War victim

"Some people believe the story right away and connect immediately with the circumstances involved here; others need to see evidence in order to believe." - Isidro.

I think your summary is spot on. And that's precisely what I don't quite understand.

If people do need to see evidence to believe, do they realize that each time they read a newspaper, they have no evidence that the scenes on the images published in it ever existed - or existed as show and as interpreted by the copy ? And do they realize that they might be reading wrong information in the copy as well ? Why do people start to be suspicious and to demand proof and info only when it comes to the POW on photo.net ? Do they generally suspect everything they see...? No, so I'm puzzled to see that suddenly, a journalistic picture would require an "authentification". As Bob Hixon also pointed out, no evidence or proof of authenticity or key information is ever required by readers for one single journalistic or documentary image.

Marc, the difference is that in a newspaper, it is an obligatory prerequisite in the part of photographer to tell the truth to the best of his knowledge and as close to the facts as possible, or, to suffer the consequences for taking advantage of a situation for personal gain (be it status or the sale of a story etc.) In POW, one can get away with photographic murder and suffer no loss. We need not go any further than this very same forum to see that a POW can be untrue. Im referring to the POW condemned man (by Chris Battey week of Dec. 2/2002) of a wax figure in which many thought we were seeing a real prisoner condemned to death, only to find out that Chris was getting his kicks watching people engage in full speculation to figure out if this was the case. Im not accusing Mr. Geert of doing this; Im only saying that skepticism is acceptable in this forum. I too understand the journalism thing (photo being supported by a story). But, since we have already seen deception in these pages and there was no flogging for the crime, it shouldnt surprise us that a member would permit a little bit of praise to come his way before clarifying any confusion. Neither should we be surprised when a reader raises a flag and asks whether we are getting what we paid for. Plus, you have to admit that this picture, in and of its self, does not depict war and that it needed the narration of the photographer in order to be understood. You also have to admit that once the photographer gave us the (written) FACTS no one doubted the title anymore.

I always feel uneasy when photographing something like this.'

 

I am not sure why the person was under surgery. But I can tell that he was in pain.

 

As a photographer, I feel for situation like that we tend to trivialize other people's pain with pictures.

 

Sure, picture do somewhat capture the pain and horror. But it's from a perspective of an outsider who feels lucky that she/he is not the one lying there.

 

When we look at pictures like that, we do have sympathy. But I suspect the pity is often patronizing.

 

It is simply indecent to reduce human suffering like that into pictures. I am not even sure if there is meaningful consent to have the picture taken.

 

I am not criticizing what photo journalists do. But I do feel that other people/culture's dignity is violated when this kind of picture is taken. It is like watching caged animals.

Just looked at other photos in your folder. Quiet a shocking experience. I really admire that you endanger yourself to capture the horror of the war. Shocked as I am looking at your photos, I somehow feel that there is no way I can even understand the true magnitude of the horro just by looking at the pictures.

 

Thank you for posting.

Isidro, You saved me time in finding appropriate wording in dictionary (in order not to make nuance mistake in expressing my poor thoughts and interpretation of photography). BTW, It is not the first time that our minds crossed each other here.

Also, congratulation to Geert for the POW (I should have started by this earlier... forgive me I was too much in the picture's story), you have made very interesting pictures in your folder (particularly original portrait of "Chirac" and 'clever cadrage' for "the Boys"). Feel sure, if needed, that my comments were purely (as usual as far as I am concerned) focused on the picture which I always try to understand and interpret, and what kind of story it tells me by itself only (since we are in a Photography site...)... Cheers and keeps posting interesting pictures for enjoyable thread !..]:o)

Alan,

 

I only saw the patient's eyes starring at me and that made me take the picture.

What was happening second by second....

 

 

First second : I walked in the room, saw the patient.

 

Second second : I turned my flash 120 degrees right and 45 degrees to the top and checked the settings.

 

Third second : I looked on the screen of my camera to see the settings, it looked a little underexposed but that was OK because there was heavy light above the surgeon (afterwards it turned out to be even a little overexposed).

 

Fourth second : I brought the camera to my eye as the blurry assistent in front walked by and waited till he made room for the subject, the patient. I'm still walking but not as fast as before.

 

Fifth second : I almost stop walking and push the buttom, the patient is still staring at me, I succeded in bringing over to my CCD what I had in mind.

 

The blurry assistent in front, the eyes looking at me, is just how it was. I only saw what excactly was on the pic when I saw it on my laptop. During my presence in the room I only saw the patient's eyes. The assistent walking by let me make the composition (in a fraction of a second and that means luck is needed). The light and flash technique is basis photographic skills. All the rest is luck.

 

In documentary you only have sharpness, exposure and composition in hand...all the rest depends on the subject and lots of luck.

 

Best Geert

Jay,

No hard feelings :-) I know what you might have been thinking. Press photographers sometimes are like sharks and scream to their subject they want to photograph to get the attention or/and in place. That's something I just don't do when shooting documentary pix, never.

Thanks Geert, i appreciate :)

Fact is that due to the picture and what I felt, thought and smelled on the moment I was in the OR, hospital, Burundi on April 30, 2003, I'm the one that always should be interviewed as if "I was the witness of an explosion or a stabbing". In the case i'm just a witness without a camera I couldn't tell you much because everything passed in a few seconds. During the interview I probably say things that were totally different than what really happend. Are you able to spot evrything in the OR in 5 seconds when you saw the scene first. The labeled banana description is perfect and I must say that in this case I put the label...when it would be used in a paper/magazine it's not me but the editor who labels it, without asking me anything about what I saw. Believe me that this pic would be labeled 99.9% "war"In the case of this POW I try to say what I saw and the picture helps...i'm not after fame, the pic must do it's work. I'm not a labeled chiquita banana, being an unlabeled one is a lot more fun :-)...funny this discussions about banana's

All the best

Geert

Moderator comment: To whom it may concern (and you know who you are)... Please see the guidelines on posting on the POW forum: guidelines for posting comments on Photograph of the Week. I've deleted some and edited other comments as some of this week's discussion belongs in e-mails to each other and not on here.

The nominations for this week can be found here:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006h9O

Enjoy!

Geert, what a great capture. It really is everything (IMO) that an image like this should be. The title could change and it wouldn't matter at all. This makes the viewer think, wonder and ponder. What more can art really do in a photojournalistic sense? IMO a great selection... Dave

Ronduit schitterend.

frankly speaking, I don't like the composition which is quite confusing. You need to go near for better pic result. All know what could R Capa to say. Contrast is lacking or tone is not well balansed :(

absolutely pro. keep them coming. very expressional shot.

R Capa is not God, R Capa didn't live in the 21st century and R Capa is not Geert Vanden Wijngaert. Best Geert

The eyes pull you right in. The composition is powerful.

Very moving photograph. I think using B&W was an excellent choice.