"Photography teaches that how well you see has nothing to do with how well you see."
~ Anonymous.
~ Anonymous.
First prize in the People in the News Stories category of the 2008 World Press Photo contest by Swiss photographer Philippe Dudouit for Time Magazine showing PKK fighters in southern Kurdistan/northern Iraq 2007 (AP Photo/Philippe Dudouit/Time Magazine).Thanks to KurdishInfo for bringing the photos to everyone's attention and check the KurdishInfo page for information on each of the photos:
7 comments:
I hate to say this but the first pixture--the "grand prize" is a doctored image. Anyone who looks at it can tell. All the others look so much better--probably because the expert photographers of the HPG (they do some very nice work)
1. Wrong type of trees for the mountainous region of northern Iraq or even southeastern Turkey. The birch/aspen variety is mostly found in western Europe.
2. The fighter is too far forward in the field of view. The size of the fighter is well out of porportion for the vegetation.
3. Can also see the blurring of cropping in an image from a dryer terrain into a lush, deciduous backdrop.
4. The weapon appears to be superimposed over the fighter.
People should just look at the stunning images from the fighters, themselves. Go to the hpg-online.net gallery. Some real talent there... You want to give someone an award for photography, take alook at some of those jaw-dropping sunsets, or panoramas of the valleys, or absolutely gorgeous rivers/water falls. Granted, nature is a wonderful subject but it takes realy talent and an eye for the shot.
too bad someone is trying to exploit the issue for their own gain.
I hate to say this but the first pixture--the "grand prize" is a doctored image. Anyone who looks at it can tell. All the others look so much better--probably because the expert photographers of the HPG (they do some very nice work)
1. Wrong type of trees for the mountainous region of northern Iraq or even southeastern Turkey. The birch/aspen variety is mostly found in western Europe.
2. The fighter is too far forward in the field of view. The size of the fighter is well out of porportion for the vegetation.
3. Can also see the blurring of cropping in an image from a dryer terrain into a lush, deciduous backdrop.
4. The weapon appears to be superimposed over the fighter.
People should just look at the stunning images from the fighters, themselves. Go to the hpg-online.net gallery. Some real talent there... You want to give someone an award for photography, take alook at some of those jaw-dropping sunsets, or panoramas of the valleys, or absolutely gorgeous rivers/water falls. Granted, nature is a wonderful subject but it takes realy talent and an eye for the shot.
too bad someone is trying to exploit the issue for their own gain.
To point 1: The trees are not birches, but poplars, and they are quite common in Turkey and Kurdistan. You can see them also at http://www.worldpressphoto.org/index.php?option=com_photogallery&task=view&id=1110&Itemid=187&type=&selectedIndex=2
Well, if anonymous is correct that the rifle was superimposed on the photo that would explain why the guerrilla is not carrying an AK but what looks like an M16.
I have to agree with Anonymous 2 on the poplars. These trees are all over the place, especially in the northern areas of South Kurdistan.
To me it doesn't look as if the image was doctored as far as the weapons goes, either. Over at Progressive Historians, Gordon Taylor has posted a link to a larger version of the grand prize winner at Time.
However, yes, I agree that the gerilas themselves take fabulous photos and much better than most of those at Time, something that Gordon Taylor has pointed out in a number of posts in recent months. But they have different hearts and eyes compared to photojournalists, who are merely doing a job.
VS, Gordon Taylor identifies the weapon as an M4 carbine and gives a link to the Wikipedia entry for it. Looks to me like he may be right, but since this weapon is based on the M16, I have my doubts as to how well it will hold up, especially when compared to the trusty AK47.
Of course, if it had the M203 attached, that would be sweet . . .
yes, this is probably an M4. I could not see properly with the low res pic so I assumed that it was an M16. Like you, M4 or M16, I would never trust my life to this kind of rifle and, even more importantly, to this kind of ammo. My pick would be an AKM74 with a grenade launcher and a night-scope.
Well, I think I'd prefer 7.62 ammo to the 5.56, too, in addition to the hardworking, reliable reputation of the AK.
Even with the basic weapon you still get more "bang for your buck."
Post a Comment