 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / General Topics / December 2006How to take photos of war???
How can I take photos of action on the battlefield without being blown to pieces by bombs, mortars or rockets? You know, people like photos of war and destruction, so I expect to earn big $$$ by taking such photos. Join the army, and try to get into photography.  SignatureYou can take good photos with a bad camera, and horrible photos with a good camera. Stan Beck > From New Orleans to Brandon MS To reply, remove 101 from address. *** > How can I take photos of action on the battlefield > without being blown to pieces by bombs, mortars > or rockets? > > You know, people like photos of war and destruction, > so I expect to earn big $$$ by taking such photos. > How can I take photos of action on the battlefield > without being blown to pieces by bombs, mortars > or rockets? > > You know, people like photos of war and destruction, > so I expect to earn big $$$ by taking such photos. >Join the army, and try to get into photography. That is not the answer. 1 he wants to be able to sell the photos. 2 he does not want to do propaganda photos. A better bet is journalism. You have some choice in which battle fielda nd where to stand or which side to stand on. In some cases you can hang round with both sides.. However Ed Zagmon will not be able to do it. PS don't top post. Signature\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ /\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ > > How can I take photos of action on the battlefield > > without being blown to pieces by bombs, mortars [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > where to stand or which side to stand on. In some cases you can hang > round with both sides.. Most journalists would be hung by both sides if the troops had their way... They're generally traitors in the making. >> > How can I take photos of action on the battlefield >> > without being blown to pieces by bombs, mortars [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Most journalists would be hung by both sides if the troops had their way... >They're generally traitors in the making. There is a stupid statement if ever I saw one. How do you make out reporters are traitors? They may not be nationals of either side and can not be, by definition, traitors. Only on one occasion have I ever know reporters to be seen in a way during my time in the armed forces. Due to deadlines something got printed 8 hours ahead of the time it should have been. Otherwise I have never seen reporters regarded as traitors or the enemy. Generally troops like having reporters around. Well that is usually the case in professional armies anyway. The unprofessional and in disciplined troops don't tend to like having reporters around as it can highlight their faults and any war crimes. Signature\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ /\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ > There is a stupid statement if ever I saw one. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > troops don't tend to like having reporters around as it can highlight > their faults and any war crimes. Does the name GERALDO RIVERA mean anything to you? (taking stick and drawing map in sand) "We are HERE at Achmeejabber, and will be going to Mejnibib along THIS road through Beelab and Corkzak, then up through the mountain pass at Zukibuk to get to the town of Gutmeek." I was amazed that Geraldo was not killed by "friendly fire." Talk about an idiot. Steve >> There is a stupid statement if ever I saw one. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Does the name GERALDO RIVERA mean anything to you? Not a thing. Which war was that. (When) What nationality is he? Who was he reporting for? Who was he with at the time? >(taking stick and drawing map in sand) >"We are HERE at Achmeejabber, and will be going to Mejnibib along THIS road >through Beelab and Corkzak, then up through the mountain pass at Zukibuk to >get to the town of Gutmeek." >I was amazed that Geraldo was not killed by "friendly fire." How come he was permitted to do that? Usually military briefings have embargoes on them. >Talk about an idiot. Agreed. He was basically telling the enemy where *he* and the troops were going to be. He put himself in danger apart from giving out battle plans! On one occasion some UK news reporters (it is the only one I know with UK reporters) did something similar in the Falklands. Due to a mix up in times and dates it got printed in the following day's newspaper about 5 hours before the attack was due to start. Within 1 hour of it hitting the news stands the journalists in question (but none of the others) were told that as no one could guarantee their safety in a war zone they would be evacuated to the UK immediately. I think they spent a few weeks in the holding depot in Ascension island " due to lack of transport" :-) Signature\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ /\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ >>Does the name GERALDO RIVERA mean anything to you? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Who was he reporting for? > Who was he with at the time? Geraldo Rivera is a television personality in the US. I will not insult newsmen by calling him a newsman. He works for the FOX Network. Previous to the war in the middle east, he had shows with dwarf strippers, etc, etc, etc, all based on sensationalism, tittalism, and the outlandish. So, off he goes to the middle east as a "war correspondent", doing stories, all the time in his monotone way of reporting, asking the stupidest of questions, and eternally making a fool of himself. Then he drew the map in the sand with the stick. He was "escorted to the border" by US military personnel within 12 hours of his faux paux, IIRC. It is not stated, but I believe they told him that if he returned, he "may be killed by participants on either side." He continues to be a high paid moron for FOX. Steve >>>Does the name GERALDO RIVERA mean anything to you? >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Geraldo Rivera is a television personality in the US. That's why I have not heard of him. > I will not insult >newsmen by calling him a newsman. He works for the FOX Network. Well FOX is well known for being VERY biased and basically a propaganda machine for Bush. >Previous to the war in the middle east, he had shows with dwarf strippers, >etc, etc, etc, all based on sensationalism, tittalism, and the outlandish. Quality stuff and serious journalism then :-) >Then he drew the map in the sand with the stick. > >He was "escorted to the border" by US military personnel within 12 hours of >his faux paux, IIRC. It is not stated, but I believe they told him that if >he returned, he "may be killed by participants on either side." Not surprised. Actually he is more likely to be shot by the US forces... The other side like his reports and find them useful :-) >He continues to be a high paid moron for FOX. Why? Signature\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ /\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ >>>>Does the name GERALDO RIVERA mean anything to you? >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Well FOX is well known for being VERY biased and basically a propaganda >machine for Bush. Well, even if it was true, it would be about time the consevative republicans had _some_ sort of voice, since the entire remainder of the mainstream media is a propaganda machine for liberal democrats. Dave Head >>>>>Does the name GERALDO RIVERA mean anything to you? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >Well, even if it was true, Which is it. FOX is well know for being so skewed in it's reporting no one apart from Rednecks take it seriously. Out side the US it is not seen as a serious news channel. >it would be about time the consevative republicans >had _some_ sort of voice, since the entire remainder of the mainstream media is >a propaganda machine for liberal democrats. Not propaganda just accurate reporting. This had been proved time and time again. Just read the Iraq Study Group report. Why do you think "the entire mainstream media" reports something different? And that includes the rest of the world both left and right of centre press! Though the mainstream US media took a couple of years since 9/11 to catch on to reality. FOX reports have no bearing on reality from my experience of the middle east. I even have the photographs I took In Kurdistan in 1988..... Signature\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ /\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ >>>>>>Does the name GERALDO RIVERA mean anything to you? >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> >>Well, even if it was true, >Which is it. FOX is well know for being so skewed in it's reporting no >one apart from Rednecks take it seriously. It only looks skewed when one is viewing it from a liberally skewed vantage point. >Out side the US it is not seen as a serious news channel. Outside the US is irrelavent. >>it would be about time the consevative republicans >>had _some_ sort of voice, since the entire remainder of the mainstream media is >>a propaganda machine for liberal democrats. > >Not propaganda just accurate reporting. Oh, gimmie a break. Approx 85% of the news departments of the major network media are socialistic leaning democrat voters. Less than 15% vote Republican. The _think_ they are reporting fair but its what they deem "not newsworthy" and take views of the news that agree with their intrinsic bias that makes _them_ the skewed news source. And, when they have a crusade, they just outright lie. I draw this from the gun control issue mostly, where I _know_ what the truth is, and know that the vast majority of what the mainstream media "reported" was just plain wrong. Fer instance, the assault weapon ban - they almost never passed up an opportunity to provide video of someone shooting a machine gun, when they had coverage of the AWB, but the AWB had nothing to do with machine guns. Then of course there was the liberal, anti-business antics that had a TV documentary attempting to show how terribly dangerous a certain truck gas tank was, so they rigged a model rocket motor at the filler in order to ignite it when it was hit by another vehicle for the cameras. Then of course there was Dan Rather and the fake report of Bush's military sevice during the Viet Nam era. >This had been proved time and >time again. Just read the Iraq Study Group report. >Why do you think "the entire mainstream media" reports something >different? As above, they are a large concentration of socialists that believe that big government is the answer to most everything. Their personal beliefs color their choices of what to report and how to report it, sometimes unconsciously, sometimes deliberately. Dave Head >>>>>>>Does the name GERALDO RIVERA mean anything to you? >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >It only looks skewed when one is viewing it from a liberally skewed vantage >point. I was in the UK armed forces. Also I have been to Iraq, Iran and Syria. The last two statements may not be synchronous. I currently support (technically) people out there now and have good feed back about what is actually happening. One person who did state, publicly to camera that FOX was badly skewed was the US Officer in charge of the US military Press Centre in Qatar.... >>Out side the US it is not seen as a serious news channel. > >Outside the US is irrelavent. Only to brain dead morons living in the US. However the outside world is about to become painfully relevant to the US rednecks in the next 24-36 months (remember I said that) However 98% of the world's media also disagrees with FOX. >>>it would be about time the consevative republicans >>>had _some_ sort of voice, since the entire remainder of the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Oh, gimmie a break. Approx 85% of the news departments of the major network >media are socialistic leaning democrat voters. Absolute CRAP. 90% of the journalists in Iraq are not US and therefore neither republican not democrat. > Less than 15% vote Republican. So what? >And, when they have a crusade, they just outright lie. Absolutely true.. It was Bush who used the tern "Crusade" GWB has been liying his head off about it al for some time. I know CIA were briefing against him before the invasion of Afghanistan. > I draw this from the >gun control issue mostly, where I _know_ what the truth is, and know that the >vast majority of what the mainstream media "reported" was just plain wrong. You are not comparing like for like. >>This had been proved time and >>time again. Just read the Iraq Study Group report. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >sometimes deliberately. >Dave Head Actually several US military reports I have seen agree with the Iraq Study Group Report. It also agrees with the UK government position on most things and the UK military assessment of things. So given the UK and US military and the UK government agree with the Iraq Study Group Report I think we can conclude quite safely that it is reasonably accurate. It certainly fits with my understanding of the situation but then I have been out there 88 and 90/91.... Oh yes much was happening before the 91 Coalition bash. Signature\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ /\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ >>>>>>>>Does the name GERALDO RIVERA mean anything to you? >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >was the US Officer in charge of the US military Press Centre in >Qatar.... Well, SOMEBODY has to support the troops, and that would be Fox. The rest of the mainstream media more-or-less want the US to lose the Iraq war. >>>Out side the US it is not seen as a serious news channel. >> >>Outside the US is irrelavent. >Only to brain dead morons living in the US. However the outside world >is about to become painfully relevant to the US rednecks in the next >24-36 months (remember I said that) >However 98% of the world's media also disagrees with FOX. Fiiiinnnneeee... let 'em. >>>>it would be about time the consevative republicans >>>>had _some_ sort of voice, since the entire remainder of the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Absolute CRAP. 90% of the journalists in Iraq are not US and therefore >neither republican not democrat. The "mainstream media" are the major, old, news outlets in the USA - NBC, ABC, CBS. These organizations have tons of flaming liberal newspeople that wouldn't know what a "moderate" position is on anything, and think most of the rest of the US is part of the vast conservative conspiracy. >> Less than 15% vote Republican. > >So what? So they are biased toward the liberal / democrat view of everything, overwhelmingly. >>And, when they have a crusade, they just outright lie. > >Absolutely true.. It was Bush who used the tern "Crusade" GWB has been >liying his head off about it al for some time. I know CIA were briefing >against him before the invasion of Afghanistan. And you would know this how? CIA briefs are secret, after all... Anyway, according to the US liberal elite, we should do nothing (well, maybe arrest a few people), accept whatever attacks come our way, lose 3000 people at a time, and respond only with the police. Sorry, it was tried under Clinton, on a smaller scale, and we got 9/11. Had we not responded militarily, Al Queda would be that much bigger and more capable by now, and we'd likely have had another attack by now probably measuring in the hundreds of thousands dead. >> I draw this from the >>gun control issue mostly, where I _know_ what the truth is, and know that the >>vast majority of what the mainstream media "reported" was just plain wrong. > >You are not comparing like for like. I'm illustrating that the liberal (US) mainstream media lie like a rug. >>>This had been proved time and >>>time again. Just read the Iraq Study Group report. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Study Group Report. It also agrees with the UK government position on >most things and the UK military assessment of things. The Iraq Study Group's idea was basically to surrender. One US newspaper even labeled the writers of the report, "Surrender Monkeys" with a humorous monkey photo with their faces where the money's faces would be. But surrender isn't happening. No sense talking about it, at least until we get an all-democrat government. Then maybe we will, and be forced to worship Allah and wear those weird clothes... and grow beards. >So given the UK and US military and the UK government agree with the >Iraq Study Group Report I think we can conclude quite safely that it >is reasonably accurate. And it is unreasonable. I don't think that the military wants to surrender. Not yet, anyway. Maybe in 100 years... Dave Head >>>>>>>>>Does the name GERALDO RIVERA mean anything to you? >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >Well, SOMEBODY has to support the troops, and that would be Fox. The rest of >the mainstream media more-or-less want the US to lose the Iraq war. Supporting the troops and supporting the idiots who sent them are two different things. Accurate reporting is just that. It neither supports nor hinders the troops. It does keep the public informed, accurately. FOX does not do this it repeats propaganda. Even the US military say this. Also accurate reporting is not a problem for the UK forces. It is more of a problem for the US forces >>>>Out side the US it is not seen as a serious news channel. >>>Outside the US is irrelavent. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>However 98% of the world's media also disagrees with FOX. >Fiiiinnnneeee... let 'em. Think about it... if the rest of the worlds news media disagree with FOX but agree with both the UK and US intelligence communities and the UK government and the UK armed forces..... It seems logical that they might actually be right. Unless you say the US/UK intelligence services and the UK armed forces don't know what they are doing because the evidence suggests otherwise. FOX is propaganda to make the US right feel warm and happy. That is all. >>>>>it would be about time the consevative republicans >>>>>had _some_ sort of voice, since the entire remainder of the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >The "mainstream media" are the major, old, news outlets in the USA Never mind the USA.... WORLD-WIDE 98% of the news media disagree with FOX and 90% of the journalists in Iraq are not US nor do they report for the US news media. > - NBC, ABC, >CBS. These organizations have tons of flaming liberal newspeople that wouldn't >know what a "moderate" position is on anything, and think most of the rest of >the US is part of the vast conservative conspiracy. That's irrelevant. Globally FOX is on it's own and is not taken seriously bar a few rednecks in the USA. Internationally FOX is not seen as a serious news channel. Never has been. It is seen as a joke. >>> Less than 15% vote Republican. >>So what? >So they are biased toward the liberal / democrat view of everything, >overwhelmingly. That is false. Many are Tories. Others belong to other right wing parties in places like Germany. The Republican/democtrate stance you are taking is irrelevant as 95% of the news media in Iraq is NOT US and so would not be either Democratic or Republican. >>>And, when they have a crusade, they just outright lie. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >And you would know this how? CIA briefs are secret, after all... Not exactly. Many are available if not actively published in Newspapers. As I pointed out I have a lot of contacts in the right places due to my work (and previous work) the reports are not always "Secret" besides in both the US and the UK the intelligence communities were briefing against Blair/Bush Also I get to read the US magazine "Foreign Policy". >Anyway, according to the US liberal elite, we should do nothing (well, maybe >arrest a few people), accept whatever attacks come our way, lose 3000 people at >a time, and respond only with the police No idea what you are on about. Though if you mean 9/11 the USA did make a complete disaster of the response. IT actively helped the A-Q cause. >. Sorry, it was tried under Clinton, >on a smaller scale, and we got 9/11. Had we not responded militarily, Al Queda >would be that much bigger and more capable by now, and we'd likely have had >another attack by now probably measuring in the hundreds of thousands dead. Actually the US did completely the wrong thing. 1 It has lost the support of most of the world (this WILL be significant in 12/36 months time) 2 The US did not defeat A-Q or the Taliban in Afghanistan. In the end the US had to pull out and other more experienced and capable troops are now removing A-Q and Taliban from Afghanistan. However the US made the situation much worse. 3 There is no democracy in Afghanistan Only in Karbul in daylight. The Taliban never lost control of the South East part of the country. The US forces never made it in to some cities in Afghanistan. 4 One of the stated aims of A-Q was to remove Saddam and his secular government from Iraq and replace it with an Islamic state. The US removed Saddam and is now helping make it into an Islamic state. (Clever of A-Q to get the US to do their work for them) 5 There were no A-Q in Iraq before the US invasion. Well, very few. They were not able to do anything with Saddam in power. There were no A-Q training camps in Iraq where the US said there were (I know I have been in that part of the world) A-Q needed the US to remove Saddam before they could get in. 6 Iraq is now generally a lot more dangerous and has fewer hospitals, electric, water and sanitation than when Saddam was in power. More people are being killed now than when Saddam was in power. 6 9/11 was launched as a RETALIATION strike against the US, not a first strike, and got exactly the response from the US that A-Q wanted. A-Q is now more powerful than it was and has achieved several of it's major aims due to the (incorrect) US response. >>> I draw this from the >>>gun control issue mostly, where I _know_ what the truth is, and know that the >>>vast majority of what the mainstream media "reported" was just plain wrong. >>You are not comparing like for like. >I'm illustrating that the liberal (US) mainstream media lie like a rug. I was discussing that FOX is seen as a propaganda channel not a news channel. It depends if you have a world wide view or just local internal US view. World wide FOX is NOT seen as a serious news channel. No one bar a few people in the US seen it as anything other than propaganda. When you have access to other news channels and you have travelled a bit (outside the US) you will understand. >>>>This had been proved time and >>>>time again. Just read the Iraq Study Group report. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >The Iraq Study Group's idea was basically to surrender. Not at all. The US has lost in Afghanistan and is loosing badly in Iraq. With it's current situation and tactics it can't win. The ISG report showed several ways the US could come out of it not loosing completely and regaining some respect around the world. The problem is the US Neo-cons have no idea how to fight a counter terrorist war. Much of it is counter intuitive. >One US newspaper even >labeled the writers of the report, "Surrender Monkeys" with a humorous monkey >photo with their faces where the money's faces would be. But surrender isn't >happening. Surrender may not be happening (yet) but the US all but surrendered in Afghanistan and is desperately looking for ways out of Iraq before it looses there too. Having the biggest army is not the solution in a counter terrorist war. Incidentally on the counter terrorist News-group several people predicted (about 5 years ago) EXACTLY the course things would take because the US forces have no idea how to fight a counter terrorist war and do Peace keeping duties. >>So given the UK and US military and the UK government agree with the >>Iraq Study Group Report I think we can conclude quite safely that it >>is reasonably accurate. > >And it is unreasonable. It is VERY reasonable. Currently the US military is loosing badly on all fronts. > I don't think that the military wants to surrender. >Not yet, anyway. Maybe in 100 years... >Dave Head Remember Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan there is a LOT more to this than having a big army. 90% of a counter insurgency war is NOT military. It can not be won with tanks and guns. The military can not win this fight with brut force. The US politicians do not have the courage to do it properly. In the current mess the US should take on board the ISG report and implement it. To go forward you have to go three steps back and then three steps sideways. Then go forward. Currently the US politicians have pushed the US military up a blind ally. All FOX does is spout the propaganda. If you want to get back to photography we can discuss the photos I took in Kurdistan in 1988 or the ones I took in training in late BOAR in 1990..... Signature\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ /\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ Really, this topic should be in some political forum. This thread is no longer on topic. And, why not everybody enjoy the Christmas season, and try being nice for awhile. SignatureYou can take good photos with a bad camera, and horrible photos with a good camera. Stan Beck > From New Orleans to Brandon MS To reply, remove 101 from address. *** <trimmed> >Really, this topic should be in some political forum. This thread is no >longer on topic. > >And, why not everybody enjoy the Christmas season, and try being nice for >awhile. As I said.... >If you want to get back to photography we can discuss the photos I took >in Kurdistan in 1988 or the ones I took in training in BOAR in late >1990..... Though a discussion of the use of photography as a propaganda tool is probably on topic. There are some iconic photographs of war that have been used to great effect. For example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_the_Flag_on_Iwo_Jima Note to the OP: Three of the 6 did not survive. One was probably killed by friendly fire.... There is no safe place on a battlefield. and the far more controversial http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nguyen_Van_Lem That was used by the anti war brigade without the explanation of who was who or why it happened. Another interesting one is the first picture on this page. http://freespace.virgin.net/terry.norm/civil_liberties.htm There was another picture taken at the same time further to the left from more behind the person standing. It was taken from lower down looking upwards. It did not show the right had with the brick. This was turned into a poster depicting police brutality of a mounted policeman about to club an innocent civilian not a protester who had been throwing bricks at the police and was about to throw another one. How the picture is taken and how it is presented is impotent especially with war reporting. Which is where we started. (And why the whole wolrd regards Fox as a propaganda channel ) Signature\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ /\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ >> Really, this topic should be in some political forum. This thread is no >> longer on topic. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > That was used by the anti war brigade without the explanation of who was > who or why it happened. The version of events that I was told in highschool was that the executed man had just been capured after killing the generals family. The Geneva convention does not recognise enemy combatants as soldiers if they do not wear a uniform or carry a military ID of some sort (dogtags, army paybook, etc), they are just criminals that can be treated as the local laws would have them. > Another interesting one is the first picture on this page. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > from more behind the person standing. It was taken from lower down > looking upwards. It did not show the right had with the brick. Do you mean: <http://freespace.virgin.net/terry.norm/photo_civil_liberties3.jpg> ? Since when do bricks have camera straps attached to them? It is obviously a camera in a leather case (I have one that looks exactly like it), it has a strap connected to it that is draped over his right shoulder. If that person was about to throw his camera at the police, then he deserves to be smacked around the head (although a truncheon is going way, way overboard) with an open hand for potentialy damaging it ;-) > This was turned into a poster depicting police brutality of a mounted > policeman about to club an innocent civilian not a protester who had > been throwing bricks at the police and was about to throw another one. Brick? It is more like a mounted policeman smaking a photog over the head for taking pictures on the day. > How the picture is taken and how it is presented is impotent especially > with war reporting. Which is where we started. (And why the whole wolrd > regards Fox as a propaganda channel ) Impotent? (without power?) Perhaps _important_ would be more accurate. The photo that I linked to showed a policeman hitting some-one holding a "dangerous" object (a camera). He might have taken pictures of other people being clubbed as well. You can't have police violence being seen by the "silent majority", they might start asking questions and demanding answers. In message <45946e41$0$2592$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, dj_nme <dj_nme@hotmail.com> writes >>> Really, this topic should be in some political forum. This thread >>>is no [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >The version of events that I was told in highschool was that the >executed man had just been capured after killing the generals family. If you read the rest of the page it explained what happened. This is the point people see the photo and don't bother to read the text. If it was the case that he had just killed the Generals family (which I doubt) then the general should not have done the execution. Some one else should have. >The Geneva convention does not recognise enemy combatants as soldiers >if they do not wear a uniform or carry a military ID of some sort >(dogtags, army paybook, etc), they are just criminals that can be >treated as the local laws would have them. Then the Local Police should have dealt with it. However you are splitting hairs on technicalities. Given the situation and the war in general the execution was not wrong for there and then but the photo when dropped into the average household on the other side of the world had a dramatic effect. >> Another interesting one is the first picture on this page. >> http://freespace.virgin.net/terry.norm/civil_liberties.htm [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >deserves to be smacked around the head (although a truncheon is going >way, way overboard) with an open hand for potentialy damaging it ;-) : -) I think you are correct. On closer examination this is not the picture I thought it was. I will have to dig out the original if I can find it. As I mentioned in the picture in question the right hand held a brick and one side user the picture cropped so the brick was not seen to show Police Brutality. (Obviously had the protester been in Israel he would not have been clubbed for throwing a brick but shot instead... Actually given the number of journalist shot he would have been in as much danger carrying a camera as a brick. (OP please note) >> This was turned into a poster depicting police brutality of a mounted >> policeman about to club an innocent civilian not a protester who had [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >It is more like a mounted policeman smaking a photog over the head for >taking pictures on the day. Both sides used photography for propaganda. I wish I could find the photo I am on about rather than this one which looks similar but is not it... >> How the picture is taken and how it is presented is impotent >>especially with war reporting. Which is where we started. (And why >>the whole wolrd regards Fox as a propaganda channel ) > >Impotent? (without power?) :-) I can't tipe or spall that god. >Perhaps _important_ would be more accurate. >The photo that I linked to showed a policeman hitting some-one holding >a "dangerous" object (a camera). Well a camera can be VERY dangerous in the right hands/time/place More so than a brick or a stick. >He might have taken pictures of other people being clubbed as well. >You can't have police violence being seen by the "silent majority", >they might start asking questions and demanding answers. A lot of it made the TV news as video. However it is the still images that have the most effect. There are many Iconic still photos but not so many video clips that have the same effect. The problem with photos of war, strikes and other events of that nature the mind and the eye of the photographer and in times past the person in the dark room and publisher can have a lot of bearing on how the image is perceived. Signature\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ /\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ > In message > <45946e41$0$2592$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, dj_nme [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > Actually given the number of journalist shot he would have been in as > much danger carrying a camera as a brick. (OP please note) If the journalist was actualy in Israel, they would be very safe and should be glad of the protection afforded to them by the IDF. If on the other hand, they were in the Palestinian Territory, there is a good chance that either a Fatah or Hamas fringe extreemist would shoot or blow him up. >>> This was turned into a poster depicting police brutality of a mounted >>> policeman about to club an innocent civilian not a protester who had [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > photo I am on about rather than this one which looks similar but is not > it... You mustn't have looked too closely at the image and had already formed an idea of what it should be, just not what was realy in it. >>> How the picture is taken and how it is presented is impotent >>> especially with war reporting. Which is where we started. (And why [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > that have the most effect. There are many Iconic still photos but not so > many video clips that have the same effect. A still image can be framed on the wall or printed in a book, which is quite difficult to do with a video/film. > The problem with photos of war, strikes and other events of that nature > the mind and the eye of the photographer and in times past the person in > the dark room and publisher can have a lot of bearing on how the image > is perceived. The problem is that the context in which the image is viewed changes how the events depicted are interpreted. It mught turn out that the photog getting clubbed became the head of a national revolutionary group that swept to power, and the image is now said to be the "great leader" being oppressed by the evil state police of the old regime before rising to lead the masses. Or, it may turn out that the horse the policeman was riding bucked and threw him sideways, arms raised to try and steady himself, falling towards the photog and only looking from the angle the picture was taken from as though he's trying to crack the photog's head with his truncheon. Either story is equaly likely or unlikely, without the context explained. Without context this image (and all other "dramatic" or "newsworthy" images) is just a picture. In message <45956ad5$0$2601$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, dj_nme <dj_nme@hotmail.com> writes >> In message >><45946e41$0$2592$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, dj_nme [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >If the journalist was actualy in Israel, they would be very safe and >should be glad of the protection afforded to them by the IDF. Now I know you are not serious. So far the majority have been shot by the IDF. Several in broad daylight at close range despite being clearly identified as PRESS. Two of these were caught on film by other news teams covering the same incident. >If on the other hand, they were in the Palestinian Territory, there is >a good chance that either a Fatah or Hamas fringe extreemist would >shoot or blow him up. This is quite a rare occurrence compared to being shot by the IDF. Incidentally most of the journalists who were shot by the IDF were in the Palestinian areas. >>> He might have taken pictures of other people being clubbed as well. >>> You can't have police violence being seen by the "silent majority", [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >A still image can be framed on the wall or printed in a book, which is >quite difficult to do with a video/film. I agree. It freezes a moment. >> The problem with photos of war, strikes and other events of that >>nature the mind and the eye of the photographer and in times past the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >The problem is that the context in which the image is viewed changes >how the events depicted are interpreted. I have seen the same thing as a demonstration with a clip of film. All that was done was the backing musing was changed. >It mught turn out that the photog getting clubbed became the head of a >national revolutionary group that swept to power, and the image is now [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Without context this image (and all other "dramatic" or "newsworthy" >images) is just a picture. I hope to find both versions of the actual picture I was referring to. One (with the bottom third cropped off) shows a policeman about to club an unarmed "innocent" protester the other shows a rioter about to throw (another ) brick being blocked by a policeman. This brings us back to the argument about FOX being propaganda not accurate news and war reporting in general. A good book to read is "Dispatches" by Michael Herr about reporting in Vietnam or anything by Tim Page on the same subject. Signature\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ /\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ > In message > <45956ad5$0$2601$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, dj_nme > <dj_nme@hotmail.com> writes <snip> >> If the journalist was actualy in Israel, they would be very safe and >> should be glad of the protection afforded to them by the IDF. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > clearly identified as PRESS. Two of these were caught on film by other > news teams covering the same incident. If you go into a war zone, then you take your life into your own hands. Especialy if one side has a history of using civilians as shields and fake funerals (google "palywood") and the other side has been desperatelty trying to stop them from suicide bombing and lauching rockets at civilians in their neighbouring country, then any-one claiming to be not a combatant isn't taken on face value. If the reporters were near loonies that were firing at the IDF troops, then they were probably hit in the crossfire. >> If on the other hand, they were in the Palestinian Territory, there is >> a good chance that either a Fatah or Hamas fringe extreemist would [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Incidentally most of the journalists who were shot by the IDF were in > the Palestinian areas. That is thanks to both the construstion of the security wall and the vigilance of the IDF, it is much safer now in Israel for every-one. Press included. Despite constant bombardment of Sderot (the Israeli town closest to the border) by loony Palestinians, in disregard for the current ceasefire Or, do you tune out when you hear anything of the Palestinians attacking Isrealis? <snip> >> It mught turn out that the photog getting clubbed became the head of a >> national revolutionary group that swept to power, and the image is now [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > an unarmed "innocent" protester the other shows a rioter about to throw > (another ) brick being blocked by a policeman. I am intrigued as to where, when and by whom these photos you're writing about were taken. > This brings us back to the argument about FOX being propaganda not > accurate news and war reporting in general. Faux News is not broadcast in my country. > A good book to read is "Dispatches" by Michael Herr about reporting > in Vietnam or anything by Tim Page on the same subject. With twenty-twenty dispassionate hindsight, it is probably the first war that was lost by the media while the enemy were routed (the Viet Cong were totaly decimated during their Tet Offensive) on the ground. The combination of conscription (the draft) and footage of dead American soldiers being brough home (not to mention the grief of their families and friends), enusred that there would be little (and dwindling) ongoing support for a war in a distant, foreign land. In message <4595ca4f$0$2639$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, dj_nme <dj_nme@hotmail.com> writes >> In message >><45956ad5$0$2601$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, dj_nme [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >If you go into a war zone, then you take your life into your own hands. Especially with the IDF as they have a tendency to shoot clearly identifiable journalists. >Especialy if one side has a history of using civilians as shields and >fake funerals (google "palywood") and the other side has been >desperatelty trying to stop them from suicide bombing and lauching >rockets at civilians in their neighbouring country, then any-one >claiming to be not a combatant isn't taken on face value. The usual propaganda... >If the reporters were near loonies that were firing at the IDF troops, >then they were probably hit in the crossfire. Not in the cases I saw. It was deliberate targeting of the journalists. >>> If on the other hand, they were in the Palestinian Territory, there >>>is a good chance that either a Fatah or Hamas fringe extreemist [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >vigilance of the IDF, it is much safer now in Israel for every-one. >Press included. 1984 has become reality. The IDF and the wall are the cause of most of the problems. >Despite constant bombardment of Sderot (the Israeli town closest to the >border) by loony Palestinians, in disregard for the current ceasefire >Or, do you tune out when you hear anything of the Palestinians >attacking Isrealis? Not at all. However I am not surprised at Palastinian reprisals given with what they have to put up with. It is about time the Isrealis were moved out to somewhere else like Texas. ><snip> >>> It mught turn out that the photog getting clubbed became the head of [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >I am intrigued as to where, when and by whom these photos you're >writing about were taken. The Miners strike in the UK >> This brings us back to the argument about FOX being propaganda not >>accurate news and war reporting in general. > >Faux News is not broadcast in my country. Then you are lucky. >> A good book to read is "Dispatches" by Michael Herr about reporting >> in Vietnam or anything by Tim Page on the same subject. > >With twenty-twenty dispassionate hindsight, it is probably the first >war that was lost by the media while the enemy were routed (the Viet >Cong were totaly decimated during their Tet Offensive) on the ground. Yes politics was the major player. However in a counter terrorist war 90% of it is not a military battle something the US and the IDF have yet to learn unless they do both will loose. >The combination of conscription (the draft) and footage of dead >American soldiers being brough home (not to mention the grief of their >families and friends), enusred that there would be little (and >dwindling) ongoing support for a war in a distant, foreign land. The US public does not really understand the realities of war. Signature\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ /\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ > In message > <4595ca4f$0$2639$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, dj_nme > <dj_nme@hotmail.com> writes <snip> >> That is thanks to both the construstion of the security wall and the >> vigilance of the IDF, it is much safer now in Israel for every-one. >> Press included. > > 1984 has become reality. The IDF and the wall are the cause of most of > the problems. The wall was put up to protect Isrealis from attack by car/truck homicide bombers and in combination with an ever vigilant IDF, has almost completely stopped them. That is why you haven't heard about a bombing in Israel since it was built. >> Despite constant bombardment of Sderot (the Israeli town closest to >> the border) by loony Palestinians, in disregard for the current [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > with what they have to put up with. It is about time the Isrealis were > moved out to somewhere else like Texas. The Palestinians have their own land (what else do you call Gaza Strip and West Bank? Combined they're far bigger than even the smallest of the European countries), their own government (they were stupid enough to elect Hamas) and Israel is/was funding the Palestinian state by giving them a large percentage of taxes from Palestinian which they (graciously) allowed to work in Israel (no other country directly funds another through their tax system). >> <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > The Miners strike in the UK There were some pictures from the protest in Black & White magazine (a UK mag devoted to B&W photography). The most telling detail was the lack of ID number badges on the police uniforms in the photos from before the police decided to attack. >>> This brings us back to the argument about FOX being propaganda not >>> accurate news and war reporting in general. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > 90% of it is not a military battle something the US and the IDF have yet > to learn unless they do both will loose. The USA tried to imitate what the British did in Borneo. Relocating villagers and declaring the uninhabited areas a "free fire zone" (or words to that effect). The Brits did it with a combination of financial inducements (new homes, education, healthcare) and a little gently force. The Yanks tried to do it entirely by force, completely lost the "hearts and minds" of the South Vietnamese and created the next generation of VC recruits. >> The combination of conscription (the draft) and footage of dead >> American soldiers being brough home (not to mention the grief of their >> families and friends), enusred that there would be little (and >> dwindling) ongoing support for a war in a distant, foreign land. > > The US public does not really understand the realities of war. No-one realy does, until they see it for themselves. Either in person, or via the proxy of the evening TV news broadcast. In message <45970976$0$2639$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, dj_nme <dj_nme@hotmail.com> writes >>> The combination of conscription (the draft) and footage of dead >>>American soldiers being brough home (not to mention the grief of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >No-one realy does, until they see it for themselves. >Either in person, or via the proxy of the evening TV news broadcast. Watching it on TV does not give you any idea about war. That is the problem. Many think it does, they are wrong. Signature\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ /\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ > In message > <45970976$0$2639$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, dj_nme [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Watching it on TV does not give you any idea about war. That is the > problem. Many think it does, they are wrong. You are correct. It doesn't realy, but it can at least give inkling of what is going on in the field. Unfortunately, this is only true if we're assuming that the press is free to report the events as they have actualy happened and are not subject to censorship and that the media companies are not pushing a political agenda that would make them less than honest about the real events. In message <4597a062$0$2644$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, dj_nme <dj_nme@hotmail.com> writes >> In message >><45970976$0$2639$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, dj_nme [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >It doesn't realy, but it can at least give inkling of what is going on >in the field. Yes and no. It depends on how it is presented. Also it is a view from a safe and (very) long distance. >Unfortunately, this is only true if we're assuming that the press is >free to report the events as they have actualy happened and are not >subject to censorship and that the media companies are not pushing a >political agenda that would make them less than honest about the real >events. I agree. This is why I said FOX is not serious news channel. It my broadcast what a particular political group in the US want to hear but it is hardly accurate in what it presents. Signature\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ /\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ >Really, this topic should be in some political forum. This thread is no >longer on topic. Yep. I quit. >And, why not everybody enjoy the Christmas season, and try being nice for >awhile. Merry Christmas! (I enjoy the Christmas season by discussing this sort of stuff... it puts off my getting up and working on the bathroom tile that fell off the wall a couple weeks ago! <G> The hillbillies that built this place used regular wallboard behind the tile - it finally dissolved...) >You can take good photos with a bad camera, and horrible photos with a good >camera. Oh, yeah... got a Nikon D1X about 3 years ago, and took sooooo many bad pictures before I got "onto" how it works and what needs to be tended. I don't use "auto" for white balance, so have to pay attention to that, ride herd on the damn auto-exposure so it doesn't select too-slow a shutter speed and blur the pictures, make sure the auto-focus is really selected the way I want it (off-initial-continuous) and make sure the more-obscure settings are the way I want 'em. I'm not a pro photographer, just a guy that buys the best camera around every 15 - 20 years. The last one was a F3, in 1986, bought as a cheer-up mechanism after a deep depression I was experiencing when my brother was killed by a drunk driver the year before. Helped to a mild degree - winning the 1 Lap of America rally the next year really got me out of the depression. But anyway, there's 1000's of ways to take a bad picture with that camera if you don't watch what the heck you're doing, and that doesn't even touch on picture composition. Dave Head > Does the name GERALDO RIVERA mean anything to you? Yes, but what does he have to do with journalism? Signaturej fabian looked good on paper email address subject to subtraction Yep, it is the answer. A good war correspondent/photojournalist must know his subject, just as in everything else. You don't get to learn your subject from the outside - all you do is jump to conclusions and magnify your prejudices. SignatureYou can take good photos with a bad camera, and horrible photos with a good camera. Stan Beck > From New Orleans to Brandon MS To reply, remove 101 from address. *** > > How can I take photos of action on the battlefield > > without being blown to pieces by bombs, mortars [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > PS don't top post. >How can I take photos of action on the battlefield >without being blown to pieces by bombs, mortars >or rockets? You can't. >You know, people like photos of war and destruction, >so I expect to earn big $$$ by taking such photos. You (specifically) won't earn any money at this. Signature\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ /\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ Chaos rules in combat. The battlefield is a place where bits of metal, large and small, fly about randomly and thus unpredictably. You can do everything right and get killed by one of these random bits. You cannot take combat photos without risk. Indeed many journalists, photo or not, have been killed doing their job. Bombs, mortars and rockets are not the only danger. Ernie Pyle was killed in 1945 by machine gun fire on Ie Shima. Robert Capa was killed by a landmine. Read the article titled "My Right Hand" by Michael Weisskopf. He thought much as you do and paid the price. Fortunately the price was minor compated to what Ernie Pyle and Robert Capa paid. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1538664-1,00.html > How can I take photos of action on the battlefield > without being blown to pieces by bombs, mortars > or rockets? > > You know, people like photos of war and destruction, > so I expect to earn big $$$ by taking such photos. You'll be a shooting duck - both sides will take shots at you - and who exactly is going to pay you big bucks? >Chaos rules in combat. The battlefield is a place >where bits of metal, large and small, fly about >randomly and thus unpredictably. You can do >everything right and get killed by one of these >random bits. Life is like that. >You cannot take combat photos without risk. Exactly and NO-ONE does it for the money. > Indeed >many journalists, photo or not, have been killed doing >their job. Bombs, mortars and rockets are not the >only danger. Ernie Pyle was killed in 1945 by >machine gun fire on Ie Shima. Robert Capa was >killed by a landmine. In Iraq a BBC team were hit by a missile from a US plane which hit the wrong target. It hit the US special forces who called in the air strike! The BBC team were attached to the US special forces. So Officially filming a war zone with a squad of Military (with air cover) "protecting" you may not be safe.... even from your own side.. Other journalists have been killed in crossfire in Iraq by both sides. NO-ONE does it for the money. Signature\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ /\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ > NO-ONE does it for the money. There isn't that much money in the world for me to go into a place where every person is shooting at every other person, booby traps abound, hostage taking is a second job for half the population, and 12 year olds carry automatic weapons. I have been to the Middle east, and to Africa for work, and the areas were "secure". Still, I did not feel "safe" for one moment, even when on offshore drilling platforms off the coast of these countries. Steve > How can I take photos of action on the battlefield > without being blown to pieces by bombs, mortars > or rockets? > > You know, people like photos of war and destruction, > so I expect to earn big $$$ by taking such photos. Pray that you never have the 'opportunity'. Hi Ed, > How can I take photos of action on the battlefield > without being blown to pieces by bombs, mortars > or rockets? Only safe place for that is to buy a spy sattelite with very, very high resolution cameras<g> Seriously, war photography is not something I can imagine people doing for money, rather because they are passionate about the horror of war. I found this link that might shed some light on the matter: http://www.cpj.org/Briefings/2003/gulf03/iraq_stats.html http://www.cpj.org/ http://www.cpj.org/killed/killed06.html SignatureArnor Baldvinsson San Antonio, Texas >Hi Ed, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >http://www.cpj.org/Briefings/2003/gulf03/iraq_stats.html Journalists killed in Iraq 2006: 32 2005: 17 2004: 24 2003: 14 By Circumstance 2003-05: • Insurgent action: 32 (Includes crossfire, suicide bombings, and targeted killings.) • U.S. fire: 13 • Iraqi armed forces, during U.S. invasion: 3 • Crossfire or other acts of war in which source unconfirmed: 7 Many of the "crossfire" ones have also shown to be due to US fire. Signature\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ /\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ Ed Zagmoon schrieb: > How can I take photos of action on the battlefield > without being blown to pieces by bombs, mortars > or rockets? First, learn to run. Then learn to run faster. And then try to think while running. That's all you need. Andreas SignatureFotos unter http://www.gugau-foto.de/ Schottland unter http://www.whisky-guide.de/ >Ed Zagmoon schrieb: >> How can I take photos of action on the battlefield >> without being blown to pieces by bombs, mortars >> or rockets? >First, learn to run. Then learn to run faster. And then try to think >while running. That's all you need. That doesn't help on a modern battle field or in urban warfare. The enemy is all around. There are no lines like there used to be in the last century. Signature\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ /\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ Chris Hills schrieb: >> Ed Zagmoon schrieb: >>> How can I take photos of action on the battlefield [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > enemy is all around. There are no lines like there used to be in the > last century. Maybe I forgot a smiley. Or to add that it's a silly answer for a silly question. Andreas SignatureFotos unter http://www.gugau-foto.de/ Schottland unter http://www.whisky-guide.de/ > First, learn to run. Then learn to run faster. And then try to think while > running. That's all you need. > > Andreas They have guns that can shoot down an aircraft going 1500mph. I think they probably have one that would kill any human that thinks they can run fast. Steve >How can I take photos of action on the battlefield >without being blown to pieces by bombs, mortars >or rockets? > >You know, people like photos of war and destruction, >so I expect to earn big $$$ by taking such photos. If you are close enough to the action to photograph it, then you are close enough to be caught up in it...only you won't have a gun. MANY combat photographers have been killed throughout history. It comes with the territory. Gary and might i add - what kind of cold *insert rude words here* person gets off on making big cash out of one of the most awful horrifying things man has ever tried to do to one another? even if i knew how to do it, i wouldnt be telling you. why dont you get a job filming torture chambers in nazi germany, sounds right up your street >>How can I take photos of action on the battlefield >>without being blown to pieces by bombs, mortars [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Gary > and might i add - what kind of cold *insert rude words here* person gets off > on making big cash out of one of the most awful horrifying things man has > ever tried to do to one another? even if i knew how to do it, i wouldnt be > telling you. why dont you get a job filming torture chambers in nazi > germany, sounds right up your street A fair appraisal... how does that hook feel? http://i18.tinypic.com/2vanmll.jpg http://i14.tinypic.com/48m0f3n.jpg ----- - gpsman >> A fair appraisal... how does that hook feel? > > http://i18.tinypic.com/2vanmll.jpg http://i14.tinypic.com/48m0f3n.jpg Yep - I just noticed that he hasn't posted again - a troll.... Well, it is the season for trolls, you know - Christmas break, Spring break, Summer vacation - too much time on their hands. SignatureYou can take good photos with a bad camera, and horrible photos with a good camera. Stan Beck > From New Orleans to Brandon MS To reply, remove 101 from address. *** >>> A fair appraisal... how does that hook feel? >> >> http://i18.tinypic.com/2vanmll.jpg http://i14.tinypic.com/48m0f3n.jpg > > Yep - I just noticed that he hasn't posted again - a troll.... >>How can I take photos of action on the battlefield >>without being blown to pieces by bombs, mortars [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Gary Can you imagine what it must have been like for the combat photographers coming ashore at Normandy? There it was a lot different than Iraq. It wasn't quiet except for the occasional ambush or roadside bomb. At Normandy, tens of thousands of bullets were flying in your direction as you came ashore. Most of those photographers were members of the military and not civilians: Coleville-sur-Mer http://gbe.dynip.com/Normandy GaryE |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.