Kicking and alive Photojournalism

Who said anyone is perfect?
and about the american soldiers posted in Israel, I was a few hundreds yards away with a gas mask on my face, mind you.
I KNOW what Israel owes to the US, but you still have a completely twisted vision of reality.
And about your antisemitic statement, of course I knew it was a joke...
I'm still laughing.
 
sanmich said:
The allies systematically refused to bomb the murder machine of the germans because this was not a strategical target. Do you have any idea how many lives would have been saved if the death plants were bombed? If the railways transporting the humans to be slaugthtered would have been destroyed?
Click to expand...

It's not entirely true that there were no bombings. Around Auschwitz-Birkenau camp there were several major oil refineries, which converted Silesian coal to fuel and were bombed several times. My grandfather, who still lives, was an antiaircraft gunner, then a radar engineer in the Wehrmacht for six years and was stationed there for several months in 1944 in a flak battery. "Their" refinery was bombed several times, and on at least one occasion the railway leading to the camp was destroyed. Their own barracks were adjacent to Auschwitz II camp, and he speaks about the camp frequently. Apparently before they arrived, soldiers had no idea about what was going on in the camp, but they understood it the first evening which understandable came as a fundamental shock. I believe him that they didn't know it beforehand, because he wouldn't have a reason to lie. After several months he couldn't stand it anymore and asked to be transfered somewhere else. (After an interlude in jail, they apparently found that radar engineers were too valuable to waste and sent him first to his native Ruhr area, which was under constant attack, then to Dresden where he served on an inner-city antiaircraft battery during the February bombings.)

It seems to have been surprisingly difficult to destroy railway installations from the air; Germany basically had a rudimentary, but functioning railway infrastructure until the end of the war despite stations being under constant attack.
 
rxmd said:
It's not entirely true that there were no bombings. Around Auschwitz-Birkenau camp there were several major oil refineries, which converted Silesian coal to fuel and were bombed several times. My grandfather, who still lives, was an antiaircraft gunner, then a radar engineer in the Wehrmacht for six years and was stationed there for several months in 1944 in a flak battery. "Their" refinery was bombed several times, and on at least one occasion the railway leading to the camp was destroyed. Their own barracks were adjacent to Auschwitz II camp, and he speaks about the camp frequently. Apparently before they arrived, soldiers had no idea about what was going on in the camp, but they understood it the first evening which understandable came as a fundamental shock. I believe him that they didn't know it beforehand, because he wouldn't have a reason to lie. After several months he couldn't stand it anymore and asked to be transfered somewhere else. (After an interlude in jail, they apparently found that radar engineers were too valuable to waste and sent him first to his native Ruhr area, which was under constant attack, then to Dresden where he served on an inner-city antiaircraft battery during the February bombings.)

It seems to have been surprisingly difficult to destroy railway installations from the air; Germany basically had a rudimentary, but functioning railway infrastructure until the end of the war despite stations being under constant attack.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the first hand story. Very interesting indeed.
If I'm not mistaken, it is basically what I knew, but a bit worse: the military targets were bombed (fuel) but not the concentration camps, even when a bombing mission was flying very close to the point, no bomb was "wasted" on a non military target.
I know that targetting a train from the air was pretty tough, but the camps themselves should have been feasible targets.
 
sanmich said:
I know that targetting a train from the air was pretty tough, but the camps themselves should have been feasible targets.
Click to expand...

Not going to exceed the off-topic range, but to attack a single train was mostly done either by one or two small fighter planes (not that hard, P-51/P-38) or by squads of smaller bombers like Marauders, if I'm not wrong.
 
Hi Thomas,

I have viewed and read the stories concerning the Napiers family and other Appalachian fellows, and I would like to say that the attachement of Shelby to the people he photographed is exemplary and uncovers one of the deepest secrets of photography: melt with your subject wholeheartedly in the deepest sense. This principle is also somewhat touched by Salgado in the interview.

Accordingly, this puts on the table the issue of "detachment", "neutrality", etc of the photojournalist, that to my opinion - hey folks kindly notice I have finally written "to my opinion" so find a new argument to protest - a pose that is only an excuse to hide behind the stronger side.

Nevertheless any photojournalist must all time think and analize what is going on, what is he seeing, what is the political context. Otherwise he/she will be shooting his own leg. No truth is ethernal, no issue is unquestionable.

And it is here, respected and valued Emraphoto, that the UNHCR bunch of amateur and /or casual photographers, retain their human spirit high and despite not being of the same aesthetic level than your own photography, not to speak about Salgado's level, they still have the power to make the viewer to symphatize with these 40 million(*) disgraced folks, dear Simon.

What I would like to know a little bit more is the history of these Appalachian folks. Any reference will be welcomed.

Cheers,
Ruben

(*) To my understanding the "40 millions" number refers only to those living at UNHCR refugee camps. It doesn't include the millions in Africa suffering/dying from famine, wars, aids. As well it doesn't include the worldwide hundreds of millions suffering from sub nutrition, homeless, drug addicted, etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
let me take a moment to try and outline where i am coming from Ruben.

i of course applaud the photographers for their intent. i have seen a refugee camp or two and you cannot help but be moved to action.

i suppose where i become concerned is that what we are talking about is quickly becoming an issue (mild understatement) in the world of photojournalism and pay cheques. it has become the norm for press and media outlets to rely on the work of citizens/volunteers to provide imagery and for the most part the masses have grown to accept it. it is no longer a secret that partnerships with NGO's have been the saving grace for a lot of working photographers if not photojournalism as a whole while it rethinks how the industry will move forward. i have personally relied on NGO funding and resources to get things done. without them i would be washing cars right now (or photographing accidents on the side of the road... i'll take washing cars).

now keep in mind the UN has never been a bastion of gripping imagery. that being said when i see the NGO trend moving towards the amateur/volunteer photographer and the resulting images being applauded as being competent and skillful photography i can't help but be defensive.

shelby lee adams is an apropos example. without his work over the past decades our understanding of the families deep within the Appalachians would be at best stereotypical.

i understand your intentions with this thread and as i mentioned i applaud the spirit. on the other hand the whole thing makes me worried. there are talented women and men who could convey a far better understanding of the UNHCR camps in a single frame than all of these volunteers have done in hundreds of frames. yet our collective understanding of these worlds will be formed by the work of the volunteers. i have seen the refugee camps in eastern Chad and i have seen camps in the Republic of Benin and these photos paint a "fairly rosy vision" i assure you.

anyhow, how can i not applaud any efforts to shine a light on the conditions millions are faced with every day? i merely ask that we keep in mind that the volunteer image campaigns we salute are having an adverse effect on the very photographers we hold in such high regard.
 
Hi emraphoto,
We all know no one wants to pay for pictures nowadays, all kind of pictures, and perhaps it is lasting since one ore or two decades ago. I do understand the frustration this situation causes. This situation will also catch those youngers starting their path alongside the UNCHR.

Who is making some bucks with photography to sustain their noses over the water ? I think those with extreme skills besides photography. I think it is a lost battle and at least in my case, I had been smarter if instead of trying pushing forward - I had assured myself a profession enabling me a good free time for side photography.

However in case you are before your fourties, loosing time in the push is still better than other things.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom