Daeda1us wrote: Read the thread.
Very few blamed the photographer. Most blamed the NY Post for running the photo, especially on the cover.
It was interesting that someone had the same thought I had, Kevin Carter's picture of the sudan girl and vulture.
Kevin Carter got the Pulitzer for that photo. The girl was trying to crawl to a feeding center. She was dying in slow motion.
When contacted, the NYTimes did not know if the girl ever made it to the feeding center. Which means Kevin Carter very likely took the picture, then did nothing to help the girl. He surely didnt carry her to the feeding center. (As opposed to the actions of Nick Ut, after he took the picture of Kim Phuc he took her to a hospital where her horrific injuries were treated and she survived.)
Kevin Carter was awarded the Pulitzer Prize.
And now people are condeming this photographer for not putting aside his camera and putting himself at risk to save a man he did not know and probably could not have saved.
Some would say there is a double standard.
My two cents, YMMV
Daeda1us
PS, there were other people on the platform, yet I saw none in the photo running toward the man.
MC Photo wrote: This photo and Kevin Carter's photo have nothing in common.
One is a story about a person and the other is a story about a people.
I disagree. That child was (and hopefully still is) a person, not "a people".
oh. i hadn't seen it before but i suppose i thought i had. a name like "the new york post" seems more legit than others, i guess. i thought it was a newspaper.
It is a newspaper. Tabloid also refers to the physical format of the pages. It's setup like a book with smaller pages and no horizontal fold like a broadsheet like the Times.
Daeda1us wrote: Read the thread.
Very few blamed the photographer. Most blamed the NY Post for running the photo, especially on the cover.
It was interesting that someone had the same thought I had, Kevin Carter's picture of the sudan girl and vulture.
Kevin Carter got the Pulitzer for that photo. The girl was trying to crawl to a feeding center. She was dying in slow motion.
When contacted, the NYTimes did not know if the girl ever made it to the feeding center. Which means Kevin Carter very likely took the picture, then did nothing to help the girl. He surely didnt carry her to the feeding center. (As opposed to the actions of Nick Ut, after he took the picture of Kim Phuc he took her to a hospital where her horrific injuries were treated and she survived.)
Kevin Carter was awarded the Pulitzer Prize.
And now people are condeming this photographer for not putting aside his camera and putting himself at risk to save a man he did not know and probably could not have saved.
Some would say there is a double standard.
My two cents, YMMV
Daeda1us
PS, there were other people on the platform, yet I saw none in the photo running toward the man.
I disagree. That child was (and hopefully still is) a person, not "a people".
My two cents, YMMV
Daeda1us
The child died not long after the photo was taken...
The poster's point was that the photo of that child was emblematic of a much larger issue facing thousands.
Karl Johnston
Posts: 7,242
Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada
MC Photo wrote: The photos or being pushed on to the tracks?
People will be pushed, fall, and jump.
If something happens to reduce these incidences, it will be because of this photograph. Otherwise hundreds/thousands of times in the past that were undocumented would have made sure this didn't happen.
I would have probably taken a photo of the Bum who pushed him too.
The train station in China they have a glass wall up and door that open when the train is stopped. This prevents anyone from falling or being pushed on the tracks. But then again they have a crowd on the platforms and without there might be a lot of people on the tracks just from overcrowding.
This article doesn't say what the actual outcome was, if the man died or not. The train looks like it was slowing down to stop, surely if it was going really fast the picture would be more blurry. So he might have had just enough time to get out, there's also loads of people on the platform who could have helped him- Including the photographer
Karl Johnston
Posts: 7,242
Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada
Caroline Alexander wrote: This article doesn't say what the actual outcome was, if the man died or not. The train looks like it was slowing down to stop, surely if it was going really fast the picture would be more blurry. So he might have had just enough time to get out, there's also loads of people on the platform who could have helped him- Including the photographer
The child died not long after the photo was taken...
The poster's point was that the photo of that child was emblematic of a much larger issue facing thousands.
Hi, where did you get that information, that the child died shortly afterwards? According to the Spanish newspaper "Mundo" the child was actually a boy, the band on his wrist indicated he had been saved from the famine and according to his family he made it into adulthood (but later died).
And Carter was one one several photographers taking photos that day in that same spot in Sudan, on a UN chartered trip. They were at a UN feeding center. The children were left playing (or aching) while their parents received food at the same spot.
Hi, where did you get that information, that the child died shortly afterwards? According to the Spanish newspaper "Mundo" the child was actually a boy, the band on his wrist indicated he had been saved from the famine and according to his family he made it into adulthood (but later died).
And Carter was one one several photographers taking photos that day in that same spot in Sudan, on a UN chartered trip. They were at a UN feeding center. The children were left playing (or aching) while their parents received food at the same spot.
After he killed himself I had read a couple of articles that stated that. Maybe they got it wrong? If so, then I apologize for spreading misinformation.
It is a newspaper. Tabloid also refers to the physical format of the pages. It's setup like a book with smaller pages and no horizontal fold like a broadsheet like the Times.
i am aware of what the word tabloid means.
and you know what i meant when i said i thought it was a newspaper. there's no need for you to clarify what the word means to me. you're just being nit-picky.
Paramour Productions wrote: After he killed himself I had read a couple of articles that stated that. Maybe they got it wrong? If so, then I apologize for spreading misinformation.
Most articles about him and after his suicide were horrific, meaning they were utter, sensationalized bullshit. "Photographer commits suicide because of "vulture" photo" type of complete bullshit. True, Kevin Carter was a tortured soul, his mind was fried from the unspeakable cruelty and death he'd witnessed in South Africa (remember Apartheid?), and other parts of Africa. He was fucked up in the head prior to going to Sudan, he saw and photographed the most gruesome examples of mankinds cruelty against itself.
Are you familiar with The Bang Bang Club? If not I have a shiny quarter that says you'd enjoy learning about them, Carter was one of the four members. Two are dead now, and one lost his legs in Afghanistan.
In my eyes Kevin Carter is a heroic photographer who was not right in the head. That "vulture" experience fucked him up bad, not taking the photo but seeing first hand that day the effect of famine in Sudan. That child was one of MANY who were subject to famine and starvation, and there were MANY photographers and UN personnel at that feeding center that day.
Carter is a hero to me and I get irked when photographers, of all people, so easily buy the media bullshit about him (not taking you to task here, just a little free floating rant on my part).
Easily could have helped, Given that the assailant wasn't in view, it was clearly a good 30 sec before that train was in striking distance. 30 sec is enough time to not think "oh this is going to be a money shot" vs I can swing my camera to my back, run over, and drag him out and be a real hero, not a witness and bystander to a murder.
No excuses, just selfishness and cowardliness. The time doesn't add up. You don't push a guy onto the tracks and disappear from 15ft away in 3 sec without being in the same frame as the photo. Clearly there was enough time. Just a poor judgement call, on everyone there.
Mike Kelcher
Posts: 11,625
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
Caution, some of these links may be disturbing....so I'm hereby labeling them all 18+ even if they shouldn't be.
How many times did we see Dale Earnhardt hit the wall? This resulted in his death.
How many times did ABC plat the video of a man reaching for a ball at a Texas Rangers game, resulting in his death? You missed that? well...here you go. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_3asU-m_2E 18+
How many times did we see this man in front of a tank?
18+
There's only one reason these images can still be easily found on the internet...people are fascinated by them. It's one of the ugly parts of human nature.
Freelance photojournalists understand that being in the right place at the right time is everything. Yes, there is a duty to offer help, if possible, and if prudent but I wasn't there and based on the articles I've read about this incident, I'm not going to blame the photographer or the Post.
Untitled Photographer wrote: Most articles about him and after his suicide were horrific, meaning they were utter, sensationalized bullshit. "Photographer commits suicide because of "vulture" photo" type of complete bullshit. True, Kevin Carter was a tortured soul, his mind was fried from the unspeakable cruelty and death he'd witnessed in South Africa (remember Apartheid?), and other parts of Africa. He was fucked up in the head prior to going to Sudan, he saw and photographed the most gruesome examples of mankinds cruelty against itself.
Are you familiar with The Bang Bang Club? If not I have a shiny quarter that says you'd enjoy learning about them, Carter was one of the four members. Two are dead now, and one lost his legs in Afghanistan.
In my eyes Kevin Carter is a heroic photographer who was not right in the head. That "vulture" experience fucked him up bad, not taking the photo but seeing first hand that day the effect of famine in Sudan. That child was one of MANY who were subject to famine and starvation, and there were MANY photographers and UN personnel at that feeding center that day.
Carter is a hero to me and I get irked when photographers, of all people, so easily buy the media bullshit about him (not taking you to task here, just a little free floating rant on my part).
No worries, I'm happy to be corrected. And yes, I am familiar with them, at least tangentially. I spent some time shooting in Sub-Saharan Africa (UNICEF) and spent a small bit of time in Sudan.
Paramour Productions wrote: No worries, I'm happy to be corrected. And yes, I am familiar with them, at least tangentially. I spent some time shooting in Sub-Saharan Africa (UNICEF) and spent a small bit of time in Sudan.
Cheers and my hat's off to you for your UNICEF and work in Sudan. Do you have a gallery of your Africa photos somewhere?
IF I were on the tracks, and there wasn't a suicide pit, (AND I was 007), I would get close to the end of the station, and try to climb out from there, if there wasn't a staircase or ladder on that side. Climbing out from the middle of the station is silly.
This is all under the assumption I DIDN'T BANG MY HEAD OR BREAK A LEG on the way down from the platform.
Valkyrur wrote: ... I wonder if the photographer's "instinct" would make him take pictures
of the incoming train if HE was the one who was pushed onto the tracks!!!!
...
So glad someone thought about putting this matter into the right perspective!
The photographer is an opportunitistic dick.
If the homeless guy is walking back or is still around, then my camera is going to help itself to some skull bone. That will keep that wreck of human waste distracted while I try to help the injured guy off the tracks.
Believe me, no camera is worth someone's life, and breaking it while doing something heroic is almost guaranteed to inspire some folks to help the hero replace it.
Sorry, but I am not seeing the "instinct" thing here. When someone is clearly in danger, and YOU are all that stands between a tabloid photo and saving someone's son, brother, or dad you need to man up.
Mike Kelcher wrote: Caution, some of these links may be disturbing....so I'm hereby labeling them all 18+ even if they shouldn't be.
How many times did we see Dale Earnhardt hit the wall? This resulted in his death.
How many times did ABC plat the video of a man reaching for a ball at a Texas Rangers game, resulting in his death? You missed that? well...here you go. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_3asU-m_2E 18+
How many times did we see this man in front of a tank?
18+
There's only one reason these images can still be easily found on the internet...people are fascinated by them. It's one of the ugly parts of human nature.
Freelance photojournalists understand that being in the right place at the right time is everything. Yes, there is a duty to offer help, if possible, and if prudent but I wasn't there and based on the articles I've read about this incident, I'm not going to blame the photographer or the Post.
I agree with you.
Also, a still image can do more than a video. The image on the newspaper will reach more people than a video that will end up getting lost on Youtube. Hopefully, something will be done to improve security on the subway. Someone mentioned that China has glass walls that prevent people from falling on the tracks. NY's outdated subway system needs to be brought up to date. Hopefully, this image on the newspaper will end up at the Mayor's desk.
One thing is for sure, this will end up recorded in history because most newspapers end up on the library's archives. Again, videos get lost in the internet.
Optix wrote: IF I were on the tracks, and there wasn't a suicide pit, (AND I was 007), I would get close to the end of the station, and try to climb out from there, if there wasn't a staircase or ladder on that side. Climbing out from the middle of the station is silly.
This is all under the assumption I DIDN'T BANG MY HEAD OR BREAK A LEG on the way down from the platform.
So glad someone thought about putting this matter into the right perspective!
The photographer is an opportunitistic dick.
If the homeless guy is walking back or is still around, then my camera is going to help itself to some skull bone. That will keep that wreck of human waste distracted while I try to help the injured guy off the tracks.
Believe me, no camera is worth someone's life, and breaking it while doing something heroic is almost guaranteed to inspire some folks to help the hero replace it.
Sorry, but I am not seeing the "instinct" thing here. When someone is clearly in danger, and YOU are all that stands between a tabloid photo and saving someone's son, brother, or dad you need to man up.
Easier said than done. Don't blame the photographer. Like my photojournalism professor used to say: "Kill the message, don't kill the messenger"
Legacys 7
Posts: 33,118
San Francisco, California, US
richardsphotographybc wrote: So the guy who got pushed, why could he not run away from the train or attempt to I should say, he was sitting there,got up and tried to get back on the platform. He could of easily at least tried that as the train would of been slowing down. I know you can not out run a train but he could of tried.
But even at that the photog is a lame jerk off. I would of dropped my gear and at least tried something.
Just my thoughts.
According to what I'd read today on Yahoo, his wife said that he had some issues. He'd been drinking and I think got into an argument with his wife. So my guess is, he was drunk that day. Yahoo report, pointed out that he'd approached the guy to calm him down. If all is true in the report, if he were sober, he may not have approached the guy. The guy had been having some issues and looking for a job etc.
Untitled Photographer wrote: Cheers and my hat's off to you for your UNICEF and work in Sudan. Do you have a gallery of your Africa photos somewhere?
No. It's something I've been thinking about, but not really sure how to incorporate them into my website, at least not how it is now. We're doing a redesign, so at that point I hope to have them there. Right now it would just seem... Odd...
The portraits I shot were a complete 180 from the standard fare for a variety of reasons. It's a long story that would totally derail the thread, but essentially they wanted stuff that was more uplifting, given the story I was covering.
If you PM me an email address, I'd be happy to show you some when I get home later tonight.
Or maybe I'll put some on a webserver and post them if I have time.
The parasite who took the picture wanted to make a "name" for himself and did not want to risk damaging his photographic equipment. The victim was expendable.
I just can't get over how NOOOOOO one grabbed him to try to help him... The train is far enough back in some photos where they could have helped! All given the crazy guy ran away or was being held back.
Sooo sad
Optix wrote: Sorry, but I am not seeing the "instinct" thing here. When someone is clearly in danger, and YOU are all that stands between a tabloid photo and saving someone's son, brother, or dad you need to man up.
Daeda1us wrote: Read the thread.
Very few blamed the photographer. Most blamed the NY Post for running the photo, especially on the cover.
It was interesting that someone had the same thought I had, Kevin Carter's picture of the sudan girl and vulture.
Kevin Carter got the Pulitzer for that photo. The girl was trying to crawl to a feeding center. She was dying in slow motion.
When contacted, the NYTimes did not know if the girl ever made it to the feeding center. Which means Kevin Carter very likely took the picture, then did nothing to help the girl. He surely didnt carry her to the feeding center. (As opposed to the actions of Nick Ut, after he took the picture of Kim Phuc he took her to a hospital where her horrific injuries were treated and she survived.)
Kevin Carter was awarded the Pulitzer Prize.
And now people are condeming this photographer for not putting aside his camera and putting himself at risk to save a man he did not know and probably could not have saved.
Some would say there is a double standard.
My two cents, YMMV
Daeda1us
PS, there were other people on the platform, yet I saw none in the photo running toward the man.
I disagree. That child was (and hopefully still is) a person, not "a people".
Most articles about him and after his suicide were horrific, meaning they were utter, sensationalized bullshit. "Photographer commits suicide because of "vulture" photo" type of complete bullshit. True, Kevin Carter was a tortured soul, his mind was fried from the unspeakable cruelty and death he'd witnessed in South Africa (remember Apartheid?), and other parts of Africa. He was fucked up in the head prior to going to Sudan, he saw and photographed the most gruesome examples of mankinds cruelty against itself.
Are you familiar with The Bang Bang Club? If not I have a shiny quarter that says you'd enjoy learning about them, Carter was one of the four members. Two are dead now, and one lost his legs in Afghanistan.
In my eyes Kevin Carter is a heroic photographer who was not right in the head. That "vulture" experience fucked him up bad, not taking the photo but seeing first hand that day the effect of famine in Sudan. That child was one of MANY who were subject to famine and starvation, and there were MANY photographers and UN personnel at that feeding center that day.
Carter is a hero to me and I get irked when photographers, of all people, so easily buy the media bullshit about him (not taking you to task here, just a little free floating rant on my part).
I don't think the photo or the experience of shooting it affected him in anyway. That was all stuff he'd seen before. It was the reaction to the photo that hurt him.
Let's say that he'd done "the right thing" whatever that is for the specifics of that situation would have been in the truest objective sense.
Then you get a near unanimous reaction questioning your decision, there's simply no way it's not going to cause doubt and internal conflict, and that would be in addition to any that was already there.
Maybe he should have carried the child to the feeding station. Maybe he should have ended the child's suffering right then and there. Maybe he should have quit photography and stayed there and fed everyone for the rest of his life.
What kind of people would be so ignorant as to criticize someone for seeking out a terrible situation and communicating it to the world? I think a person who was angered by the way they were made to feel about the photo. Probably a sense of guilt that they weren't doing something. Or for other people who were, a jealousy of how much attention he was getting. Maybe it's just an anger for how sick the felt when they saw the photo.
I have no doubt that people who criticized him did it in the name of morality and ethics, but I think it was really in anger, most likely with themselves, that they directed at him. The things people can do in anger are pretty sick - like use starvation as a weapon of mass destruction.
With that photo, Kevin Carter single-handedly invalidated the lives and work of pretty much anyone who's ever seen the photo. That's going to bring you some very troubling negativity.
The photographer maybe his looking to photograph the next Jeffery Dahmer's work but then there would be charges for killing people would there... As for the story being told:/ , watch a human being die,,, the only difference is it by a trian and people watching and not JD.
Think we can only answer for ourselves, I would of tried to help and not working with a flash and then selling images to a paper.
Just a thought, the photographer takes the train,,, wonder how safe he feels now?
It's clear the photographer's story is BS, but that's irrelevant.
To the people who are saying he should have done something, are you saying that if I was there without a camera, I'd have an ethical/moral obligation to most likely commit suicide because I saw this guy on the tracks?
The idea that anyone "should" have tried to help is flat out wrong.
All professional training is that you do not risk your life to save another.
I worked as an EMT for 5 years, I've been under trains to pronounce people dead. I've picked up parts of people off the tracks. I can tell you details that are so gruesome that they are absurd and you'd laugh. The default assumption should be that if he had climbed down to help him out, he would have been killed too. While there is some clearance down there, it's far from a guarantee that you'll survive.
It makes no sense to single him out as being the person who "should" have done something, especially when you consider how many other people where there.
Should he have shot or not? Hard to know in the moment, so the answer is yes. The decision of what happens with the photos after is separate. He doesn't have to show them to anyone.
When I went to ground zero I thought about bringing a camera. I decided against it because it seemed wrong to present yourself as one thing and do another. If I'd had a camera, I'd have had a perspective for photos unlike anything I've seen at any point since. I think I may have posted something critical here about Sanjay Gupta after the earthquake in Haiti. He was live talking about dozens of people 50 feet away in a park needing medical help as an example of the shortage of doctors. The anchor in NYC asked him if he was there as a doctor first or as a journalist. He said doctor, which is BS. If he was he wouldn't have been on TV while there were people 50 feet away who needed treatment.
What bothers me is the dishonesty - which he may not even have been aware of. I'd be supportive of him going and being there as a journalist only. There's no one who could communicate the medical needs on a mass level than a doctor. I could see him going as 50/50 with the idea that he has responsibility to his employers and that he works as a doctor when he doesn't have a employment responsibility at that moment. It's not acceptable to present yourself as one thing and do another. It's acceptable to change your mind part way through, but if that's the case, you present yourself as having changed your mind.
So for me the decision was that there was no way I could stand on the pile, maybe even on a body as someone there to find survivors and spend 1/125th of a second doing anything else that wasn't focused on that goal.
Because of the consequences of spending time on the pile, I doubt I'd have climbed down. I certainly hope I'd have had the sense not to - this reminds me of a trip to main when I was 8 or 10 and saw three dead people pulled out of a pool. The first one had begun to drown. The second one jumped in to help and was pulled under by the first and the third pulled under by the second. All three died.
You can never predict the future, especially in the moment. The thing is, once you've seen or been around enough of these things, it becomes clear that the outcome is determined from the first moment. The second he became airborne, before he hit the tracks, it was probably the case that there wasn't enough time and that no one was close enough, or some other specific detail where the best case is someone could have been stuck holding his severed arm after the train smashed him and dragged him down the tracks. Or maybe they'd have run to the edge and accidentally blocked him as he pulled himself up and they tried to help.
There's also the fact that everyone was drugged in the most literal sense. There are distinct physical changes that happen from the epinephrine surge that affect your body and awareness. Your ability to function through that altered state is determined by your past experience of it.
People's instincts are usually right. The fact that 100% of the people there did nothing should be a clear indication that we'd have all agreed, like they did, that there was nothing anyone could do. There's no rational reason to point fingers at the photographer for not trying to save the man.
If you are a photographer, and there's nothing you can do, I can't see any reason not to shoot. No one seems to be criticizing the people who shot cellphone photos and video of the aftermath.
Criticizing the photographer's decision to sell the photos is a different story. It's also separate from the decision to show the photos and also from the Post's decision to run them on the front page.
I'll predict this - with the prevalence of cellphone cameras, there will be more and more of this type of thing being captured, and now everyone knows at least one newspaper that will run them. I'm sure it won't be long before we're debating who's responsible for the death of someone who tried to get a better shot.
and you know what i meant when i said i thought it was a newspaper. there's no need for you to clarify what the word means to me. you're just being nit-picky.
Did I know that? That's news to me, because you seemed confused, and I was clarifying for you.
I have no idea what your knowledge base is, but thanks for jumping on me for trying to help.
Though not there I believe the pics were snapped as part of him knowing news was happening in front of him.
I also know you can zoom in and crop making it appear you the photographer are closer to the subject than you actually are
It is sad no one tried to help, but I have read (which I also dont put much stock into) it was about 22 seconds for the ordeal (push till hit) which is not a very long time
I wont buy or read a NY Post because of the photo I think it was very disrespectful to the family, especially the headline
BobbyAnthony wrote: Though not there I believe the pics were snapped as part of him knowing news was happening in front of him.
I also know you can zoom in and crop making it appear you the photographer are closer to the subject than you actually are
It is sad no one tried to help, but I have read (which I also dont put much stock into) it was about 22 seconds for the ordeal (push till hit) which is not a very long time
I wont buy or read a NY Post because of the photo I think it was very disrespectful to the family, especially the headline
My 2 cents
22 seconds, to hope someone saves someone as you watch and wait
22 seconds to save someone and get the shot
22 seconds to watch others do nothing
22 seconds to flash the driver 40+ times
21 second to watch people do nothing to help you....
Call it as it is, they all have to live with that 21 seconds of nothingness,including the photographer.
That will eat you up inside being with or without the camera as proven many,many times....
49 times of a flash?
18+
| 
| 
| edu