War victim

Geert,

 

Your photo of Rumsfeld is very strong, and succeeds on a whole other level than this POW selection. Congratulations for that shot. It's a great privilege for us to have a working PJ of your calibre sharing your work and your thoughts here on photonet. Thanks, and thanks for accepting criticism in a generous spirit, as well as for giving us the background of this shot.

Here's a pic I shot in Burundi an hour after the surgeon pic. If I don't tell you it's one of the 300 South African soldiers that protect the Burundese Presidential Palace you could think it was a hutu child soldier...just to prove that a journalistic pic always need some explanation. Geert

Check this out:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1744354

A few weeks back the Elves nominated another shot of exactly the same subject. Both images of this subject are rated better than very good in originality. I live in a muslim country, and I can guarantee that I will find the same scene every single day in every single mosk in the country. So no... the subject IS NOT original - though many people who have never seen the interor of a mosk may think so. BUT this week's POW IS extremely original in its composition and the subject's expressions. That's where one may find a message.

Then I read above that the picture of Rumfeld is a much better shot than this POW. Well, I wonder why. No, it is not. The picture of Rumfeld is a banal picture with nothing going for it except for the fact that it's the Secretary of Defense of the U.S.A on the picture. Photographically, for that one, yes, you can say that the background is a distractiion and adds nothing. Which is certainly not the case of this week's POW, where the foreground adds to the story.

Basically, what are we judging here today ? Are we even looking at the POW ?

Geert has a few other really great shots, but I think only very few compare to this POW as far as emotional impact is concerned. I like the kids in the mental clinic too, in that sense. And most of Geert's other journalistic images are good, but they are NEWS. Why not try to see a bit deeper inside the POW, before acclaiming about any other picture in the folder...?

I find it interesting that 6 of the 9 people in the so-called "war-photo" are looking directly into the camera instead of paying attention to whatever it is that they are supposed to be doing as their respective jobs might demand at such a moment...and the DOCTOR is sure holding the tool which he is using by something OTHER than the opertating end...to me...this looks like a set-up shot...interesting at first cut, but not sustainable for long.

Geert, sincere congratulations on taking great photographs and having guts to share them with us here. This particular photograph is very representative of your style and work you do as a photojournalist and, although you may have better shots in your folders, it does not matter cause each story is equally unique and important to me. I was thinking that with time you'll have enough great shots to publish a book -- how does this work for a photojournlist working for a news agency or a paper? Are photographs you shoot for them your property? I am curious about it.

Have you ever been in such a place ? Are you a surgeon ? Can you tell what the surgeon is actually doing without even seeing his other hand nor the hands of the people around him ? Do you know how many people are needed on a single human body to perform an intervention you know nothing about ? If the goal is to pick on the POW, then go ahead, give us a solid evidence that this is a posed shot...

Jay,

 

LOL and LOL again...you should read my bio.

 

Marc,

 

You live in a muslim country and you're able to see praying muslims everyday so for you the scene of the praying muslims is nothing special. If you would live in Burundi you probably would have the same feeling with this pic. It's all about what you're used to see everyday. I just checked out the AP server to find out how many pix of Burundi were send over the world this year by AP. 67 is the number. I also counted the pictured that were made in Belgium this year. The number is 3278.

Why, thank you Geert. I didn't think I had that many portraits posted. Make sure you see my spectacular sunsets. Sixteen of the best sunsets you will ever lay your eyes on.

 

I understand where you're coming from Geert, and have a deep respect for your work, but I have to argue my side as strongly as possible when I'm tangling horns with Mr. Gouguenheim, who under normal circumstances can debate me into the ground. Please forgive whatever insults may seem to be coming from my comments.

 

I spent a few months as a stringer for the Philadelphia Inquirer under Tom Kennedy way back in 1980 something. I was never given "hard news" but had my share of assignments and a full page spread in one of the weekend sections, etc. (Maybe it was a half page. It's been a while) Anyway, I decided photojournalism was not for me because, mostly, I didn't like taking notes. With every assignment I had to make mug shots and record names and who is who and what was what, etc, and then turn the film and the notes in for processing, only seeing later what came out, or how they were used. This didn't work for me, so I signed off and continued searching for my photographic niche. I still did minor photojournalistic work in the ensuing years that I had more control over, but all in all, the rewards were insufficient, and I've never looked back.

 

The experience afforded me an understanding of your story. I've been in situations like that, pressed for time, with the wrong angle, etc, and, while I'm not the site expert, I feel I can at least look a little beyond the flash and puff. This image, in my opinion is fine, and I would have been happy to have made it.

 

But hear what you are saying. If I read you correctly, you're stating that if you were to make a fuzzy, poor quality image of BinLaden, you will be happy, and rich. Maybe so, but that's won't be because the photo is good, rather because it's newsworthy. You write that it's not an Art, and I agree in a sense, but disagree in a larger sense. It CAN be an art. (Hopefully, someone else will step up and argue this point.)

 

Marc, you say "L'accroche", I say "the money shot"

 

Of course I'm not suggesting posing the shot, adding soldiers, and such, but I am saying that IF a soldier were present that the image of the operating room with an armed soldier would iconographically speak of the Horros of War more so than this, which is a straight hospital scene with little other context. You see, we are not here to argue what Journalism is, but what this photograph is. I understand what Journalism is, but I also understand what photography is. It's the newsworthiness that makes much journalism printable, not the photographic quality. Perhaps pulitzer prize winners are where the photography and journalism coincide, or meld together, but in those cases I would think the image tells more than this. I just don't feel the image here tells enough, and is therefore not the best it could be.

 

I like how the blurry technician hints at the hastiness of Geert's tour, but what's the story? The story is that Geert had a hasty tour. What's the story of this man? Is he a soldier? A villager? A banker? What? All we know is that he's a "war victim" and that because of the title. Actually, do we know this for a fact? Was Geert told: "Here is a war victim getting a bullet pulled out of his ass, now move along, to the next room, let's go, hurry up." How do we know he's not having a boil taken off of his butt? or that he was gored in the groin by a goat? If you ask me, the image tells more the story of Geert's visit to the hospital than it does War in Burundi.

 

Speaking of which, Geert's inline post, above, is a better journalism shot with regard for his story, in my opinion, because it has more cues.

Maria,

 

The pix I shoot for my employer, AP, are AP's property. I only can use the pix I made for them to participate in photo contests.

I'm payed a day and I earn 110 Euro/day as a freelancer, paying my own equipment, car, insurance, etc...Pressphotography is a joke. LOL

Luckely this job at AP gives me the opportunity to travel a lot and earn good money with some commercial jobs and assignments for magazines once in a while. No you don't need to send food, I had enough today....:-)

When I finished school, I had only one dream, being a photojournalist. It's a bit like being a priest or a nurse. You really need to like it more than anything else because for the money you don't have to do it.

The story starts at the moment you can ask a question, Doug. A successful PJ shot asks a question or rises controversy that can be followed by a story.

I can't send you food -- I am trying to make as a non-commercial photographer, I may need some donations, lol. Thank you for your info.

As I commented earlier, and firmly believe, that the image falls apart without the man in the left foreground. The blur adds to the unposed, active, and realistic tone of this image.

 

I too agree that too much time is spent on photo.net arguing over focus/in focus/out of focus issues. If the whole image was perfectly in-focus, I would not like this nearly as much. The way it is now I feel much more like I'm *in* the room rather than just *viewing* the room.

Doug,

 

You're right, this pic tells more the story of my "hurry up" visit than it tells about the war in Burundi. If I knew what kind of surgery was going on there I would tell you but I simply don't know...so this is a bad newspic. I only could sell it as an illustrative pic to a magazine that published the whole story of the minister's visit to Burundi. This is what you call a "snapshot". LOL

 

Geert

 

PS: where are those 16 sunsets? I missed them

This photo has succeeded just from the discussion it has initiated. I thought from the thumbnail the elves had gone insane - it looked incredibly boring and busy. I almost didn't click on the bigger image, but I did. Yes, it IS boring, I thought, and then the patient's eyes grabbed me and changed the whole meaning of the image. It's thought-provoking and disturbing. I can see why it was chosen, simply for the emotions it stirs up in the viewers.

One night pass, I had a server problem (I could see that some didn't and have been quite wordy...)

IMO an efficient and strong photojournalism photo shouldn't required a long comment and explanation. Title should be enough then. But here the title 'war victim' apparently doesnt fit the image and the face, nothing in this picture is obvious.

Victim looks quite ok IMO, at least enough to be more attracted by the camera, not even sweating or crisped - his hand lies gently on the edge of the table, he is not even crisped (and we could easily guess only by looking at the environement that anesthetesic are in option in that room!...).

"war" where is war?, ahh I understand, it is subliminal message... Wild Africa is the continent in perpetual war between those savage tribes as it is regurlarly served in the news during our meal time in Europe and US. Image vehiculed by media is indeed very strong and hard to forget ... case of surgery are more often related to machete warfight than bicycle accident or gas cooker burn isnt it?! ....

so apart from this 'in-minded' image, ...tell where are the signs of war, no weapon, helmet, uniform (ok, everything in the locker room!)... even no blood around (very clean for a war period), no panic nor urgency, so many people available and ready in case (did you count them... I did 8 staff !!!) around this guy which doesnt look like very much injuried, is there no more urgent case, is there any other cases, in a plethore a nurse and doctor in that hospital? Come on Marc, IMO you 've spent long time reading and answering others' comments , ... go back and look at the picture again

To be at least a bit credible to the title and the story that has been detailed afterwards, I do maintain that a crop is quite necessary,..

1 - Foreground guys: not because he is not in focus (as Vuk thinks) but because his stance simply doesnt fit: looks too quiet, peaceful (are we in war?) and smiling eyes (?)

2 - funny eyes also in the back ground making this picture a hilarious stance as viewer are attracted by these 2 white points (what is the intention of the photographer? ... reminds me some picture of LIFE mag. series of "LAUGHS LAST")

3 - cut the head to eye level is not a joke (BTW I am surprised Marc that you can't find anything to say about it), it is the most serious cut IMO, cut because we are is surgery room, cut on the eye line to oblige the viewer to look the 'victim' in the eye and read his panic (part of his head is already out of the frame, what's happen to the rest of his bioody behing the blanket, photographer is active, not as a photographer but as a witness and communicate with the victim, and report it directly to the future viewer of the image... that is my basic concept of photojournalism (or more precisely of war photo-reporter).

So that, second impression is quite the same as the first one... I mentioned about m.a.s.h. (I could read other comment refering to it) , Doug refers to the Monty P. (I agree too), could be also Benny Hill (but would require some more sexy nurse then..!)

Marc,

 

Since you ask, here is why I feel Geert's photo of Donald Rumsfeld, "The Boys" is a better photograph in all respects than "Response to War victim". This has nothing to do with what should or should not be POW, and I only brought it up in the first place because I wanted Geert to know that I respect his work, even though I don't think "War victim" represents his best.

 

"The Boys", as a compositional totality, tells us everything we need to know about who Donald Rumsfeld is as a person, his role as he himself perceives it, the persona he projects through his own demeanor and that of the violent thugs who attend to his whims -- Not very surprising that those who support his policies find the image deeply disturbing, is it?

 

"War victim", in contrast, tells us absolutely nothing about any of the individuals in that room. The patient is a cipher, as indeed are all the medical staff, behind their surgical masks. I really think Geert missed the 'decisive moment' here, though he managed to grab a newsworthy snapshot -- as would virtually anyone else who happened to be present with a camera. As an image, completely innocuous.

 

As Doug observed, "War victim" is only about Geert's whirlwind tour of a Burundi hospital, a souvenir of a rather interesting story that Geert was forced to convey to us in words, for want of a satisfactory photograph...

"...interesting at first cut, but not sustainable for long.

I noticed that Marc and Geert ignored JAY's last point, and chose to focus on the setup question that was, at least to me, a devil's advocate one.

Too many photo contests and competitions are laden with entries that pass the proverbial "gee whiz, look at me" smell test. Thankfully, this is not true of photo.net's POW. Nonetheless, the POW chosen for this week basically passed the latter smell test with flying colors. However, a third smell test, that of discussion-worthiness, may be the most appropriate litmus test for photo.net's POW. and, for this test, this POW passes gloriously (ditto last week's)!

please read "tense" instead of "crisped" ... sorry about that!.. and for the other mistakes I didnt even noticed yet!

... Spent to much time reading and answering the posts, and not enough time looking at the picture...?

Well, if you had spent a bit more time reading the post I took the trouble to write, you may have noticed that I reject entirely the idea that this picture HAS TO give you more information than it does. What it does is to convey a message that is supposed to make you think.

Jacques, if images like this one really NEED so much blood and guns as a context, why are you framing your portraits so tight ? Should we say we NEED more info from your portraits - about the place etc ? Why not include a bit more of a meaningful background and context ? Let me guess: because your pictures are not photo-journalistic, right ? Well, you expect this POW to be what it is not: this isn't CNN's hot news flash. And my long post already explained that.

Please note also that we had exactly the same discussion a few months ago about this man with his camel: people wanted to know more, the story wasn't complete as a stand alone, etc. Well, it wasn't meant to be a news flash either - not that I expect anyone to stop asking for what they think "should be" instead of looking at what "there is"...

"A soldier, please ! And a few guns, some blood, preferably more blood, ideally even more blood, this is too clean guys, come on ! Please hit the patient in the wound so he screems a little, thank you..."

Is that it ? Is that what you ask for ? Then I'd say the media have done a good job. They have taught you what to expect from them. But on a human level, I hope you never realize the nature of your own demand.

As for me, I'll take your advice and spend more time looking at the picture, and less time talking to the walls. You may now continue asking for blood. That's what most news agencies want as well, so you should get along.

I will keep on believing that expressions well caught can tell a lot more about human condition, than any spilled blood on a bed sheet or any machine-gun ever will.

Have fun, and don't get killed on the photo.net battlefield. Hopefully more people will join in this discussion to see some spilled photographer blood on this page... You may even write in red from here onwards, if you like...:-)

Interesting how POW discussions seem to cover all the angles regarding photography and its ethics, one week at a time. This week, the theme (discussion theme) seems to be set on content and whether this photograph has the qualification to be considered a war photograph based on the decisive moment captured. This will, in turn, decide the merits of the photograph. Like Marc alluded to earlier, this is a photograph of the effects of war and not of war itself. But like Doug also insists, the evidence that could classify it as a war photograph is not, well, evident. To which Geert so appropriately intercedes and reminds us that war is not necessarily a platoon of soldiers in uniforms, machine guns on hand, throwing grenades and, with mouths wide open, screaming to their companions off the top of their lungs in order to communicate in the midst of exploding bombs, cannons, machine guns and rocket launchers etc.

After these different points of view have been set as the qualifiers by which the photograph will be judged, Jacques reminds us that the photo is lacking in details of impact which should be present in the middle of a battle, i.e. no blood, no pain, panic, urgency, fear, etc. With these guidelines in hand I move on to critiquing the photo.

Guideline #1 this is a hospital photo. Argument: Yes, but it is still a war photo, and I dont see a war theme other than the fact that this has been told to us by the photographer. So the war theme is, pardon the pun, DOA. I just dont see war in this photo at all. Ironically, I recall a former inanimate POW by John Orr in which we saw the atrocities of war and the damage and chaos it produces without seeing a single soul. That is how we perceive war.

Guideline #2 a war photograph should have war written all over it. Argument: There is not a single piece of physical evidence in the room to tell us a war is taking place; not in this photograph; not anywhere in the entire frame. No evidence, no war.

Guideline #3 as a matter of fact, this could be any kind of standard operation not related to an injury or wound and could easily be due to a medical condition; appendicitis comes to mind. Argument: no argument here, this is my perception also.

A little aside: The whole operating team is wearing white and the passerby (probably the janitor [just for fun, no need to draw the guns]) is wearing gray (could be any other color but lets not get into that). So Im sorry, but the whole eye thing escapes me, and I dont see the atrocity of wars in anyones eyes.

We have to take a closer look at the room to try and figure out if this is a real emergency. In my opinion, it is. We see that the patient is being operated in the very same gurney in which he was wheeled in. Had this been a major operation, with plenty of preparations beforehand, we would see a very different operating room complete with permanently placed medical equipment. As it is, for all we can tell from the room itself, the patient is being attended in the janitors room and he (person in foreground) just took the last broom out of the room (not visible in frame). This is in accordance with an emergency operation during war. So there is no doubt this is a photograph of a wounded person. Was he wounded during war? We cant tell by the photograph itself; we can take the word of the photographer and judge the scene and the room where he is being operated to come to a conclusion. My conclusion is that there is no reason for the photographer to lie about the events, and even if he did, that doesnt change the merits of the photograph; it may change the value of it, but not the merit. Someone made mention of the way the surgeon is holding the hemostat and tried to say that he is holding it the wrong way. Well no, not at all. This is how you hold it when you are either moving internal organs (such as ruptured intestines, arteries etc.) out of the way or trying to remove something with it. You only use the eyelets to clamp it down but not to maneuver it around. As a matter of fact, this is what tells me that the operation, and the medical staff, is real. Is this a practice run? I dont know! Does the photographer know? I could read the comments to try and find out, but in trying to keep up with the posts every week I cant help but to think Im reading an entire book all over again, each and every time; So Ill pass on this one. Congratulation to the photographer on a well executed capture (no pun intended). Sorry to have added another chapter to the book.

Your stockpick in my post is not totally impartial nor accurate, but I am getting familiar with POW thread manners... BTW I dont see the link with my portraits ... ?! (are they really all that tight?! Take a closer look at these too please ;-))

Anyway ... the image contains enough information IMO but I just find that all this information and all those details are quite mismatching the title and the said subject for the multiple reasons I ve explained above (blood or uniform are only a very little element - BTW I suggested that he could be civilian: "the locker").

Marc you really think ... Pnet .. a battlefield, blood, soldiers ?!... sounds like this pic (or my interpretation of it) "a Comedie Humaine" where photography is the sideshow ... anyway my 17in screen is attack-proof ! :o))

A great documentary shot on its own! Yes we all know that it´s not perfect from a aesthetics point of view, the exposure, the framing... but, but the story is right there, and we all can imagine it just by looking at those eyes...

 

I also think that the man on the left must be there, it´s part of the story, and he also "frames" the action.

 

Great timing Geert... and congrats.

I agree the photo is stunning to most because of the patient's eyes. However, being in the medical profession, I felt compelled to point out, I doubt the man in the the right foreground is a surgeon. Why? well rarely are surgeons walking around looking at other surgeons surgeries, obviously they are generally doing surgery. I admit I didn't read all the discussion, but did no one think he might be a NURSE or an XRAY TECH? He's dressed in a color, not white, like the people doing the actual surgery, this indicates to me that he has another purpose. We just all assumed he was a surgeon? Then, from the obvious position of the patient, lying on his belly and being awake, for all I know the real surgeon could be doing a hemmorhoidectomy not an appendectomy (which would be a little difficult from the position of the patient). Or maybe they are removing some foreign object (like a bullet) from his buttock. Who knows? But he obviously looks scared but not in pain. That's a good thing as Martha says! My next question is, "What the heck was a photographer doing in the OR?" This is the only thing that suggests to me that this may be a make shift OR in the field, otherwise the photographer would not be allowed in a sterile environment. To me the look by the man on the left says " What the heck are you doing in here, your're dirtying up our OR!" I have to agree, nothing but the fact that the photographer was allowed ( you were allowed, right) in the OR suggests War. Great shot, but if you're all baseing you oppinions on the fact that this was a War photo, captured under War conditions, I need more evidence. Oh, well, just my opinion. I like the photo anyway, but for different reasons. While the eyes of the patient are interesting, the man on the left is telling the story to me! Get out!

The eyes tell the story, but it's not about war or even the patient.

It's about the photographer. I was reminded of the old

environmental portraits of a dozen lumberjacks standing on or

around a ten foot DBH log all shoulders square looking at the

camera. OK, it's not that bad, and I would say that the fact that it's

obviously not posed and that the left side person is moving out of

the frame makes this a captured moment without any direction

from the photographer. But the message, as several have

mentioned is "Why are you here in my OR?" How often do you

see published photos where the subjects have made eye

contact with the camera?

 

I know everything was rushed, but I'm still not sure, Geert, what

your role was there. You mention why you were less than

enthusiastic about taking any pictures at all and that attitude,

justified or not, is what compromises the image, IMHO. Snap it,

tell them not to look at you or wait a moment until they look away

and get off a couple more quick shots. Your'e not shooting RAW

so number of images shouldn't be the limiting factor (only a

256K card?). I guess I'm saying that if you really wanted to get

as many shots as possible, including blind shots in the first few

rooms, you could have, even with the fast pace.

While this is an interesting photo of a "journalistic" nature -- it is not an "award winning" photojournalistic image in my opinion.

Agreed, when shooting photojournalism you don't have "control" often times of people walking into the frame, lighting, background, clutter, etc. However, you do have to have a combination of quick thinking, fast reflexes, luck and a good eye for capturing a story in a shot or series of shots. Sure, you can take a "reference" photo and it will be used to support a story and it doesn't have to be perfect. In my opinion - that is what this image is.

What I'm saying is that there are two types of photojournalistic images...Great ones and simple "report the moment" shots. I shoot a form of photojournalism in that when I shoot weddings I don't do lots of posed shots. My job is to capture the moment, the expression, the mood of the couple and the day. Some of the images are very "report the moment" shots. Some, however, through luck and experience are exceptionally captured. Others, I say DARN -- I had to shoot so fast that the image is flawed in some small way... Maybe someone gestured and their finger is in the side of the frame...Maybe there was an ugly broken branch is on the ground sticking out behind the bride's dress...Maybe in my haste to record a "moment" I cut someone's face in half in the background...Maybe the horizon is tilted. Do I include them in the couple's proofs? Sometimes. Sometimes the moment is important or poignant enough to be kept. Some photographers claim to their clients that it's an artsy element. I tell my clients the truth...Some images are not perfect due to the nature of the fast shooting to capture events. The moment was just too precious to miss by stopping to "think" about every detail in the frame.

So - I think if I were Geert I would feel this image was a "keeper" because of the expression on the patient... Would I feel this was an award winning image? No.. And Geert has made this clear to us as well. I will mention one more thing... Geert - you say photojournalism is not ART. In my opinion... There are those rare and wonderful occassions that photojournalism can be ART. And to all that shoot this type of work I'm sure that is the hope and driving force....to capture a piece of life that is perfect and moving and tells an important story.