[Leica] RE: world press winners 2006

[puff11 at comcast.net (Norm Aubin)]

B.D. et.al.-

Pardon my asking, but does this logically resolve to saying that it's 
more important to get the picture of the blood spurting than to staunch 
the wound?

Or to extend your question - while he's doing more than the people 
at home questioning him, is he doing more than the people on the 
scene - and more importantly - is he doing as much as he can? 

Is it a moral or an ethical question if the photographer is doing this for 
pay - i.e. he's a mercenary and his job is to get the picture and make 
money for his employer?  

Let me ask it differently - when do you put the camera down and get 
involved?  There are some on this list who do humanitarian work, and
take beautiful pictures on the side, Tina's work being the exemplar for 
this, so in her case I can do nothing but be in awe of her spirit, as well
as 
her artistic skills.

I'm really curious - I shoot for fun, I don't have to make this decision - 
I can put the camera away whenever I want to and get involved in what
ever worthy cause I choose - how do the pro's handle this, and how do 
they rationalize this?

Best of light,
Norm

-----------------------------
> 
> Message: 21
> Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 20:46:02 -0500
> From: "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: world press winners 2006
> To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org>
> Message-ID: <C013FD8A.C394%bdcolen@comcast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain;     charset="US-ASCII"
> 
> What do you mean, "is it moral?" Are we all morally required 
> to go to the
> scene of disasters to 'help?' Of course not. The photographer 
> or reporter on
> a scene is doing far more to 'help,' by bringing the event, 
> disaster, to the
> world's attention, than people sitting at home questioning 
> the morality of
> photographing rather than 'helping.' ;-)
> 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.6/257 - Release Date: 2/10/2006