A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

A truly HORRIFIC tsunami picture



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 1st 05, 06:15 AM
Mike Henley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 1st 05, 07:31 AM
Mike Jacoubowsky
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old January 1st 05, 08:19 AM
Mike Henley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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  
Old January 1st 05, 09:49 AM
Mark²
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old January 1st 05, 09:49 AM
Mark²
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old January 1st 05, 09:53 AM
Mark²
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old January 1st 05, 11:52 AM
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old January 1st 05, 11:54 AM
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old January 1st 05, 11:56 AM
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old January 1st 05, 11:57 AM
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What caused the horizontal stripes in my picture? How do I fix it? Bubba Digital Photography 5 October 30th 04 05:47 AM
Picture editing question, help wanted please Andy Digital Photography 6 October 9th 04 01:32 PM
[SI] Old stuff comments Martin Djernæs 35mm Photo Equipment 23 August 18th 04 08:30 PM
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.