intervene or get the image
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jul/28/gutted-photographers-who-didnt-help
It is an old battle back in the limelight again. A TV camera crew in Assam preferred to get their footage instead of intervening to stop the molestation of a young girl.I wonder if that molestation was specially arranged for them? Did they even arrange it themselves??
Should photographers drop their cameras and help their subjects or should they get the image? Is doing that latter selfish and sinful ? Does emotional involvement mean that " you can't focus if you have tears in your eyes"? I remember the quote but not, sadly, who said it.
I had once asked Homai Vyarawalla if she had ever faced a situation where she had dropped her camera to help her subjects. And I had used that quote. "In my days " she said firmly "we didn't focus". Her generation had relied on depth of field instead of depth of feeling . f 22 or 32 or even f 64 meant a 20:20 photographic vision. I was reminded of that conversation this morning when i read the Guardian article . I was also reminded of November 1984 and the anti Sikh riots in Delhi - of the pictures I shot and the picture I did not shoot.
The picture I did not shoot would have been iconic. A great shot of a bearded Sikh being beaten up (or worse ) against the backdrop of the Central Vista. I had put my camera away and threatened to call the police when a bunch of goons said they would beat the man up just for the photograph. I guess they were used to the idea of acting for the camera. too used to making up events for the media. Too many 'News' cameramen and journalists actually used to cover "demonstrations" specially arranged for them.
Today's camera technologies mean that photographers doesn't have to focus.Their cameras do it for them. Does that mean that they can now have tears in their eyes and still get the photographs? Or is that rush for the image sinful enough to even mean suicide? Something that a Pulitzer prize winning Kevin Carter is supposed to have done after he came under attack for his 1993 pictures of famine in Sudan.
lots of questions. would love some answers.
It is an old battle back in the limelight again. A TV camera crew in Assam preferred to get their footage instead of intervening to stop the molestation of a young girl.I wonder if that molestation was specially arranged for them? Did they even arrange it themselves??
Should photographers drop their cameras and help their subjects or should they get the image? Is doing that latter selfish and sinful ? Does emotional involvement mean that " you can't focus if you have tears in your eyes"? I remember the quote but not, sadly, who said it.
I had once asked Homai Vyarawalla if she had ever faced a situation where she had dropped her camera to help her subjects. And I had used that quote. "In my days " she said firmly "we didn't focus". Her generation had relied on depth of field instead of depth of feeling . f 22 or 32 or even f 64 meant a 20:20 photographic vision. I was reminded of that conversation this morning when i read the Guardian article . I was also reminded of November 1984 and the anti Sikh riots in Delhi - of the pictures I shot and the picture I did not shoot.
The picture I did not shoot would have been iconic. A great shot of a bearded Sikh being beaten up (or worse ) against the backdrop of the Central Vista. I had put my camera away and threatened to call the police when a bunch of goons said they would beat the man up just for the photograph. I guess they were used to the idea of acting for the camera. too used to making up events for the media. Too many 'News' cameramen and journalists actually used to cover "demonstrations" specially arranged for them.
Today's camera technologies mean that photographers doesn't have to focus.Their cameras do it for them. Does that mean that they can now have tears in their eyes and still get the photographs? Or is that rush for the image sinful enough to even mean suicide? Something that a Pulitzer prize winning Kevin Carter is supposed to have done after he came under attack for his 1993 pictures of famine in Sudan.
lots of questions. would love some answers.
posted by Satish Sharma at
17:16
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home