DSLRUsers.com

To take this picture or help the guy

In the end I suppose there was nothing the photographer could do.

http://www.pbase.com/issels/image/37884488

Apparently, the man shown was rescued a few seconds later if what the blurb accompanying rest of the gallery is correct.

Let's sincerely hope so

Could this gallery be an advert for a certain men's magazine?

Yes I think he was rescued but the Sun thinks otherwise.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004601615,00.html

To me this doesn't make sense. If you look at the time of the preceeding and next photos the photo of the guy being washed away is different.

The comments on the images against the photographer are a bit harsh. Its all very clear in hindsight, but in the heat of the moment he was just recording events in front of him, how was anyone to know there would be such devastation and loss of life?

There was a giant hailstorm at my place shortly before xmas. It was a rare event, and the size of hail were unbelievably huge. It would have made for great images. But I do not have any photos to show. I headed out immediately to pull my terrified pets to safety.

Priorities....

I have an Old English Sheepdog (OES), he is soo spoiled. He lives inside, I cook for him and I walk him every day.

I should get out more.

I'm with Onyx, do you grab your camera (which will never save his life) or do you frantically look for a pole, rope, sheet to throw down or a matress or something which floats for him to hang onto. Even if the result was the same, at least I could try and sleep at some later date knowing I had tried my hardest rather than take shots for what - to show friends or worse, sell. Personally, shame on the photographer

Good one onyx

We are always helping people with damaged homes & cars after a storm.
We go back over the track of the storm when it settles down to see what damage it has caused & if it’s bad enough we ring BoM & the SES to let them know were the worst hit areas are

Cheers
Ray

I don't think it's that simple. I haven't checked the exif data to be sure, but it looked like he was already taking photos when the wave came in. At first it would have been just a novelty because it didn't look threatening. He was probably even thinking he was lucky to catch it. Then when it kept coming he would have just been caught up in the photos, and at what point do you stop and do something else? Yes, there is going to be a point somewhere when you do, but catching something like that would have been a bit mesmerising, trying to get all of it you could.

The other point is that the guy in the water was being washed towards the hotel, and according to the introduction on the gallery page he was pulled from the water a few seconds after the last photo of him. Admittedly, a photo of the guy catching hold of a rescuing hand would have been nice, but not nearly as effective a fundraising image.

Ahhh! the morality of it all. If you can help, then you do something and help. Man first-photographer second. If there is nothing you can do then take photographs, Be an eye for the world.

Now...can you answer this question? If this was a close relative or friend and he perished in the water...would you want to see this image?

Matt. K wrote:Ahhh! the morality of it all. If you can help, then you do something and help. Man first-photographer second. If there is nothing you can do then take photographs, Be an eye for the world.

Well put.

Matt. K wrote:Now...can you answer this question? If this was a close relative or friend and he perished in the water...would you want to see this image?

That one's easy. No. Well, yes, maybe. Actually, no. Um. Hmm.

See, it is easy: dunno! Hope to never be able to answer this.

This is one for which I believe there is trully no answer without having been there at the time.

It brings to mind the (in)famous photo from the Vietnam war of the policeman shooting a person at point blank range.

The photo is a very powerful one, but could the photographer have stopped the death? Can't knoe without ALL the facts

Cheers

Draw a line in the sand - stand on one side then the other and finally straddle the line. Which is right and which is wrong. I think personally that not one of us can answer truthfully the question what would we do given the circumstances presented in those first few moments of the tragedy.

I watched ACA last night with Ray Martin in Indonesia and at the end of the show he said ”I hope you enjoyed the show” - is this tasteless - my first thought was yes and then I realised that I was not standing where he was with the smell of death all around me. The answer is we never no what we will do or even say when confronted with the enormity of this tragedy.

Chris

It's an interesting dilemma though. I don't know whether the person taking photos was a photojournalist or "just" a tourist. I can understand recording other people's suffering if it's your job and we certainly need people to do that job.

As someone whose mission on this earth is not to record momentous events for posterity (although maybe one day it will be, after all the help I get here) I couldn't take pictures of someone suffering a personal tragedy (and I don't think that the tragedy also affected thousands of others made it any less personal for this one man). For example, if you saw someone seriously injured in a car crash, do you think it's OK to photograph it? I remember another post where a member suggestged that it may not be appropriate to photograph people at the beach. Surely this is far more personal.

Then there's the context of what one does with such a photo.

I'd personally find this shot more palatable in pretty much any setting other than a photography website - maybe a site dedicated to assisting victims would have been a better choice.

If this were a photo of my loved one, I'd be pretty upset (but then, you might notice I've just had a rant on an entirely different subject and made yesterday's final post at about 4am today, so perhaps I'm just tired and crabby!)

stubbsy
Is a photographer, in the journalistic sense, there to record, or to participate? Or, put another way...is the photographer part of the event...or should he keep himself apart and record the event for history, as it would unfold as if he was not there? This an ethical matter that has been debated for many years. It has no answer because photographers are people and all people have their pain/outrage threshold. Good men will do the right thing. Lesser men exploit every situation for their own gain. My own opinion on this is that a professional photographer will keep taking photographs, no matter how painful the event, because he understands the importance of bearing witness to those who have no voice, However, the moment he suspects that his presence and his camera are being exploited, he will walk away.

Matt K.

a professional photographer will keep taking photographs, no matter how painful the event, because he understands the importance of bearing witness to those who have no voice, However, the moment he suspects that his presence and his camera are being exploited, he will walk away.

Very eloquent. Couldn't help but requote it. Hadn't really thought of it from that perspective. You're right. (as an aside where does that leave the amateur photographer)

Well said Matt, and very true.

No matter which side of the fence we find ourselves on - you gotta admit - they're amazing photographs that will be immortalised for eternity. Somebody had to capture them.

I'd like to give the photographer the benefit of the doubt here. Remember this would have happened VERY quickly. One moment he's capturing the huge waves rolling in (not knowing what was to follow) and then in an instant a man is swept below him. He wouldn't have had time to react. IMHO of course.

The photos linked to are far from the worse I've come across. The images at rotten and ogrish dot com are far more gruesome and distasteful.

However, each of us have our set of values. What defines these values are very complex from a psychological pt of view. Some say there is no right or wrong, and whilst respecting that I choose to believe otherwise.

according to the photographer's friend who spoke to the sun the man was pulled to safety and there where other people there what would be more productive joining a successful rescue and possibly getting in the way or taking powerful photo's. At a certain level of Photojournalism, once the eye is behind a lense the photographer is no longer there in body it just goes with the job i guess and it would be very hard to do

Matt. K wrote:stubbsy
Is a photographer, in the journalistic sense, there to record, or to participate? Or, put another way...is the photographer part of the event...or should he keep himself apart and record the event for history, as it would unfold as if he was not there? This an ethical matter that has been debated for many years. It has no answer because photographers are people and all people have their pain/outrage threshold. Good men will do the right thing. Lesser men exploit every situation for their own gain. My own opinion on this is that a professional photographer will keep taking photographs, no matter how painful the event, because he understands the importance of bearing witness to those who have no voice, However, the moment he suspects that his presence and his camera are being exploited, he will walk away.

Matt,

Don't forget too that the act of photographing the event, through the camera's viewfinder, acts to separate you from the event.

I'm of the belief that the events need to be recorded, but then there's the moral cost of that recording of them.

gstark
To a certain extent I agree with you...but if the subject of your photography is looking at you and holding his hand out for help from you...then you are no longer seperate from the event. You are part of it. There have been recorded instances where men have been executed simply because photographers were present and their captors could see that they would gain some world wide political noteriety. A number of the photographers present could sense that their prescence was inflaming the situation and left, but others stayed on and captured the grizzly event. It is probable that the victims would not have been killed if there were no photographers present. I suppose you gotta know when to stay and gotta know when to walk away?

Matt. K wrote: It is probable that the victims would not have been killed if there were no photographers present. I suppose you gotta know when to stay and gotta know when to walk away?

Indeed. It's a tough call, and you have no real way of knowing what the end result is going to be if you decide to walk. It becomes a matter of judgement, and some of us have better judgement than others.

Certainly, I'm not in favour of seeing the photographer - who should be there documenting what's happening - becoming a factor in what's being documented. When that starts to happen ...

To stir things up a little more. Had the photographer tried to help, there would have been 2 people in need of rescuing and still no photo. There is no way one person could have helped that guy alone, let alone 2, maybe 3. Sacramento is the convergence of the 2 major rivers in Northern California, an as such, I like most of our department am trained in swiftwater rescue. It takes a coordinated team effort along with the right equipment, training, and a well thought out and executed plan. And still, 50 of the time things go bad. So now I ask agin, What would you do???

Andy

Andy,

A very interestign point.

Damn! I just looked out my window, and I swear I can see a cat amongst the pigeons.

Matt K.

Quote:
a professional photographer will keep taking photographs, no matter how painful the event, because he understands the importance of bearing witness to those who have no voice, However, the moment he suspects that his presence and his camera are being exploited, he will walk away.


Very eloquent. Couldn't help but requote it. Hadn't really thought of it from that perspective. You're right. (as an aside where does that leave the amateur photographer)

It goes to training and disposition under max stress you fall back back on what you are or trained to be. The ultimate is during war, under attack a warrior pick up his gun the correspondent his camera both are putting their life on the line to do their job. The correspondant first instict is to record the warrior attack or defend. If he is a pro he did what his training dictated.
The amature is a wild card and can go either way without conditioning he will pick one or run like h*ll and any option is OK
Untill you walk a mile in his shoes You see you react and leave hidesite to others and hopfully can get a good night's sleep