NY Post prints photo of man about to be killed by NYC train

TooManyShots wrote in post #15330417
Let's do some math here. The so-called photographer fired 49 shots with the flash on. This should give us a clue how much time he has to save or not be able to save this man. What body or flash system that could fire 49 shots with flash enabled? 1d body with 10 fps? Let's assume he was shooting at 5fps the least. He has 10 sec there. What sort flash system he was using to allow it to fire continuously for 10 sec or 49 shots??? Built-in camera flash?? 10 sec is a lot of time in a situation like this. Your brain kind of kicks into high gear and making the right decision. To shoot or to help this man.

Looks like he had some Nikon and external flash.
http://www.nypost.com …ir_s4bWwIXfZlBR​6wi2tQALyH

gjl711 wrote in post #15330483
If his claim is to be believed, he wasn't standing there but running to the event. We'll just have to wait for the security footage to be leaked and all the talking heads discussing every nuance to really know what happened.

He was running to the event? So what mode did his camera 'happen' to be in?

gjl711 wrote in post #15330522
Looks like he had some Nikon and external flash.
http://www.nypost.com …ir_s4bWwIXfZlBR​6wi2tQALyH

In the article, he didn't even mention that he fired at least 49 shots. 49 shots..... It is safe to say that he has 10 sec to shoot 49 photos. You know the ISO is high because you can see the ambient light there while the key light from the flash is lighting the poor man. At 1/64 power, he has to be pretty close to the poor man to get the light to him. I am still debating if his Nikon flash can fire for 49 shots continuously. If not, he has more than 10 sec there.

I'm thinking that the only way we will ever know is if the security footage is released.

gjl711 wrote in post #15330673
I'm thinking that the only way we will ever know is if the security footage is released.

Yep.
I just saw on the Toronto news, that the homeless man that pushed the victim, is being charged with manslaughter or something like that.

aquaforester wrote in post #15330425
I thought about that too, but it still doesn't get past:

Took Photo - Sold to NY Post

Instead of helping in some way. If he was so afraid why didn't he run the other way. Instead he stood there and took the picture.

Um...do you even know that he COULD have helped? Can you tell me exactly where the photographer was standing in relation to the victim? How far away was he?

scobols wrote in post #15329385
Now, don't get me wrong, I am disgusted that this guy took photos of this. But, to hang him for not helping? That seems a little harsh, especially without knowing all of the facts.

For me it's exactly the other way around. If there's anything to "hang him for", it's ONLY for not helping. The photo itself? Doesn't concern me in the least. What's the inherent difference between this, and say...photographing a dude who looks like he's about to get run over by a tank? What's the difference between this and photographing a man who's only seconds away from getting executed with a bullet to the head?

IF the photographer could have helped, then I'd absolutely criticize him for taking the photo instead of helping. But it hasn't even remotely been determined that that's how things went down.

Aside from that, I certainly don't have a problem with the photo itself. The way the photo was used, on the other hand...

gjl711 wrote in post #15330313
One thing that does pop up from the photo though. Just behind him is a gap presumably to another track, why not just stand in the gap until the train passes? This guy wasn't thinking very well either.

3rd rail on subway tracks is electrified with enough volts to sizzle you pretty good if you touch it.

I dont think even laying down between the platform and track as close to the platform as he could would had helped. No idea how much stuff hangs down on one of those trains.

1Tanker wrote in post #15330857
Yep.
I just saw on the Toronto news, that the homeless man that pushed the victim, is being charged with manslaughter or something like that.

Only manslaughter? WOW.

Clean Gene wrote in post #15332118
Um...do you even know that he COULD have helped? Can you tell me exactly where the photographer was standing in relation to the victim? How far away was he?

If he was running to the event, camera in hand, his primary purpose was to get that shot. Standing there (any where) taking a picture is probably the 'least' helpful thing one could do.

Clean Gene wrote in post #15332159
For me it's exactly the other way around. If there's anything to "hang him for", it's ONLY for not helping. The photo itself? Doesn't concern me in the least. What's the inherent difference between this, and say...photographing a dude who looks like he's about to get run over by a tank? What's the difference between this and photographing a man who's only seconds away from getting executed with a bullet to the head?

You really can't see the difference ?

Clean Gene wrote in post #15332159
For me it's exactly the other way around. If there's anything to "hang him for", it's ONLY for not helping.

My point wasn't WHAT to hang him for, it was whether or not to hang him. You shouldn't judge him too quickly, and, without being there and/or without knowing all of the facts, how can you judge him at all? Just because you read a news story does not mean you have all the facts.

CountryBoy wrote in post #15332823
You really can't see the difference ?

Yeah...the difference was that in those incidences, there was a political climate behind them. You, as a photographer, were powerless...other than being an observer. Here, the subway, what was the political force at work? Nothing. The only force at work here was the general public's apathy to other human being. The photographer here was no exception.

TooManyShots wrote in post #15333099
Yeah...the difference was that in those incidences, there was a political climate behind them. You, as a photographer, were powerless...other than being an observer..

You are never powerless. Just because there was a political component does not mean you are absolved of all action or inaction. You made the choice to become the observer and let events unfold. That's what journalists do. You could have just as easily stepped in and done something in those cases as well. Kevin Carter's Pulitzer winning picture of a vulture about to eat a starving baby, Neal Ulevich Pulitzer winning picture of students lynching and beating other students, Alan Dia's Pulitzer winning picture of the agent sticking a gun in the face of a 10 year old boy, they all could have stepped forward and done something, kicked away the vulture, told the armed agent to lighten up, whatever. Thing is that they choose to let the events unfold and went for the prize winning picture instead.

gjl711 wrote in post #15333159
You are never powerless. Just because there was a political component does not mean you are absolved of all action or inaction. You made the choice to become the observer and let events unfold. That's what journalists do. You could have just as easily stepped in and done something in those cases as well. Kevin Carter's Pulitzer winning picture of a vulture about to eat a starving baby, Neal Ulevich Pulitzer winning picture of students lynching and beating other students, Alan Dia's Pulitzer winning picture of the agent sticking a gun in the face of a 10 year old boy, they all could have stepped forward and done something, kicked away the vulture, told the armed agent to lighten up, whatever. Thing is that they choose to let the events unfold and went for the prize winning picture instead.

You don't get it for crying out loud. In those award winning photos, it demonstrates and captures the consequences of a larger social political force at work underpinning the incidences captured. With the NYC subway photo, it was just a photo captured on a typical NYC work day and some freak incidence happened. Hardly anything award winning. If anything, the photo demonstrates the apathy in the city, including the photographer. The photographer wasn't capturing and confronting some insurmountable social political forces (famines, social unrest and revolutions, or wars). He wasn't powerless. He didn't have the moral capability to act other than shooting over 50 shots over 25 sec.

TooManyShots wrote in post #15333222
You don't get it for crying out loud. In those award winning photos, it demonstrates and captures the consequences of a larger social political force at work underpinning the incidences captured. With the NYC subway photo, it was just a photo captured on a typical NYC work day and some freak incidence happened. Hardly anything award winning. If anything, the photo demonstrates the apathy in the city, including the photographer. The photographer wasn't capturing and confronting some insurmountable social political forces (famines, social unrest and revolutions, or wars). He wasn't powerless. He didn't have the moral capability to act other than shooting over 50 shots over 25 sec.

It's all how you spin it. Imagine if this photo wold have captured some of the crowd standing looking on in apathy and instead of being published in the Post, it went to the Times and instead of the headline Doomed it was more akin to New Yorkers stand in apathy as fellow commuter is killed. Same event, different perspective and the dude gets the Pulitzer.