these bombings will bring us closer

to a safer world. By acting the way the US does, more people risk

being influenced by the discours of extremists ... with just more

pains and suffering in the future. So Tristan, congratulations for

posting your pictures and I am happy to see that in the US they are

people voicing their concern, and their legitimate worries. Let's

hope those responsible for the 9/11 will be brought to justice

rapidly and let's hope no more killings to occur. The US is still a

place of freedom, and Tristan's pictures just show us people can

debate ... so Eliot, please let people express themselves.

[andrew_schank]

Why not cover it in the news and with photos? The fact that various

opinions are allowed to be expressed in the US are one of the good

things about this country. If only those things that the majority of

people agree with deserve to be in the news, I think that is

unhealthy. If I was 18 years old right now, I might have a different

take of what is going on myself!

[eliot]

Andrew

 

<p>

 

As I say, they are entitled to express their opinion but they are

not "entitled" to news coverage. That is a choice, which I

personally reject. The problem, you see, is that some 94% of

Americans support the war at this point, and these protesters are a

very minor marginal faction. The news coverage makes it appear

(through the lens of the camera) that they are more numberous than

they really are.

 

<p>

 

The vast vast majority of people, who support the war, aren't out

protesting. They don't appear on TV and in these photos. This is

not Vietnam, no matter how much people at Berkeley would like to

think it is. Let them march and yell as much as they want, but my

guess is that as soon as the TV cameras and photographers left, the

protests would end.

[tse_sung_wu7]

<i>The problem, you see, is that some 94% of Americans support the war

at this point, </i>

<p>

Geez, not this again. Let's just leave all the political discussions

aside shall we? Eliot, what do you think of Tristan's photos? Should

a different focal length be used, different film? What do you think of

the compositions?

[eliot]

Tse-Sung and Tristan

 

<p>

 

As far as the photographs, they are definitely well done and to the

point. I have trouble judging scanned pictures on a small screen,

becasue so much is lost as compared with large sized projected

images, with their eye popping detail and contrast. I think the

composition is quite good. Lens choice seems fine, I think that's a

matter of personal taste between 28, 35, and 50 mm. On my computer

screen, the images appear a little too dark and contrasty for me.

But this could just mean something was lost in the translation

process. If this was Velvia or another slow slide film, especially

if it were rated faster than the nominal speed, one could get this

result, which is worsened by the harsh overhead lighting conditions.

 

<p>

 

The best "protest" photos I have seen were taken during the Vietnam

era by a famous street photographer Gary _____ (I forgot his last

name, but his work has been displayed at MOMA in New York City). He

photographed using two M4s, usually in B & W, without a lightmeter.

They say he took thousands and thousands of pictures, then edited

them months to a year later. Certainly eccentric but very

effective. Perhaps someone else can remeber his last name. For this

type of photography, there was simply no one better.

[roberto_watson_garc_a]

Winogrand?

[eliot]

Yes. Gary Winogrand. That's the guy. With screwy compositions,

tilted horizons, and all, his photographs had unusual emotional

impact.

[jeff voorhees]

Agree or not, the right to protest is what we are ultimately

defending. Besides, there is something in the water at CAL.

[andrew_schank]

As far as the photos go, You sure had your hands full with that

bright California over head sun-looks like fill flash (with a higher

sync speed than 1/50 second)would have helped in many of the shots to

bring out shadows in people's faces so you could see the expressions

better. By the way, I live 10 minutes from Berkeley, you must be

nearly a neighbor. I think there's more than a few Bay Area folks

who post here.

[tse_sung_wu7]

<i> Agree or not, the right to protest is what we are ultimately

defending. Besides, there is something in the water at CAL. </i>

<p>

You're telling me! No self-respecting Berkeley student would be caught

carrying the signs depicted here:

<p>

<a href="http://tristantom.com/berkeleyprotest/pages/3_jpg.htm">

3_jpg.htm</a><br>

<a href="http://tristantom.com/berkeleyprotest/pages/5_jpg.htm">

5_jpg.htm</a> <br>

<a href="http://tristantom.com/berkeleyprotest/pages/8_jpg.htm">

8_jpg.htm</a> <br>

<a href="http://tristantom.com/berkeleyprotest/pages/1_jpg.htm">

1_jpg.htm</a>

<p>

They must be from Orange County or something.

<p>

;-)

[tony_knapp]

They're not from Orange County. We have better things to do with our

time: work and pay the taxes that support many of those in Berkeley

(and their right to protest).

[t_t1]

Even mediocre photographs and a cheapy Web site can gain

some attention if it deals with a salient topic. I have gotten over

3500 hits since Monday to my protest photo site:

 

<p>

 

<a href="http://tristantom.com/berkeleyprotest/">Berkeley

Protest</a>

 

<p>

 

My goal in striving to be a good documentary photographer was

never to allow my political views to color the photographs. I

aimed simply to cover the event and to do it truthfully.

 

<p>

 

It has pained me that I have received several comments

thanking me for showing more supporters of the U.S. bombings

than protesters of it. This pains me because the plain truth is

that the anti-war protesters outnumbered the supporters at this

event. I know this, I was there. However, the U.S. supporters

were more militant and loud, and gained more attention

because of that fact.

 

<p>

 

However, in an effort to better portray the event as it really

happened, I have re-edited the web presentation. I did not

remove any photos, but added a few such that it overall better

represents the reality of the event and who was present, etc...

 

<p>

 

What is most difficult about having documented this, is the fact

that I am human and naturally have my own beliefs and feelings

about the situation. Putting that aside, striving to capture the

event in a pure fashion, and then editing and portraying my

photos likewise has been difficult for me. Strangely, I have the

power to color my portrayal of the event by choosing which

photos to show and which to hide. But I was witness to both

sides of the argument and wish to portray that...

[tse_sung_wu7]

<i>

What is most difficult about having documented this, is the fact that I

am human and naturally have my own beliefs and feelings about the

situation. Putting that aside, striving to capture the event in a pure

fashion, and then editing and portraying my photos likewise has been

difficult for me. Strangely, I have the power to color my portrayal of

the event by choosing which photos to show and which to hide. But I was

witness to both sides of the argument and wish to portray that... </i>

<p>

Tristan, you have made this discussion interesting again. This just

shows that there is no such thing as an objective photograph. The

choices of the decisive moment and composition determine what part of

our reality we crop, temporally and spatially, to make the photograph.

The collection of images, and their sequence, even more so. People

think that documentation creates an objective outcome, but we know it

doesn't. Salgado has very strong opinions of the people and their

plight that he photographs, and of the message he is trying to get to

the rest of us. It makes sense you would too, and as a journalist, or

creative individual, you may allow yourself to integrate those

impressions into your work.

<p>

You may be very much against what the more numerous protestors are

saying, but that doesn't mean you should manipulate the images in order

to meet your political objectives. What is more interesting is what

feels 'painful'- the fact that your opinion, in this instant, seems in

the minority. How you engage with that could be an important subtext

of your photographs. Or- you might change your opinion after all.

<p>

I often find that my best travel photos are done when I'm alone. I

feel the imperative about recording visual impressions to share later

with others, which diminishes if I'm with someone who shares the same

experience. Traveling alone with a camera is a way to have a dialogue

with what one sees. Perhaps you can view this work as more of a

dialogue, without any pretense of objectivity since it relates to a

topic that you have strong feelings about. This is happening in your

own backyard, and you have a strong opinion. What better way to engage

with it than with your camera.

<p>

In the end, the photographer is always present even though one may not

see him or her in any of the photos.

[andy_piper2]

Another demonstration: No debate, just solidarity.

 

<p>

 

.

<center>

<img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=391714&

size=md" width=640 height=450>

</center>

[mark13]

Wow, has this post ever opened a can of worms.

 

<p>

 

First, everyone (in this country at least) has the right to express

their opinion in a peaceful way and also in a way that respects

others.

 

<p>

 

Second, I think it is fair to question the motivation and sincerity of

some of the protesters. My experience in having got in discussions,

debates and arguments with such people over the years is that a lot of

them are not sincere and really have no idea what the issues are, the

history is and what's really going on - a lot of them are followers

and air heads - usually there are a few who have all the facts and

just don't come to the same conclusions as I do but at least they know

why they're there. But those individuals are few.

 

<p>

 

How should we react to the events of the past month? Most of the

protesters will tell you that violence does not solve anything. They

all want to stand around and talk about how terrible this is, hold

hands, sing Kumbaya and then finish with a great big group hug and

think they have solved the problems of the world. Like I said above -

most of them are air heads.

 

<p>

 

Violence does solve problems - not all problems and not random

violence but the history of the world has many examples of where the

use of force has solved problems. The only 'problem' which remains is

that men have an inherently short memory and a problem once solved

will come up again if those who are supposed to be watching are not

dilligent.

 

<p>

 

As for those who chose to protest - freedom is a wonderful thing,

isn't it. You don't find many protesters in Kabul do you. What is

important here and what the fight is about now and has been many times

in the past is freedom. I would agree that the freedom I speak of

should be extended to the decendents of the Philistines - presently

known as the Palestinians - they need their own state as much as

Isreal needed its own state. They need to live with self rule and

have a right to live as much as those in Isreal. However for those

violent militant Muslims who want a global pan Islamic nation, I would

rather not. I enjoy living in a free country where the church does

not enjoy undue influence over the affairs of the state and where I am

free to worship God as I choose.

 

<p>

 

If violence and the use of force is necessary to punish those who

would commit violent acts against any sovereign nation, then so be it.

They were given the choice and chance to act as a responsible member

of the community of nations. Even such poorly developed nations as

Pakistan have realized that we cannot live in a world where a few mad

men are free to do such terrible acts of violence - they have aligned

with responsible nations and demonstrated that even though they have

furthered the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, they can

and are acting responsibly.

 

<p>

 

For those who want holy war, I say holy shit, bombs away. For those

who realize that we have now and will always have differences and both

respect the differences and want to have a peaceful coexistance, I say

you are my brothers. I find it amazing that from the life of Abraham

came three great religions. We all worship one God and the same God

yet we can't agree on anything. As the Bible tells us (old testement

so it applies to all three) God created us in his image yet we all

look different. That image God saw of himself must not be what we see

in each other - we must look deeper. So too, as God created us all to

look different, could it not be that he created us all to think

different and in doing so made it necessary for him to speak to the

hearts and prophets of the three great groups in slightly different

terms. We all got the same message - that he is the one true God,

that we should love one another and care for one another etc.

However, in speaking to each group in slightly different terms it is

only the details of how we worship and live our lives that are

different, not the core beliefs. They should we not honor him who

created us and love one another, even those whos core beliefs are the

same but practice their worship in slightly different ways?

 

<p>

 

What's the use - no one has listened to this line of reasoning in

thousands of years - no one is going to listen now.

 

<p>

 

Speaking of photography, I liked the photos. I must be a very

uncreative photographer - I look at the work I see posted here with

lots of envy - I wish I could see what you all see when its time to

press the shutter.

[geddert]

Mark,

<br><br>

As a recent graduate of UC Berkeley I feel as if i have some

perspective as to the protesters from that area of the world. I do

not think "most" of them are air heads. Now, you may call them

airheads, but UC Berkeley remains one of the top 10 Universities in

this country in terms of Academic Reputation for one simple reason -

there aren't too many airheads there (although they are some for

sure). i think the people you (and I) disagree with are simply

idealists. I for one am not one, and that is why i will help the

world to continue as it is.

<br><br>

In Berkeley many people are idealists... many will be scoffed for

their radical beliefs, but in the end idealists are the ones that

change the world. In the 20th century I can name a few idealists:

Hitler (I didn't agree with his idealism, but he did have

an "ideal"), M. L. King, Einstein... i know these people are used

excessively and are cliched, but the fact remains that they saw a

problem with the current state of affairs and wanted to change it

(for the better or worse). Idealists are needed to counter "us"

realists - those that have lost or have never had the faith in human

kind to induce radical change. I wish i were the idealist I was 10

years ago, but in the end that passion has disappeared.... it is sad

that there aren't more protests around this country, and that people

feel that being hardened to the ways of the world is a great thing.

<ul>

<i>Imagine there's no countries

<br>It isn't hard to do

<br>Nothing to kill or die for

<br>And no religion too

<br>Imagine all the people

<br>Living life in peace...</i>

</i>

<ul>

<br>- John Lennon

</ul>

</ul>

I personally cannot imagine such a place, but there is no need to

claim anybody with such ideals is an "airhead." For many this would

be an ideal world...

<br>

<br>

As a side note, I like your argument about religion. I personally

think no religion (as a confining institution) would be great - then

we wouldn't be hindered in our communion with God, through ridiculous

fanatics like many tele-evangelists or hard-line Islamic terrorists

[samir]

Airheads, idealists ... that is too simplistic but also an easy way

to downplay the role of the protestors. Violence might sometimes be

necessary but blind violence without reflexion is useless and scary.

First I think no one will regret the Taliban and their regimes, but

why did the US support that regime knowing the attrocities that

regime has done...notably towards women (see www.afghan-

web.com/woman/ or www.rawa.org). Before bombing Afghanistan, I think

those, in the US, responsible in supporting the Taliban should be

made accountable. If Ben Laden received supports from the CIA, those

in the US responsible should be made accountable. There is no debate

in the US, the news coverage is very poor (except maybe PBS) and does

not inform the public adequately, and it is no surprise protestors

come from the universities' crowd. Second, violence brings more

violence: what has Mr. Sharon achieved in Palestine and Israel?

Security? No. Peace? No. WHile he was escalating the repression,

attacks by Palestinians have increased in intensity. The current

bombing of Afghanistan is likely to increase the number of people who

believe the US is evil. What should be done then? First stop

supporting any undemocratic country and dictatorship. Second,

revising the foreign policy perceived as unbalanced. The US image in

the population is not bright because either the US is perceived to

support unpopular and non-democratic government (Taliban, Saudi

Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan... even Irak before 1990), or as an oppressor

who indistinctly bombs and let starve innocent civilians. It seems

now that the US understand that the Israeli-Palestinian must be

resolved along the UN resolution ... let's hope it will work... but

what if violence is the only way to force the Israeli out of the

occupied territory? Would violence be acceptable to you then? To me

violence rarely help achieved anything ...

[tony_rowlett2]

Oops, way too much "political agenda" is creeping into this thread.

Please, let's keep it on track.

<p>

Angelique, your post alone is going to generate some personal email to

me, as moderator, pleading to kick your ass out of here!<p>

All, please, talk about the photography! I don't want to lose

participating Leica enthusiasts from this forum.

[tse_sung_wu7]

<i>Angelique, your post

alone is going to generate

some personal email to me,

as moderator, pleading to

kick your ass out of here!</i>

<p>

Why- because she is critical of

US policy? If you silence her

then the terrorists will have

done far more damage.

<p>

One of the biggest things

terrorists fear is rational

debate.

<p>

Consider- there were

moderate voices among the

Islamic activists- and they

were silenced, leaving only

the extremists to duke it out

and to bring to fruition their

darkest nightmares.

<p>

I agree that this forum should

be about photography- but

don't kick someone out just

b/c their words may appear

to be in the minority. Kick

out Tristan's as well, and

everyone else's.

<p>

My $0.02.