screaming camel stuck in river

I just looked at the rest of the roll, and concur with Bruce that 554820 is also an excellent shot, and puts the situation in its true context. Obviously, there was little Robert could have done to help.

 

Bill

Rather beastly, turns my stomach, superbly done both technically and emotionally. The biggest problem with it is that I find it so disturbing that Ill never look at it again

This particular photo, as well as the others on the same theme in Robert's portfolio, are excellent documentary work.

 

I do not agree with the poster who suggests it looks posed. On the contrary the bewildered look of the camel owner staring at the photographer conveys the agony, effort and despair very effectively. It makes the viewer feel involved with the problem at hand. It communicates the same agony and despair right into the viewer's heart.

 

The technical quality of the photo is of an amazingly high standard given the situation. Managing to get such composition and exposure amidst the obvious havoc must have been a difficult task. I understand though that this must have been going on for quite some time, so I suspect Robert had plenty of time to approach the subject and try his hand.

 

From my little experience handling camels, I am not so sure Robert could have helped much in this situation, and some photos of a mess that lasted for hours certainly do not suggest that he didn't or didn't try to. If this 'why weren't you lending a hand' mentality was to be held, we would never see pictures of crises or unhappy events. All the photographers would be busy rescuing people or just kneeling nearby, head-in-hands, crying themselves to oblivion. Being able to capture such an event in such a moving and intense manner is not a sign of lack of compassion. Indeed, I'd dare say one cannot produce such results without sentimental involvement and compassion with the subject matter.

Excellent photojournal shot. The intensity comes through clearly. I think what makes the composition even more powerful is the rather serene expression on the camel's face in the background. It just adds to the intensity in the man's face. The tonal range is very good. Congrats Robert

Exactly how does one lend a hand in a case like this?

 

Thanks for a very poignant and dramatic shot.

This is the only image from Robert's folder which was exposed in such a way as

to give such "an astounding range of tonal values" - in other words, this frame

was either overexposed or all the other's were. Depends on how they were

scanned. Either way, his frame number 584396 is a vastly superior PJ image.

What really surprises me is how so many have chosen to

go along with the party line here. I'm beginning to believe that's what most

people here want? Or maybe everyone is simply getting tired of looking at pretty

landscapes and goofy faces? Congratulations Robert! I'd give you POW just for

having been there. If you get a chance, re-scan image number 584396. That's

the real winner!

Bob,

 

Unlike some of the other comments I've read I believe you not only captured the moment phtographically extremely well but with the man looking directly into the camera you can see the terror and pleading for help inherent to his plight. The camel represents his livelyhood and that of his family as well as most likely having been raised from birth and having become a friend. The photo invokes a sense of the brotherhood of man in that it seeks help in a literal life and death situation from complete strangers. Very Well Done!

This is indeed an excellent image. Technically well-executed, and presented well here. I appreciate being able to see more Robert's coverage of this event, and being able to view more frames solidifies one point in my mind: in this particular image, more so than in any of the others, we feel some reaction to the photographer. Most of the other images betray little reaction from the participants, but in this frame we cannot escape it. The subject (well, the human subject, anyway) is deeply engaged in action, but nonetheless reacts to the photographer, and with him as our on-site surrogate, thus he reacts to us, the viewers.

 

Now, I don't personally think that seeing a subject's reaction lessens a PJ shot (rough analogue: in wildlife photography, rarely are the animals completely unaware of the photographer's presence), but it does necessarily change it. Our perception of the scene is affected by what we perceive to be the subject's reaction to having his picture taken, whether that be surprise, annoyance, anger, enjoyment, or whatever it may be. We cannot just see an image of a man rescuing a camel, we have to see a man rescuing a camel and having his picture taken. This kind of eye contact is engaging, to be sure, but for some it will result in a less spontaneous an unaffected feel.

 

As usual, I guess I'm not taking a strong stand on one side of this debate, but I do find it interesting. Enjoy.

I think it's a great image, both technically and in the emotion it portrays - National Geographic, where are you?- but I confess that after looking at the whole folder, I'm hung up on details.

Why were the camels stuck? Is the mud like quicksand? And how the hell do you get a camel un-stuck?

Amy

Just to clarify, I realize there probably wasn't anything that Robert

could have done to have helped. I'm not saying that he should

have -- though, understand, that the photograph makes the

viewer feel a bit guilty for not lending a hand (which is part of the

image's power). I'm just curious as to how people approach

such situations and what motivates them. This photo makes me

wonder if I would have the guts to get down in the thick of it, raise

my camera and shoot (using fill flash would make me feel even

more intrusive). Would it be easier or harder if I'd interacted with

the people previously? I'm a bit self-conscious about shooting

people without asking for permission -- especially when

travelling in a foreign country. From looking at Robert's portfolio, I

feel that he is able to connect with people and to tap into

situations and tell a story with his camera.

 

Plus, I'm trying to drum up an interesting discussion about travel

photography!

I don't feel this image is the best of the series. I had no idea what was going on in the shot until I read the comments. I wasn't even sure if the camel was alive.

Also, whether or not the shot was posed, the man definitely looks like he's posing.

as for "astounding range of tonal values" - there's black, there's white.....so? Its definitely well, shot, but i don't think these pics are trying to make a formal statement.

Boy, will people disagree with me here, but I can't help it:

 

looks like a very average snapshot to me: camel stuck, guy trying to get it un-stuck, happen to have a camera, snap the shot

 

that's it

 

Dale Goodvin

I have read several opinions about photojournalism ethics. It makes a difference if you made money with this picture or not, but this is not the core subject.

 

It also makes a difference if you had the chance to help save the camels and what you did instead was taking pictures.

 

But the main goal is, as I strongly believe, that communicating this to the world you may create some feeling of solidarity. By making this shot widely available, you open eyes (because of its aesthetics values) and then hearts (because of its human content). High level composition and richness of tones lead look to penetrate all corners and all details and subtleties of the situation. By doing this you contribute a small piece to tolerance and openness of mind towards developing countries and its people.

 

In my opinion, now you have a social responsibility that forces you to "move" this pictures out of this marvellous but technical and narrow forum.

 

Manuel.

 

PD: Note that those are my personal believes and my statement as an artist and a photojournalist. Constructive opinions and critics about this, are welcome.

Matt Kime said: as for the "astounding range of tonal values" - there's black, there's white.....so?

I have to disagree Matt. When I first saw this photo I assumed a filter was used (perhaps green) over the lens when shooting, but it could equally have been post production channel work or whatever. Yes there's black and white... but also every shade of grey imaginable in between. The blacks contain detail and the whites are not blown. Perhaps it was characteristic of the film used, or just the angle of the shot relative to the sun with clouds acting as a useful diffuser. It's not often you see a B&W picture with near perfect exposure as this.

Matt Kime also said: I had no idea what was going on in the shot until I read the comments. I wasn't even sure if the camel was alive.

Should the story of a documentary shot always be blatant in one capture in order to be successful? Perhaps. An interesting question. Personally I think it's acceptable to have the picture supported by a piece of written text which explains. After all in the newspapers we don't just have pictures without the written article. Or for the picture to be presented in context along side other shots (as the rest of the folder) in order to elaborate the story further.

Someone mentioned the use of fill flash, and this is likely to be what disturbs me (lighting seems a bit unnatural, look at the shadows on the camel on the right). As for ethics, I personally feel that even if you can't help in a situation like this, taking pictures really will annoy people, so the least you can do is just do it in the least intrusive way. Salgado's work, though emotionally *deeply* moving, never made me feel as uneasy as this photo does.

I won't deny that this is an intense and nicely exposed photo. I won't deny that the man's expression sticks in my mind, but I have to say that without the caption, I would have absolutely no idea what is going on here. There is a desperate looking man standing on top of and in front of a giant wave of camel parts, and that's all I see. It is certainly bizarre, and that's not all bad.

I usually don't look into the folders of the POW photographer because I feel the discussion should be on the POW as a singular image. However, in this case, having learned from an earlier comment that out-takes were posted, I took a look and found that this photographer and the man in the photograph were not the only people on the scene, as you might expect from just this one image, and so I find it a little ridiculous that the conversation has devolved into a question of the photographer's moral obligation to help. The expression captured here was probably a split second occurrence: The man looked up, the camera was activated, the man looked somewhere else and I seriously doubt he was disturbed by the photographer's picture taking. According to details on one of the other picloads, this type of event happens with some regularity, camels getting stuck in the river. Besides, Robert was probably on automatic, responding more to training than to emotion, which could have kicked in later. Also, who's to say he wasn't helping AND photographing? Maybe he had the only camera and couldn't take pictures of himself...

I am always suprised when the discussion turns to "should he or shouldn't he" taken the photo. I can think of very few instances when you shouldn't. Only if by omission of help, you cause the subject greater harm.

Let me elaborate on that just a bit as I am sure that many would like to jump on that.

 

Only if by the omission of immediate help, you cause the subject immediate or inevitable, physical harm.

Geraldine Allen said: Should the story of a documentary shot always be blatant in one capture in order to be successful?

Blatant? It doesn't have to be blatant per se, but it definitely should NOT be confusing. I find the question of what is going on in this pic to be so strong that it detracts from everything else. I think captions are fine for answering the five "W" questions but ultimately the photo should stand by itself. I think part of my confusion comes from the post of the man. He's standing over the camel with his hands resting on his head and neck. At this particular moment, he's not helping the camel.

I disagree with the previous post. Photojournalism by nature has an intertextual relationship with words. To put it more plainly in photojournalism the signifier is 99 percent of the time composed of two parts, image and caption (jut open a National Geographic). Why not let the caption direct the reader? Doing so does not necessarily have to take away from the quality or power of the photo. Rather it can enhance the viewers entire experience of experiencing/interpretting the photograph.

 

And yes, of course there is plenty of merit to documentary photos that don't require a caption. I just thing that ultimately one can't justify a hierarchy. Needs caption and doesn't need caption are just different; one is not intrinsically better than the other.

 

This is a fantastic photo and the added significance in the "caption" just enhances it. I would be beside myself with happiness if I'd seen this image appear from a roll of film from my camera. Nice work!

This photo really disturbed me on first sight. My first reaction was that the man was trying to drown the camel.

Seeing that all the compliments have been used up, I'll play Devil's Advocate.

I disagree that the premises stated in the "photo of the week" conditions have been met.

First:

1) the successful communication of a documentary shot which conveys the drama of the moment in the powerful expressions of both man and beast.

- Documentary is of the fact or objective, but I could not tell you what is going on here. There is a man on a camel but why? The photo does not visually explain. It does visually show he is looking straight into, and posing for, the camera. People in really dramatic documentary moments don't pose.

 

Second:

2) the technical achievement of capturing an astounding range of tonal values, as well as effective composition, in a situation where time was of the essence.

- This is a fill flash photo, note the shine on the legs & shadow. There was enough time to get the subject to stare & smile. The stuck camel is well, stuck, and not going anywhere. Actually, waiting a bit may have cleared up the confusing & surrealistic arrangement of the background, with one camel's head jutting out of the gentleman's and a tree out of another camels head.

 

I think the photos actual merit is in it's wild, disturbing, surrealism and oddity. It is other-worldly. If you photoshop out the background you have a man wrestling a dinosaur!

Its just a brilliant image and well deserving of the POW. It has, for want of a better word, gravitas. The reaction of the man and distress of the camel suck me right into the struggle. When I looked at the image it was like the visual equivalent of a sonic boom. I immediately was hit by a range of feelings from sympathy to distress to pain. If you ask me, this is what great photography is all about. The fact that the image also has near perfect tonal range is only icing on the cake. Even if the tonal range was less than optimum, the power of the image would still remain. I won't even respond to the issue of the photographer's obligation to help (although Doug Burgess' comments are right on point if you ask me). If one of the roles of photography is to allow us to be voyeurs to the range of human and, in this case, animal experience, then images of pain and struggle are all part of that experience.

 

Wonderful work Robert. Thanks for sharing this phenomenal image with us.

Andrew you must be a Weegee fan.