Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/03/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]The army photogs in one show were using, I believe, Nikon digital cameras with the bigger zoom lenses. The had a Seal-phone type of set up with a folding umbrella satellite dish to send the images back. I would assume an army photog in uniform would get shot at the same whether he was carrying an M16 or a Nikon. It was another TV show, which featured lay photojournalists, not army photogs, that commented that journalists in past wars were given some degree of recognition as being non-combatants, but that those days were gone, and now whether they are targets or not depends on how the combatant likes the press they have been getting. Tina is a good example -- she stated that in Iraq she was given a degree of freedom to photograph the war's effect on children, since that was consistent with the government's interests. Tom S. > I think the days of an army respecting a field photographer has long > been over, as they are seen more and more as an extension of the total > war. In the past decade field photographers have been dying at the rate > of sometimes over 50 a year. More often than not by being shot in the back. > My studio, by the way, is in Fort MacArthur, Upper Reservation. The > building I'm in used to be the photography intelligence section. The > last usage, while it was still operational, was in reviewing the visual > intelligence during the Viet Nam action. > > Slobodan Dimitrov