wow!

emraphoto said:
some truly, truly great stuff.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that, I don't agree. Between Matthew Brady, Capa and dozens of others, how much film has been exposed showing waste and destruction? It doesn't change anything anymore than photos of kittens, flowers and bumble bees.

Go downtown in most cities in the world and there will be slums and kids sleeping on floors or on the street the same as when the 30's expose' were all the rage.

War and it's results are not 'truly great' no matter how well exposed.

I'd hate to think that war and poverty are considered 'job opportunities' by photographers.

IMHO, of course.
 
Ducky said:
I don't know about that, I don't agree. Between Matthew Brady, Capa and dozens of others, how much film has been exposed showing waste and destruction? It doesn't change anything anymore than photos of kittens, flowers and bumble bees.
...
Click to expand...

The images DO change something (or at least have the capability to change the situation). If there is no image then how can people see what is really going on?
 
i saw an excellent organization of subjects and environment. it also presented a great view of the impact both physically and emotionally that conflict can exact. i assure you i have seen first hand the effects of protracted conflicts and it will always have an audience with me.

without first hand images we are left to the embedded wire service photographers and what CNN/NBC/The respected countries administration decides to show us. most of this amounts to propaganda in my opinion.

their is no shame in wanting to show the masses the true impact of foreign policies. i think the condemnation of photographers (which i am not attributing only to you Ducky) attempting to add an interpretation of said impact hints at a precarious future. without a deep supply of imagery to help us understand, feel or respect the impact of violence we will be blind save what our leaders tell us.
 
dfoo said:
The images DO change something (or at least have the capability to change the situation). If there is no image then how can people see what is really going on?
Click to expand...
What do they change? Growing up in the USA during WWII I saw waste, destruction, agony and atrocities through the eyes of photographers.
Again in Korea.
Again in Vietnam.
Again in Iraq.
Again in Afghasistan.
Where next?

No, sorry, can't see any change, can't see any truth being spoken,
4686808176_1ba717b6bd.jpg
 
i am not even sure where this has come from to be honest? when i look at the photo's i see children, balls, proud men, young boys exercising and playing sports, kites.

the work seems/seemed such a refreshing and deeply respectful look at a people who have endured a great deal. at times the photographs seemed to quietly celebrate versus condemn humanity. i even see humor. this has been absent in every piece i have seen from the region.

i realize and respect your opinion Ducky yet i can't help but feel we are looking at different photographs?
 
Yes, I agree, there is hope in the photos, but with ruins in the background. We see and interpret as indiniduals and that gives variety.
We are looking at the same photos but seeing them from our perspective, that's what is so great about photography, we see with our own eyes what the camera caught as reality.
I guess in a sense they are 'truly great' photos, they got us into a nice discussion. I'll shut up and see what others think.
Always enjoy your posts.
 
Ducky said:
I'd hate to think that war and poverty are considered 'job opportunities' by photographers. IMHO, of course.
Click to expand...

Not "IMHO" - you are correct. War photographers are war profiteers. Profit from a war? You are ipso facto a "war profiteer". Photographers are no different. But dead mangled bodies and people living on the street look great in grainy tri-x! It's "art" mahn. I'll take the skin tones of a beautifully lit nude, or a great street scene that doesn't involve exploiting the dead or the destitute.
 
Some very striking images. The boy and wire shot just took my breath away. And the "Marbles and Eid" too -- the expression on the boy's face! Terrific stuff.

As a historian, I won't comment on the "change" except to say that documenting the present is a valuable activity in and of itself ... if only so that future people can see how we all lived and died. But even beyond that function I believe that there is a more positive contribution as well. It's easy to be pessimistic and say that nothing changes, but fact is such pessimism rests on an unproven assumption: that things would be the same without such witnesses. In fact, we cannot know how much WORSE things could / would be if there weren't people recording the tragedies as they occur -- I tend to believe things could be much, much, much worse without such witnesses. This is, however, equally unprovable ... a statement of belief. The pessimistic viewpoint, however, strikes me as an all too easy beard for comfortable complacency: no need to even admit the "truth" of such records, let alone actually do anything.
 
Last edited:
NickTrop said:
Not "IMHO" - you are correct. War photographers are war profiteers. Profit from a war? You are ipso facto a "war profiteer". Photographers are no different. But dead mangled bodies and people living on the street look great in grainy tri-x! It's "art" mahn. I'll take the skin tones of a beautifully lit nude, or a great street scene that doesn't involve exploiting the dead or the destitute.
Click to expand...

can you point out the dead mangled bodies?

you are speaking from inexperience Nick. your post is laden with pretty heavy pejorative yet i suspect you have not spent a minute discussing motivations with a photographer who has spent any time in a conflict zone. to each one belongs deeply personal reasons for being there. few i have met count $ as one. it can be a very difficult thing to see, conflict. specifically the toll on the non combatants. i never dreamed myself as conflict photographer but the more time i spend in active regions the more i feel i must return. none of it has to do with $.

i am going to follow Ducky's path and let things unfold as i truly believe the work is totally outside what is being tossed about here.
 
Last edited:
"The pessimistic viewpoint, however, strikes me as an all too easy beard for comfortable complacency: no need to even admit the "truth" of such records, let alone actually do anything."

i cannot help but totally agree.
 
some really nice images. And very nice perspective for the subject...

I just want to make a humble critism. Some shots wide angle is excessively used. Seems like he used one lens ~15mm only?
 
emraphoto said:
i am pretty sure it was 6x7 and a 43mm?

inside information ;)
Click to expand...

oh, ok, medium format. Oh well nice choice of equipment but some shots with wonderful 105mm would be great addition! Especially the portraits. that lens has so nice bokeh!

Dont get me wrong. His work must be appreciated. That is my personal opinion.
 
Last edited:
I agree 100 percent with Kevin. Certainly it's better to show our failures to ourselves rather than pretend they aren't there. It's naive to think the invention of photography and the publication of images of war was going to shock and shame humanity into utopia. People have always known the price of war and the havoc it brings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom