war correspondent - photographers

i never got a chance to get into combat (Air Force rarely see armed conflict) but spent a good amount of time with civil engineers and security forces (generally the armed branch of the Air Force when it comes to Air Base Ground Defense)....

used to love going on exercises with them...

One of the issues thats been alluded to here but not addressed directly is the responsibility of the photographer as a human being to help another human being as opposed to the responsibility of the photographer to capture a moment in time.

The obvious example is Kevin Carter and the picture of the girl and the vulture in Sudan - depicted in "The Bang Bang Club".

Not an issue I face (yet) but am interested in hearing comments from this group.

I always want to go into the poorest parts of Atlanta and take photos. They have a couple murders a week, and it always amazes me that a place can be so violent. Most of it happens near the MLK monument (there's some irony for you), but it's still a great area with cute houses and nice people. It's just the young gangster types and street losers who cause the problems. Most of the people are great.

But I don't know how I'd feel taking advantage of them like that.

WaltA wrote in post #15266074
One of the issues thats been alluded to here but not addressed directly is the responsibility of the photographer as a human being to help another human being as opposed to the responsibility of the photographer to capture a moment in time.

The obvious example is Kevin Carter and the picture of the girl and the vulture in Sudan - depicted in "The Bang Bang Club".

Not an issue I face (yet) but am interested in hearing comments from this group.

WaltA - indeed the question is highly relevant I would think for anyone in such a situation whether it be a photographer or any other profession. In an instance where one has to either capture a shot, or help (but cannot do both), i would be the one, i believe, to help. But that assumes that you indeed can help without endangering yourself or others.

It is a bit machievellian in my opinion to consider just the potential impact of a specific picture as a Good in and of itself; however with that said, I expect that in certain circumstances (i.e. if helping would endanger the photographer or others), it is at least a Good in a bad situation.

potential theoretical example: a photographer captures a lynch mob killing an individual. To intervene could cost his life (and that of his crew), but his/her picture could be published and lead to Just punishments for those involved...or against a governmental body...etc....

In your example of Kevin Carter (whom I had never heard of prior to this thread) - I looked him up on wikipedia and there was this additional information about your referenced picture:

Alternative account of the photograph
João Silva, a Portuguese photojournalist based in South Africa who accompanied Carter to Sudan, gave a different version of events in an interview with Japanese journalist and writer Akio Fujiwara that was published in Fujiwara's book The Boy who Became a Postcard (絵葉書にされた少年 - Ehagaki ni sareta shōnen).[7]
According to Silva, Carter and Silva travelled to Sudan with the United Nations aboard Operation Lifeline Sudan and landed in Southern Sudan on 11 March 1993. The UN told them that they would take off again in 30 minutes (the time necessary to distribute food), so they ran around looking to take shots. The UN started to distribute corn and the women of the village came out of their wooden huts to meet the plane. Silva went looking for guerrilla fighters, while Carter strayed no more than a few dozen feet from the plane.
Again according to Silva, Carter was quite shocked as it was the first time that he had seen a famine situation and so he took many shots of the children suffering from famine. Silva also started to take photos of children on the ground as if crying, which were not published. The parents of the children were busy taking food from the plane, so they had left their children only briefly while they collected the food. This was the situation for the girl in the photo taken by Carter. A vulture landed behind the girl. To get the two in focus, Carter approached the scene very slowly so as not to scare the vulture away and took a photo from approximately 10 metres. He took a few more photos before chasing the bird away.
Two Spanish photographers who were in the same area at that time, José María Luis Arenzana and Luis Davilla, without knowing the photograph of Kevin Carter, took a picture in a similar situation. As recounted on several occasions, it was a feeding center, and the vultures came from a manure pit waste:
"We took him and Pepe Arenzana to Ayod, where most of the time were in a feeding center where locals go. At one end of the enclosure, was a dump where waste and was pulling people to defecate. As these children are so weak and malnourished they are going head giving the impression that they are dead. As part of the fauna there are vultures go for these remains. So if you grab a telephoto crush the child's perspective in the foreground and background and it seems that the vultures will eat it, but that's an absolute hoax, perhaps the animal is 20 meters."I think that this adds quite a bit to the debate about Mr. Carter's representation and the reaction thereafter.

Anyway, I will be looking up the movie you mentioned as well. Thanks.

Ltdave wrote in post #15265641
i never got a chance to get into combat (Air Force rarely see armed conflict) but spent a good amount of time with civil engineers and security forces (generally the armed branch of the Air Force when it comes to Air Base Ground Defense)....

used to love going on exercises with them...

You can always reclass into the the photographer job. For the army its MOS 25v, nots sure for the Air force but it's a rare job and a lot easier to get after you've spent time in the service of your choice.

MikeFairbanks wrote in post #15266494
I always want to go into the poorest parts of Atlanta and take photos. They have a couple murders a week, and it always amazes me that a place can be so violent. Most of it happens near the MLK monument (there's some irony for you), but it's still a great area with cute houses and nice people. It's just the young gangster types and street losers who cause the problems. Most of the people are great.

But I don't know how I'd feel taking advantage of them like that.

Mike - why do you think that you would be "taking advantage" of "them"?

BTW - it seems from different accounts (and I may be wrong) that an "outsider" with a camera would need to have a "guide" and someone to kind of show him the "ropes". Or were you planning just to show up and take pictures?

Tellairai wrote in post #15266929
You can always reclass into the the photographer job. For the army its MOS 25v, nots sure for the Air force but it's a rare job and a lot easier to get after you've spent time in the service of your choice.

i WAS a photographer (1985-1993)... at the time it was 231x2 with the x indicating a skill level. apprentice, trainee, specialist, supervisor (i think) and then management... i held a trainee level because it was a secondary qualification and you cant get a specialist rating unless you are assigned as a photographer. when i tried to get an assignment as a photographer, they told me i couldnt get THAT until i had my specialist rate. classic catch-22...

my primary AFSC was Graphic Arts Specialist 231x1 in which i held a specialist rating (the numbers are odd 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9)...

ceriltheblade wrote in post #15263378
BTW - did you see the first episode? it was quite fragmented with very little back story...
and I can't say that I really got too much from the photographer
his style of photography was interesting "i am not an action photographer"
but i am not sure that I learned too much from it - nor can i say that i enjoyed.
I will be interested to see the next installments.

Eros Hoagland told his story quite well i thought.
From his pictures alone you could tell who his father was if you didn't know his name.

I thought Eros's story was better then episode 2 even tho it was 30 minutes shorter. but I haven't entirely finished EP2 yet.

Eros will be back in another episode I think too

There are humanitarian photographers and there are war photographers. Both serve a purpose, but the war shooters do face a real chance of not coming back. Both tell "people" stories--put faces on the tragedies of life.

Anyone who has the fortitude to go somewhere where he or she is among strangers, in a vastly different culture, speaking a tongue they do not understand, and make a relationship that allows them to photograph those people and the events around them can do the job. Getting a ticket from a publication or agency is the hard part.

DisrupTer911 wrote in post #15267651
Eros Hoagland told his story quite well i thought.
From his pictures alone you could tell who his father was if you didn't know his name.

I thought Eros's story was better then episode 2 even tho it was 30 minutes shorter. but I haven't entirely finished EP2 yet.

Eros will be back in another episode I think too

I really enjoyed the first episode and thought it did a good job showing Eros's story given the short run time. I haven't had a chance to see any of the other episodes that have aired yet, but will watch them soon.

I'm fascinated by the great war photographers and the amazing images they capture under all kinds of insanity. I try to catch any movies or documentaries I can find on them. I watched a good documentary on Eddie Adams a few months ago. It covered more than just his work during the war, but he is one of those war photographers that kept going back.

oh man I completely disagree, I liked the second episode much more. For me it was because of the photographers attitude.
They both have different styles and that shows. For me, I liked that the second episodes photographers cponnected with the people and spoke to them, but thats also because of the different scene / area and reason for being there obviously.

#3 was a little boring, but I was also sick so may not have been paying attention entirely

team haymaker wrote in post #15274458
oh man I completely disagree, I liked the second episode much more.

Disagree with who? I had only watched the first one at the time of my post.

I had a chance to catch the 2nd and 3rd installments and I enjoyed them all. I like how they have the common thread of this type of photography, but each has its own photographer, story, and location. It is fun to see glimpses of the gear they use and how they work. I think documenting these conflicts are important, but what a crazy job.

It takes a certain kind of mindset to do this work and I'm sure they all have a different way of connecting to what they are documenting. I don't think you are supposed to get personally involved as a journalist. But, how could you not? Although I love having a peek inside these photographers lives I try to remember the photographs they take are what is most important.

When I moved from print to television news in 1977, I spent my first ten years on the road as a fixer ( = 'field producer' in American pomp-speak). I can assure you it is just a job, with the primary imperative being the safety of the crew. When someone gets duffed, it is sometimes stupidity; more often just plain bad luck.

These days, foreign crews attend regular formal courses on risk assessment, first aid, the Geneva Convention (yeah, right), and hostage management. Back then, it was mostly common sense, understanding the local politics and culture, and a hefty dose of caution.

The last was my job - i watched the backs of reporter and cameraman while they went about their business. If things got too sweaty, It was my job to call a halt and suggest withdrawal. Usually unnecessary - there guys are neither stupid nor gung-ho.

There were very few dare-devils or those with a death wish; the rash generally did not last long and were generally shunned by the more cautious. I did four wars (Lebanon, Congo, Angola and Sri Lanka), covered two assassinations (Gandhi and Sadat), and one formal invasion (Gulf One).

I was also fixer for Buerk and Mo Amin during the Ethiopian famine. Amin was one of the best and bravest cameraman I worked with - he lost an arm in an explosion at an Ethiopian ammo dump and learned to work a camera one-handed. He later died in a highjacked airliner over the Indian Ocean.

So there are casualties but they are rare - thank goodness.

Quite frankly, I don't think of it as being rare. Right now if you do a check the news seems to be about two photographers killed in Mexico, but from Vietnam to now it seems that every year sees someone killed or missing while covering a war zone or other dangerous situation.

ThreeGuysPhoto wrote in post #15276114
Disagree with who? I had only watched the first one at the time of my post.
.

Sorry I should have quoted it, I was responding to someone above you.
We all have different styles we enjoy, thats all.