Is it possible to have a photo that's too intense?

[Senor Hound]

I for one understand the journalistic integrity of a photo, which is why I said its ALMOST too much to bear. I understand we need to look at it, if for any reason to hopefully prevent the mistakes we have made in our past. Anyway, its interesting how many differing opinions there are on the issue.

BTW, America only censors sexual content. If you had a photo in a teen magazine of someone killing someone else, it would get much less criticism than a photo of a nude, non-sexual human body. I'm not saying its right or wrong, its just very selective here in the US.

 

[anubis404]

All of the photos that you listed were of real things happening. If something really happened, I would not hold a photo of it back, because it is the truth, and the truth needs to be told no matter how painful. However, if it is a staged photo in question, then it can be too intense. Not because its material is more graphic than the real photo, just because it does not serve an important purpose.

 

[usayit]

Thank you both for sharing your views. Sorry for your loss Usayit.

Sorry to mislead you (especially in this topic)... what I meant is that I see all those men lost could be my son. Things change when you have children. Everytime we loose a soldier, I see that that could have been my son. Everytime I see a terrible event, I see that it could be my son.

My Son is 1.5 years old. I hope the mess that is happening now is cleaned up before he realizes just how bad of a mess we left it.

But yes... I'm sure there is someone out there that their son was actually in those photos... for that I am sorry too.

 

[Seefutlung]

Most of the "censorship" you find in US news is based upon the marketplace. A photo that will run in NY won't run in Iowa. If a publication runs stories and images that do not reflect the ethics, sensitivities and morality of the local market ... then advertisers will start pulling their ad dollars from that media outlet (guilt by association).

Time is also as important as marketplace in terms of media-censorship. It wasn't until WWII when a US publication first ran a photo of Americas who died in battle. Life Magazine ran images of Marines floating face down in a shallow lagoon in some God forsaken South Pacific hell. The editors stewed over running that photo for weeks. Now, we watch dead Americans while eating dinner.

And then there is self-censorship. As a former photo-journalist, I've had to use good judgment over what I shot. Of course one wants the greatest impact ... but one has to decide between impact and exploitation ... and sometimes that line is very fine and gray.

In turns of violence ... one often relies on gestalt. A bullet holed, sweat caked helmet lying sideways on the ground, amidst dust and spent shell casings may tell a greater story than a prone corpse with half a face missing.

The professional journalist is trained to tell a story not just shoot some pictures.

Gary

 

[HTPhotography]

It really just depends on the person. Some people might think a photo is extremely too intense while another might think it's nothing.

 

[MBasile]

I say as far as emotion provoking there is no "too intense." I mean, those sound pretty intense but they have a point. I think that something such as a car crash victim would be a different circumstance.

 

[Senor Hound]

Most of the "censorship" you find in US news is based upon the marketplace. A photo that will run in NY won't run in Iowa. If a publication runs stories and images that do not reflect the ethics, sensitivities and morality of the local market ... then advertisers will start pulling their ad dollars from that media outlet (guilt by association).

Time is also as important as marketplace in terms of media-censorship. It wasn't until WWII when a US publication first ran a photo of Americas who died in battle. Life Magazine ran images of Marines floating face down in a shallow lagoon in some God forsaken South Pacific hell. The editors stewed over running that photo for weeks. Now, we watch dead Americans while eating dinner.

And then there is self-censorship. As a former photo-journalist, I've had to use good judgment over what I shot. Of course one wants the greatest impact ... but one has to decide between impact and exploitation ... and sometimes that line is very fine and gray.

In turns of violence ... one often relies on gestalt. A bullet holed, sweat caked helmet lying sideways on the ground, amidst dust and spent shell casings may tell a greater story than a prone corpse with half a face missing.

The professional journalist is trained to tell a story not just shoot some pictures.

Gary

Wow. Thank you so much for your input on this matter. Its posts like this that I sit around this website for. You are very insightful and someone whom we could all learn something from.

Many people are comparing this war to Vietnam, but what you're saying is Vietnam was one of (if not the) first time the "no holds barred" attitude of photojournalism was really prevalent. In this case, we can't help but wonder if Vietnam was an anomaly of photojournalism, or if the "sensory overload" style of reporting will return (or perhaps is still in effect, in some people's opinion).

I thank everyone for their answers. I've realized that an intense photo does not always mean the photo is aggressive. And a good photographer can many times achieve great intensity without alienating the viewer by making the photo less direct than others. Sometimes directness is necessary, especially in times of violence or strife. But if you make the photo too direct, you run the chance of alienating your viewer, which in turn has the opposite effect of what you intended to accomplish. I guess this is the edge journalists walk on, which is why the greats are so well respected and admired.

Wow, this place is awesome!

BTW, exploitation seems to be rather prevalent now in our media. There are certain instances where the press definitely makes stories out of non-stories. Perhaps this is the consequence of having four, 24-hour news networks...

 

[Seefutlung]

Just to add a bit for clarity sake ... on the marketplace ... conversely a story or image running in Iowa, if ran in NY, would cause readership/viewership to drop ... revenues will follow in kind ...

A lot of the "bad" journalism we see is caused by market pressures. There is intense pressure to scoop the competition. With 24/7 news that pressure just gotta be incredible.

Decades ago, when I was doing news, the "home office" would keep a box score on who scooped who. If your scoop quota was down ... you knew that those who signed you checks were displeased.

This omnipresent scoop factor is what causes editors to run stories and images which are not fully confirmed/checked for accuracy.

Gary

 

[Judge Sharpe]

It was not sone God forsaken pacific Hell- It was Iwo Jima. But that brings up another matter- Time photoshoped the flag out of the Iwo Jima memorial and replaced it with a tree. I say that this is disrespectful and in bad taste. I will not buy Time again for their lack of sensitivity.
Judge Sharpe

 

[JIP]

Many people are comparing this war to Vietnam, but what you're saying is Vietnam was one of (if not the) first time the "no holds barred" attitude of photojournalism was really prevalent. In this case, we can't help but wonder if Vietnam was an anomaly of photojournalism, or if the "sensory overload" style of reporting will return (or perhaps is still in effect, in some people's opinion).

The big difference between this wa and Vietnam as far as the media goes is the gov. realized that the shocking images that came out of that war by unfettered journalism shocked people. Now they have taken total rein of the press and controlled the images that are coming out of it to the point that up to a couple of years ago we werent even allowed to see coffins let alone people being killed. This of course makes everything look nice and neat with nothing but big booms and military hardware. Oh yeah and Judge I have seen letters to that effect in Time and I just think it is silly. You should know PS is just a tool and this image was just a product of technology and honestly I actually think it was a great image to illustrate a very important point.

 

[Samriel]

As many have already said, I don't think that photo-journalism can ever be too intense. Life can...
However, looking at art photography I do find many photo's that are too "intense" for my taste. But than again, it makes me realize that there are people with a quite different point of view on some things.

 

[Seefutlung]

It was not sone God forsaken pacific Hell- It was Iwo Jima. But that brings up another matter- Time photoshoped the flag out of the Iwo Jima memorial and replaced it with a tree. I say that this is disrespectful and in bad taste. I will not buy Time again for their lack of sensitivity.
Judge Sharpe

Wrong, the photographer was George Strock, the photo was taken at Buna Beach in Papua New Guinea. Once again, a God forsaken Pacific Hell.

 

[Seefutlung]

The big difference between this wa and Vietnam as far as the media goes is the gov. realized that the shocking images that came out of that war by unfettered journalism shocked people. Now they have taken total rein of the press and controlled the images that are coming out of it to the point that up to a couple of years ago we werent even allowed to see coffins let alone people being killed. This of course makes everything look nice and neat with nothing but big booms and military hardware. Oh yeah and Judge I have seen letters to that effect in Time and I just think it is silly. You should know PS is just a tool and this image was just a product of technology and honestly I actually think it was a great image to illustrate a very important point.

You are on the money ... Vietnam was the only US war where the press was not restrained. And our government vowed never to let that happen again (starting with Grenada).

The thought for the day ... to paraphrase Jefferson ... I'd rather live in a country with a free press and no government ... than a country with a government and no free press.

Gary