There has been some amazing work to come out of the fighting in Syria. A number of very good photojournalists have died covering that fighting and two of them (Remi Ochlik and Tim Hetherington produced some amazing work while doing so).
I just stumbled across some work by Goran Tomasevic of Reuters. Very powerful stuff, the kind of work that would get Bob Capa's approval.
I'm curious whether that photo with the debris flying was something he knew was about to happen and timed it or was a coincidence. He had to have been hit by it either way.
MC Photo wrote: I'm curious whether that photo with the debris flying was something he knew was about to happen and timed it or was a coincidence. He had to have been hit by it either way.
Really?
I know (good)conflict journalists have balls of steel and keep their finger on the shutter button no matter what but it's hard to imagine even one of them knowing they were going to have a tank shell lobbed anywhere in their general direction and sticking around to shoot it. They're crazy but they aren't stupid. Otherwise they wouldn't last very long at their job.
Really?
I know (good)conflict journalists have balls of steel and keep their finger on the shutter button no matter what but it's hard to imagine even one of them knowing they were going to have a tank shell lobbed anywhere in their general direction and sticking around to shoot it. They're crazy but they aren't stupid. Otherwise they wouldn't last very long at their job.
Amazing and unrelentingly horrifying images! But I cannot decide whether images such as these contribute to our desensitization toward the horrors or war or whether they make war real (as opposed to a game or a movie). I remember only seeing images like these in Life Magazine. Their impact on me were always strong... such as the Nick Uk photo of screaming and naked child Phan Thi Kim Phuc running down a street during the Vietnam conflict or the Eddie Adams image of a Vietnamese general executing a Viet Cong guerrilla in the street.
For me photos such as these are always difficult to swallow despite being captivating to view. And I see them as a tool to teach current events. But I wonder if our younger generation sees things that way or if, to them, it's like a "Call of Duty" game. I know for many Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, it's all too real.
First, absolutely those are some "lucky" shots. I say luck in the sense of luck= preparation plus opportunity.
Second, Goran Tomasevic is a pro's pro. He shot award winning work in Libya, Somewhat similar situation (asymetrical warfare, but less urban). Speaking from experience, you get a feel for how situations will develop, what groups are gun-shy and what others will be seeking a fight. So if you're looking for particular shots, you can plan and anticipate in part based on the groups/units you're talking to. That doesn't guarantee anything but you get a sense of: this guy is just going to sweep a sector and won't take any risks, this guy is leading his unit in to block a hole in the line and is going to be in the heat of it--there will be action.
But that said, those shots are also "lucky." Even if you put yourself in that situation, you've got rounds coming in (and your instinct is to duck...or to look for the sniper or the direction the rounds are coming from). So you miss the shots of the two fighters being hit, showing pain, and then bleeding out. The exact timing would be amazing. As for the shrapnel shot.....you know that the group firing RPGs and sending out fire will draw a response from the Syrian Army. So you can anticipate that and even compose the shot. But again...catching the moment the round hits and the shrapnel hits....lucky.
One other thought: I always hated working around snipers (which is where part of this sequence comes from). For starters, the first lesson for all snipers is to engage in counter-sniper fire: take out guys with long rifles and glass who can take you out. And I've had any number of snipers (two specifically in Bosnia) tell me that reflection off of a lens is what most snipers would assume is an opposing number (and thus someone to target). Additionally, the Syrians are deliberately going after the press. Remi Ochlik was killed just for that reason.
I don't begrudge or belittle any of Goran's work--far from it. He put himself in that situation. He prepared to capture that moment and also in a composed, focused, coherent photo that tells a story (other than just "here's a dead guy"). But again, capturing the moment someone is hit or bleeds out, capturing the moment the ordinance explodes (especially when it's close)....those are damn near impossible. Goran had an award winning shot of a group of cars brewing up from Libya. The guy is fearless and has a great sense of the moment.
James S Kassanoff wrote: Amazing and unrelentingly horrifying images! But I cannot decide whether images such as these contribute to our desensitization toward the horrors or war or whether they make war real (as opposed to a game or a movie). I remember only seeing images like these in Life Magazine. Their impact on me were always strong...
Sounds like viewing images of real madness did not desensitize you at all. It didn't desensitize me either, and I grew up looking at Time/Life images of war as well.
The myth of kids looking at violent images or playing violent games and then being unable to discern reality from fantasy is just that, a myth. For that matter i sometimes play Call of Duty type of video games at home, I have never once been unable to recognize it is a video game and killing human beings is quite different than in fantasy or in a movie. In spite of my Time/Life magazine upbringing and all the violent video games I have played over the years, I still value human life think killing people is not a good idea.
Untitled Photographer wrote: The myth of kids looking at violent images or playing violent games and then being unable to discern reality from fantasy is just that, a myth. For that matter i sometimes play Call of Duty type of video games at home, I have never once been unable to recognize it is a video game and killing human beings is quite different than in fantasy or in a movie. In spite of my Time/Life magazine upbringing and all the violent video games I have played over the years, I still value human life think killing people is not a good idea.
It's our contemporary version of Flip Wilson's "The devil made me do it!" line that his characters ran to every time something went sideways.
An old friend had been a combat photojournalist beginning with shooting 16mm film in Vietnam up through Desert Storm in the 1990's. He's pretty damn sane. A real character, to be sure, but quite sane.
James S Kassanoff wrote: Amazing and unrelentingly horrifying images! But I cannot decide whether images such as these contribute to our desensitization toward the horrors or war or whether they make war real (as opposed to a game or a movie). I remember only seeing images like these in Life Magazine. Their impact on me were always strong... such as the Nick Uk photo of screaming and naked child Phan Thi Kim Phuc running down a street during the Vietnam conflict or the Eddie Adams image of a Vietnamese general executing a Viet Cong guerrilla in the street.
For me photos such as these are always difficult to swallow despite being captivating to view. And I see them as a tool to teach current events. But I wonder if our younger generation sees things that way or if, to them, it's like a "Call of Duty" game. I know for many Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, it's all too real.
My first thought was, it looks like a game of Call of Duty, only with realistic graphics.
My thinking is that if you don't live in the neighborhood, you don't really get it. We watch it while sipping coffee listening to Sting or Beyonce.
James S Kassanoff wrote: Amazing and unrelentingly horrifying images! But I cannot decide whether images such as these contribute to our desensitization toward the horrors or war or whether they make war real (as opposed to a game or a movie). I remember only seeing images like these in Life Magazine. Their impact on me were always strong... such as the Nick Uk photo of screaming and naked child Phan Thi Kim Phuc running down a street during the Vietnam conflict or the Eddie Adams image of a Vietnamese general executing a Viet Cong guerrilla in the street.
For me photos such as these are always difficult to swallow despite being captivating to view. And I see them as a tool to teach current events. But I wonder if our younger generation sees things that way or if, to them, it's like a "Call of Duty" game. I know for many Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, it's all too real.
James, here's my take...
First, it's absolutely true that people confuse seeing pictures with "being there. I've been told by a number of military trainers that a basic problem with most new recruits is b/c they've seen war porn and played video games, they think they know what it's like. They tend to be truly shocked at the smells and sounds that don't come out through video, the amount of confusion and chaos that is part of a war.
Second, I'm not so sure that pictures and video desensitize. They can. But I don't think they do so automatically. I think it's up to the nature of the viewer. Certainly visual media are powerful. But the viewers often can't comprehend, they can't get the situation. So I bet some people would see those FSA pictures and ask "Goran, why didn't you keep those two guys from bleeding out?" just like people asked Kevin Carter "did you take the little girl to the feeding station?"
Third, exposure to this stuff in real life is absolutely desensitizing. You have to become very callous to it all or you can't do the job, you can't stay focused. I became both very callous and also in denial about the affect it was having on me.
To be brutally honest, I never asked myself "is this scene something that will desensitize the viewers?" I always left it to the editors to make those decisions. I wanted to tell stories, capture powerful pictures, and document the newsworthy events.
afplcc wrote: First, absolutely those are some "lucky" shots. I say luck in the sense of luck= preparation plus opportunity.
Second, Goran Tomasevic is a pro's pro. He shot award winning work in Libya, Somewhat similar situation (asymetrical warfare, but less urban). Speaking from experience, you get a feel for how situations will develop, what groups are gun-shy and what others will be seeking a fight. So if you're looking for particular shots, you can plan and anticipate in part based on the groups/units you're talking to. That doesn't guarantee anything but you get a sense of: this guy is just going to sweep a sector and won't take any risks, this guy is leading his unit in to block a hole in the line and is going to be in the heat of it--there will be action.
But that said, those shots are also "lucky." Even if you put yourself in that situation, you've got rounds coming in (and your instinct is to duck...or to look for the sniper or the direction the rounds are coming from). So you miss the shots of the two fighters being hit, showing pain, and then bleeding out. The exact timing would be amazing. As for the shrapnel shot.....you know that the group firing RPGs and sending out fire will draw a response from the Syrian Army. So you can anticipate that and even compose the shot. But again...catching the moment the round hits and the shrapnel hits....lucky.
One other thought: I always hated working around snipers (which is where part of this sequence comes from). For starters, the first lesson for all snipers is to engage in counter-sniper fire: take out guys with long rifles and glass who can take you out. And I've had any number of snipers (two specifically in Bosnia) tell me that reflection off of a lens is what most snipers would assume is an opposing number (and thus someone to target). Additionally, the Syrians are deliberately going after the press. Remi Ochlik was killed just for that reason.
I don't begrudge or belittle any of Goran's work--far from it. He put himself in that situation. He prepared to capture that moment and also in a composed, focused, coherent photo that tells a story (other than just "here's a dead guy"). But again, capturing the moment someone is hit or bleeds out, capturing the moment the ordinance explodes (especially when it's close)....those are damn near impossible. Goran had an award winning shot of a group of cars brewing up from Libya. The guy is fearless and has a great sense of the moment.
Ed
By lucky I don't mean literally, I mean by doing a good job and within that context have timing work in your favor sheerly by coincidence.
Did he know that he was going to have flying debris and that prompted him to release the shutter or was he planning a similar shot and had no idea what was about to happen.
First, it's absolutely true that people confuse seeing pictures with "being there. I've been told by a number of military trainers that a basic problem with most new recruits is b/c they've seen war porn and played video games, they think they know what it's like. They tend to be truly shocked at the smells and sounds that don't come out through video, the amount of confusion and chaos that is part of a war.
Second, I'm not so sure that pictures and video desensitize. They can. But I don't think they do so automatically. I think it's up to the nature of the viewer. Certainly visual media are powerful. But the viewers often can't comprehend, they can't get the situation. So I bet some people would see those FSA pictures and ask "Goran, why didn't you keep those two guys from bleeding out?" just like people asked Kevin Carter "did you take the little girl to the feeding station?"
Third, exposure to this stuff in real life is absolutely desensitizing. You have to become very callous to it all or you can't do the job, you can't stay focused. I became both very callous and also in denial about the affect it was having on me.
To be brutally honest, I never asked myself "is this scene something that will desensitize the viewers?" I always left it to the editors to make those decisions. I wanted to tell stories, capture powerful pictures, and document the newsworthy events.
Ed
I agree that the photos are not desensitizing, but I think it's because combat is not emotional. I think the aftermath, the photos of emotion, those are the photos that can be desensitizing.
I think long term, exposure to death and violence makes you more sensitive to it.
In the middle of it, self-preservation instincts will keep you focused on just that. After, when you're in a context that you can allow yourself to be vulnerable, which could be a base, or months later when your out of that country. then you can experience the emotions.
When you eventually get through it, even if you have PTSD, I think you have a far greater understanding of it, in real visceral terms, and ultimately that makes you more empathetic.
1. I'm sure Goran Tomasevic anticipated return fire. If you look at the sequence, a group of FSA fighters creep around the wall to the opening, a team fires an RPG (probably at an AFV). So what's the AFV going to do? Either back out quickly or return fire. That's what they do. So you can anticipate that shot. I've done that before and I've seen other photographers do it as well. But still...being able to catch the shrapnel and debris from the blast....that's amazing work. I wouldn't be surprised if he (GT) was picking pebbles and small pieces of crap out of his skin for a while.
2. Actually, conflict/combat in the moment is extremely emotional. That's part of the reason why some people freeze. That's part of the reason why some look back on how they reacted or what they did and can't believe or identify with their actions (no, I'm not talking war crimes). People see all these first person shooter games and they think they know--they have no clue what it's like to really be under fire (either with strangers or with good friends). It's an intensely emotional experience.
1. I'm sure Goran Tomasevic anticipated return fire. If you look at the sequence, a group of FSA fighters creep around the wall to the opening, a team fires an RPG (probably at an AFV). So what's the AFV going to do? Either back out quickly or return fire. That's what they do. So you can anticipate that shot. I've done that before and I've seen other photographers do it as well. But still...being able to catch the shrapnel and debris from the blast....that's amazing work. I wouldn't be surprised if he (GT) was picking pebbles and small pieces of crap out of his skin for a while.
2. Actually, conflict/combat in the moment is extremely emotional. That's part of the reason why some people freeze. That's part of the reason why some look back on how they reacted or what they did and can't believe or identify with their actions (no, I'm not talking war crimes). People see all these first person shooter games and they think they know--they have no clue what it's like to really be under fire (either with strangers or with good friends). It's an intensely emotional experience.
Ed
I believe that people freeze because of an inability to concentrate because they have inadequate experience with adrenaline. Obviously the adrenaline comes from fear, but in my mind "emotional" means dynamic - changing emotions - rather than "intense".
People do all sorts of things that are out of character and that they don't remember when their mental status is altered due to drugs or alcohol. The experience is an altered mental status due to your body literally "drugging" itself.
As far as the rest I follow all of that. It's also possible to get a shot like that purely by accident.
I'm not as much curious about his skill as a photographer in anticipating shots, I'm curious if he was expecting a photo of guys running without debris flying and the a coincidence happened or wether he knew there was about to be debris flying and instead of running and ducking he just stood there and took the photo with the expectation of getting hit by the debris.
MC Photo wrote: I believe that people freeze because of an inability to concentrate because they have inadequate experience with adrenaline. Obviously the adrenaline comes from fear, but in my mind "emotional" means dynamic - changing emotions - rather than "intense".
People do all sorts of things that are out of character and that they don't remember when their mental status is altered due to drugs or alcohol. The experience is an altered mental status due to your body literally "drugging" itself.
As far as the rest I follow all of that. It's also possible to get a shot like that purely by accident.
I'm not as much curious about his skill as a photographer in anticipating shots, I'm curious if he was expecting a photo of guys running without debris flying and the a coincidence happened or wether he knew there was about to be debris flying and instead of running and ducking he just stood there and took the photo with the expectation of getting hit by the debris.
I sent him an email to ask but haven't heard anything. He may be traveling. Or maybe he's inundated with messages--this series is getting major press coverage with a lot of media outlets. If I get a response from him, I'll share it.
If you look at his work, he tries to capture this result (someone being hit, explosion, someone being shot at). There's a very famous sequence he shot of a Marine in Afghanistan who get dust and fragments but avoids being hit (just barely) by enemy fire. Similarly in Libya. So to your specific question, in this kind of house-to-house stuff (especially against AFV or heavy weapons), you fire on them and you can expect a response. So the FSA RPG team would fire and scoot (shoot and scoot in military terms) and he was probably focusing on the wall, waiting for the Syrian AFV to fire back. He was prepared. But capturing the debris and fragments while the RPG team was relocating....that's a bonus.
I sent him an email to ask but haven't heard anything. He may be traveling. Or maybe he's inundated with messages--this series is getting major press coverage with a lot of media outlets. If I get a response from him, I'll share it.
If you look at his work, he tries to capture this result (someone being hit, explosion, someone being shot at). There's a very famous sequence he shot of a Marine in Afghanistan who get dust and fragments but avoids being hit (just barely) by enemy fire. Similarly in Libya. So to your specific question, in this kind of house-to-house stuff (especially against AFV or heavy weapons), you fire on them and you can expect a response. So the FSA RPG team would fire and scoot (shoot and scoot in military terms) and he was probably focusing on the wall, waiting for the Syrian AFV to fire back. He was prepared. But capturing the debris and fragments while the RPG team was relocating....that's a bonus.
Ed
Cool. I hope he answers.
Can you suggest where I might see that sequence you're talking about?
Here's the AFV firing on the RPG team: http://www.photoarchivenews.com/reuters … to-report/ (note: I think the third photo is out of sequence--I think that's actually the first photo, which draws the Syrian counter-fire).
afplcc wrote: There has been some amazing work to come out of the fighting in Syria. A number of very good photojournalists have died covering that fighting and two of them (Remi Ochlik and Tim Hetherington produced some amazing work while doing so).
I just stumbled across some work by Goran Tomasevic of Reuters. Very powerful stuff, the kind of work that would get Bob Capa's approval.
Reminds of the civil war in Beirut. Amazing work by Goran.
Ed
The MFA in Houston just had a huge exhibit of war related photos dating from the civil war to the present. It covered the fighters, the children, civilians, and so many aspects of what war entails. It was an amazing show and wonderfully curated.
afplcc wrote: I'm in Houston a lot. I've been meaning to go to that exhibit. Do you know if it's still showing?
Ed
Sorry to say, Ed, it ended this past Sunday...
I'm not sure if it's a traveling exhibit or was curated by the MFA here.
If I hear anything about it, I'll let you know..
From a blog post on Feb. 5, 2013 over on www.dvafoto.com the British newspaper, The Sunday Times is no longer buying photos submissions from Syria because the risk of working there is too great.
Sorry to say, Ed, it ended this past Sunday...
I'm not sure if it's a traveling exhibit or was curated by the MFA here.
If I hear anything about it, I'll let you know..
Regards,
Kevin
Damn--I'm headed to Houston this Sunday and was hoping to catch it. And yes, it is traveling (I'm pretty sure I read that) so maybe I'll be able to see it later this year.
As for the Sunday Times not taking freelancer submissions, my understanding is that you've got a lot of freelancers who've been heading to Syria to try and make their careers (or at least get them starters). Guys with no experience in combat, no background as photojournalists, just a camera and some glass. Syria is much more attractive (speaking purely from a photojournalist perspective) than Libya or some other conflicts.....it's very urban combat (so you're more likely to catch action than in Libya which was much more spread out and dispersed), it's small unit and house-to-house (people don't get how hard it is to actually see most combat, how you rarely see the enemy), easy borders to get across (start with the refugee camps in Turkey and connect with teams going back and forth ferrying wounded one way and ammo in the other direction). Totally "third hand" but a photographer I know at Reuters said that one of their guys in Syria (not Goran Tomasevic) was complaining about the free lancers getting in the way, you couldn't take a step without falling over one. And the real newbies kind of leaching on to any experienced shooter and following them around desperately b/c they didn't speak the language, know the land, have even the basics (like where to get food other than the jar of peanut butter in their backpack).
| 
| 
| edu