Are Photographers meant to be impartial when it comes to Political events?

AnimalRights

I most certainly am not.

Love these pics about something I strongly believe in.

http://bernatarmangue.com/street-protest-/-sketches-from-israelis-#/fullscreen/2379470

My only quibble maybe is are some of the photos touched up to much?
I strongly believe political photos should be as close to out of camera as possible.

brokenarms

AnimalRights wrote: »

I most certainly am not.

Love these pics about something I strongly believe in.

http://bernatarmangue.com/street-protest-/-sketches-from-israelis-#/fullscreen/2379470

My only quibble maybe is are some of the photos touched up to much?
I strongly believe political photos should be as close to out of camera as possible.

feckin hell. Some gritty shots there. Must take some balls to get into the action like that.

Splinters

I think it very much depends on what the photographer is intending to capture. I wouldnt class "political photography" as a type of photography, more a subject matter. If that subject matter is being shot in a photojournalist style then yes absolutely it shouldnt be altered.

However in those examples the use of creative angles, shallow depth of field etc the photographer is quite obviously going for the aesthetic approach which I think is completely fine. Hes managed to capture some very real and shocking moments in a visually stunning manner.

thebaz

photographers are meant to be impartial - but the reality can be difficult , for instance most war photographers get embedded with a particular side - without protection you would not last long in the front line , and with the ever decreasing value of a photograph , your life is worth a hell of a lot more - nice pics btw

pullandbang

Wasn't there a link posted here a while ago to a video of a press conference type thingy where the photographer showed how most of those type shots were set up and staged. Even the famous Saigon execution photo was staged.

melekalikimaka

photographers are not meant to be impartial, its impossible to be impartial, every image taken has a degree of bias.

I would say professionals are meant to be impartial (regardless of whether they're a photographer or not).

Those photos don't show any real bias to me, though. If I had to guess I'd say it shows the protestors in poor light (but I'm guessing that's the opposite of what AR would see?)

mikka631

Deleted User wrote: »

I would say professionals are meant to be impartial (regardless of whether they're a photographer or not).

Those photos don't show any real bias to me, though. If I had to guess I'd say it shows the protestors in poor light (but I'm guessing that's the opposite of what AR would see?)

Did you look through all of the galleries???
Please explain in what way the protestors are shown in poor light, bearing in mind that the photographer has presented images from both sides of that particular divide, and please...... don't just guess.

mikka631

mikka631 wrote: »

Did you look through all of the galleries???
Please explain in what way the protestors are shown in poor light, bearing in mind that the photographer has presented images from both sides of that particular divide, and please...... don't just guess.

What do you mean 'don't just guess' . I looked through the gallery linked to.

From what I can see in that series of images:

Police/Military are shown defensively in most photographs (shields up in the first one, for example) and showing restraint (clearly outnumbered in #8, old woman in their face in #9).

Protestors are, on the other hand, throwing and using potentially-fatal objects (large rocks, etc. in #2, #3). Using fire (presumably attempts made to move the skip towards Police, as per 'usual' riot antics, #10). They also look to be armed and in-fighting (#13), all the while acting provocatively (#16).

The only time the police in the images seem to be shown to have an upper hand or to be using any type of offence is #7, with what looks like tear-gas to disperse the crowd (fairly tame compared to the actions of the protestors we've seen in other images).

Effects

pullandbang wrote: »

Even the famous Saigon execution photo was staged.

The Eddie Adams shot? Really? I don't think I'd believe it was staged myself. Could be wrong though. I guess there's always doubt.

pullandbang

Effects wrote: »

The Eddie Adams shot? Really? I don't think I'd believe it was staged myself. Could be wrong though. I guess there's always doubt.

The execution was meant to take place indoors but the room was too dark so the tog asked for it to take place outside in the sunlight.

DaireQuinlan

pullandbang wrote: »

The execution was meant to take place indoors but the room was too dark so the tog asked for it to take place outside in the sunlight.

really ? I've never read anything to suggest that was actually the case. Just doing a quick scan over the interwebs now doesn't pull anything up ?

Lingua Franca

It wasn't very well set up, then, or he'd have asked his men to stay still and out of line of sight. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ch223f-1d84

I remember reading about it before and how the general was raging about something, his friends having been killed or something like that. He was in fury and grief which is why he whipped out the pistol and killed the prisoner in the street.

Effects

I hadn't seen the film footage of it before. Wow.

pete4130

Deleted User wrote: »

What do you mean 'don't just guess' . I looked through the gallery linked to.

From what I can see in that series of images:

Police/Military are shown defensively in most photographs (shields up in the first one, for example) and showing restraint (clearly outnumbered in #8, old woman in their face in #9).

Protestors are, on the other hand, throwing and using potentially-fatal objects (large rocks, etc. in #2, #3). Using fire (presumably attempts made to move the skip towards Police, as per 'usual' riot antics, #10). They also look to be armed and in-fighting (#13), all the while acting provocatively (#16).

The only time the police in the images seem to be shown to have an upper hand or to be using any type of offence is #7, with what looks like tear-gas to disperse the crowd (fairly tame compared to the actions of the protestors we've seen in other images).

Your participation/involvement in the ES has already clouded your judgement perhaps without you even realising it? I'm not being smart.

I, with Noosixty looked thoruhg the images and did our own crit on them. For me I felt the protesters were shown in a more positive light than the defense forces/authotrities through the more subtle apsects of the images.
The shields for example. It's a dark, intimidating shot, repetition, patterns and a familiar image. The really interesting thing is the hands onthe shields, showing the humanity BEHIND the shields. Showing they too are people, doing a job, trapped behind the shields, maybe away from what they truly believe in to do their job? Analysing photos is personal. What one person sees from an image isn't right or wrong.

The protester images for the most part gave me the impression of being oppressed, outnumbered, outgunned and still being the heroes to protest about what they believe in, regardless of right or wrong.

I found the series of images quite generic and cliché for protest images and nothing outstanding.

The photographer could have shot the same pictures he did and chosen a different selection, more focusing on the tough job the authorities had to control the situation and get the viewer to sympathise.

It comes down to how its edited and presented, laid out and flows from one image to the next that will give an impression one way or another.

For me, this series sympathised with the protesters.

pullandbang

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

really ? I've never read anything to suggest that was actually the case. Just doing a quick scan over the interwebs now doesn't pull anything up ?

It was mentioned in a documentary I watched a long time ago. I've never gone scouring the web for confirmation but I do remember being quite surprised at the time given it is such an iconic photo.

Lingua Franca

And I'd read the photographer saying that it was pretty shocking because it was a spur of the moment thing that he (and a film camera) were lucky to catch. He also said he didn't know what he'd captured until the film was developed. Given how many people are moving around seemingly randomly in the footage and could easily have blocked the shot and how the general walks off immediately, I'd say the spur of the moment story is more likely than a set up shot.