| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/12/2004 09:20:46 AM · #1 |
Hello,
I recently saw a movie called War Photographer . It's a documentary about James Nachtwey, one of my all-time favorite photographers. You can see some of his photos here , here and here. The movie is very powerfull, and contains some strong scenes. It's made in 2001, and you can maybe find it at your local video store, or you can buy the DVD here.
His view on photography actually changed how I take pictures, and his message is so strong. You have to see this movie. That's all!
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 09:28:55 AM · #2 |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 09:32:21 AM · #3 |
Very powerful images! I will definately be checking out the movie. Thanks for the post.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 09:38:59 AM · #4 |
Wow... Makes you think twice about how much content - visual and emotional - can be fit into a small image. I can clearly see how studying his work could change the way anyone takes pictures.
Thanks for sharing, very inspirational.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 09:41:59 AM · #5 |
| arriving from netflix tomorrow... |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 09:44:31 AM · #6 |
Gordon, you will not be disappointed.
Message edited by author 2004-11-12 09:56:41. |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 10:04:08 AM · #7 |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 03:28:15 PM · #8 |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 03:33:30 PM · #9 |
Wonderful work. My uncle was just a young man in '93 when he was a peace keeper in Bosnia during the ethnic cleansing. James' photos give a clear image of what they all saw.
Again, just amazing work. That's a ballsy job. |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 03:40:19 PM · #10 |
Thank you for sharing this amazing photographer! I've gone ahead and shared him with some other friends and we're all oohing and aahing even while moaning and groaning. Dramatic, painful photos.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 03:41:26 PM · #11 |
| Absolutley Brilliant, just remember this is the REAL world we live in. |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 03:48:34 PM · #12 |
So here's something I was pondering over lunch... If your inspiration for photography is to capture war in such a way that people will believe that wars should nver happen, are you objectively presenting your material? Don't get me wrong, I don't like war any more than anyone else - not trying to debate the value of war!
My point is, when your subject is social, the way you present it seems to carry more weight then how you present, say, a flower in a vase. You can misrepresent things by simply changing your focus, and because its a photograph shape a large audience's opinion.
So, does that leave you with a moral obligation to accurately portray the whole story, or does artistic license trump all leaving social issues as another canvas?
For example, some wars were needed to undo horrible wrongdoing and genocide, and their outcomes were the freeing of a people, or the removal of cruel opression. To portray those wars only through colalteral damage shots undermines the social significance and greater good of the people who's later generations can live unopressed. Again, not tied to anything specific, this is just a hypothetical to illustrate that there are two sides to many wars, and the photographer has their choice of what to zoom in on.
I couldn't help but be moved by these images... And yet, I thought to myself, in some of the issues reprsented there is a different story - of strength, of pride - that wasn't conveyed in these images. Photographer's choice. Right or wrong, pondering it made for an interesting lunch today.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 03:53:01 PM · #13 |
The last post reminded me of the debate around the Iwo Jima flag raising re-enactment photo.
//www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/iwoflag.htm
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 04:40:08 PM · #14 |
James Nachtwey's work is sobering.
A lot of his work is collected in INFERNO, an amazing mammoth sized book of photographs. I own a copy, and now an then force my self to browse through its pages.
Message edited by author 2004-11-12 16:42:08.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 04:47:42 PM · #15 |
James Nactwey injured in Iraq 2003
he was injured last year by a grenade.
he's a terrific photographer
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 05:31:06 PM · #16 |
Thanks Eric, I didnt know he was injured. Anybody else seen the movie yet?
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 05:45:58 PM · #17 |
| Wow, fantastic work. Disturbing but great work. |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 10:32:12 PM · #18 |
z
Message edited by author 2005-07-12 11:15:07. |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 10:52:34 PM · #19 |
| Terje, would you mind if I ask you just how Nachtwey's photography has changed your way of taking pictures? Have you changed your subjects from more artistic to more photojournalistic ones? Do you plan on making more of a social statement with your images? Or are you referring to more technical matters? Just curious. |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 11:53:06 PM · #20 |
First, to stay on topic: This is a very powerful set of photographs. It's my first exposure to James Nachtwey, and I'll be studying his work some more. Thanks, terje, for posting this.
Originally posted by cghubbell:
...
For example, some wars were needed to undo horrible wrongdoing and genocide, and their outcomes were the freeing of a people, or the removal of cruel opression. To portray those wars only through colalteral damage shots undermines the social significance and greater good of the people who's later generations can live unopressed. Again, not tied to anything specific, this is just a hypothetical to illustrate that there are two sides to many wars, and the photographer has their choice of what to zoom in on.
... |
Your reply was a thoughtful one. I've excerpted the above quote, becaus it struck a chord in me...
While the end result of some wars (WWII for sure) was the elimination of a tyrant/maniac who, if allowed to continue, might have done more damage and caused even more death than the scores of millions that suffered and died as a result of the war itself, ... there's no getting around the fact that war is always bad. Wars are man's way of saying that he can't find a better way to solve a problem.
There's no such thing as the "good side" of war - only long after the conflict has ended, might you look back and see that things are now better than they were before (and during) the war. To be sure, there are moments of heroism and kindness in the midst of a bloody conflict; but that just shows that some people have a heart and conscience. It doesn't say that the war itself is good.
We need photographers like Nachtwey to continually remind us to find a better way to solve our problems. That's not a biased social statement. It's a simple statement of fact that war is always hell.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2004 07:35:35 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Terje, would you mind if I ask you just how Nachtwey's photography has changed your way of taking pictures? Have you changed your subjects from more artistic to more photojournalistic ones? Do you plan on making more of a social statement with your images? Or are you referring to more technical matters? Just curious. |
It's hard to explain, but here are things I now focus more on:
1.) "If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough. -Nachtwey"
2.) To get closer, he is super calm when taking pictures. Actually, being very very calm and easy, will get you closer to your subjects, and it will make it easier for your subjects to let you photograph them.
3.) I understand that I can not be afraid of the situation, or my equipment when taking pictures. No matter if I'm out at night at harlem, or in a very poor village in Iraq. I have insurer all of my equipment, and I try not to think so much about safty.
4.) Emotions. I at least think about it, and try to capture it. but so far I have found it hard to really capture strong emotions. I'm new to this whole photography world, and I've looked at a lot of images on the Internet, be photo.net,dpc,photosig, other websites. Those images has made me think more technique and composition then emotion. When I saw Nachtwey's work and how he used photography as a tool to send out a statement I was blown away. Still trying to learn, but at least I'm more focused on emotions now then I used to be.
There are other reasons too, but as I said it's hard to explain for a native norwegian who barely speak this english language. ;-)
|
|
|
|
11/14/2004 09:30:30 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by lenkphotos:
There's no such thing as the "good side" of war - only long after the conflict has ended, might you look back and see that things are now better than they were before (and during) the war. To be sure, there are moments of heroism and kindness in the midst of a bloody conflict; but that just shows that some people have a heart and conscience. It doesn't say that the war itself is good.
We need photographers like Nachtwey to continually remind us to find a better way to solve our problems. That's not a biased social statement. It's a simple statement of fact that war is always hell. |
I guess I could have made my point more clearly now that I read it again... As I said, I'm definitely not trying to debate wars being good vs. bad - that's politics - I'm trying to stick with a photographic point :) I think you may have hinted at what i was trying to say when you noted the heroism and kindness.
I'm thinking about the emotions of, for example, a concentration camp which had been liberated from Nazis. That would be, in my mind, a positive side of war. There is no doubt that amongst horrific things, this example would include some of the most genuine positive (and powerful) emotions humans are capable of. To ignore that fact that freedom and safety require sacrifice is to deny history. To deny history is to misrepresent it.
It is important to show the horrors of war so that people can begin to comprehend the sacrifices made in the name of whatever cause was at hand - so they can make their own decisions as to whether it was right or wrong.
I also believe it is important to capture the extremes of humanity, both good and bad, which are brought out in these circumstances. Imagine the power of photographs which capture the courageous acts soldiers perform to rescue their brothers, to get medics to the wounded, etc. Is this not an equally worthy subject photographically as a land mine victem in a hospital? Are those who were saved not as worthy as those were not?
The circumstances behind all conflicts are as unique as the conflicts themselves. there is no blanket statement that can be made about how to represent "war" because no wars are the same. But when I reviewed the on-line portfolio of Nachtwey, I came away with a vacuum where human strength and character once lived. Not to disrespect him - I admire his talent for capturing what he set out to capture, and doing so in a powerful manner.
Where this really set in for me was in his 9/11 images. To characterize 9/11 by the falling of buildings was to deny the rising of the city, and nation. Which, I firmly believe, was an incomplete representation. His images were powerful, but not as powerful as the courage and strength shown in the aftermath. Now, living in the US, and more specificially, New York, the 9/11 scenario is closer to me than any of his others. *BUT* I believe that many of the scenarios he covered included similar options for photography as 9/11 - which he chose not to capture.
Was is right to portray war as a time when no human light shines through the dark? It makes his point to be sure, but does it represent reality? And from the standpoint of photography, is that important?
|
|
|
|
11/14/2004 11:17:05 AM · #23 |
I donât think that Nachtweyâs photographs, at least the ones Iâve seen posted through the links in this thread, are really photojournalistic in the sense that heâs trying to convey the story of war. What I find so profound in these images is more poetic and graceful and is a human story. What people have to go through when confronted with the ravages of conflict and how they cope. He presents their courage, dignity, strength, and heroism with the use of somber tones, but I see his photos in a more hopeful light
What comes to mind are the photos of the man still standing in front of the collapsed World Trade Center looking dirty, exhausted, yet still a pillar of strength with the fortitude to continue life and dealing with the catastrophe that has just befallen. Or the firemen climbing through the rubble of the WTC. I think Nachtwey uses the fallen WTC as symbol for the rising of the city and nation in a powerful way.
I think he shows that life goes on despite the horrors that have victimized a people, such as in the photo of a child swinging from a gun turret in a left behind tank. Even the sobering picture of a âstick figureâ of a man crawling on all fours suffering with starvation, as depressing as this photo is, shows the âfightâ still remaining in him.
I donât think itâs his aim to persuade the moral compass or take sides but to present war on a human scale. Iâm not sure that war can really be presented objectively in a set of photographs, or stories, anyway, especially with todayâs âembeddedâ journalists. I too believe there is NO good side to war, but we can take away from these pictures a soulful reminder to the enduring spirit of humanity.
|
|
|
|
11/14/2004 06:50:11 PM · #24 |
Saw that movie a while ago, and it had a huge impact on me.
I think I would even consider doing war photography after seeing that movie! |
|
|
|
11/14/2004 06:55:28 PM · #25 |
[quote=terje]
1.) "If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough. -Nachtwey"
actually that quote isnt Nachtwaey´s.
Dont remember who it was but its postet in the beginning of the film:)
useless information for the simple minds!:p
edit: it was Robert Capa who made that wonderful statement!
who btw was also a famous war photographer and died in 1954
Here are some more if you are interested
Message edited by author 2004-11-14 19:35:43. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/08/2025 07:21:58 AM EDT.
