If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
A truly HORRIFIC tsunami picture
I guess ths is the type of images that were unsuitable for publication. I've read papers and websites, and the ~130,000 death toll seemed difficult to comprehend, but I guess it's true that one image is worth a thousand words, or more. Now I can imagine the massive death toll. [WARNING : VERY, VERY DISTURBING!] http://img145.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img1...uumiita4ft.jpg [WARNING : VERY, VERY DISTURBING!] |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
I guess ths is the type of images that were unsuitable for publication.
I've read papers and websites, and the ~130,000 death toll seemed difficult to comprehend, but I guess it's true that one image is worth a thousand words, or more. Now I can imagine the massive death toll. [WARNING : VERY, VERY DISTURBING!] http://img145.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img1...uumiita4ft.jpg [WARNING : VERY, VERY DISTURBING!] Is it just me, or do others have issues with photos like this one, posted on a site that asks you to "rate this image?" Yes, I understand that, regardless of subject, one can analyze a photo on its technical and artistic merits, but just because you *can* do that doesn't mean you *should.* I don't fault the original poster, who did warn that it was a very disturbing thing to view. But the context (the site where it was posted) just seems way-wrong to me. Way way wrong. Expecially so close on the heels of the tragedy. Ah, the wonders of the age of the Internet. No time to ponder responsibility, just post it quick before somebody else does. No ethics involved, because ethics are to be decided by the viewer, and to not post would imply censorship. But again, I'm not taking to task the OP for posting it here. After all, I apparently found it interesting enough to want to follow the link and see what it was all about, so there's some relevance to the newsgroup. But to display the photo on a page with advertising, and with this caption underneath the photo- "Rate this image! 3697 people have rated this image, and the average rating is 3.88."... Makes you wonder what people were rating it for, and what it would have taken to get a higher rating. --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReactionBicycles.com |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote: I guess ths is the type of images that were unsuitable for publication. I've read papers and websites, and the ~130,000 death toll seemed difficult to comprehend, but I guess it's true that one image is worth a thousand words, or more. Now I can imagine the massive death toll. [WARNING : VERY, VERY DISTURBING!] http://img145.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img1...uumiita4ft.jpg [WARNING : VERY, VERY DISTURBING!] Is it just me, or do others have issues with photos like this one, posted on a site that asks you to "rate this image?" Yes, I understand that, regardless of subject, one can analyze a photo on its technical and artistic merits, but just because you *can* do that doesn't mean you *should.* I don't fault the original poster, who did warn that it was a very disturbing thing to view. But the context (the site where it was posted) just seems way-wrong to me. Way way wrong. Expecially so close on the heels of the tragedy. Ah, the wonders of the age of the Internet. No time to ponder responsibility, just post it quick before somebody else does. No ethics involved, because ethics are to be decided by the viewer, and to not post would imply censorship. But again, I'm not taking to task the OP for posting it here. After all, I apparently found it interesting enough to want to follow the link and see what it was all about, so there's some relevance to the newsgroup. But to display the photo on a page with advertising, and with this caption underneath the photo- "Rate this image! 3697 people have rated this image, and the average rating is 3.88."... Makes you wonder what people were rating it for, and what it would have taken to get a higher rating. --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReactionBicycles.com Hi. I didn't post it on that site. I saw the link on some news forum and it shocked me, so i shared it here. In fact, it shocked me enough that i didn't notice the rating thing you mention. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote in message ... I guess ths is the type of images that were unsuitable for publication. I've read papers and websites, and the ~130,000 death toll seemed difficult to comprehend, but I guess it's true that one image is worth a thousand words, or more. Now I can imagine the massive death toll. [WARNING : VERY, VERY DISTURBING!] http://img145.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img1...uumiita4ft.jpg [WARNING : VERY, VERY DISTURBING!] Is it just me, or do others have issues with photos like this one, posted on a site that asks you to "rate this image?" Yes, I understand that, regardless of subject, one can analyze a photo on its technical and artistic merits, but just because you *can* do that doesn't mean you *should.* I don't fault the original poster, who did warn that it was a very disturbing thing to view. But the context (the site where it was posted) just seems way-wrong to me. I'll tell you what is offensive, Mr. Mike Jacoubowsky. YOU...were more upset that there were ratings offered by default on this particular web-site, than you apparently were to the horrific image of death. Don't start THIS AGAIN!! Most people...UNLIKE YOU...were too busy being floored by the enormity of the tragedy to notice something as petty as you have, least of all to stop and whine about something so totally unrelated. UNBELIEVABLE that one cannot post an image without someone...somewhere...taking offense. I am so sick of this politically-correct BS that I could just spit. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote in message ... I guess ths is the type of images that were unsuitable for publication. I've read papers and websites, and the ~130,000 death toll seemed difficult to comprehend, but I guess it's true that one image is worth a thousand words, or more. Now I can imagine the massive death toll. [WARNING : VERY, VERY DISTURBING!] http://img145.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img1...uumiita4ft.jpg [WARNING : VERY, VERY DISTURBING!] Is it just me, or do others have issues with photos like this one, posted on a site that asks you to "rate this image?" Yes, I understand that, regardless of subject, one can analyze a photo on its technical and artistic merits, but just because you *can* do that doesn't mean you *should.* I don't fault the original poster, who did warn that it was a very disturbing thing to view. But the context (the site where it was posted) just seems way-wrong to me. I'll tell you what is offensive, Mr. Mike Jacoubowsky. YOU...were more upset that there were ratings offered by default on this particular web-site, than you apparently were to the horrific image of death. Don't start THIS AGAIN!! Most people...UNLIKE YOU...were too busy being floored by the enormity of the tragedy to notice something as petty as you have, least of all to stop and whine about something so totally unrelated. UNBELIEVABLE that one cannot post an image without someone...somewhere...taking offense. I am so sick of this politically-correct BS that I could just spit. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Henley" wrote in message ups.com... Mike Jacoubowsky wrote: I guess ths is the type of images that were unsuitable for publication. I've read papers and websites, and the ~130,000 death toll seemed difficult to comprehend, but I guess it's true that one image is worth a thousand words, or more. Now I can imagine the massive death toll. [WARNING : VERY, VERY DISTURBING!] http://img145.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img1...uumiita4ft.jpg [WARNING : VERY, VERY DISTURBING!] Is it just me, or do others have issues with photos like this one, posted on a site that asks you to "rate this image?" Yes, I understand that, regardless of subject, one can analyze a photo on its technical and artistic merits, but just because you *can* do that doesn't mean you *should.* I don't fault the original poster, who did warn that it was a very disturbing thing to view. But the context (the site where it was posted) just seems way-wrong to me. Way way wrong. Expecially so close on the heels of the tragedy. Ah, the wonders of the age of the Internet. No time to ponder responsibility, just post it quick before somebody else does. No ethics involved, because ethics are to be decided by the viewer, and to not post would imply censorship. But again, I'm not taking to task the OP for posting it here. After all, I apparently found it interesting enough to want to follow the link and see what it was all about, so there's some relevance to the newsgroup. But to display the photo on a page with advertising, and with this caption underneath the photo- "Rate this image! 3697 people have rated this image, and the average rating is 3.88."... Makes you wonder what people were rating it for, and what it would have taken to get a higher rating. --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReactionBicycles.com Hi. I didn't post it on that site. I saw the link on some news forum and it shocked me, so i shared it here. In fact, it shocked me enough that i didn't notice the rating thing you mention. EXACTLY!!!!!! He was so busy looking for ways to get offended, that he completely ignored the horror of that image, and instead focussed his supposed "sensitivities" on total irrelevant BS. I'm so sick of his kind of "sensitivity" that he now resides in my kill-file. Thank you for posting this image. People need to understand the enormity of this tragedy, and if even it is posted on the cover of PLAYBOY...I would appreciate it, simply because people need to be confronted with REALity these days, rather than the candy-coated versions so many of these quasi-sensitive phonies insist upon. Thank you again for this link. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Henley writes:
I guess ths is the type of images that were unsuitable for publication. There are zillions of images like this that are never used by the media. All disasters produce some pretty horrific images, but only the most inoffensive among them are usually published. This one apparently was taken by Darren Whiteside for Reuters in Banda Aceh on December 29 (according to the file information). For those who'd like to know what the image contains before viewing it, it's a portrait-oriented color photo of the beach, with innumerable human cadavers crowded together amongst debris from buildings, floating in the water. Most are somewhat bloated and blackened by advancing decomposition (remember, this is 4 days after the tsunami) and floating face-down in the water. Presumably they mainly drowned or died of internal injuries after being stuck by debris, as very few of them show any signs of gross injury externally. I'm sure this type of image won't make it to most media outlets, but I think it's very important that photojournalists take such pictures for information and reference. From a technical standpoint, the photo is unremarkable; clearly, it's just intended as documentation. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Jacoubowsky writes:
Is it just me, or do others have issues with photos like this one, posted on a site that asks you to "rate this image?" Yes, I understand that, regardless of subject, one can analyze a photo on its technical and artistic merits, but just because you *can* do that doesn't mean you *should.* It was probably posted there just to give it wider exposure, since it probably won't ever be published by the media. I don't fault the original poster, who did warn that it was a very disturbing thing to view. But the context (the site where it was posted) just seems way-wrong to me. Way way wrong. Expecially so close on the heels of the tragedy. Ah, the wonders of the age of the Internet. No time to ponder responsibility, just post it quick before somebody else does. No ethics involved, because ethics are to be decided by the viewer, and to not post would imply censorship. Exactly. I'm totally opposed to censorship. If you don't want to see the photo, don't look. But withholding information just to avoid offending your delicate sensibilities is not acceptable. If you must censor content, do it at the entrance to your PC, not at the exit of someone else's PC. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Henley writes:
Hi. I didn't post it on that site. I saw the link on some news forum and it shocked me, so i shared it here. In fact, it shocked me enough that i didn't notice the rating thing you mention. Why did it shock you? The media have been talking for days about 135,000 people dead, and mass graves and cremations. Does it surprise you that thousands of bodies would be floating near the beach? Perhaps these photos should be more widely distributed, as it sounds like people don't reflect very much on the texts they read. A photo is harder to ignore, I think. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number writes:
Thank you for posting this image. People need to understand the enormity of this tragedy, and if even it is posted on the cover of PLAYBOY...I would appreciate it, simply because people need to be confronted with REALity these days, rather than the candy-coated versions so many of these quasi-sensitive phonies insist upon. Thank you again for this link. I agree. This sort of image makes the magnitude of the disaster much easier to grasp. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A truly HORRIFIC tsunami picture | Mike Henley | Digital Photography | 872 | January 30th 05 12:45 AM |
[SI] Old stuff comments | Martin Djernæs | 35mm Photo Equipment | 23 | August 18th 04 08:30 PM |
Smart Media Picture Alignment | monroe2020 | Digital Photography | 0 | July 29th 04 01:16 AM |
How to Exhibit and Sell your picture and photos from your website | Film & Labs | 0 | January 26th 04 09:52 AM | |
How to Exhibit and Sell your picture and photos from your website | Other Photographic Equipment | 0 | January 26th 04 09:52 AM |