"I am the zoom"

[wrenhunter]

I just finished a very fine book, "The Places In Between" by Rory Stewart, in which the author walks across Afghanistan in the winter of 2001 (!). I recommend it.

Late in his journey, he meets a photographer:

"Most war photographerss carry large digital cameras; Didier was using black-and-white film and two old Leicas. In a war zone most photographers prefer to use a zoom. Didier didn't have one. 'I am the zoom', he said."

 

[remrf]

I just finished a very fine book, "The Places In Between" by Rory Stewart, in which the author walks across Afghanistan in the winter of 2001 (!). I recommend it.

Late in his journey, he meets a photographer:

"Most war photographerss carry large digital cameras; Didier was using black-and-white film and two old Leicas. In a war zone most photographers prefer to use a zoom. Didier didn't have one. 'I am the zoom', he said."

Well, it's his head and he can arrange to have it blown off if he want's to. As a former combat photographer I would be in the " I'll use a big ass tele lens" and be around tomorrow to shoot some more " school of thought.

 

[dadsm3]

Great thread! Romanticism (Le zoom, c'est moi) versus the cold reality of staying alive.....
I smell a "I am the zoom" vs. "Save your ass" poll...........
It'll be funny to see how many comfortable middle-class Leica owners pick "I am the zoom".

 

[Superbus_]

Maybe in Afghanistan where the rebels are so experienced to shoot distant objects (helicopters etc. - just remember the russians/soviet failure) you go closer and just stay alive or you can try to "save you ass" and they shoot you. In a war no place is really safe. Robert Capas's experience was that sometimes the best war photos were taken in distant areas from the warzone , just making pictures about civilians and not about combat fighters. You can see the reality of a war in a face of a child or a woman more lively than filming the war people and equipment.

 

[varjag]

Well, it's his head and he can arrange to have it blown off if he want's to. As a former combat photographer I would be in the " I'll use a big ass tele lens" and be around tomorrow to shoot some more " school of thought.

Fully agreeing that shooting from a distance can be a lot safer, I can't think of a single iconic war photo that was taken with a tele lens.

 

[doitashimash1te]

Bystander vs participant. Being a participant is for the brave of heart, but the reward for that is pictures with greater impact. See Robert Capa.

 

[Superbus_]

Well, it's his head and he can arrange to have it blown off if he want's to. As a former combat photographer I would be in the " I'll use a big ass tele lens" and be around tomorrow to shoot some more " school of thought.

Larry, according to your page you were a professional war photographer, so maybe you are the only one who has realistic knowledge and experience about this.
So, please share with us something like how you survived and how made your photos that time in Vietnam.

 

[rbiemer]

"Most war photographerss carry large digital cameras; Didier was using black-and-white film and two old Leicas. In a war zone most photographers prefer to use a zoom. Didier didn't have one. 'I am the zoom', he said."

Would that be, by any chance, the same Didier that is a member here I wonder?
Thanks for the book suggestion, wrenhunter, I will check it out.
Rob

 

[RML]

Capa said a similar. See what happened to his arse.

I've never been in a war but I've seen a bit of the destruction a single bullet can do to a human body or, worse, a single grenade shell to infantry. I don't care to get too close to it.

 

[wrenhunter]

Would that be, by any chance, the same Didier that is a member here I wonder?

I had the same thought! I looked at (our) Didier's profile before posting, and I don't think they are the same person. However, I could well be wrong.

I might add that the photographer above was taking photos of refugees, so wasn't necessarily covering combat (though he had been in several war zones, according to the brief biographical details in the book).

In the end, I don't suppose it's too surprising that a fellow who travelled by walking would find a kinship with an old-fashioned rangefinder-type like Didier. However, I can see the other side of the argument, too. I mean, for Capa the Leica WAS standard photo-journalist equipment, not a throwback, right?

 

[thanatos]

I think if I were in a warzone, I'd be the wideangle.

 

[kbg32]

Capa used Contax....

 

[varjag]

Capa said a similar. See what happened to his arse.

He blew up on a landmine while on a march. No amount of tele would've saved him.

Also, any conflict involving artillery or aviation makes the point of staying far a bit less straightforward. There was an account with a then prominent Soviet photographer who hadn't reputation of going to frontlines often. He was blown up during the battle of Crimea by a large caliber German shell some dozen miles from the action.

 

[Xmas]

He was following a platoon across a paddy field, they missed the mine he found. His last pic is sad.

Noel

 

[remrf]

Larry, according to your page you were a professional war photographer, so maybe you are the only one who has realistic knowledge and experience about this.
So, please share with us something like how you survived and how made your photos that time in Vietnam.

I was not a "professional war photographer". I was a combat photographer assigned to the 25th Infantry Division. I went on assignment as directed by the officer in charge of the photo section.I was not in the field all the time. My job was not to artistically depict the horrors of war for the folks back home. My job was to photograph specific things of interest militarily or tactically speaking. When I was in the field I went armed with both a camera and an M-16. Push came to shove and I dropped the camera and put the weapon on full auto. After the sh** stopped flying I would pick up the camera again and shoot what seemed interesting or perhaps of use to the military or what I was sent to shoot. Or all three.

And in truth I did not carry a tele lens of any kind. I used a Yashica Mat 124 at first and then later a Nikormat with a normal lens.

Keep in mind that if you have a clear line of sight to the enemy they probably have a clear line of sight to you. In the times I was in the field I NEVER saw a live Viet Cong. Had I seen one I would have shot him...with my weapon. And then taken a picture of the body. While on patrol if I heard a shot I dropped to the ground and held my weapon at the ready. If people around me started shooting I shot where they shot. Standing around looking for the "iconic shot" did not occur to me and I would have dismissed the thought had it occurred to me. Drawing attention to yourself in a firefight is a bad thing. And even if you survive the people around you do not appreciate any additional attention from the enemy.

I've seen footage from a 16 mm Army motion camera where when the shooting started the photographer only went down to his knees and he captured on film (color and sound no less) a Viet Cong popping up about 100 yards away just long enough to shoot the photographer in the head. The camera caught the Viet Cong popping up and you can see right down the barrel line and you can see the flashes from the barrel and then right after that the camera falls and keeps shooting a picture of elephant grass until a soldier walks over to the corpes and pulls the guy's hand away from the shutter.

At that time(1969/70) really long tele lenses were quite bulky and slow and were not very useful in the field. If in some nightmare reality I had to return to combat today I would take one of my 28-200 zooms which is quite small for the focal length. But I doubt I would use it much in a firefight.

 

[wrenhunter]

remrf, thanks for the personal history. Pretty hairy!

Did the photos become property of Uncle Sam, or do you have any of those Yashica negatives still? I'd be interested to see those shots, if you've posted them.

 

[remrf]

remrf, thanks for the personal history. Pretty hairy!

Did the photos become property of Uncle Sam, or do you have any of those Yashica negatives still? I'd be interested to see those shots, if you've posted them.

The majority of what I shot did go to the military and I did not keep copies. I assembled about 30 shots I wanted to keep at the time I shot them but by the time I finally left the military I was so sick of the Army, the war and my activities there that I threw them away shortly after I got home. A decision I have regreted more than once since then. They were mostly candid shots of friends and things I found humorous or interesting at the time. There was damned little to laugh about in Viet Nam.

 

[wrenhunter]

A pity, but I can understand. Hey, at least you stuck with the photography!

 

[Superbus_]

I was not a "professional war photographer". I was a combat photographer assigned to the 25th Infantry Division...

Thank you very much! It was very interesting. I think in the aspect of danger there is no real difference between combat photography and war photography (for the press): both are very dangerous. Maybe combat photography is better: you can defend yourself with your weapon. On the other hand as a soldier you cannot say that you are not willing to go, you have to do it.
A press photographer can choose between the locations but naturally he will be choosing the most interesting=dangerous places so the final result could be the same.

 

[remrf]

Thank you very much! It was very interesting. I think in the aspect of danger there is no real difference between combat photography and war photography (for the press): both are very dangerous. Maybe combat photography is better: you can defend yourself with your weapon. On the other hand as a soldier you cannot say that you are not willing to go, you have to do it.
A press photographer can choose between the locations but naturally he will be choosing the most interesting=dangerous places so the final result could be the same.

I can see that I did not make the difference clear. But you do have some of it right. A military combat photographer indeed has little choice in where and when he will be sent into the field.A combat photographer is ordered to go into the field with a specific unit to photograph specific things for the command and can easily be right in the middle of the sh** whether he wants to be there or not.
A 'War photographer is in the field to photograph the "war" which usually has a wider definition than individual snipets of combat. I can only speak for the war I was in but there the "war photographers" stayed well away from actual combat but clammered to be inserted as soon as the bullets stopped flying. And when they did get to the field they wanted to shoot pictures of wounded or dead soldiers and civillians for that "human angle". I have never seen a bigger bunch of ghoulish cowardly assholes. "Let's get in real close for the shot of the tears on the mother's face as she holds her dead child." Or, "click, click, "Tell me how you feel trooper as you watch what's left of your best friend gets loaded into the medevac chopper". " Where can I find the biggest pile of dead bodies to photograph? Theirs or ours. I don't care".

To me the "war photographer" is nothing but an ambulance chaser writ large. When I hear one has been killed in combat I don't feel any sympathy. I hope it really hurt. Serves the ambitious emotional vampire right.