View Full Version : unembedded - independent photogs in Iraq
05-15-2006, 07:46 PM
<a href="http://www.unembedded.net/main.php">unembedded</a>, had a chance to see the exhibit in person on the weekend, doubt internet viewing can have the same impact as viewing large print, nevertheless worth seeing it.
05-16-2006, 03:24 PM
Peter, A Great link with some shocking photos... Another reason to hate war... TFS. Bala
05-26-2006, 09:26 AM
Amazing pics, brave but also very accimplished (for the most part). Yes,as Bala rightly says, war is hell and hateful. Now I hope I don't siund crass for brinhging up a technical matter but I all, I mean 99% of those pics are shot in the 20mm to 24mm range, I mean 28mm or 35mm looks positively TELEPHOTO in comparison. I once wrote something like that and gringofil jumped all over me and said that I had no right basically to postulate on extreme wides because I wasn't a memebr of Magnum, or some such bullshit!
Well here I go again: Peter, it'S all extreme wide in photojournalism now, for ill or for good depending on your viewpoint. Check out that May edition of Nat Geo, the Burma pics...same thing. The favorite lens, the No.1 lens: Canon EF 16-35mm, the Karashnikov of PJs, man.
I am not judging only commenting that fairly pronouced "distortion" is used to accentuate what is already a pretty extreme scene.
Something to think about...Dontcha think? I mean what if the same pjs were to go abck to the drawing board and force themselves to show that same world with HCB's trusty old 50mm, maybe a 35 from time to time. How would it look then?
Sorry for the wacky rant. I'd like to hear your thoughts...
05-26-2006, 06:31 PM
"If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough" - Robert Capa.
I wish I could be more original in my reply Francis ;-) I guess his motto is taken to another extreme these days, perhaps it is easier to create visual impact when you get an impression that tears and blood are inches away from your nose. I have no doubt that 35 or even 50mm is skillful hands will have as much impact on the viewer, it's been done many times, ....., wish I had at least one answer Francis.
Is it a fad, good, bad? would some of the folks today failed if they had only 35 or 50mm in their arsenal? no doubt.
Are the wide angles overused? don't know.
I may have to come back to this when my brain is working;-)
05-27-2006, 01:05 AM
It goes a bit further, peter. Let me liken it to the Velvia adduction phenomenon.Before Velvia, all nat Geo photogs were perfectly hapy with the extremely REALISTIC and MODEST colors of Kodachrome. Then Fuji spolied them with, let's face it, gorgeous EXAGGERATED colors and it's like those people who get used to 3 spoons of sugar with their tea - can't stand the taste of plain tea. Well by now we are absolutely conditioned to the frank distorions of a 20mm lens in a combat zone or a grieving zone, it's so much more THERE, so much more gory, etc, etc., almost a horror flic technique when you think about it. You waltz in there with a 50, and it's like "what's THAT?"
Son't get me wrong, I'm hooked too, addicted to that look but I don't like the fact. And it is precisely this opinion that got Gringofil so bent out of shape he thoght he had to insult me personally, I called him on it in public and then, to our collective loss and my personal regret, the boy was gone.
Overuse of the extreme wide was the straw that broke Fil's back ;o) And I only stated something that is vetrufiably true and in eveidence everytime yu crack open Newsweek or Nat Geo...
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.