World Press Photo of the Year 2015 winner only uses 5DMk.II & 3 primes!

[unfocused]

I literally have hundreds of pictures I took during my 39 months in combat during my three deployments to Iraq...My wife keeps telling me to submit my pictures, but I haven’t made up my mind yet. I may be biased, but being a soldier put me in many unique situations that journalists might never be able to obtain.

John,
A comment and some unsolicited advice.

Realistically, it would be impossible to submit photos from 2007 to any news-oriented competition. It's just too long ago. In fact anything not taken within the past year will not generate much if any interest.

However, what you could certainly do, and I would encourage you to do, is to go through your pictures and pick out the absolute best ones you have. Be ruthless. When you are done, take an honest look at what you have left and decide is you think there are enough for a book or if a magazine article might be more appropriate.

At the same time, start writing your own story. Write a first hand account of what it was like to be a medic during the surge. What you saw and what you would like to tell Americans about your experience in Iraq. It's clear that the U.S. Involvement there is not going to end and it will probably need to escalate after the presidential election no matter who wins. So, start writing now and you may have a very marketable product when you finish.

i would go ahead and assemble a book using a site like Blurb, so you can show potential publishers what it could look like.

Even if no one is interested in it, it will be a great exercise. You will learn a lot about storytelling with words and pictures and at a minimum, you will have something you can share with your children and grandchildren.

 

[slclick]

I literally have hundreds of pictures I took during my 39 months in combat during my three deployments to Iraq. Most of the time they were with a crappy Nikon E2200, and when that stopped working during my second deployment, I stepped up to a Canon Powershot SD780. I also owned a Digital Rebel XTi, but was too scared to bring that with me for fear of breaking it. Now days I shoot with a 5DMK3.

My first deployment was with the 3rd Infantry Division to the Sunni triangle, and this was before the Abu Ghraib incident, so we were able to film pretty much anything we wanted to. I consider that my bloodiest deployment, due to the amount of casualties my unit took. By Brigade lost 89 and had close to 900 wounded. I forgot to mention that I am a Combat Medic.

During my second deployment I was Senior Medic assigned to Charlie Company 1-504th Parachute Infantry Regiment 82nd Airborne Division. My unit was the first unit to arrive to Baghdad during the 2007 Surge and we made History by who we were and what we accomplished. I was able to take some truly remarkable pictures.

My 3rd deployment we made history again. This time with 2-504th deploying to Ramadi Iraq as the first American unit to train the Iraqi Army. Again I took some amazing photos.

I need to clarify that I always maintained my professionalism with every picture I took. I retired from the Army in 2013 so all the restrictions I have are self-imposed. My wife keeps telling me to submit my pictures, but I haven’t made up my mind yet. I may be biased, but being a soldier put me in many unique situations that journalists might never be able to obtain.

John,

Thanks for sharing your images and experiences with us. You have had a unique perspective many of us cannot even begin to imagine. I agree with the above posters statement to begin to compile, document and archive in what ever manner you can...since every angle, every perspective helps us understand , 'us' whom were not there, and those stories are invaluable.

Thanks for your service!

B

 

[Famateur]

I literally have hundreds of pictures I took during my 39 months in combat during my three deployments to Iraq.

Thanks for you service!

+1 Thank you for your service, John.

 

[Valvebounce]

Hi John.
My father served in WW2, I have 2 photos of him from during that time, I would love to have had more. May I suggest that if you know any of the personnel you offer to make the photos available to them if you are not going to publish them. I suspect many family members would appreciate seeing their own hero in action. Just a thought and no wish for you to do anything you don't feel comfortable with.
Again thank you for your service.

Cheers, Graham.

I literally have hundreds of pictures I took during my 39 months in combat during my three deployments to Iraq. Most of the time they were with a crappy Nikon E2200, and when that stopped working during my second deployment, I stepped up to a Canon Powershot SD780. I also owned a Digital Rebel XTi, but was too scared to bring that with me for fear of breaking it. Now days I shoot with a 5DMK3.

 

[M_S]

And that makes sense in what way? An inanimate fence is more important than the young human being "rescued" here? Since part of the barb wire is already out of focus and is easily recognized as such, the 5 cm sharp focus on a part of it won't make up for a great interpretation improvement. But anybody to his opinion.

It looks to me you or don't know what's happening there, or you don't care. That fence didn't exist before, and didn't grow up by itself. It was being installed there by other men, governments, to stop the very people who are crossing it. It's a symbol of new divisions inside Europe. A barb wire out of focus doesn't show its hard spikes. Inanimate? Is Auschwitz gate inanimate? Think about it...

I guess the troll can't let it go. Your argument is beyond the point and beyond logic, beyond reason. Since I am a resident of Europe, I know what is going on, because it affects my life (see other answer). And it beats me what Auschwitz has to to with it here and above all with the quality of the pic. -> cut and edited....what ever. Thought about it and no: can't see your point, and am not interested in enlightenment as this is not about right or wrong but of personal taste and it's more than obvious that we won't agree upon how good or bad that picture is in our eyes. It simply doesn't resonate with me because of the technical issues.

 

[AshtonNekolah]

It's probably black and white due to noise and banding but still a very emotive shot which the grittiness suits. I'm sure he'll upgrade to a better camera but maybe not so soon. My guess is he'll get the 5dmkiv when it releases. Once you get familiar with the controls and the way the metering is you instinctively know what settings to use and a new camera takes time to learn.

All the folks that talk about gear and how bad the image is and he should of used this and that, they should have gone in to the awards and submit to win, however If you can use your camera with your eyes closed or in the dark all button positions and know its weakness and strength you will pull off better photos under any condition over anyone with a newer camera any day. when you and the camera is one that's when magic happens. folks that fiddle and always looking at what to press and set in the dark are no better than the camera without a battery in it that they use.

 

[Don Haines]

Sigh....... it's not the gear, it's being there, with a good eye, and the right mindset. The camera does not matter.... these people could do the job with whatever is available. Let's celebrate their accomplishment and not suck sour grapes while saying that we could have done better, because we didn't.

 

[Roo]

Sigh....... it's not the gear, it's being there, with a good eye, and the right mindset. The camera does not matter.... these people could do the job with whatever is available. Let's celebrate their accomplishment and not suck sour grapes while saying that we could have done better, because we didn't.

Amen to that Don!

 

[ecka]

1. Gear matters.
2. 5D2 is a great camera.
3. Camera is a tool. Better cameras are better tools.
4. Populism like "it's not the camera ...", is an artsy narcissistic BS. Trust me.

Art is about feelings, but it's useless without information. Image quality = information, more information = better quality. In art the information is often too much, because it is not about the real world, it is dreamy, it is fantasy, it is illusion, it is deception ... while photojournalism is quite the opposite, it is as real as it gets, or at least it should be. It's the information that makes your blood boil, not the artsy fartsy noise. Therefore I think a better tool would have made the picture only better.
I've used 5D2 with some primes and then I switched to 6D, because it is a better camera for the same price (or was, back then). For most people price is the major limiting factor. I'm not a professional, but I would buy the 5D3 if it wasn't twice the price of 6D, I would buy the 5DSr if it wasn't three times more expensive than 6D. It is always a compromise and there is always a better tool. I love technology. It is the only way to make the world a better place. And if you see art and beauty in war and poverty, then there is something very wrong with you.
http://cdn.meme.am/instances/250x250/24152963.jpg

 

[Roo]

1. Gear matters.
2. 5D2 is a great camera.
3. Camera is a tool. Better cameras are better tools.
4. Populism like "it's not the camera ...", is an artsy narcissistic BS. Trust me.

Art is about feelings, but it's useless without information. Image quality = information, more information = better quality. In art the information is often too much, because it is not about the real world, it is dreamy, it is fantasy, it is illusion, it is deception ... while photojournalism is quite the opposite, it is as real as it gets, or at least it should be. It's the information that makes your blood boil, not the artsy fartsy noise. Therefore I think a better tool would have made the picture only better.
I've used 5D2 with some primes and then I switched to 6D, because it is a better camera for the same price (or was, back then). For most people price is the major limiting factor. I'm not a professional, but I would buy the 5D3 if it wasn't twice the price of 6D, I would buy the 5DSr if it wasn't three times more expensive than 6D. It is always a compromise and there is always a better tool. I love technology. It is the only way to make the world a better place. And if you see art and beauty in war and poverty, then there is something very wrong with you.
http://cdn.meme.am/instances/250x250/24152963.jpg

Just no. I'm really sorry that you just don't get photojournalism because it is very little to do with the gear, only the story the resulting image tells. I was at a shoot with a friend at the weekend and we both had a similar idea for a shot inside a pod on an observation wheel at dusk. We were in different pods and had no idea we were going for the same type of candid shot. She took hers with a 70d and 18-55 lens while I was using the 5D3 and 16-35. Which was the better image? Well, mine might have had the better framing with the 16mm and where I positioned myself but hers was far better because her timing was spot on and the subjects were better positioned to convey the story.

 

[ecka]

1. Gear matters.
2. 5D2 is a great camera.
3. Camera is a tool. Better cameras are better tools.
4. Populism like "it's not the camera ...", is an artsy narcissistic BS. Trust me.

Art is about feelings, but it's useless without information. Image quality = information, more information = better quality. In art the information is often too much, because it is not about the real world, it is dreamy, it is fantasy, it is illusion, it is deception ... while photojournalism is quite the opposite, it is as real as it gets, or at least it should be. It's the information that makes your blood boil, not the artsy fartsy noise. Therefore I think a better tool would have made the picture only better.
I've used 5D2 with some primes and then I switched to 6D, because it is a better camera for the same price (or was, back then). For most people price is the major limiting factor. I'm not a professional, but I would buy the 5D3 if it wasn't twice the price of 6D, I would buy the 5DSr if it wasn't three times more expensive than 6D. It is always a compromise and there is always a better tool. I love technology. It is the only way to make the world a better place. And if you see art and beauty in war and poverty, then there is something very wrong with you.
http://cdn.meme.am/instances/250x250/24152963.jpg

Just no. I'm really sorry that you just don't get photojournalism because it is very little to do with the gear, only the story the resulting image tells. I was at a shoot with a friend at the weekend and we both had a similar idea for a shot inside a pod on an observation wheel at dusk. We were in different pods and had no idea we were going for the same type of candid shot. She took hers with a 70d and 18-55 lens while I was using the 5D3 and 16-35. Which was the better image? Well, mine might have had the better framing with the 16mm and where I positioned myself but hers was far better because her timing was spot on and the subjects were better positioned to convey the story.

So, you've failed shooting some pictures, what does that has to do with anything? Maybe you would fail even more if you'd use a lesser camera. 70D is not bad camera and if it was good enough for the job, that doesn't mean your 5D3 is a total overkill. You don't buy a separate tool for every situation. Well, I don't, maybe you do, I don't know, but I think it would be a waste. I just buy the best tool that fits my needs at a reasonable price and I'm not rich enough to buy cheap stuff. OK, I admit, I do like cheap small primes, like my 40 STM, but the cheapest thing about it is the price, so I don't feel guilty .
There are good people doing bad things and there are bad people doing good things (sometimes), so, I guess, in your view, it doesn't matter what you do, you can always consider yourself a decent human being anyway (like while doing something bad for a change). Perhaps that's what terrorists think ... and they fail. Because everything matters.
Finally, why don't you just stop being hypocritical, get rid of your fancy photography toys and use your phone camera instead, for everything.

 

[Famateur]

Art is about feelings...

Agreed!

...but it's useless without information.

Well, yes, it's useless without ANY information, but it can be spoiled by too much information.

Image quality = information, more information = better quality.

Hmm...Files at higher ISO are often larger, aren't they (technically, more information)? Shouldn't that make the image we're discussing even it better? There's more "information".

Or do you mean something beyond the sensor data? Do you mean trivia/knowledge? The more literal things one can know from an image, the better the image?

Question: Do you ever shoot with a shallow field of focus?

Shallow depth of field blurs out the background. That's great for focusing the viewer on what is important to the photographer -- what's relevant to the message she/he is sending. With a definition of "more information = better image quality," a blurred background (pleasing to most people) loses information and is therefore an inferior image to one in which everything is in focus.

To each their own, but for me, too much information can often spoil an image by distracting from the subject or message. I will often remove a stray hair or lint from a sweater or a tree branch that crept into the frame, et cetera, because they're unnecessary pieces of information that add nothing useful to the image and visually distract the viewer from what I want them to see.

I think you might mean that you feel there could have been more information in the scene from which the image we're discussing was taken and that, with better technology/technique, that information would have been captured to better satisfy you.

Two thoughts:

1) Perhaps the photographer didn't want to include the other information. If that's the case, and if you want more information, it's up to you to produce the photo you like better (or hire a photographer to shoot what you're after).

2) Though I don't know the actual circumstances, it seems unlikely to me that the photographer in this case had any artsy fartsy intentions and was just trying to capture a moment before it was gone. Perfection is often the enemy of success. Here, capturing an image was not only better than no image at all, enough people thought it was the best of submitted images that it won. Sounds like a success to me!

...if you see art and beauty in war and poverty, then there is something very wrong with you.

So in your opinion, art can only evoke good feelings? If it evokes negative feelings -- and you appreciate that effect -- it's either not art or there's something wrong with you? Hmm...Maybe it's an issue of nomenclature. How 'bout we call it "poetry" instead of "art?" Would that exempt us from the being considered malfunctional when moved by something that makes one's blood boil?

Perhaps one sees beauty in the infant, which beauty and innocence is made all the more poignant in its juxtaposition with barbed wire and conflict.

...while photojournalism is quite the opposite, it is as real as it gets, or at least it should be.

It should be, yes (if by "real" you mean "honest"). But then again, do you trust the story being told because an image is in focus and high in technical image quality? How do you know you're not just seeing the "story" the photographer wants you to see? Reminds me of Mark Wallace talking about people from India asking why he only took pictures of the poor and the ghettos. They felt it misrepresented the vibrant spirit of India and all it has to offer. That was a learning moment for Mark.

Anyway, this is an interesting discussion -- thank you! Been good food for thought...

Cheers!

 

[unfocused]

In art the information is often too much, because it is not about the real world, it is dreamy, it is fantasy, it is illusion, it is deception ...

Most true artists would laugh at that statement. Of course, it might be true if you think of art as the kind of schlock produced by Thomas Kinkade or the tens of thousands of Ansel Adams wannabes who take a long exposure picture of a stream or waterfall and think they've produced art.

But, most artists who are recognized as such would say they are trying to find truth. It may be a deeper truth than the eye can see or the truth beneath the apparent reality of the surface. In the photographic realm, I would expect that recognized artists like Martin Paar, Robert Frank, Stephen Shore, Paul Strand, Edward Weston, etc. etc. etc., would argue (or would have argued) that they were seeking to reveal truths, whether they be universal truths or truths about society. In fact, I think even someone like Jerry Uelsmann would say his images seek to reveal truths.

 

[ecka]

Art is about feelings...

Agreed!

...but it's useless without information.

Well, yes, it's useless without ANY information, but it can be spoiled by too much information.

Image quality = information, more information = better quality.

Hmm...Files at higher ISO are often larger, aren't they (technically, more information)? Shouldn't that make the image we're discussing even it better? There's more "information".

Or do you mean something beyond the sensor data? Do you mean trivia/knowledge? The more literal things one can know from an image, the better the image?

Question: Do you ever shoot with a shallow field of focus?

Shallow depth of field blurs out the background. That's great for focusing the viewer on what is important to the photographer -- what's relevant to the message she/he is sending. With a definition of "more information = better image quality," a blurred background (pleasing to most people) loses information and is therefore an inferior image to one in which everything is in focus.

To each their own, but for me, too much information can often spoil an image by distracting from the subject or message. I will often remove a stray hair or lint from a sweater or a tree branch that crept into the frame, et cetera, because they're unnecessary pieces of information that add nothing useful to the image and visually distract the viewer from what I want them to see.

I think you might mean that you feel there could have been more information in the scene from which the image we're discussing was taken and that, with better technology/technique, that information would have been captured to better satisfy you.

Two thoughts:

1) Perhaps the photographer didn't want to include the other information. If that's the case, and if you want more information, it's up to you to produce the photo you like better (or hire a photographer to shoot what you're after).

2) Though I don't know the actual circumstances, it seems unlikely to me that the photographer in this case had any artsy fartsy intentions and was just trying to capture a moment before it was gone. Perfection is often the enemy of success. Here, capturing an image was not only better than no image at all, enough people thought it was the best of submitted images that it won. Sounds like a success to me!

...if you see art and beauty in war and poverty, then there is something very wrong with you.

So in your opinion, art can only evoke good feelings? If it evokes negative feelings -- and you appreciate that effect -- it's either not art or there's something wrong with you? Hmm...Maybe it's an issue of nomenclature. How 'bout we call it "poetry" instead of "art?" Would that exempt us from the being considered malfunctional when moved by something that makes one's blood boil?

Perhaps one sees beauty in the infant, which beauty and innocence is made all the more poignant in its juxtaposition with barbed wire and conflict.

...while photojournalism is quite the opposite, it is as real as it gets, or at least it should be.

It should be, yes (if by "real" you mean "honest"). But then again, do you trust the story being told because an image is in focus and high in technical image quality? How do you know you're not just seeing the "story" the photographer wants you to see? Reminds me of Mark Wallace talking about people from India asking why he only took pictures of the poor and the ghettos. They felt it misrepresented the vibrant spirit of India and all it has to offer. That was a learning moment for Mark.

Anyway, this is an interesting discussion -- thank you! Been good food for thought...

Cheers!

Files at higher ISO are often larger, because they are full of noise, not information. Yes, by information I mean the actual details of the real world subject you are shooting, not the sensor data. Yes, art can be spoiled by too much information.
Shallow DoF or not, I'm talking about using different tools for shooting the same image. We don't normally shoot the blur, so there must be something in focus and if that something is represented by a greater amount of correct information, then it is higher quality. Low quality images tend to attract all kinds of controversy, doubt, mistrust and suspicions, but it can work for art pretty well actually.
Art evoking negative feelings? - no, thank you. I can just watch TV if I'd want that . Kind of a pointless thing to do, I don't enjoy stress. And you might be "broken" if you do . Seriously, there are psychopathic individuals who really enjoy this stuff. It's a mental disorder.
Thanks for the response.
Cheers!

 

[ecka]

In art the information is often too much, because it is not about the real world, it is dreamy, it is fantasy, it is illusion, it is deception ...

Most true artists would laugh at that statement. Of course, it might be true if you think of art as the kind of schlock produced by Thomas Kinkade or the tens of thousands of Ansel Adams wannabes who take a long exposure picture of a stream or waterfall and think they've produced art.

But, most artists who are recognized as such would say they are trying to find truth. It may be a deeper truth than the eye can see or the truth beneath the apparent reality of the surface. In the photographic realm, I would expect that recognized artists like Martin Paar, Robert Frank, Stephen Shore, Paul Strand, Edward Weston, etc. etc. etc., would argue (or would have argued) that they were seeking to reveal truths, whether they be universal truths or truths about society. In fact, I think even someone like Jerry Uelsmann would say his images seek to reveal truths.

Well, I'm always trying to be critical and realistic. I don't wear "pink glasses".
The truth is that there is only one truth. No separate, different, individual truths for each and everyone. You won't find any other truths besides the one and only. Two contradicting statements cannot both be true. It's either one of them is correct, or they both are wrong.
I don't think they are trying to find truth, but to hide it. Art is the devil, which makes you think there are many different truths. There is always a riddle, a lack of information, a missing piece of a puzzle, which is created by your imagination. Different people imagine different things, or the same things differently, because of the different life experiences. So it is kind of a brain massage, useful stuff .

 

[eml58]

Mmmm, ecka it might be time for a break

 

[Don Haines]

The truth is that there is only one truth. No separate, different, individual truths for each and everyone.

Yet somehow, two people standing side by side, can see two different things in the same picture.....

 

[ecka]

The truth is that there is only one truth. No separate, different, individual truths for each and everyone.

Yet somehow, two people standing side by side, can see two different things in the same picture.....

... and they both could be wrong.

 

[notapro]

I've noticed this thread only recently. Interesting comments, there are. With respect to some of what you have written, Ecka, can you add to or help in my/our (we who are readers and participants in this thread) understanding of what you believe to be "right" or "proper" in or for photography as art (if indeed you hold such a view--it is possible that you hold a different view)?

Is it your position that "truth" is necessary for art? Is it possible, by what you mean to express to the forum (might mean to express to the forum), for art to express/portray/manifest/etc. a truth/any truth? I ask because you wrote earlier that "Art is the devil, which makes you think there are many different truths".

If it happens to be your position that art must (?)/can only (?) express a single truth, is it the case that such truth be correspondent with "reality"--i.e., a deliberate attempt or endeavor on a photographer's part (in this case) to "just show what the camera sees", without any wish or intent to be "artful", without any wish or intent to "distort" what has been photographed?

If that is the case, then what might you say the difference is between "art" and non-art ("reality")? If there is no difference, then can art be a devil when it happens to portray reality in a "truthful" way? If there is a difference, and art by definition "lies", so to speak--and in keeping with your Art-as-Devil proposition--then is it folly to fault/critique/analyze/criticize/theorize/etc. art in terms of a truth concept if one holds that art does not or cannot express truth?

I ask these questions merely in order to understand what you wish to communicate more specifically to the forum with regard to art, information, truth, photography, and so forth.

Most Sincerely,

Notapro

 

[ecka]

I've noticed this thread only recently. Interesting comments, there are. With respect to some of what you have written, Ecka, can you add to or help in my/our (we who are readers and participants in this thread) understanding of what you believe to be "right" or "proper" in or for photography as art (if indeed you hold such a view--it is possible that you hold a different view)?

Is it your position that "truth" is necessary for art? Is it possible, by what you mean to express to the forum (might mean to express to the forum), for art to express/portray/manifest/etc. a truth/any truth? I ask because you wrote earlier that "Art is the devil, which makes you think there are many different truths".

If it happens to be your position that art must (?)/can only (?) express a single truth, is it the case that such truth be correspondent with "reality"--i.e., a deliberate attempt or endeavor on a photographer's part (in this case) to "just show what the camera sees", without any wish or intent to be "artful", without any wish or intent to "distort" what has been photographed?

If that is the case, then what might you say the difference is between "art" and non-art ("reality")? If there is no difference, then can art be a devil when it happens to portray reality in a "truthful" way? If there is a difference, and art by definition "lies", so to speak--and in keeping with your Art-as-Devil proposition--then is it folly to fault/critique/analyze/criticize/theorize/etc. art in terms of a truth concept if one holds that art does not or cannot express truth?

I ask these questions merely in order to understand what you wish to communicate more specifically to the forum with regard to art, information, truth, photography, and so forth.

Most Sincerely,

Notapro

Art needs no truth, photojournalism does. The multi-truth concept doesn't work in reality. People (like politicians) often try to implement it, but all we get are lies and deception, which can only lead to destruction and war. Artists are like politicians in many ways. Only artists act in the realm of art. So their lies can be safe and you can play with the Devil. We need that to expand our imagination. The truth is in our heads, art is just provoking us to go there and look for it.
Art can be spoiled by too much information, while there can't be too much information in photojournalism. There are many extraordinary and unbelievable photographs, but not all of them are art. Many people think that photography itself is art, but they are wrong. Photography is a tool.

Thank you for commenting