Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Learning
Photo Evaluation
Photo Feedback
Saved
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="JulianK" data-source="post: 58466" data-attributes="member: 9608"><p>Thanks Helene,</p><p></p><p>Interesting question but unfortunately as Browncoat indicated, the answer isn't very pretty. Photojournalists aren't in the business of saving - they're paid to capture the story, the few I've known have all said they've practically had to detach from empathy for a living. But of course, the type of events; oil spills, natural disasters, war etc. that they cover are usually teaming with rescue services anyway. And a photojournalist might of course actually shoot the rescue teams as they go about their duties, that's always compelling material.</p><p></p><p>The story of this picture got me thinking of the second scenario because Phil said "We" got this little bird away from a cat. Perhaps one could have achieved that (perhaps not), while the other shot the struggle and rescue. Maybe a set of 3 shots, only the last one would have needed to be beautifully captured (or edited so). The first 2 could/would have been great even if shaky, blurry and not well lit just as long as we got the urgency and story. Food for thought for the next time I hope.</p><p></p><p>As it is, I'd love to see the single shot after a detailed retouch. So much is good about it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JulianK, post: 58466, member: 9608"] Thanks Helene, Interesting question but unfortunately as Browncoat indicated, the answer isn't very pretty. Photojournalists aren't in the business of saving - they're paid to capture the story, the few I've known have all said they've practically had to detach from empathy for a living. But of course, the type of events; oil spills, natural disasters, war etc. that they cover are usually teaming with rescue services anyway. And a photojournalist might of course actually shoot the rescue teams as they go about their duties, that's always compelling material. The story of this picture got me thinking of the second scenario because Phil said "We" got this little bird away from a cat. Perhaps one could have achieved that (perhaps not), while the other shot the struggle and rescue. Maybe a set of 3 shots, only the last one would have needed to be beautifully captured (or edited so). The first 2 could/would have been great even if shaky, blurry and not well lit just as long as we got the urgency and story. Food for thought for the next time I hope. As it is, I'd love to see the single shot after a detailed retouch. So much is good about it. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Learning
Photo Evaluation
Photo Feedback
Saved
Top