Slashdot Mirror
Behind the Scenes: How Conflict Photographs Come To Be
First time accepted submitter benro03 writes "Airing photojournalism's dirty secret, Italian photographer Ruben Salvadori demonstrates how conflict photography is often staged by the photographers themselves. He spent a significant amount of time in East Jerusalem studying the role that photojournalists play in what the world sees. Ruben is about to graduate with dual majors for a BA in International Relations and Anthropology/Sociology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel." Some commenters on the linked story defend much of what's shown as ordinary aesthetic and editorial decisions; doubtless a parallel documentary could have been shot from a few hundred yards away with an opposite slant.
Do we really need "?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+PetaPixel+(PetaPixel)" at the end there, or are you getting paid for this story?
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Well, the Famous Photo of WWII of the flag raised on Iwo Jima was staged. Twice. The second one was the one folks have seen. Nothing new here. Move along.
All photography is staged unless the image has been captured unintentionally or accidentally.
Sometimes this kind of humour just gives people Ideas I guess..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQ2bvR3BT_g
Pallywood anyone?
Life is not for the lazy.
I used to frequent Medellin, Colombia in the 90's after my mother moved there to teach English. This was during the period of time where there was a large amount of violence due to Pablo Escobar and company. Lot's of bombings etc. (Side note... Bombs happen on the quarters of the Hour, thunder any other time)... We we're driving by a recently bombed, mafia owned, apt. building from night before, and noticed some of the CNN crew from our hotel in the parking lot of the building closely surrounded by about 12 people. The camera guy was on his knees. The rest of the lot was pretty much empty. A cleanup crew here or there. The reporter was on the outside of the circle directing folks around. Later that night, we happen to see the footage produced.... it was a riot... No seriously... CNN portrayed the 12 people as a massive riot of frightened locals in complete panic. They weren't even from the building.... Mafia families who pay $1,000,000 for an apt. in that building don't tend to stick around, much less dress like laborers. Nothing like being a rural mid-western teenager spending his summers in a third world country.
The Journalist observes and then writes words that try to communicate his/her understanding of the situation.
The Photojournalist observes and then takes pictures that try to capture the essence of the situation as he/she understands it.
If you don't want someone else interpreting and summarizing for you, then go there yourself.
We read and view the work of journalists because we want to understand but we don't want to do all the raw data collection and reduction ourselves. To the degree that journalists exhibit biases of one sort or another, we try to chose sources that exhibit similar biases to our own such that their interpretation and analysis will likely be the same (or at least similar) to our own. When the bias is for sensationalism, that's simply not journalism.
G.
Cameras lie. Photography is an artform and its basically impossible to create an objective photograph.
What do you want? Do you want to feel like you're there, experiencing the action? If that's the case, then the photographer is pretty much going to have to stage everything, because real conflicts generally don't yield photogenic angles, or give the photographer a way of capturing both sides in a way that makes the conflict "real" from the perspective of someone looking at the pictures. Real war footage is boring as hell, it doesn't remotely capture the experience of being there, and the only way you can stand it or make any sense of it is with aggressive editing and narration, which has the potential to recontextualize everything.
Do you want the truth? All the photographer can tell you is what he saw, and if he only gives you the photos he took. Reporting is epistolary: somebody saw something, they are now telling you about it, you're relying on their account. Photographs are part of their account, they are not separate, "real" things that are somehow more reliable than someone's testimony.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
There is a huge difference between summarizing and slanting.
If you have some sort of positive evidence of this happening you absolutely should bring it up. The problem here is that the TFA author doesn't, he just sees photographers lining up shots, and talking to the subjects, and makes the leap that this is, perforce, distortion. I just don't think he understands how photography works.
I want the whole story so I can draw my own conclusions and not just the story the reporter/photographer wants me to see.
If the conflict is something like Israel/Palestine, taking place over 60 years in a country thousands of miles away, involving entire nations of people, of whom you've maybe only met two or three representatives, you're simply not going to be able to come to a useful conclusion on the basis of newspaper columns and photos. An unfortunate, and much more real, problem with mass news media is that it convinces you it can supply you with the information required to bring you to a good conclusion, simply by watching enough TV and reading enough news, when it really can't.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Sometimes there's a full blown Hollywood style production done for journalists.
Google the term "Pallywood"
I'll give you an example: http://youtu.be/t_B1H-1opys?t=4m15s
If you want a more comprehensive view supporting this guy's work, check out Pallywood. You'll see it's all staged.
No, the author of the video is doing no such thing. The article author was adding unnecessary spin. The video author was pointing out that many "action" shots are posed (not necessarily by the photographer). Because there are photographers there the individuals involved put on a show, even when not much was going on. The video author/photographer's point was that photographers in many conflict areas sometimes are in the middle of legitimate moments of high drama, but often there is also low drama staged for their benefit. The mere presence of a cadre of professional-looking photographers causes the observed to undertake a behavioral change which can, in many cases, result in photos that look like they (the photographed) are engaged in some confrontational situation, when really they are just waiting around and chest thumping, hoping for something to happen. Thus, unsuccessful riots by a very few individuals result in stunning pictures that suggest much more in the minds of readers and viewers. The photographers and rioters both must have something to do in the down time between the moments of high drama, I suppose.
Further, he states in the video quite clearly that he wants people to realize that these photographs are taken by people with agendas, participating in a process, taking pictures of people with agendas, and that sometimes those agendas come together in ways that create images of action and conflict which don't really exist in that moment and in that time, and the public need to be aware that photographers influence situations by their presence and that things occur off-frame; that photo framing may radically alter a photo's context thus altering the images as conveyed.
In the photo journalism industry this is not news, but for the public who often take images at face value this rare glimpse of things can offer quite a disconnect. It can be shocking to be reminded to view things with an overly critical eye, and I think the photo journalism industry would have to tighten things up a bit if the public at large paid more attention to and was, on the whole, more critical of these kinds of issues.
I know the combatants have other things on their minds but you'd think an army would want to record things to improve itself. Also that footage could be used to vindicate yourself on the world stage.
Here's a dilemma for you... With all your honor and dignity what would you do? This test only has one question, but it's a very important one.
Please don't answer it without giving it some serious thought. By giving an honest answer you will be able to test where you stand morally.
The test features an unlikely, completely fictional situation, where you will have to make a decision one way or the other. Remember that your answer needs to be honest, yet spontaneous. Please scroll down slowly and consider each line - this is important for the test to work accurately.
You're in Florida...In Miami, to be exact. There is great chaos going on around you, caused by a hurricane and severe floods. There are huge masses of water all over you. You are a CNN photographer and you are in the middle of this great disaster. The situation is nearly hopeless. You're trying to shoot very impressive photos. There are houses and people floating around you, disappearing into the water. Nature is showing all its destructive power and is ripping everything away with it.
Suddenly you see a man in the water, he is fighting for his life, trying not to be taken away by the masses of water and mud. You move closer. Somehow the man looks familiar.
Suddenly you know who it is -- it's George W. Bush!
At the same time you notice that the raging waters are about to take him away, forever. You have two options. You can save him or you can take the best photo of your life. So you can save the life of George W. Bush, or you can shoot a Pulitzer prize winning photo, a unique photo displaying the death of one of the world's most powerful men.
And here's the question (please give an honest answer):
Would you select color film, or rather go with the simplicity of classic black and white?
Agreed. Any critics should take their camera and fly to the next hot spot and take their own photos...nothing to stop you, other than not wanting to risk your own blood and treasure, and probably come home empty handed because it's damn hard work, including getting access to timely shots.
Would you like pictures of the rebels when they grab Gaddafi? It would make a great photo. Should you be a cold, dismissive jerk to the rebels and then ask them to take you with when they go to grab him?
When a photographer alters or stages their photos, they get fired. They compete for who gets access to the most timely, dangerous, subjects. War photographers DIE doing their job. Tim Hetherington (who directed the documentary "Restrepo") was killed in Libya recently. Kevin Carter, famous for the famine photo of starving toddler with a vulture landed nearby, committed suicide at age 33, leaving a note that said:
"I am depressed ... without phone ... money for rent ... I am haunted by the vivid memories of killings and corpses and anger and pain ... of starving or wounded children, of trigger-happy madmen, often police, of killer executioners ..."
A convoy of journalist-observers with a candidate en route to register for an election was massacred by the local warlord in the Philippines in 2009. The details are despicable. The Magindanao victims able to be identified are:
Alejandro "Bong" Reblando
Henry Araneta,
Napoleon “Nap” Salaysay
Bartolome “Bart” Maravilla
Jhoy Dojay
Andy Teodoro
Ian Subang
Leah Dalmacio
Gina Dela Cruz
Maritess Cablitas
Neneng Montano
Victor Nuñez
McDelbert "Macmac" Arriola
Jolito Evardo
Daniel Tiamson
Reynaldo Momay
Rey Merisco
Ronnie Perante
Jun Legarta
Val Cachuela
Santos "Jun" Gatchalian
Joel Parcon
Noel Decena
John Caniba
Art Betia
Ranie Razon
Archie Ace David
Fernanado "Ferdz" Mendoza
To deride conflict photographers takes a lot of nerve if you haven't done it yourself.
www.cgstock.com
Oh for fuck's sake, you know why the photographers laugh and joke with the protesters? It's so they don't get their heads kicked in when people start to panic, and so the protesters don't think they're undercover cops recording the events. Yes, photography is subjective - that's kind of the point. But try to bear in mind that the camera recording the photographers is subjective, too.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
Message: "There is no occupation brutality. This is staged violence by unethical 'journalists' looking for a story".
Maybe the "scholarship" would have more credibility from a University outside of Israel?
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
I've seen Pallywood -- for one, Pallywood was about Palestinian journalists, which TFA isn't about, and second, to be honest I didn't find a lot of the video evidence in Pallywood to be particularly convincing, and it commits a lot of the errors, decontextualization with narration, suspicious sourcing, editorializing, that it accuses news agencies of committing.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
The problem is that people have the idea that photojournalists are dodging gunfire to take shots as they happen.
"The journalist wasn't doing what I see journalists in movies do, therefore what he's reporting didn't happen."
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Back in 2006 a number of scandals surfaced during the Israeli-Lebanese conflict. The initial incident was later nicknamed "Reutersgate" because one very obviously photoshopped picture distributed through Reuters that landed on front pages all over the world led to an investigation by Reuters that revealed almost a thousand similar pictures from a number of "well-reputed" freelance photographers, and they were subsequently 'fired' by Reuters and their contributions removed from the archives.
Then the scandal spread. Additional pictures from Reuters were brought into question, as well as pictures from other agencies, especially Associated Post. Not only were these pictures fairly obviously staged; they were staged Hollywood-style, complete with fake blood, staged ruins, actors and so on. Characters like "The World's Unluckiest Mom", "The Dead Son", "The Omnipresent Victim" and most legendary of all: "Green Helmet Guy" filled pictures reputedly from various places all over Lebanon (but in reality shot in more or less the same place). We saw the same grieving mother with or near a dead-looking child (also often the same) again and again, the same wounded civilians, the same burned-out cars, and always the same rescue party prominently featuring the legendary Green Helmet Guy. Then a series of pictures, obviously not meant for public distribution surfaced, showing the characters having a lunch break in the shade of a building. We see the 'dead child' play and later drink a soda.We see Green Helmet Guy in conversation with The Omnipresent Victim (obviously unharmed of course) and so on. Assuming all pictures featuring these characters are faked/staged, this fauxtography scandal involved thousands of pictures. Later extremely well-reputed photographers from BBC also appears to have engaged in this fakery.
Googling pictures with these tags will yield you hundreds of samples of these staged pictures, all with the obvious intent of showing how cruel and evil Israel were. As Hizbollah in Lebanon (thought to be behind this little troupe of actors) found a need for this, it is obvious that reality didn't offer anything similar so it had to be staged for the proper effect on the world audience.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --