Tony and the Afghan girl photograph

[michaelwj]

1. As you should know, the term ''third world'' hails back to the Cold War era, which ended in 1991
2. twenty seven years down the line, that term is not used any longer
3. today, many ''travel photographers'' include men and women: black, white, and yellow, and they hold many different passports
4. ''exploiting power imbalances'' is a concept as clear as mud

I am living in Asia. My partner is brown...or perhaps yellow...her passport is dark blue. Our daughter is light brown...or, perhaps, beige. Her passports are red and bluish. Where do you live?

Spare me your bull****.

1 and 2. Fine. Replace third world with developing country. It was the third world when the photo in question was taken.
3. The gender and nationality balance shifts with time. A “travel photographer” is not someone who takes photos while traveling, but someone who travels to take photos. There is a huge difference in intent. Someone with money for a camera and intercontinental travel is already in the top few percent of wealthy people in the world. They still hold the real or perceived power (see 4).
4. Really? You don’t know what a power imbalance is and how it can be exploited? It is when one person has the (real or perceived) power to get someone to do something they wouldn’t otherwise do.

I live in Brisbane Australia. It pretty clearly says it just to the left under my avatar. I’m fully aware that you live in Asia (even though you don’t make that public, I believe you’re in Vietnam), but I’m not sure what you’re getting at? Why does that make any difference? Do you feel the need to defend Steve McCurry? Or Tony? Or those being photographed? Or yourself? Are you concerned that you (as someone living abroad) are being lumped in with those who travel there to exploit the locals?

 

[Out to Lunch]

Spare me your bull****.

 

[michaelwj]

Spare me your bull****.

😀
It’s funny how people who get defensive and add nothing of substance to a discussion are also those resort to insults isn’t it?

 

[Out to Lunch]

I'm done. Back to the 'Tony' post.

 

[JoeLopez]

I don't know why the big deal, using today's political correctness standard for something that was done in 1984.

Are we going to over analyse every notable historic photo taken in past and rubbish the photographer for what we think are non PC 'ness or trespasses or even staged fakery?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuFKpaV_jjo

Tony was annoying to begin with. This desperate grab for likes is insulting.
He seems like the modern day Ken Rockwell.

 

[kuuan]

@ michaelwj, regarding your points of "power imbalance"

my observation would be that when it happens between "the white man" and "local cultures" it often is pure insensitivity. In a facebook forum here in Bali, where I am at right now, sometimes local people post photos like these to ask tourist to please show more respect to their local customs and religion:
https://scontent.fsub8-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/42562206_361839291021698_4488243749192728576_n.jpg?_nc_cat=104&_nc_ht=scontent.fsub8-1.fna&oh=cff62818daccfbe0209916d037a1f783&oe=5D17138
https://scontent-sin6-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/53212827_363223257613614_648720720905371648_n.jpg?_nc_cat=111&_nc_ht=scontent-sin6-1.xx&oh=726c1e59ee6b0eb18cb3e85b27722f90&oe=5D254BAE

However I also have been observing that the social divide may be much stronger within a developing country than between what most "white, western" tourists would dare to manifest: A young, local photographer with whom I had been out shooting in Saigon once instructed an obviously poor old woman in a market how to pose, another time a middle aged, obviously well to do local man in Indonesia I had been shooting out with instructed "common", "poorer" people hanging out in Surabaya how to pose, even grabbed them physically to "put" them how he wanted them. In both cases, as I had been regarding both these men, and I am still, as rather respectful and nice people, I was a bit surprised first. In both cases the "subjects', or "victims" if you may, had not put up any resistance but accepted with composure and patience. In both cases it seemed to me that there even might have been a certain amount of surprise, possibly even satisfaction of being worthy of being taken a photo, involved. ( my own style for a portrait, not a wider scene with random people inside the frame, usually is to simply ask first and if they agree let them strike the pose they choose, which I find most interesting )

 

[SaveKodak]

Imo it's bad..but unfortunately hardly surprising.
( later edit: What is insinuated in that video is bad and since my only experience with a "Pro", related below, had been very negative the allegations did not surprise me and I mistakenly may have jumped to believing them. However I have not the slightest idea about how McCurry actually had gone about his photography and for lack of knowledge certainly cannot condemn him! )


Only once I have encountered a "professional photographer in the field". That was during the Mahashivaratri festival inside Pashupatinath temple in Kathmandu, Nepal. There had been many colorful pilgrims and "well selling" Babas and Sadhus. The "Pro" photographer was behaving pushy, disrespectful, invading, even aggressive and..abusive. He had a local translator with him who carried a stack of "model releases" which he immediately had people sign, often for free, sometimes for a donation of a few 10s of Cents. One day some Babas had made a big, quite violent performance with hundred of onlookers. He had tried to get close but the Babas did not like him, threatened him and scared him away. His reaction was waving his credit card in the air. The Babas had not been impressed. They did not object me to get close. I had been camping out with them for some weeks. Once I overheard the translator telling the "Pro" that I have been spending full days and nights with the Sadhus, that I may have taken the better photos. He gave me a stern look but did not know that I had been quite new playing with manual lenses, doing it badly, too st.ned most of the time and that I did not have a single model release signed. What I did was printing out some 100 or 150 photos which I handed out to the pilgrims. Certainly he must have had a "stunning" story published somewhere.
( my photos taken that time: https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=8003463%40N03&sort=date-taken-desc&text=mahashivaratri&view_all=1 resp. more from that time here but also including some others taken at Pashupatinath: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/albums/72157607731424404/page1 )

This doesn't make much sense because any journalist or documentary photographer would not need model releases of any kind. You need them for advertising only, and typically only if you are going to be running the ad in that very country (and that country has laws requiring such things).

 

[kuuan]

This doesn't make much sense because any journalist or documentary photographer would not need model releases of any kind. You need them for advertising only, and typically only if you are going to be running the ad in that very country (and that country has laws requiring such things).

oh, is that so! I don't know about legal matters, you must be right. I had observed his translator having a number of the people the photographer had taken photos of moments before talk to and sign papers, ( alas many of them seemed not to be able to read. ) I had been assuming that it must have been model releases but I had not checked if they really were. Still assuming that it must have been model releases, but I couldn't be sure.
That means I can publish photos of people I take photos at e.g. festivals in India and I would not need any model release? ( Interesting and surprising! Getty images once had invited me and I then became contributing member. They had chosen a number of photos I had taken around Asia which they wanted me to submit. Half of them had recognizable people inside the frame. They had refused to accept these because I could not produce any model releases )

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

oh, is that so, you must be right. I had observed his translator having many of the people the photographer had taken photos of moments before talk to and sign papers, ( alas many of them seemed not to be able to read. ) I had been assuming that it must have been model releases but I had not checked if they really were. Still assuming that it must have been model releases, but I couldn't be sure.
That means I can publish photos of people I take photos at e.g. festivals in India and I would not need any model release? ( Interesting! Getty images once had invited me and I then became contributing member. They had chosen a number of photos I had taken around Asia which they wanted me to submit. Half of them had recognizable people inside the frame. They had refused to accept these because I could not produce any model releases )

Model releases are not legally required for editorial use in the United States. Stock agencies like Getty want releases anyway so that the images can be sold for commercial uses as well as editorial.

Why was the photographer you saw getting model releases from people in Asia? Because even though it is unlikely that any of the people he was photographing would sue him, they could do so in American courts if he sold the photos for a commercial use that requires releases. Big stock agencies like Getty operate worldwide, not just in the US, so they want the releases no matter where the photo was taken.

 

[kuuan]

thank you Chris, this makes things more clear and explains it to me.

( damn, I still feel stupid for not having gone back to Kyoto, which that time I could have, to find who the Geisha was I had taken a photo of in a taxi to ask her to sign a model release. An USA advertising company had contacted me and written that they wanted that photo as a "signature photo" for a campaign introducing a new line of Japanese cosmetics in the US. This could have meant serious money! With Getty, so far, I have earned some 150 usd..)

 

[stompyq]

I don't know why the big deal, using today's political correctness standard for something that was done in 1984.

Are we going to over analyse every notable historic photo taken in past and rubbish the photographer for what we think are non PC 'ness or trespasses or even staged fakery?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuFKpaV_jjo

This fool has no credibility. Just a paid shill trying to be the next ken rockwell.

 

[kuuan]

yet another stray away of the original thread, referring to the "white man" out there what Michael earlier had referred to. A truly remarkable article concerning the issue, written by an Australian, the link had been sent to me today, must be in wake of the horrid events in Christchurch.
Confessions of a White Supremacist: https://www.abc.net.au/religion/confessions-of-a-white-supremacist/10095658

 

[richardHaw]

Is anyone really surprised by all of this thread? There are three facts that come to mind:
1. kuaan’s photo’s are excellent
2. Tony is all about clicks and loves spouting pseudo knowledge (ISO anyone?) and creating a controversy (the current video). He’s also annoying but that’s more of a personal feeling.
3. Photojournalists and now also “travel photographers” (predominantly white middle class men in both cases) shooting in third world countries exploited and still exploit the huge power imbalance for their own needs.

you're not alone, i can't stand listening to the 2 😱😱😱

 

[robert blu]

I would never take a photo of someone if this could disturb him in any way. Respect for others is more important to me than a "good" photo.
Kuuan, I like the way you interact with your subjects.
robert

 

[raid]

I agree with Robert. Do not disturb anyone.

 

[kuuan]

I would never take a photo of someone if this could disturb him in any way. Respect for others is more important to me than a "good" photo.
Kuuan, I like the way you interact with your subjects.
robert

right Robert and Raid, and thank you Robert!

her expression is meant to show somewhat playing shy, but delighted emotion, symbolic for mine because of your comment

Balinese girl by andreas, on Flickr

in case anyone thinks that it shows that I had been "invading", this one had been taken a few seconds before the one above


Balinese girl by andreas, on Flickr, both above Canon LTM f1.4/50mm, Sony A7, Bali 2018

thank you 🙂 ( "fresh" one from yesterday )

Pemangku by andreas, on Flickr, C.V. Heliar f4.5/15mm, Sony NEX5n

 

[KM-25]

Not all of us “Pros” are bad in form and conduct, many of us actually care about our subjects and take the time to sew genuine relationships with people that may not even bear the fruit of a photograph.

You have a few nice images in there, keep at it and perhaps avoid the static dead center snaps and you might actually have a good narrative set that goes beyond the oft celebrated cliches.

Imo it's bad..but unfortunately hardly surprising.
( later edit: What is insinuated in that video is bad and since my only experience with a "Pro", related below, had been very negative the allegations did not surprise me and I mistakenly may have jumped to believing them. However I have not the slightest idea about how McCurry actually had gone about his photography and for lack of knowledge certainly cannot condemn him! )


Only once I have encountered a "professional photographer in the field". That was during the Mahashivaratri festival inside Pashupatinath temple in Kathmandu, Nepal. There had been many colorful pilgrims and "well selling" Babas and Sadhus. The "Pro" photographer was behaving pushy, disrespectful, invading, even aggressive and..abusive. He had a local translator with him who carried a stack of "model releases" which he immediately had people sign, often for free, sometimes for a donation of a few 10s of Cents. One day some Babas had made a big, quite violent performance with hundred of onlookers. He had tried to get close but the Babas did not like him, threatened him and scared him away. His reaction was waving his credit card in the air. The Babas had not been impressed. They did not object me to get close. I had been camping out with them for some weeks. Once I overheard the translator telling the "Pro" that I have been spending full days and nights with the Sadhus, that I may have taken the better photos. He gave me a stern look but did not know that I had been quite new playing with manual lenses, doing it badly, too st.ned most of the time and that I did not have a single model release signed. What I did was printing out some 100 or 150 photos which I handed out to the pilgrims. Certainly he must have had a "stunning" story published somewhere.
( my photos taken that time: https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=8003463%40N03&sort=date-taken-desc&text=mahashivaratri&view_all=1 resp. more from that time here but also including some others taken at Pashupatinath: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/albums/72157607731424404/page1 )

 

[KM-25]

I don't know why the big deal, using today's political correctness standard for something that was done in 1984.

Are we going to over analyse every notable historic photo taken in past and rubbish the photographer for what we think are non PC 'ness or trespasses or even staged fakery?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuFKpaV_jjo

Neither of these people are photographers, they are Internet Gear Review Heros who would not been known at all without the legions of gear enthusiasts who follow them.

I don’t give them the time of day....

 

[KM-25]

This doesn't make much sense because any journalist or documentary photographer would not need model releases of any kind. You need them for advertising only, and typically only if you are going to be running the ad in that very country (and that country has laws requiring such things).

Not entirely true, three new clients of mine gained last week discussed releases for editorial, one wants them for sure.

In 2008, Time magazine started requiring releases from many of my assignments.

 

[SaveKodak]

Getty sells the images as stock photos and thus the intended purpose is possibly advertising, and they're international so releases cover their butts. But lets say you were shooting directly for the NY Times, you would not need releases.

I shot an editorial recently at a State Prison, not one inmate signed a release. We were telling a story, not selling anything. Plus I was shooting 4x5 so they were pretty aware a picture was being made hah!

Another example. We all remember that video of the kid in the MAGA hat and the Native American? It was on every channel, in every publication, all over print and the web basically. That kid did not sign a release, and he is very possibly a minor. But it's news! You don't need a release to photograph people in a public setting if the intention is journalistic, artistic, or documentary.