Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/03/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 10:08 AM 3/21/01 -0800, Tom Schofield wrote: >The History Channel had a show on the top ten most dangerous professions, >and Combat Photographer made the list, I think at #4 or thereabouts. (#1 >was Alaskan crab fisherman.) They noted how, in the past, combatants >generally would not intentionally fire upon the photographers and >journalists, That's interesting I wish I had cable, I would have liked to see this as I think they got some of it incorrect. Given that originally military photographers were used primarily for intelligence gathering (as in "drag your 4X5 out into no mans land turn your back on the enemy and photograph our line to show HQ where our weaknesses are") and that later we were used as propaganda agents, I was taught that military photographers have always been prime targets in combat. Also consider that it IS pretty much impossible to subdue the glass of several big shining lenses on a battle field so said lenses have always made attractive targets. Back in 1985 when I was in Army Photo School we were told that the life expectancy for a novice photographer in a hot AO was about 14 seconds. (Of course this was probably mostly BS to make us pay attention...but it worked....didn't it Lance?) >Another program showed the new breed of military-trained combat >photographers, who are trained soldiers, but receive special training in the >digital arts. "Military-Trained Combat Photographers" have always been 'trained soldiers' FIRST (learn how to kill people and break things more efficiently) then we had an additional 6 months training course in Still Photographic Applications. The course was 8 hours a day 5 days a week and accelerated lockstep pace...It was one of the longest AITs in the military and generally offered more training in actual PHOTOGRAPHY than someone who gets a MFA from a nice University. The Navy was the only branch to have its Photo Mates have different training in Florida not with the rest of us in Denver's Lowry AFB Tech Training Center. A few years ago the US Army (at least I don't know about the other branches) eliminated the Military Occupational Specialty of Still Photographic Specialist (aka Combat Photographer aka 84B...25S) and are now said to be using regular old digitally assisted grunts for the job of combat imagery (aka cannon fodder, ground-pounders...the ones who kill people, break things and win wars) and DOD Civilian Contractor (UNION) shooters for all other Photographic needs. >If Leica does not get digital out, Ms on the >battlefield will be a thing of the past. "Ms on the battlefield" have been a thing of the past since the last Huey pulled out of Saigon. While I was in (active 85-89) I used government issued Nikon F3s, Canon F1s, a Mamiya 645 Super and RB67s, Hassleblad 500cm... all purchased through regular local civilian channels and no different than you or I could buy on the street. (I did have one ancient OD Green Graflex Speed Graphic modified with to accept an optional RB 220 back as well as the standard Graflock and fixed to use a Metz 45 CT1...man, I miss THAT camera.) >Of course, the controversy is that >the networks and news syndicates are very happy to have the photos handed to >them on a silver platter, in almost real time, but that all the info is then >coming through military channels. Free and with no photo credit other than US ARMY (NAVY, AIR FORCE, COAST GAURD or MARINES) PHOTO. Some of the best work I've ever done I can't lay claim to. (oh, but I'm not bitter....) :) Carpe Luminem, Michael E. Bérubé, 84B10F