Going through my archives, I found two photos worthy of posting. I'd welcome any feedback.

The first was taken at the Central Hospital of Semipalatansk, Kazakhstan, while I was producing a documentary on victims of Soviet nuclear bomb tests. (For 40 years, the Soviets tested nuclear bombs within ten miles of civilian population centers. Cancer in the region is as pervasive as the common cold.) Be advised: the image is graphic.

The second photo was taken in Rwanda one year after the genocide, while I was producing a documentary on child-headed households.

A bit of background to all this. I'm a documentary producer who shoots stills when I can. My segments and documentaries air on network news programs, PBS, CNN, and BBC.

And an apology. I haven't yet figured out how to link the photo to this posting.

Photo 1: www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=626920

Photo 2: www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=626923

Many thanks.

-- Gulley Jimson (gulleyjimson@hotmail.com), March 11, 2002

Answers

Gulley:

I tried both photos and Photonet said they are not available for public viweing.

Cheers

-- RICHARD ILOMAKI (richardjx@hotmail.com), March 11, 2002.

Sorry, I'll fix both. Try again.

-- Gulley Jimson (gulleyjimson@hotmail.com), March 11, 2002.

Just seeing these one offs is distressing and seems unfeeling and voyeuristic. Perhaps in the context of a photo story they would make sense: as it is, on their own, they are both appalling. I could make comments about composition, but that would seem sick. I'm sure you are compassionate about these people but viewing a single image of a woman with a really shocking tumor all over her breast and in clear distress is just horrible. Maybe it's the context of this forum, where people bang on about bokeh etc, that is so inappropriate.

-- Steve Jones (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), March 11, 2002.

Gulley,

I hope you don't mind, but I made the photos click-able for easy access. photo 1 Photo 2

Life can be hard, and someone has to show it. I don't think I could survive long if my subjects were of this level of suffering. I don't like to look at them, but I'm glad that the situations were documented.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), March 11, 2002.

Sorry, the addresses were missing the "http://"... here are the links.

Photo 1 Photo 2

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), March 11, 2002.

Gulley, I think your subjects are powerful and very worth documenting - I now understand where you're coming from as a doc producer - but I don't think the pictures really do them justice, except as record shots. The most successful, IMO, is the Rwandan child. However, I don't think any of the four you've shown really tells a story or has much graphic impact. They do look very much like outtakes from a video sequence, and as part of such a sequence I'm sure they would be very effective. But I think still pictures have to have much more graphic impact and to compress a situation into a much smaller space, which these don't. Again, IMO.

No offense, I hope, but that's what I feel about them.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), March 11, 2002.

Maybe it's the casualness/clumsiness of the compositions that upsets me so much - it gives the impression of lack of care for the distress of the subject.

-- Steve Jones (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), March 11, 2002.

Thanks, Rob. I agree that most of my frames don't work on their own, without extensive captioning or context. The cancer patient, however, seems to me a striking image in and of itself. Perhaps it's her expression (mournful acceptance) or the sheer horror of the situation.

My frustration as a producer who shoots stills should be obvious: I have to let my videographer record the scene to his satisfaction before I move to catch what I can. As a photographer, I'm something of a gleaner (or scavenger). But my medium is television, and my avocation is photographer, so I'm reconciled to shots that are nearly there.

Incidentally, I specialized in human rights and international affairs. I leave for a two week assignment in Africa in late March, the subject is adolescents and AIDS. Any advice on film choice? I'm thinking of b+w, but worry it might be too confining.

-- Gulley (gulleyjimson@hotmail.com), March 11, 2002.

I agree with the other posters, but I think if your images were more striking individually much of the criticism would fall away--that is, if you had a stranger, more "graphically interesting" take on these subjects. Those are flimsy phrases, I know.

Did you see the photo that won the World Press Photo Award, of the Afghan child on a surgical table with all of the doctors' hands reaching in from outside the frame? It's quite powerful--but only because the perspective is unique. No doubt that photographer had many shots on his roll that are like yours here.

I sympathize with your having to "scavenge" after your filming work is done. You might try shooting something entirely different from what the film crew is doing. Maybe shoot just portraits, instead of attempting a still-photo essay of the same material. Trying a different angle may open up some different possibilities anyway, and you may feel more creative and less opportunistic.

As for film choice, shoot whatever you're good at, whatever makes you happiest.

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), March 11, 2002.

I like both of the photos. I think part of the problem in evaluating them is that, while they're portraying "big" issues, they're "small" photos--there seems to be an expectation that photos concerning serious or tragic issues need to be, in some sense, "epic," out of respect for the gravity of the issue. Hope this makes some sense; still on my first cup of coffee . . .

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 11, 2002.

Gulley:

This is right up your alley:

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0203/js_intro.htm

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), March 11, 2002.

Just a note to say how much I appreciate all your criticism.

-- Gulley (gulleyjimson@hotmail.com), March 11, 2002.

Hi, Gulley:

No doubt your cancer photo is a powerful image though mainly or purely documental. The other one, though better from a aesthetical point of view (IMHO, of course) doesn't tell a story on itself, just as you pointed out yourself.

Regarding your asking for film sugestions: yes, I agree about B&W. It will force you to concentrate more on the graphical merit of your intended images, provided you look at them in a "B&W way", i.e making it clear for yourself that only grey tones will show up on the final image so that red will look right like blue does if they are the same tone. Obviously I speak assuming that you don't have much experience regarding B&W, but if you do you will understand what I mean to a larger extent than I can clearly state, of course. But if you don't, take your usual film along with B&W in order to ensure that your results will be at least as usual too. Getting used to B&W takes longer than one could guess at first sight . . .

Regards, Gulley. Thanks for sharing your photos.

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), March 11, 2002.

The Photographer's Journal by Chang W. Lee (on www.nytimes.com) has some shots that will interest you, Gulley. Especially the section called "Spinzer Hospital." Check it out!

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), March 15, 2002.