War victim

First of all I would like to tell that I'm happy this pic was chosen as POW. Thank you.

 

Ok, I was on a one day trip to Burundi together with Belgium's Foreign Affairs Minister Louis Michel to attend the transition ceremony in which Former Burundian President Pierre Buyoya would hand over the power to Burundi's new President Domitien Ndayizeye. Buyoya handed over power as part of an August 2000 power-sharing agreement. Under terms of the agreement, Ndayizeye, a senior member of Frodebu, Burundi's largest Hutu party, took over from Pierre Buyoya, a retired Tutsi army officer who presided over the first 18 months of the three-year transitional government.

 

The ceremony was planned during the afternoon so the Belgian ambassador had organised a visit to the main hospital of Bujumbura during the morning. This hospital is mainly sponsored by the belgian government. Try to imagine that some 20 belgian governmental officials and some 30 journalists arrive in an hospital with almost no beds (people lay on the ground) and an hospital manager that has 45 minutes to show the delegation his hospital. We didn't walk but ran through it. I have felt "white" shame several times, but during this visit I felt really bad. This had nothing to do with respect but only with publicity for our minister so I refused to take pictures (it's impossible to take pictures if you run through bably illuminated rooms where people are stored like cattle). The last room we visited was the operation quarter. There were 4 rooms. The manager opened the first room and everybody took a glimpse inside. than the second door, the third door and finally we had to walk through the 4th operation room to get out of the building. We didn't stop there, 50 people just walked through the room while this, probably minor, operation took place. Now you know why this man is looking like this.

 

OK, OK, technically this pic is far from perfect but presspics are never perfect because we don't practise the "ART" part of photography but use the camera to show what is going on. We just don't have all important factors(perfect light, time, manipulation, choice of background,etc...) to create a perfect pic in hand. We have a camera and a flash and we try to get the message in the picture. This picture was taken when I was walking through the 4th room, I only took one frame. I felt bad in that situation but I also thought this was a good shot so I couldn't resist to shoot. But only one frame!

 

Many people on photonet shoot flowers, landscapes or portraits. You guys have time to measure the light, to "create" the image, to chose your position, your focal, etc... In presspix you've to be able to shoot faster than your shadow otherwise you'll miss the action of the moment.

I fully agree many pix here on photonet are of a much better technically quality but they're all set ups. This is documentary...you should try it.

 

Ohh...it's not because you don't see a soldier in the pic this man is not a war victim. It's not because you aren't shot by a kalashnikov you aren't a war victim. War is a lot more than only shooting. Think about the bad food, the lack of supplies, the fear, the stress or the very bad infrastucture. Burundi is the third poorest country in the world. All people in Burundi, wounded or not, are war victims!

 

Someone was asking why I don't shoot in RAW. Very simple, Raw files are way to heavy if you're supposed to send pix around the world in seconds. You only get 25 images on a 256mb card (photojournalist dare to shoot many, many pix to have one that's just that little bit better than all the other), it takes hours to open them on my old travel laptop and newspaers want jpeg format 2048x1334 pixel. I repeat...photojournalism is no "ART"...it's a testemony.

 

All the best

 

Geert

Congrats, Geert, on this being selected POW. I must agree with doug burgess'

comment of earlier, where he agrees that this is a great pic but not without fault -- i

don't think there is much that i could add to that. Great work, and congratulations

Wow. Thank you for taking the time to share the background surrounding this capture....very compelling.

 

I too thought not much of this selection until I saw the patients big eyes staring right at me. Kind of caught me off guard...a bit of a shock even. A moving photograph indeed. Thanks for posting.

Thanks for the background Gert. Do you happen to know what this man's medical care was for? Just curious. Congrat's on POW!

"I don't see anything within the four borders of this image that tell me this is a war photo. Nothing at all. No guns. No uniforms. No hand grenades or tanks. Nothing. What am I missing?"

What you are missing, Doug is :

1) that journalism is about reality, and that not every hospital surgery room has necessary soldiers all around it to help understand the title...:-)

and 2) that journalism has to treated a it differently compared to other genres, since it is MEANT to be supported by headlines and copy, and often by other pictures as well - so that the title is part of the story.

As for the "more dramatic" print, I agree that the print can be improved, but then again, if Doug's version would be sent as it is to the press, they'd brighten it up for publication, or it would look awful on a newspaper. In an exhibition, then yes, I'd like a version that wouldn't be quite as dark as Doug's, but not as bright as the original POW.

Now, Vuk...

I must say I have agreed with you in many many many occasions since I joined this site, but not today, I'm afraid. You said - and Jacques Henry seems to share your opinion - that the man in the foreground left is detracting. Well, you can say that it takes attention away from the patient indeed, but imo, this is a good thing. Take the man in the foreground out, and frame vertically, as you seem to suggest, and you have a picture of a surgical intervention. As it is here, you've got A LOT more than that imho: you've got a dialog between 3 sides - man on the move, patient, photographer - and it becomes a real summary of different ways to be in such a room. Some are there to see, some are there to be seen, some have to keep an eye on what's going on - and that's the man on the left, or the medical team as a whole.

As for cropping the foreground man's eye off, I'm afraid I wouldn't take that suggestion either. To me this eye is half of the weight of this image.

Cropping the head of the patient was probably a joke, so I guess no response is needed.

Finally, I think people need to remember just this: if you think the man on the left should be there, this is it, because you simply to get a second chance to do better. And personally, I think the left person belongs in the frame, and that his expression and the blur are the best that could happen for this shot.

Geert,

 

Thanks for yor lengthy exposition on the circumstances under

which you shot the photo. It was most interesting, and provided

fascinating insights into the games played between authorities

and media. You are defensive about 'artistic' and technical

shortcomings of the shot, but I think that's missing the real point.

 

I've personally never done any photojournalism, or been within

thousands of miles of a war zone, and I dare say most/all of the

other posters in this thread probably haven't either, at least not

as photographers (though there could well be exceptions of

course).

 

My own prior comments (and perhaps those of some others)

should be considered in the context of the statement, "A POW

selection that hardly needs any justification. The eye of the

surgeon on the move and the patient's eyes tell in a single frame

all the atrocity of wars. Sorry if it ain't very pretty.", echoed in

comments such as, "War pictures don't get any better (or worse)

than this."

 

The problem is, (with the possible exception of those who I just

quoted) we pretty much all have seen 'war pictures', and other

journalistic photos depicting the human condition, that are far

better, both as photos and as reportage. This photo may not be

"very pretty", but it certainly ain't too ugly either. And it doesn't tell

much of a story; an African patient looks at the camera during

surgery. Your words painted a far more vivid picture of the

situation -- and that underscores what is lacking in this

photograph, in this case worth considerably less than the few

dozen words that you typed.

 

Most major daily papers publish better examples of

photojournalism, including war pictures, every day (and indeed,

many of the best don't get published for dubious 'editorial'

reasons, or don't make it past military censors). That is the bar.

 

You didn't choose to make this shot POW, nor did you see fit to

praise it to the skies, or attach an unsupportable, hyperbolic

description to it. It's a reasonably good representative of

real-world, war-zone photojournalism in photonet, perhaps as

good as we'll ever see in here. Even so, there is much to

comment about it, where it fails, and how it might be improved.

 

Perhaps if you find yourself presented with such an opportunity

in the future, your instinct will be a bit more alive to the

possiblities and responsibilities of the occassion. The same

applies to anyone else who might read this discussion.

Marc, I'm in general agreement with respect to your comment regarding the crop, etc, but some of what you write I find to be irrelevant. This image may well be part of a story, and may well look better in a newspaper at its posted contrast range, but it is not posted here as part of a story, and this is not a newspaper.

Today, it is presented as POW all by itself, and additionally has been purported to represent the horrors of war in grand fashion. As good as the picture is, it falls short because the verbiage necessary to support it had not been included until Geert supplied it. Having read the story by way of Geert's narrative, the picture makes sense, sure, and we can appreciate the difficulties in obtaining it, but all the words in the world won't make it a better picture. They will just help it to make more sense. Otherwise, it could have been any low tech surgical operation being conducted in any number of locations around the world.

So, are we to judge this POW based on the degree of difficulty, on how tough it was to get the shot, on the completeness of the story it belongs to, or some other non-photographic criteria? Or are we to judge the photograph on the photography?

"I've personally never done any photojournalism, or been within thousands of miles of a war zone, and I dare say most/all of the other posters in this thread probably haven't either, at least not as photographers (though there could well be exceptions of course)."

Well, I haven't been in a war-zone before, and I thank God for that, but if you haven't done any photo-journalism before, why assume others haven't. I've been a full time journalist for 4 years full-time, specialized in social and culture. Which doesn't make me more competent that anyone else here, except that it helps me realize how hard it is to grab anything meaningful when everything around moves at the speed of the shutter.

"We pretty much all have seen 'war pictures', and other journalistic photos depicting the human condition, that are far better, both as photos and as reportage. This photo may not be "very pretty", but it certainly ain't too ugly either."

We all have seen...? Yes, but not on photo.net, or at least not war-related images. "Pictures depicting human conditions" is very vague. Certainly the kind of reportage I used to do regarding human condition isn't even 20% as difficult as making something out of a moving nothing - which is what this POW does. This isn't a war picture, but an hospital picture, which happens to have been taken with a war victim in front of the camera - I see a major difference there; and when you say it isn't to ugly, you are right if by ugliness you mean blood. But that's what I find great about this shot. It needs no blood, no soldiers, no guns, and yet tells us a lot about what's a war - but from a psychological point of view, based on expressions only. It doesn't say war, but the title does, and to me, that's enough. A good journalistic picture is a picture that manages to depict the tension of an action in a way that effects us emotionally. It can be achieved in many ways and needs no blood to succeed though the media seem to believe the contrary.

"And it doesn't tell much of a story; an African patient looks at the camera during surgery."

Yes. And that's it ? Yes ! And it tells you no story...? Well, do you believe that expressions and more so a juxtaposition of 2 expressions can ever tell a story ? If you have seen many better pictures than that in the above circumstances, what about providing a few examples ?

"Your words painted a far more vivid picture of the situation -- and that underscores what is lacking in this photograph."

Vivid ? What would you mean with this word exactly in the present context ?

"Most major daily papers publish better examples of photojournalism, including war pictures, every day."

Examples please...?

"It's a reasonably good representative of real-world, war-zone photojournalism in photonet, perhaps as good as we'll ever see in here. Even so, there is much to comment about it, where it fails, and how it might be improved."

You may want to tell us where it fails perhaps. And if you say this is one of the best journalistic photos we'll ever see on PN, then what exactly is the problem ?

Congratulations Geert! I am very happy that you have been recognized with this honor. In a sea of pretty photographic composites and sunrises and saturated colors your photography stands out to me because it pictures the human condition. I dont care if its not always graphically appealing. It has heart and you tell stories about what matters most: the age old themes and everyday lives of human beings. It reminds me who we are and how we have always been vulnerable to the overwhelming forces of politics and business and the global movements driven by the insatiable hunger in the human heart. All the while peoples lives are in the balance; ordinary people that are easily forgotten. What you continually remind me is that its in the everyday lives of these ordinary people that the drama of the human condition plays out. This is not what Im supposed to write in the POW discussion. Im supposed to discuss the relative merits of this photo. But I wanted to tell you how much I admire your work, your dedication and your very human heart.

 

This is probably, in Elvis (Fester Biggelsworth, et al) acerbic words "insupportable hyperbole" but I dont care about that either. Ive been mentored by masters who advise that if youre going to give a compliment make it a big one and then throw the glasses into the hearth. Scoal!

"This image may well be part of a story, and may well look better in a newspaper at its posted contrast range, but it is not posted here as part of a story, and this is not a newspaper."

Agreed. Trouble is that Photo.net will never be a newspaper. So, what do you suggest ? That photo-journalists stop posting on the net or post with a copy attached ? Not easy to answer this, I guess. What the photographer did is to supply a title.

"Today, it is presented as POW all by itself"

No choice ! Except that there is the title.

"...and additionally has been purported to represent the horrors of war in grand fashion."

Now hold on... You discard the title, want the picture to stand all alone without a title, but then you refer to the Elves intro as if it would be important. It's not Geert who wrote this intro ! What Geert wrote was THE TITLE. Now are we critiquing the picture with the title, or are we critiquing what the Elves wrote ?

"As good as the picture is, it falls short because the verbiage necessary to support it had not been included until Geert supplied it."

Falls short in which department ? Information ? Or...?

"Having read the story by way of Geert's narrative, the picture makes sense, sure, and we can appreciate the difficulties in obtaining it, but all the words in the world won't make it a better picture."

So far, except for the print quality, you haven't really told us why this image falls short, have you ? Now please imagine that the Elves didn't write an intro and that Geert would have given you no details at all. Can you please look again at the picture WITH its title, and tell us what can or should be improved ?

You add that words "will just help it to make more sense". Make more sense ? You mean : give more context, right ? Or do you mean that this picture makes no sense as it is, as in "signifies nothing".

"Otherwise, it could have been any low tech surgical operation being conducted in any number of locations around the world."

A photo taken for journalistic purposes is not suppose to tell ALL THE NEWS in a single frame - in documentary and journalistic photography.

"So, are we to judge this POW based on the degree of difficulty, on how tough it was to get the shot, on the completeness of the story it belongs to, or some other non-photographic criteria?"

NONE OF THESE. I believe you should look at the picture and receive the message it conveys with its title. You should expect to get a "complete" story in a single frame, because this is by no means a necessity of the genre.

"Or are we to judge the photograph on the photography?"

That sounds better, yes. So, what about that ?

Marc.

 

I am not opposed to the guy on the left being in the frame per se. What I find annoying is that he's not in focus (especially considering the amount of space he takes up AND that he's in the foreground).

Ok, thanks Vuk. We still disagree, but a bit less. :-) I personally like the depth created by the distance between foreground man and patient and by the proximity of this man to the camera. As for the "out of focus" bit, I suspect there was no chance to shoot at f16 or 22 in these circumstances, but beyond that, when I first saw this picture, my eye just quickly passed the foreground to discover the patient and the expression of the foreground man appeared to me after that only, almost as if he was telling the photographer the story. I find this very original, powerful and interesting personally.

I'm afraid my first impression was that the patient was having a shell eradicated from his gluteus maximus, and he was somewhat embarrassed to have his picture taken during the process. Nonetheless, while I don't think this picture paints a very powerful portrait of war, I do find the shot well captured. Congrats on POW Geert.

 

Bill

Sorry, but this non-medical trained viewer does not see this as an extraordinarily captured moment. Aesthetics and allowances for related technical shortcomings aside given the photojournalistic context, what bothers me is the telling lack of medical support equipment in the photo.

 

Okay, so there's an I.V. but that's standard routine in a triage waiting room. This, however is some sort of an operating room. And so, where is the standby blood supply just in case?? Or if there's a bullet near a kidney, where's the dialysys equipment? Nope, this looks like routine surface shrapnel removal from the young man's butt, or something similar.

 

Perhaps I've seen too much M*A*S*H* in my day to know any better... or maybe I've watched too many medical and detective dramas that make me put two plus two together and not end up with three??

 

I do agree, however, that the eyes of the two main figures, including the blurred man at left, make this a curiously albeit mildly compelling photo in its ambiguity. And, I do enjoy a mystery, as well as I enjoy a dose of ambiguity in art and photography!

"Sorry, but this non-medical trained viewer does not see this as an extraordinarily captured moment."

 

Allow me to rephrase this statement I made to read thus: "Sorry, but this non-medical trained viewer does not see this as an extraordinary moment captured." It is, however, an extraordinarily visually engaging photographic moment captured. And, for that, the POW is well served and deserved, as this fosters discussion about the important topic of photojournalism and the value of such photographs as photographic art, per se, as well as their reportage value.

This is fun this discussion. I really like you people discuss more about the subject than about the technical details. Photojournalistic pix have to attract the attention of the readers of a newspaper/magazine. A news article without a photo is telling more or less the same as a news pic without the article.

When I was just posting on photonet I wrote captions with the pix. One day I did get a few critiques that I must have been after the "longest caption of the year award". I thought it was very funny because you simply can't tell a lot about a flower pic except the flower's name, the latin name and where it was taken but most of the flower photographers don't even take the time to write these few words. After that discussion I stopped writing captions on photonet. Maybe I shouldn't have done that.

Journalistic pix DO NEED A CAPTION. Without it the pic isn't worth anything.

If you check the news pix on yahoo or aol you'll see that news pix always have captions that include the 5W's : What, where, when, why and who. If you see a perfect pic of an american soldier in a dessert without a caption you'll never know if it's taken in Iraq or Afghanistan, why he's standing there, what he's doing or where he's going. The pic is perfect but of no use for what it's meant to be...published in a paper to illustrate an article.

 

I sound boring, I know, but I repeat again my often made oneliner : "photojournalisme is no ART" and therefor it can be hard for photographers who practise an other discipline to evaluate this kind of photography and I don't have any problem with that. News pix have to move people and make them think about the subject. When I see someone looking longer than 2 secondes to one of my pix that's published in a paper I know I did a good job. Most people don't look longer than half a second to an average pic in a paper, and so do I, except when it's a moving one, than I look several minutes. To take technically perfect moving news pix you need a lot of luck. Good newsphotographers have got more luck than average photographers. It's like with soccer players. A good one will see the ball going in the goal, an average one will see the ball hitting the post.

 

About the out of focus man in the left I only want to add this : without him I never would have used this pic, without him it would be a boring picture with no depth, no composition and no mistery.

 

All the best and keep on discussing the subject...I like it

 

Geert

damn!! a POW that i actually like. very very nice. the foreground

blur adds to the photo imo. elves: put some more not so pretty photos

in POW please!

Dear Gary,

 

In some third world countries doctors have to work with the available equipment. If there's no blood, than there's no blood. If there's no scanner, there's no scanner. If there are no medecines, .... It's as simple as that.

The man on the picture is probably not badly wounded, I don't know...I stood there for only 5 secondes.

I feel I have reaped the whirlwind!I am aware that Geert is a type of victim here in that sense, that he didn't chose this as POW, etc. But he did post it, and so his posting is up for comment.

Granted, the title "War Victim" places the image within a certain context, and within that context, the image has more meaning, and more power. In this you are correct and I'm wrong. As a picture on its own, it doesn't tell everything, though. I'm on record as not believing a picture should be required to stand alone, but I also don't believe that just because this is journalism, that it should be excused for not standing alone. The fact is that it needs support to be fully understood. Maybe that's a characteristic of journalism. But think about it: If there were a soldier present, or if we say part of his uniform, or if we saw weapons leaning against the gurney, wouldn't that make a more complete image, or an image that supported the title, and vice versa? I think you will have to concede the answer to this question is a definite Yes.

Actually, when you consider it, neither the picture, nor the title support each other because there are no other War cues. Ok, so the title tells me this is a war victim, but it could be a car accident victim. The title could say: Hit and Run Victim. Or, Domestic Violence Victim. Or Robbery Victim. In these examples there is little congruity between the image and its "story." This is what I mean by falling short.

Even so, I can only make these assertions with respect to knowing the true background of the image. If it had been presented without a blurb, and even without a title, I would be left with only the image as criteria for judgement. In that case I would say the shortcomings are evidenced mostly by the blown out highlights, and the large fuzzy guy in the front, although I find this character somewhat helpful as an element of Story. In all, I think the composition is really good, and it does tell a story, but, that story is open to any interpretation apart from the title. The title suggests A story, but not necessarily THE story. If photographs like this are to be presented, then perhaps the whole series of images should be posted, and not just one.

So, this isn't a newspaper? Yes, I'll agree to that. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't judge the image by lesser standards. What if I were to say that all of my images were produced for newspapers and other low quality media, and then just post them without careful scrinting? Hey, no low marks for aesthetics because it's supposed to look like this when I submit it to my editor.

I'm looking at the presented image. If a posting comes up gray and mottled, then I can say the image is gray and mottled. True, this one may print well in a newspaper, but all that means is that the elves should have submitted it to a local printing press and then land-mailed sheets of newsprint to the photo.net membership. Has the image been optimally scrinted? Not in my opinion. I say there's room for improvement. Not that Geert's image is "bad" but that it could be better, and it could be better by making it darker. Here again I will have to accept your concession, that this is true.

Judging the photograph by Photography. If that were our task I think you would have to agree that we have a well composed image, but one possessing a faulty contrast range resultant from an incorrectly exposed/processed negative, and a questionable foreground element. It could be worse.

Judging the photograph by Journalism are we supposed to excuse poor composition, and bad printing, and fuzzy people in the foreground, etc just because of the nature of journalism? Just because journalism in the real world and isn't easy?

You say "A photo taken for journalistic purposes is not suppose to tell ALL THE NEWS in a single frame"

Well, with an easy way out like this, it's no wonder journalists are the subject of so much disrespect.

What does this photo tell me? It tells me that the man is having some most likely minor surgery performed in a hospital that has probably not great supplies and equipment, but adequate at least probably for what is being done here. It looks like there are more than enough people there to do it, the setting is sterile, apart from your intrusion, and some of the people may be learning how to do the procedure. As for it being related to war, I guess you can argue successfully that he is a victim of war, although I don't feel the photo necessarily tells me this.

 

Most of all it tells me, from many of the expressions, including the man on the left and the man having the procedure, that you are maybe intruding and do not have permission to take a photo of this surgery, except from the people giving you the tour. The man on the left feels angry maybe, the patient looks perhaps embarrassed, mostly frightened and hopefully not in pain. Most look like "what the hell are you doing here taking this picture?" The surgeon and people working are not paying any attention to you which is a good thing.

 

Compositionally it works, it's well done, considering the amount of time you had to do it. I don't feel it portrays all the atrocities of war, maybe some. All, is really an absolute, and it's usually good to stay away from them. I certainly have seen many more "unpretty" photos than this elsewhere and on this site.

 

I guess the main message I'm getting is one of intrusion and of detachment. Sort of here look at this specimen. Of someone, the "photojournalist", who is detached to a large degree from what he/she is doing, in that ie: you are not a caregiver, or someone personally involved, or even living in the area maybe etc., who quickly takes the picture and then leaves handing it off to whoever is paying you to do it and then it may be used for whatever purpose. To inform, or for propaganda of some kind etc. This based on what I can see here only in the photo, since I don't have much knowledge of the actual circumstances.

I mean, did you follow last week's advice and burn all the books ? Well, if you did, you left one behind...:-) And this week, by the book again, sorry, here is my reply to your "stand-alone" requisit...

"If you see a perfect pic of an american soldier in a dessert without a caption you'll never know if it's taken in Iraq or Afghanistan." said Geert...

This is obviously correct, but here, there are theoretically 2 kinds of pictures:

1) The purely journalistic picture that tell you all you need to know - including, that this is is Irak and where in Irak (or elsewhere), including who are the people on the pix, etc. This is the core of THE NEWS.

2) 2nd type is the general take, the image that gets your heart, which might tell you nothing at all about the where, the who, the when, but which, if considered on its own, will tell you a lot more important things than that: psychological profile of a situation for example.

I'm not sure how you call the 2nd type in English, but in French it's called "L'accroche" - direct translation would be "the hook", i.e the picture that gets the reader's attention and makes you think. Geert's picture is very obviously the 2nd type. Now you've got no choice if you want to get it: you'll need to read the 2 expressions, and if they don't tell you anything, then too bad.

"L'accroche" is by no means a complete story: it's generally an intro shot or a conclusion. If you want to know more, buy the magazine/newspaper, and that's that. Don't ask a picture to be a magazine. Sebastiao Salgado spent 4 (or 6? I forgot) years to complete his reportage about immigrants all over the World, and to do so, he visited over 40 countries. See the images he brought back, and you'll see some absolutely amazing shots that actually tell you strictly no news on their own, but they tell you the world instead. The daily news are incidental, History isn't; the daily news are the tree, History the forest, and the danger is to let the tree hide the forest. Some photographs are meant to tell you more about History and Human Condition than about what happened on wednesday in an hospital room. To me, this is one of them. The job this week is not to ask for news, but to explain why this image mat fail in category 2, as an "accroche".

I mean... did you really mean to say this: "If there were a soldier present, or if we say part of his uniform, or if we saw weapons leaning against the gurney, wouldn't that make a more complete image, or an image that supported the title, and vice versa? I think you will have to concede the answer to this question is a definite Yes."

Answer: no, I will concede nothing. :-) You want this to be a complete news shot, that's all. It's a misunderstanding of what journalism truly is - see previous post. I would even add that it's reasonably ridiculous to ask for a soldier to be there. There was no soldier. This is not a posed photo, there were no models available. This is reality.

Here's something I agree with: "The title could say: Hit and Run Victim. Or, Domestic Violence Victim. Or Robbery Victim."

It could indeed say all this, I suppose. Conclusion ? It's an "accroche" shot, not what you expect it to be, which is a complete story as you imagine it. The FACT is that this is a war victim, though... But the question is: "Does it matter, or does the image still perform an accroche function by conveying not an information, but a more general message - which would become more specific only if supported by copy or other images ?"

Dear Doug,

 

I just checked out your pix and I only can say that you're a very talented portrait photographer. Sure, I'm not able to make portraits as good as you do. When I just started as a photojournalist I often gave critique's on pictures I saw in the newspapers..."pwa, this I could have done better" or "damn, what a boring picture". After being a photojournalist myself for a couple of months I stopped giving that critiques because I found out that you only can critique a journalistic picture if you were there yourself, if you know what the working conditions were and if you know something about the subject. If I could take a pic of Bin Laden I would not give a damn if it was sharp or not, if it was over or underexposed as long as he's on the pic it's OK If I took a very badly made pic of Bin Laden tomorrow it would be front page of all newspapers and I would be rich. This doesn't mean I wouldn't try to make it as good as possible, don't understand me wrong.

 

Back to this pic. I mentioned that I only shot one frame of this scene and that when I was walking through the room. I didn't measured the light, you probably measure it several times before you make your portraits and you probably shoot several films. The burned out part on the surgeon is a result of this fast work. If I had shot two frames, the burned out part wouldn't be there anymore, believe me, but the atmosphere and composition would have been gone. Photojournalisme is something completly different than portrait photography, a discipline I don't control. You can't compare tomatoes with apples.

You also say the title is confusing...but if you know the pic is taken in Burundi you should know it's probably not a car accident because almost nobody owns a car overthere. The "rich?" own a donkey or horse! You also should know that when there are no fights 25% of the population has got no income. War is employer number one in Burundi...thus this make sense?

I didn't choose this pic to be POW but I posted this pic here, and yes I did, because now there are maybe some people here on photonet that know a little more about Burundi, maybe some took a map to find out where it's situated in Africa, maybe some of them tried to find some information. I posted my pix here because my pix are almost always published without my name...I almost never get reactions on my work, except from my colleague's and my boss, and I thought this would be a great way to find out what other people think about my work. Some have called my an anti semitist because I posted a pic of some palestinians. Some have even called me the devil for posting a pic of Donald Rumsfeld. I thought it was great to see how emotionally some photonetters got just by seeing my work...I was a very happy man. For the first time I really saw what some of my pix provocate. That's why I post my pix here. Not to receive points or tips on how I could improve the lightning by lowering my position or doing a step to the right, Using F8 instead of F5.6 for that bit more DOF that would make the pic more perfect. Those things I see myself but I can't do the shooting over again.

 

All the Best...Geert

 

Geert

Now I'm wondering why you didn't ask for a soldier or a jeep, or a flag somewhere in John Orr's POW... After all, John's wall - which I loved as much as you did -, didn't give any context at all either, right ? But I suspect you looked at it from an artistic perspective. Yet, it could have been an excellent accroche shot for about any article about any war. To me, the same goes for Geert's POW - though the 2 POWs are very different obviously...