for professionals, by professionals

OCTOBER 2014 £4.20

www.professionalphotographer.co.uk

PR

OF

ES

SIO

NA

L PH

OT

OG

RA

PH

ER

OC

TO

BE

R 2

01

4

GEAR: + Nikon D810+ Pentax 645Z

MH-17 & GAZA: A step too far?

SUCCESS STORIES: Proof our PPOTY

winners go further

MICHAEL MULLER: Sharks and superherosKATE MOSS’

CREATOR: The late Corinne Day

THE 90s: The decade that

changed our industry forever

BUSINESS: Tim Smit’s philosophy

&

INSI

DE:

48-p

age

Turn

ing P

ro

Spec

ial

SUCCESS STORIES: Proof our PPOTY

winners go further

MICHAEL MULLER: Sharks and superheros

MH-17 & GAZA: A step too far?

THE 90s: The decade that

changed our industry forever

Anna Paquin and Stephen Moyer who play Sookie Stackhouse and Bill Compton in True Blood by Michael Muller.

120

current affairs

too upsetting to printThe carnage in Gaza and the MH-17 crash in Ukraine have led to thousands of

pictures that lay bare the grim reality of violence. The world has flinched and asked

the question, what is ‘too far’? Emma-Lily Pendleton reports

n recent months, reading the news has been an exercise in emotional stability as the bitter and bloody disclosures continue: Notably, the MH-17 crash in Ukraine and Israel’s assault on Gaza. The graphic pictures that accompany the

stories of destruction and death are uncomfortable to view. The scenes of carnage – of the dead lying amongst aeroplane remnants in the surreal context of a field of Ukrainian sunflowers – have yielded a strong reaction. The maimed, wounded children of Gaza leave no rest from the distress.

As a consumer, it is a personal choice whether you turn the page, or click the button to view – the potential upset is avoidable, to a degree. But there is a group of individuals whose decision it is to view each and every harrowing image that lands on their desk – to choose, objectively, how to illustrate a story. Picture choices have to be made, and picture editors then become open to public scrutiny: whether they should make certain images public comes into question; whether their motives are sinister and sensationalist for traffic-driving purposes; whether they’re displayed with a disregard for the moral implications. Some go as far as to question whether a photographer should have taken a photograph in the first place. They are all valid questions. But the over-riding question is: does anyone have the right to censor and, if they do, how do they arrive at a decision regarding what’s ‘too far’?

In The Guardian, its picture editor, Roger Tooth, recently wrote about “conflict-weary picture editors” who “have shed tears and wondered aloud if counselling might be needed as they have sifted through thousands of pictures provided by the photo agencies’ all-seeing lenses.” It’s a thought-provoking account, and allows valuable insight into the internal conflict they face. It paints a picture of the fine balance at play. They aim to show the world the reality of events without being insensitive to human dignity, and without being unnecessarily shocking – the purpose is to engage readers, not to cause them to shy away in shock.

In the case of MH-17, the personal effects left scattered amid the scorched wreckage are as emotive as the pictures of the people that once owned them: a passport, a travel guide, a T-shirt. “That’s a story you can illustrate with the wider scene and the debris; there is no need, in my opinion, to show the bodies of the victims in fields,” comments former picture editor of The Times, Paul Sanders, before drawing my attention to the disparity in the palatability of images online, compared to print. “The strange thing is, that although the public largely condemn the use of the images of bodies strapped in seats sitting in a field, they still go and look at them on the internet. The difference is that on the web, you decide what you view. Some publications use it in a cynical way to attract the internet voyeurs.”

When the images are destined to be committed to print, however, there is a responsibility to consider the unwitting readers; the ones who may just pick it up on the train, or the children at a breakfast

table. “On the occasion you do use more graphic content, you have to be able to justify it to every reader, and not just because it is a great image,” says Paul.

I ask whether he’s ever regretted the decision to print a picture, after the fact. “I think looking back on the pictures I put into The Times, there was only one that, with hindsight, I’d not have used. We ran an image of a lady jumping to her death in central London, in broad daylight onto a busy street. I think The Times and Standard were the only papers to run the photograph of her mid fall. There was a justification for it, in that she had done it in a public place, in full view of hundreds of people, but with hindsight I’d say I wished I hadn’t run that image. The Times was condemned by The Samaritans and groups who support those who are at their breaking point, but we had quite a number of calls and letters to say that we were right to run the image. I do wish I hadn’t seen and shown the set though.”

Online, demands are more immediate and decisions made under strict time constraints. It’s easy to see how decisions could be looked back on with regret. “Sometimes, I wonder why a photographer hasn’t turned away from a scene, but their place is to record; ours is to edit,” said The Guardian’s picture editor, Roger Tooth in his article. Paul Sanders took a different approach: “I rarely questioned why photographers take certain images, more why they don’t... if they chose to leave something un-photographed, it was usually on the grounds of taste, privacy or decency.”

So how, I ask, do you decide where the line is? “The line is drawn depending on the story,” says Paul. “Take Gaza; there are images of injured or dead children flooding picture desks, some get used, some don’t. Can you imagine if those images came from a primary school in west London? That probably wouldn’t happen because the victims are likely to be known to some readers. There is also propaganda to bear in mind. By running the graphic images, are you fuelling a fire? Can you trust the source of the images?”

Has the responsibility affected him personally? “To say no would be a lie,” he admits. “When I finally left The Times, it was only during a counselling session for my chronic depression that I uncovered the effect that some of these images had had on me – to say I was surprised is an understatement. But when you look at nearly 20,000 everyday, the subliminal effect of viewing images is huge. I just chose to ignore it at the time.”

It’s a difficult position to get right. “What you have to remember is that it is very easy to fill web pages with dead bodies, the images of this type are flooding picture desks everyday,” says Paul. “The skill of picture editing is to illustrate the story in a way that is respectful to those killed or injured, without sensationalising or taking sides. It is a tricky balancing act.”

www.paulsanders.biz

I

121

© J

OH

N W

END

LE /

CORB

ISgraphic imagery

Our driver started driving pretty fast, and we got to these back roads and ended up at the crash site around 9pm. The main crash site is a small countryside road leading between a wheat field and a fallow field of weeds, heading down to a collective chicken farm, or something.

I was in total disbelief until I saw it with my own eyes. Down there, you’re dealing with a lot of rumours – you never know who’s done what and who’s shot who. I couldn’t really believe a passenger airliner had been shot down. But we finally got on the scene and everything was true.

Were you prepared for what you saw?We arrived just after the sun had set, which really shielded me from the horror. I woke up at 3.30 in the morning and it almost looked like it had been set up, like a fine art scene. It was so foreign, so surreal, so beyond comprehension. Maybe, in some way, that shielded us from the grotesqueness.

Some of the rebels were trying to do their jobs, but a lot were just walking through the scene looking at things. I think, for the most part, people were just reacting as human beings, and so was I. Everyone was just in pure shock at the massive loss of life. Nobody is ready for those sorts of things.

Yours is an all-seeing lens, but some things must be more challenging to photograph than others.Personally, the hardest thing I photograph in my job is when children are caught up in conflict. They have no responsibility; they don’t fight, they’re defenceless. They should be taken care of by the adults, and they’re not. It’s horrendous.

I started to shoot as the sun came up. I met these three rebels who were looking through the scene – they were showing me down the path around the back of the crash site. They picked up a yellow, fluffy piece of insulation panelling and there was a little girl under it. I took the picture, but I couldn’t bring myself to look at it until recently. I looked at it because I did a photo essay for Al Jazeera, and I made the mistake of zooming in on her face.

To allow an insight into the experiences of the photojournalists in question, we spoke to

JOHN WENDLE, one of the first photographers on the scene of the Malaysian MH-17 crash.

�

Malaysian Airlines flight MH-17 crash site. Donetsk province, Ukraine. The body of a young child lies near the roadside near the crash site.

122

I forced myself to do it, and then I just burst into tears. They’re totally defenceless, these little kids. That was the hardest thing and that’s always the hardest thing. Not just at the crash site, but anytime.

But you still took that photograph?I did, I did. I’ve had numerous conversations with friends, other photographers, my colleagues, and hands down, without question, we all see ourselves as documenting history. And, for me, that’s what that is. It’s playing a forensic role in the investigation. You take the really hard pictures and you try to take them in a way that’s compelling and not too gruesome. There were some photos that morning; a photo of a guy who’d fallen into a wheat field, and I was shooting toward the beautiful sunrise, with this body in the foreground. With such a small depth-of-field, I thought an editor could run that. I was trying to take pictures that I thought could run, that weren’t too shocking or gruesome.

Where’s the line between shocking and gruesome? Are you actively censoring? I’ve taken the gruesome, almost forensic crime-scene pictures. I had a slide presentation and a phone interview with Channel 4 – they ran my photos. I took a picture in the middle of the crash site where everything had burnt out and there were black heaps. Very obviously these had been human beings. I can’t tell you enough times how it was like Dante’s Inferno – it was like hell. I took a picture of one of those heaps with the spinal column showing through and I didn’t submit it to Corbis. Channel 4 ran all of the images I’d filed – about 20 – on television, as I was talking. And then with the online slide show that they put with my commentary, they ran that photo as well, but from a different photographer. I had this image, but I didn’t think to put it in there. I didn’t think they would run it. I guess that’s self censorship. I thought it was too horrendous to show. I didn’t think that was necessary or that it served a purpose. I did share the photos of the bodies in very low depth-of-field, so they were obscured.

So you’d take it, but not necessarily share it?I think journalists should shoot everything. It’s our job to be at the scene and to capture as much information about what’s going on as possible and to do it in a visually compelling way. I would never, ever not take a picture of something because it’s too shocking. But when I’m filing, I make a decision on what I think photo editors would be interested in.

Do you ever question whether to take a photograph?I saw a bombing a few years ago that killed 78 and wounded 120. I had to make the decision: do I take pictures, or use some of my first aid skills? It was literally a sea of blood. I decided that there were people helping, and that it was my job to show the story. That was a hard decision, and I still suffer from that, to a degree.

Do you think the images that have been published of the MH-17 scene have crossed any lines?I don’t know. I think it’s probably closer to being right, but you don’t want to have a little kid see them. People don’t want this stuff shoved in their face – they don’t want to be forced into these situations when they have to be squeamish, upset, and to look at stuff that’s really horrific. It’s a complex question that goes so much into philosophy and politics.

So what do you say to people who say they shouldn’t be taken?That’s totally wrong. They should be taken – it’s our duty, recording history. You can’t have this soviet mentality where you take a picture and then Photoshop out Stalin when he becomes unpopular. You have to capture history.

The latent trauma Paul Sanders experienced prompts the question, does the public’s reaction stem from a need for self-preservation? How do you cope?If I was less of an optimist then I would have some serious issues. I get really sad and cry… but I think that’s okay for the stuff I’ve seen. I’m an inveterate optimist, for some reason.

www.johnwendle.com

Picture Editors Speak

Annabel Cook, picture editor at the Financial Times, and member of FB/Picture Editors and Researchers group, said: “The first few images I saw wired in from the MH-17 crash were horrific, undigestible to my eye. Some photos showed just a toy or a travel book, no graphic content. These I found extremely powerful. Each situation and picture choice is always different. It is hard not to be affected by what you see. The image has to be respectful to the deceased without distressing their relatives or the readers, but it also must tell their stories. As graphic or explicit as an image may be sometimes, it needs to be seen.”

Carl Palmer, picture editor at Esquire Weekly magazine, and member of FB/Picture Editors and Researcher group, said: “The photographer is there to record, we are here to edit. The photos that came from Magnum of the crash, although horrific, caused a stir instantly in the office here. They are a talking point, and I think it’s okay to publish this content to the wider world, it is images like these that need to be seen to convey the horror of such atrocities. Although a full warning does need to be given of what is contained to save the more sensitive/younger readers of publications.”

current affairs / graphic imagery

I would never, ever not take

a picture of something because it’s too

shocking. But when I’m filing, on my laptop, I make a decision on what

I think photo editors would be

interested in.