Kevin's Watch

I'm not an idiot journalist, so I'd jump in and save him. Same thing if he was Clinton, Carter, Kennedy, or even Johnson. I still get angry every time I see footage of people getting killed or hurt when all the camera man had to do was put down the camera and help......

The Esmer wrote:yea, we could "taxidermitate" him and make a coffee table to put the book on!

But, wait...

Wouldn't he get bloated from being water-logged???

(And isn't the poor sap bloated enough??? Or is that just his policies?)

Besides, can you imagine that goofy grin looking up at you from the coffee table?

Julie

dANdeLION wrote:I'm not an idiot journalist, so I'd jump in and save him. Same thing if he was Clinton, Carter, Kennedy, or even Johnson. I still get angry every time I see footage of people getting killed or hurt when all the camera man had to do was put down the camera and help......

Some of them are like that, and some really can do nothing but stand back and watch, like in this case: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4231020.stm

On the whole, I admit to being very uncomfortable with the idea that somebody's out there taking pictures of people killing, dying and grieving when they could be helping, or at least giving people some privacy. Still, if nobody documents what humanity does to itself, we'll have so much less to remind us of our brutality. And we damned sure need some reminding. It's not on my conscience, standing by with the camera when others are suffering or dying, so if others can justify that to themselves, more power to them, I guess. What I really can't stand is the guys that try to make art out of it, or apply poetic symbolism to something that doesn't need words to describe it. Like this guy: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4245138.stm

Matrixman wrote:But would it necessarily have to be film? What about a digital camera? Do most professional photographers today still prefer to use film?

My mom started using digital about a year or more ago... She was holding on to film for as long as possible because she was very comfortable with it. Now I don't think she'd go back... she has much more creative control over the proofs when she can edit them as she pleases with Adobe. Also, film is extremely expensive when you have you buy it in such a large quantity. I think that only very few photographers still use film...

Like LF's mom, I would never go back to using film. Digital rules.

And, of course, most of us would save someone rather than take pictures if we had the chance.

But if there was no chance of saving him, digital would so much be the way to go.

mrsnull: do i even know you anymore?

Don't get me wrong, I love my digital camera and I've taken some spectacular shots with it, but I will give up my SLR when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.

There is an art to film photography that digital will never match. You have to know what you're doing to take good film photos. You have to be hyper-aware of light conditions, the speed of your subject, the angle of the shot, the mechanics of aperture and shutter interaction (heh, all the stuff I'm still weak on ), and you have to have patience. Sit in the same spot for two hours to snap ten frames, then have nine (or all!) of them come out marginal. Digital has an up on film in the economic and user-friendly departments, but for pure art's sake, I will always rely on film, no matter how cumbersome it is. It's like driving a carriage. There's no point these days, but when it's done right, it's damned impressive.

1. This is all a joke, and wasn't supposed to be a real discussion on photography.
2. For all those who said you'd save him: Sorry, but you've a) broken the rules (it wasn't an option) and are b) unethical.

If it's physically possible and you can't send me to prison for doing it, I say it's an option.

Lord Mhoram wrote:1. This is all a joke, and wasn't supposed to be a real discussion on photography.

I know, but how many times can you see the same thing repeated before you feel the need to elaborate?

i don't know, lets try it!

Alynna Lis Eachann wrote:

Lord Mhoram wrote:1. This is all a joke, and wasn't supposed to be a real discussion on photography.

I know, but how many times can you see the same thing repeated before you feel the need to elaborate?

Alynna Lis Eachann wrote:

Lord Mhoram wrote:1. This is all a joke, and wasn't supposed to be a real discussion on photography.

I know, but how many times can you see the same thing repeated before you feel the need to elaborate?

Alynna Lis Eachann wrote:

Lord Mhoram wrote:1. This is all a joke, and wasn't supposed to be a real discussion on photography.

I know, but how many times can you see the same thing repeated before you feel the need to elaborate?

Alynna Lis Eachann wrote:

Lord Mhoram wrote:1. This is all a joke, and wasn't supposed to be a real discussion on photography.

I know, but how many times can you see the same thing repeated before you feel the need to elaborate?

Alynna Lis Eachann wrote:

Lord Mhoram wrote:1. This is all a joke, and wasn't supposed to be a real discussion on photography.

I know, but how many times can you see the same thing repeated before you feel the need to elaborate?

actually VF, if an evac had been ordered, you may be breaking the law by staying in town. may be shot as a looter, or hailed as a forager, depending on your race.

sgtnull wrote:actually VF, if an evac had been ordered, you may be breaking the law by staying in town. may be shot as a looter, or hailed as a forager, depending on your race.

I haven't heard of anyone being 'hailed as a forager'. But if I'm breaking the law just by being there, I'm already running that risk. So why not go whole hog and break YOUR rules, too?

Lord Mhoram wrote:2. For all those who said you'd save him: Sorry, but you've a) broken the rules (it wasn't an option) and are b) unethical.

Hmm. How about if I A) Save him, B) Throw some other sucker in the river, C) Film him in glorious Black & White.

Then you'd be guilty of murder, instead of just feeling guilty for not saving the guy in the first place.

can you say "depraved indifference"?

Take the Goddamn photo. . . . .just make sure you're not caught with your foot on his head

not my rules vf. and cnn and newspapers got in trouble for calling black folks looters, and white folks as finding stuff.

I meant the rule saying that I couldn't save him.

Anyway, I'm not surprised at CNN or the major newspaper chains. Surveys repeatedly show that about 90% of U.S. journalists are registered Democrats. And journalists tend to be the sort of Democrats who take it as an article of faith that racism is exclusively a Republican disease, and are therefore utterly blind to it in themselves.

Too often, our worst faults are the ones we believe ourselves immune to.

so do you prefer the Republicans who are open in their racism. or do you go Democrat with their feeling that minorities can't make it without the white man guiding their every step?