Sarajevo

Jean Baptiste,

First of all i would like to express my respect and admiration to you but also to all the war photograph. You guys do an insane job to bring the world images of events and situation one would'nt believe to be possible without seing it.

 

I tried to comment this photo at many occasions but just could'nt find the words, ijust do not see a real purpose of discussing the technicals aspect of a photo carrying such a strong message .

 

The reason why this image is so powerful to me is because i also, was in Sarajevo in 1992. I was part of the Canadian contingent who took control and secured the Sarajevo airport. One of our duty, and it happened all the time was to report every dead body we found to the authorities. From that point their job was to try to identify if the body was croatian, serbian, muslim... and to have somebody from these faction to come an pick up the body. This could have been a good system in a non war situation, but in a war context, with the bombing and the snipers it was a total different issue. Out of the undreds of bodies we reported only a very few where actualy collected and there is not a thing i could do about it. The order at the time was to flag the bodies in white so the where easy to spot, report it to the authorities and carry on with our task...

 

In a war, most mans turns into evils and to me, one of the things that prevent the mankind from diving into the abiss is the respect for the dead and this i haven't see to often over there.

 

Situation was what it was so this is not a blame, just a fact.

 

This picture show the peoples who where there that some of the fallen soldiers, but also some brothers, kids, mothers, fathers... did receive a fairly descent ceremony. This picture also allows the survivors to dream that maybe their familly members and/or friends where among the "lucky ones" who received such a ceremony...

 

Peace to everyone and thank to you Jean Baptiste.

 

Pascal

Standardised PNet critique form (please tick appropriate box):

 

I think this photo could be improved by being

(a) cropped

(b) in colour (if black and white)

© black and white (if in colour)

(d) taken by me.

 

More seriously, and more philosophically, the crop versus compose in camera argument is fascinating. I always try to compose in camera - the thought that I can crop it later makes me (or would make me) lazy. On the other hand, composing in camera also tends to make my photos stiff and lifeless - because I spend too long getting them just right. So it's a trade-off to an extent.

 

This is a fine photo, combining high aesthetic quality (by which I mean simply that it makes us look at it, and makes us look where the photographer wants to dierct our eyes) with content (I don't see the point of beautiful photos of nothing much, tho I concede that tastes differ).

On a trivial note (what is not) I wish I were blessed enough to own a camera that actually showed 100% of the film area in the viewfinder or that standard print sizes (and mats and frames) like 5x7 and 8x10 actually conformed to the aspect ratio of 35mm film. I might also wish for slide mounts that would not round the corners of my film or show hairy frayed edges on cardboard mounts. Last of all I would wish for magazine editors that would not arbitrarily crop my photos to make them fit between neat little rows of text.

To crop or not to crop? I see benefits and drawbacks to both approaches. One thing that cropping will not do is to save a bad photo. In the end cropping appears to be either a necessary evil or a divine invention.

As for the photograph, I appreciate it very much but enjoy it very little. To quote the singer/songwriter Don Henley, 'I woke up this morning with an attitude. Looked at the headlines, put me in a real bad mood.'

This is all a bit ironic, because I'm not a big cropper. In fact, I shoot almost exclusively 35mm, and I've always been irritated by standard paper sizes being 4:3 or thereabouts instead of 3:2.

 

But as far as this particular instance goes, I certainly don't buy the, "I made my choice when I took the shot" argument. Jean-Baptiste, how many other choices of aspect ratio did you have when you took this shot?

 

And in general, I don't buy the, "I made my choice when I took the shot" argument. There's this thing called printing, you see....

lets agree to be disagreed.

First of all, this is the best POW in over a year. Congratulations Jean-Baptist and thank you Elves.

 

As to the subject of cropping: every single photo is a crop of the landscape surrounding the photographer. So there is nothing inherently wrong with it. When HCB made the desicion not to crop during printing, it wasn't because of some aesthetic crusade he set out to establish. It was because in 1930 35mm was new and a very minature format, the film real estate was 1/50th the size of the more common 8x10, and people back then weren't use to seeing film grain the size of golf balls. To get any decent size print from 35mm you had to use every millimeter of film available to you. And that still is just as true today as it was then. In 35mm the less cropping the better. So it would follow that no cropping is optimal.

...and the possibility DOES exist that the body that is in the grave just could be the body of one of the terrorist insurgents that was killed by one of our own servicemen protecting the lives of others as well as his own while attempting to defend the freedom of of the citizens of Sarajevo as they make an effort to go about their daily lives - much as everyone else in the world does...bad guys get killed too!!! And they are NOT to be mourned for.

 

Jay Sigal

mgbjay@mailsnare.net

I will not repeat all the feeling and the message that comes from this photo. I will only aim to composition and format.As I first saw this photo the vertical format of this photo bothered me a little. I don't say that using this format is bad in this context and composition but feel it as too long. As I computed the ratio the result is more than the common 3:2 format, so there is something on my feeling.

And to the composition. The photographer probably wanted not to show the whole body and hide it behind that cross. It is a good idea but still I think that the cross in the foreground is too strong element as it is. And if I would present this photo than I would crop it from the bottom in order not to see it whole till the ground. I think it would help the composition.

Anyway, great choice for POW.

... and/or when the cross was blurred, it would be another + to composition, I think.

To me, what makes this photo have such strong impact, is the inclusion of the body in the grave. There are so many graveyard shots, so many with fog even, but never have I seen one with a body in it. That stark white just hits you in the face when you view the image and drives home the point that the person is dead. Everything surrounding the body - the fog, the numerous crosses, and the lumpy mud/dirt, enhances the bright white of the cloth on the body and makes your eyes go straight there. A sad image and well done.

First: this is a breathtaking photograph. Congratulations Jean-Baptiste.

 

Second: A photograph is a cropped version of reality that shows only what the photographer wants to show. He or she may choose BW or Color film, DoF or leave part of the scene out of the picture in order to get a better composition. IMO there is no difference making this decisions when pressing the shutter or in the darkroom.

The precision of the framing and of the overlap in front of the corpse contribute to the emotional impact of the image. Leaving the base of the front element intact makes it easier to move visually from one marker to the next. I tried to imagine the cross piece both under and over the corpse, but imagined it would be more of a visual obstacle than the direct interference that's presented. Religion does interfere with so many lives in ways that can be very unhealthy and often fatal.

Why crop around the corpse and beat around the bush ? Meaning that the framing matters so much less than the subject, in this case...

In such a picture, the composition (framing) MUST match the message conveyed, and that's that. It ain't a postcard. So, again, what does this picture SAY ? What message does it convey in the present context ? Who ever proposes a cropping alternative should have found a very specific answer to this question.

Imho, this picture shows HOW FRAGILE life is and what a devastation a war can be. If you crop tighter "for strength" or for what ever reason, you are CHANGING the message of this photo. The more crosses we see in the frame (given the present angle), the more we get the feeling that MANY people have died, the more we sense the devastation of war. Secondly, the smaller the body is in the frame, the more we will sense that life is fragile, and that each human being is just a small bit of flesh in a very large universe where all die - which adds to the sense of fragility...

Now again, what was it that you all wanted to crop this picture for...?

Finally, the cross overlapping with the body is placed perfectly imo. Why so ? Because it adds to the feeling of an ANONYMOUS body AMONG SO MANY OTHER VICTIMS OF WAR... Hidden, down there, left as an unimportant bag in a small hole...

In conclusion: to me, the aesthetics of this composition are PERFECT, especially if I consider (and I do!) that aesthetics are just the art of fitting a content into the right form - or matching the form with the content, if you prefer. Best regards.

I agree with Marc, I think that meaning here fits perfectly with form. The information given by Jean-Baptiste about the story of this cemetery makes us to understand more about this particular situation and about the horrors of war in general. I don't know if it is a custom in that place to bury people directly on earth without a coffin, I guess it is not, if so this image shows another aspect of such a terrible time, that people must be buried in a crowded place, not destined to be a cemetery and without proper care, considered the normal uses in the place. It makes to think about the people that have to do the burying.

 

Form is much appropriated here because it does not try to beautify misery, or to put in the first place composition, but to work together with content. The cropping is IMO perfect, it shows what it wants to show, and technicalities don't distract from the essential meaning of this image.

There are some images more powerful than beautiful or properly composed or cropped. I was and I am so much moved by this photograph that I hardly looked at cropping or cross overlapping the body. I was moved by the greater truth, which this images brings in front, in stead of looking at it technically. I didn't even reach a point where I thought whether it should have been in color or B&W. Who cares ?

 

This is journalism, this is the way it should be, we aren't talking about fine art photography here, please look at Philip Blenkinsop's work and then see, how many of us looks at composition/cropping or what The Photograph is showing.

The message for me in the image was the abysmal failure of the wealthy and almost grotesquely selfish European community to put a stop to the conflict. All that had to be done would have been a severe phone call by one party to another, but apparently the ethics and the fortitude were totally missing. They learned nothing from WWII.

Marc, what is "THE message" of the photo?

 

I would prefer your subjective opinion rather than for a pronouncement for all persons for all time.

 

Nonetheless, not my will but thine be done.

Great photo. Very sad, very moving. And I actually think asthetically it is a great shot too. High marks!

The long format little bothers me but I don't want to turn the discussion into such details. I like the comment of John Crosley, although I think a better caption would help, not just a location. This photo really means something and it deserves a title. I would suggest:

"Where it all ends ..."Sarajevo 1992

Best regards,

I must say I personally find cropping advantageous. My first national award was in photo-journalism, back in 1971. It was a cropped image. But to each his own. This site is for discussing it, to the n'th degree if we like, and I appreciate the many thoughts on the subject that now appear here.

 

To say that cropping this image is not good because one wants to feel the 'infinite-ness' of the graves does not really make sense. The un-ending element is heightened by cropping it that way- it was my main purpose on the top crop. I've used this thought process/technique many times now. If you can't see the end, it is infinite. The effect almost works due to the fog, but I feel it does not work well enough, thus the need to help it out. My crop may not be enough actually as the end of the grave markers is still seen on the upper left. Lannie's is nice if you want some space though, better than the artists still.

 

Out of focus foregrounds are a no-no, as the eye feels uncomfortable with it. It does not, however, feel uncomfortable with it out of focus behind the center of interest. This front cross should have been sharp, and wide angles are hard to mess this part up. But if you are under fire what can you say?

 

The bottom was cropped on my sample for one reason only, because with cropping the top, the body got too centered. That rectified the 'new problem'.

 

Personally, I would have gotten in front of the cross and on my knees for this shot, with the body then gaining much more stature in the overall scene, and thus much more impact. Kind of becoming one with the corpse almost- but that would be the feel I'd try to give. Impact is the name of our game, whatever genre you are working with! The 'infiniteness' would have been easier to pull off too. It's a very important element.

 

 

This is quite a strong image already, as many on this site are. But as with most, one can usually improve them through a critical eye with cropping, dodging and burning, even if it's only enough to make a second place winner into a first. Blesssings, MS

"Marc, what is "THE message" of the photo? I would prefer your subjective opinion rather than for a pronouncement for all persons for all time."

Yeah, well... Ok, Lannie. Caught again. :-) In fact, my previous post had a couple of "imho" and "imo", and I have already said, what this picture meant to me. So I'd say that "posting my subjective opinion" is exactly what I did. Agreed...? Now, admittedly, my opinion in this case is that there is just no valid reason to crop this picture, and that attempts at cropping are a "nonsense". So, it's of course an opinion I expressed with strong words (not a rare occurence for me, apologies to all), simply because I feel strongly about it. It IS nevertheless, whether I like it or not JUST my opinion. :-) Cheers.

Thanks for clarifying the reasons you saw for cropping this image. I see now what you were aiming at, and generally agree with what youwrote, but still, not for this particular image. Let's see. You wrote:

"The un-ending element is heightened by cropping it that way- it was my main purpose on the top crop."

I disagree that it's heightened. In fact, the fog was already presenting an "indefinity" in the original image. For all we know, there could be a thousand more crosses at the top, simply hidden by the fog.

You wrote: "I've used this thought process/technique many times now. If you can't see the end, it is infinite."

Agreed. It very often works that way indeed.

You wrote: "The effect almost works due to the fog, but I feel it does not work well enough, thus the need to help it out."

That's precisely where we will have to agree to disagree, I suppose. I would like to understand WHY it doesn't work well enough to you, with this fog obviously hiding the top end of the original frame. Your crop, in my opinion, neglects a few other parameters, such as:

1) The crop is "compressing" the image - shortening the visible part of this indefinity - which is quite paradoxical imo.

2) The resulting format is close to a 4x5" view camera ratio, but this seems very awkward to my eye when the entire image is filled with gigantic-looking VERTICAL crosses. Meaning that I feel strength in the verticality itself of the elements within the frame, especially given the fact that the body is lying horizontally.

Finally... regarding DOF... You wrote:

"Out of focus foregrounds are a no-no, as the eye feels uncomfortable with it. It does not, however, feel uncomfortable with it out of focus behind the center of interest."

Again, you are generally right, but rules of thumbs need to be thrown away or at least re-questionned once in a while. Firstly, if something feels "uncomfortable" with the DOF or anything else, I'd note again that the entire image makes us feel uncomfortable. So, once again, we may say that this DOF choice matches well the content.

Besides that, it seems to me that a sharp foreground cross would almost look "glued" onto the body, whereas, being blurry, it adds DEPTH to the picture, as it helps separating vertical from horizontal plane.

Another factor to be considered: if the cross would be sharp, it would arrest our attention even more - as it would gain visual importance. Human eyes do not stop on a blurry element, but if the cross would be sharp, our eyes may stop at this cross for a while before getting to the body; and cross + body would become "a pair of main subjects" in a way. Here, the body emmerges clearly as the one and only main subject imo. So, no problem at all for me. Cheers.

Thanks, Marc.

 

You say, "the composition (framing) MUST match the message conveyed, and that's that. It ain't a postcard. So again, what does the picture SAY?"

 

Well, I guess that it "says" a lot of things, although I find myself in agreement with your particular interpretation on this one, and so no problem here with the "message." (John Falkenstine gives a very different interpretation of the "message" just three posts below yours, although his "message" is not one that would have occurred to me right away. His would have to be a secondary message for me, at best.)

 

Given our agreement on the message/interpretation, my only question in this case was whether the amount of sky in the background was absolutely optimal for the purpose of conveying that message or interpretation. Perhaps it is better to have the photo end rather ambiguously at the top, even though it is not clear from the uploaded version whether we are seeing more tombstones or simply trees in the background. I am also not sure about the sky, a small quibble, to be sure. Could we get by with a tiny bit less? Does it matter? I personally think that such quibbles over technical details do matter, since such seemingly insignificant details do affect the force with which the image strikes individual viewers.

 

I still have to concede to both you and Jean-Baptiste that I am not sure that a better framing was even possible in this case, but I reserve the right to ask. The subject may be sacrosanct, but the photo is not, in my opinion.

 

Please accept my suggestions as simply the kind of experimental commentary that many of us are accustomed to offering on this site, nothing more, nothing less. I cringe at the thought that I have to write a masterpiece of written criticism, or have the perfect crop, before offering them to the community for consideration.

 

It is a very good photo. Indeed, it is a photojournalistic masterpiece. I would like for it to be an aesthetic one as well.

 

Surely it is not yet so perfect as to be beyond criticism.

Why another crop?

 

I'm sorry, but in between the unqualified praise and Michael's more radical crop, here is one more, cropped (gasp!) JUST A BIT ALL THE WAY AROUND.

 

For the purists, this one preserves the 3:2 aspect ratio by. . . cropping. That ought to twist some panties, but that isn't why I'm offering it. I truly hope not to offend. I'm still trying to reconcile the goals of photojournalistic integrity (on my interpretation) and aesthetic perfectionism.

 

Prepare for more cries of "Sacrilege!" One would think that we were desecrating graves here.

Here's the original reduced, once again, for comparison.