Francis247 said:
Before the Moderators decide to close and lock up this thread, just want to share my 2 cents worth. This thread had indeed cause a lot of unwanted attention.
I do not know Sehsuan or Lord Angelus personally, so just to share neutral point of view here.
Lord Angelus just happens to be at Orchard at that time and capture those shots and share it with the rest in the CS Forum, I think it is very normal, I don’t think she deserve those harsh words or criticism. If you want to criticize, then give her pointers to improve her shooting skills.
Like what thobs had said “the photography community share knowledge, discuss ideas, forge new friendship with others who have similar passion and interest in photography” So, why not share out ideas to help LA to improve her photography and discuss with the rest how we can learn from each other and forge a bond among fellow photographers.
Sehsuan, I believe you are more into Journalistic Photography. Journalistic photography embraces objectivity while leaving feelings aside when capturing shots for publication. I believe that is why you keep emphasising on the motivation behind those shots by LA. However, I must say that not many will think like-wise.
Why not take things with an open-heart and open-mind, see and learn more along the way.
Thank you Francis247, for your objectivity. That I admit, is a timely reminder for me.
The initial impression I had (and still have) is that without the initial explanation, for any person with any camera to take shots of "being at the scene" without objectively showing the situation on hand, is most likely due to having heard of the news over the mass media, rushing down to the venue, and conveniently shooting away, without a sense of purpose. Like a friend said to me, "shooting for the sake of shooting". That I find particularly true about those photos of the local media. Were those shots showing anything objective? Do photos of people's backs tell a story? Do they need to be posted up in the first place? If it's only the first shot that got posted up, it's still ok with me; other than the fact that the background was so blurred off, it doesn't do much for the subject title.
Now, think about this. If the gruesome find was not publicized in the mass media, and this set of photos was posted up, I'd venture to say, "hey, I didn't know this happened, good work reporting."; and when the mass media come out with the news release later in the day, it'd be a scoop.
But the photos came way after the initial newsflash along the day; if I'm not mistaken, it was made known early afternoon or even lunchtime via mass media. What are the chances of people, being busybodies (come on, we Singaporeans ARE busybodies...), pick up a camera, rushing to the venue and getting whatever shots they can? Or even for those who coincidentally were carrying their cameras around, going out of the way to Orchard *just* to get a few shots, if not they would feel they're missing an arm or leg if they didn't get shots, even though they convey nothing?
When people ask me why I shot that suicide case at my block, let me ask instead - do these same finger-pointing people even know that it happened? In my case, I do not have the mass media broadcasting the incident to the whole nation, and surely there would not be a high chance *anyone* would be carrying a camera to document it. Let me repeat this; I was on my way to another school camp to help take photos, and no one informed me about it. That's what I see as the major difference between my shot, and LA's shots. No mass media disseminating info in my case; hours passed after the initial national broadcast; that's why folks from the local media plus a large lot of bystanders were observed in the shots. Of note too; did anyone notice this post from LA?
Lord_Angelus said:
Just Marked all the photos.... -_- Look pretty? :bigeyes:
the media people is that evil?? -_- ew
What does that show about the maturity of her posts? You mean, posting such photos, asking if they look pretty with the big ugly watermark? Wondering aloud if the media was evil? Then what is she herself, since she's NOT in the media? Agentmonkey asked a question, not as direct as mine, but also asking about the purpose of shooting. That query was never answered too. Does a person HAVE to shoot, even though he/she may be nearby, and have a camera on hand? And to top it off, this being a totally controversial case, just months after the first similar case this year?
I too asked something similar a long time back, regarding legality of shooting accident-class photos, but there was only *one* answer. Which doesn't draw the line if it's fine or not to do so locally.
http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=20796
It's up to the people who have known me as a person to understand what I'm thinking for this topic; naysayers are welcome to write whatever they wish; but I would like to remind everyone to remain civil. As far as I remember, my words have been dosed to be direct, and definitely not personal.
It's pretty amazing how Melissa has been "thumbs up-ping" practically every other post... what for? It all started when I questioned her, why she'd post a photo from a paid shoot on Clubsnap; when rights should have been signed off. Just a question like that, and she seems to think I have malice against her? :dunno:
As for the possible "cheapening" of the posts from SS.com; I don't think so. Not everyone has the chance to remotely even come across them in the first place, because not everyone would have known the URL. I'm sharing pertinent articles from accredited photogs in the profession, to share their combined knowledge. Which paper could be bigger, ST or USA Today? Do tell me the answer.
There are plenty of mysteries out there, and as Mulder said, "The truth is out there."
