If you find your work on Imgur because of this forum or another, write to this e-mail address requesting it get removed:
And as always... register your work at the federal copyright office. www.copyright.gov
I finally became famous. There was a reddit thread talking about my work. That's all fine and dandy, but when it crosses over to encouraging people to break federal copyright law and screw over the artists... that's when it gets blogged about.
I see the moderators have since changed the wording to exclude the phrase where they told users to upload content to Imgur, but I have a screen shot of it from before. The post has allegedly been deleted, but it seems that the link is still supported as pointing to the post. So if you are a delusional artist, you probably want to scour Imgur looking for your work where it is not supposed to be.
So the good thing is that they are no longer encouraging people to steal photos from artists. However, that does nothing for the people who have already had their work uploaded to Imgur without their consent.
If you find your work on Imgur because of this forum or another, write to this e-mail address requesting it get removed:
And as always... register your work at the federal copyright office. www.copyright.gov
It's no secret that the photography world has more suppliers now than ever, and it's much harder to sell photography now than it was 20 years ago.
But you should sell your work.
From time to time, I hear photographers say they gave their work away in exchange for exposure. I'm not saying to never do that because there is a time and place for everything, but you should sell your work. I know a fair amount of photographers who utilize the creative commons business model. And again, I'm not saying to never do that, but you should sell your work.
Some of my peers in the professional photography business use a pricing strategy called "freenomics." Essentially, it means they give away their goods and services because working for free will bring more customers into the market. It has worked for Trey Ratcliff, owner of Stuckincustoms, with his HDR photography. In fact, it brought him so many customers that he was considered to be the inventor of HDR, even though the technology is older than his business. So why did it work for Stuckincustoms?
Ok so this is a blog post about fake blood, so it should be common sense, but just in case...
THE IMAGE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS BLOG POST (BELOW THE TEAR LINE) MIGHT BE DISTURBING TO SOME AUDIENCES. PEOPLE UNDER THE AGE OF 18 OR THOSE WHO ARE SENSITIVE TO GRAPHIC SCENES SHOULD NOT VIEW THE IMAGE BELOW THE TEAR LINE. For more information, please consult our terms of service.
The town of Danzig was located about halfway between the towns of Ashley and Wishek in south central North Dakota. In 1898, the Danzig Post Office opened, according to Ghost Towns of North Dakota. It closed and reopened again while the town struggled to populate. The population of Danzig never grew beyond 100 people, and one of the industries in the town, like most North Dakota towns, was agriculture. The remaining buildings of Danzig are two grain elevators (aside from the house of the two remaining inhabitants of Danzig.)
The book Danzig, North Dakota: 1906 - 2000: Gone But Not Forgotten by Geneva Roth Olstad, clarifies that Danzig was not really big enough to be a town until the Post Office's reopening in 1906. Olstad, a Danzig native, was born in 1944 on a farm just north of town. She said that most of the businesses in Danzig had already disappeared by then. She remembers attending a Christmas program at the Salem Evangelical Church. She attended the Danzig grade school and said it is said that she can never go back home again since Danzig no longer exists. However, she says that a piece of her heart will always remain in Danzig, North Dakota.
To all the friendly people reading this and all the indifferent ones who happened upon it by mistake: I hope you get some negative feedback on your site. You deserve it. And yes, that is a complement. Want to know why? Keep reading!
I owe a big fat thank you to my internet trolls. Most businesses only get positive feedback, and consumers don't really have a lot of trust in businesses with only good feedback. It seems fabricated and fake. So I really appreciate you bringing humanity and reality to my web presence. If you are a business owner, and you have negative feedback, weigh that carefully because it's not necessarily bad. Just because John Doe on Yelp didn't like that you shoot too many flowers and sunsets and wants to spread that all over the internet doesn't mean that people who like flowers and sunsets will dislike you.
My trolls like to spread that I'm a possible psychopath with a fetish for the apocalypse. Someone once accused me of breaking and entering into an abandoned building (for the record, I don't break and enter, and I'm not a psychopath. I will plead guilty to being obsessed with the apocalypse, though.) So I don't get a surplus of people calling me to ask about shooting their newborn photography. Since newborn photography isn't my niche or a particular interest, that's not really bad for me.
Rumors about my alleged nefariousness and creepiness have raised interest for my business in the fields I do enjoy. I get crazy calls. If the police ever tap my phone they'll wonder about the people calling me. Someday, someone is going to call me wanting me to shoot them naked in a coffin with blood all over and a sign saying "killed by the chocolate sauce killer" with chocolate sauce smeared all over the wall in the shape of a skull and cross-bones and cherries as eyes. Seriously, that could happen. And I would find that fun to shoot. (Again, I'm not a psychopath. I just like fake blood, chocolate, cherries, and naked people.)
My h8rs don't like that use a pseudo name. They'll have to get over it. It is extremely common for artists, writers, famous people, etc. to use pseudo names. It's not illegal, and I can use whatever name I want. People use pseudo names to protect their identity, which is what I am doing by using one.
Someone I admire once said that "Anyone can create something mediocre, call it art, and post it on the internet. And people will like it. But you know you're a real artist when you have a group of haters who are just as adamant as your fans." The thing is... my art can piss people off. And I'm okay with that because when they get mad, I know they took the time to look at it. It makes me happy when people look at what I create.
Between six months and a year ago, someone who was very popular online had a lot of untrue things to say about me, and it really bothered me. A bunch of other people jumped on that bandwagon. I was so upset by it that I deleted that social network page. And when the people who joined the mob against me found out the truth behind the situation, some of them felt like a$$*%@s, and they were. But when the apologized, I forgave them. One positive externality I didn't foresee was the immense jump in web traffic I got from people wanting to know who the f%&$ I thought I was. This popular person is the founder of the "Foes with an Unhealthy Compulsion for J. Rae" Club (FUC for short).
J. Rae Chip Productions' website jumped from the second page of search results for one of our target keywords to the very top slot on the first page, overnight. So thank you for the negative publicity, FUC J. Rae Club.
And now I find myself facing a new evolved form of troll: the anonymous troll with some smart friends. (I suppose it's a possibility that the troll is diabolical too, but I envision trolls more as short people with pointy noses and poofy hair who cause trouble under bridges and don't know what the frack a computer is.)
So since this new attack is all about posting alleged personal / private information of "mine" all over the public internet, I'm sure they will not mind if I name them. So... to Marty Phillips, Mondo Diaz, Amanda Kroenig, HAHAHA, Samantha Samson, and Drew Q, I would like to again say thank you. These people are the new officers of the adamant FUC J. Rae Club.
I find it ironic that these people are so angry that I use a pseudo name. HAHAHA can't possibly be the person's real name. And if it is, I totally understand why they're so angry. It's more likely that I'm being attacked by a bunch of pseudo names who are mad at me for having a pseudo name. The difference between me and them is that on my social media accounts, my profile is filled out. Theirs is not.
So this FUC J. Rae Club has several avenues. First they went with the ingenious tactic of nicely asking me about myself and my history. Blue headed Mondo Diaz asked me on Google Plus. I didn't think anything of it because I don't discriminate by skin tone. However, my professional life is not usually something I discuss on social media, as I find that saying "HELLO MY NAME IS BEST ARTIST IN THE WHOLE WORLD" all the time is a huge turn-off. I really don't like it when people do that to me, so I try not to do it to my friends. So when "Diaz" asked, I gave short answers and a re-direct to a different site where my work is more directed to the business world.
Then, when they couldn't verify every single little thread of information they found about me, they started e-mailing my friends, telling them that I was a liar. They commented on my Google Plus profile, and then courageously deleted their comments after I notified Google bigwigs of the event. Luckily I have screen shots because my fans are geniuses.
Like magic, all of a sudden I started seeing my web hits climbing again. Maybe this time I can get onto the first page of search results for an entirely different keyword. Once again, I have discovered that for some reason, someone somewhere finds me interesting enough to join the FUC J. Rae Club and start FUCing. Maybe the president of the Club, the founder, is recruiting. Maybe not. Hell if I know. Or care.
I do, however, really appreciate the ungodly amount of time these trolls must be spending marketing my business for me. It seriously is saving me a lot of money.
That said, I did finally have to notify the police about this cyber-stalking campaign from the FUC J. Rae Club. It's not cool to post someone's personal information all over the internet. Whether or not my name really is what they say it is (redacted to protect the real identity of a person who they say I am), or if it is Jennifer Smith or Gretchen Green or Booger Flicker or whatever, it is not cool to put someone's home address on the internet. That is when it bridges the canyon from "trolling" to "stalking." I also reported it to Google.
The thing is... whether or not my real last name is actually Chipera (which I will neither confirm nor deny), I know people with that last name. I like that name, and so I use it. On Google+ I shortened it to Chip for the sake of an easier link between this website and that profile. Is Chipera a pseudo name? Who the hell cares, and why does it matter?
Trolls... please grow some humanity and stop posting someone's address on my Flickr, Google+, and 500PX profiles. How would you feel if someone did that to you? Please stop saying I'm a liar simply because you can't verify every piece of information about me with the Internet. I sure hope everyone doesn't post every aspect of their lives on the Internet. That is extremely unsafe!
So... Dear FUC J. Rae Club... thank you for being one of my most efficient marketing groups. I didn't solicit your services, but seriously this is the best free service I've ever had!
One of the things the FUC J. Rae Club says about me is that I was never in Egypt.
Well here's a photo that I obviously didn't take on a trip that I probably didn't go on. I also have some non-existent friends who were nice enough to host me in their house while I was not there. They didn't even feed me! Since they are paranoid about internet stalkers (though I can't understand why, because obviously there is no such thing as internet stalkers), it is hard to verify their nonexistence by simply the internet alone. And I respect their privacy, so I don't see a reason to ever reveal their identities for any stupid reason. I will not divulge that even if you pretend to be the FBI.
This piece, which I drew freehand with a box of crayons while sitting at a desk in the United States, having never seen the pyramids or the sphinx, is my single most-popular piece. It has sold hundreds of copies. It has been in three galleries in three different countries so far (none of which post photos of the art on the internet out of respect to the artists), which is part of the reason why I chose them. I like having more control over my work as it appears on the internet. If you want to see my expert crayon skills, this piece is currently being exhibited in New Mexico. Stop by and go take a look at it if you want.
And no... this blog post is NOT sarcastic. At all.
I think everyone can relate.
There's a fine line in life between doing what you love, and doing what you need to do in order to pay the bills. If you feel like I just revealed some secret to you, then I am envious of you.
Seven years ago I left a job I hated - a job where I endured emotional abuse, worked long hours for no extra pay, a job where I was very competitive, but never promoted for alleged sexist reasons I could never prove - a job where I made six digits of pay a year. Money only goes so far in buying happiness, and I was not happy. I left that job and decided to just do what I enjoy for a while to see how it goes. And what a ride it has been!
There are consequences to that, and I discover new ones every day.
Leaving a job with a hostile work environment caused me to make some choices about running my own business. First, I decided I would never treat my employees the way I was treated by my former employers. What my old boss didn't understand was that when your employees feel like you are loyal to them, care about them and their well being, and give them perks for working for you, then like magic, your employees are more loyal to you. Employers can't always afford perks like cafeterias, adult playground slides, or in-house medical care. But employers can at least go to the appropriate lengths to not create a hostile work environment.
With that comes the creation of a job that people actually want to do and enjoy doing. In the arts business, it's especially important to make a position for a passionate artist and hold their passion. There is nothing worse than taking a hobby and making it a job, and then having that suck all the fun out of something that was once a hobby.
There are a lot of complications to my life that come with doing the art I want to do instead of the art that could make me money, but sucks the fun out of it. The artists reading this are saying there's not a lot of money in art, but I disagree. There is a lot of money in art if you are willing to do the kind of art that everyone wants to buy... the thing is though, that artists don't work well that way. Art is an expression of the artist's soul. People don't want to buy your soul in this day and age. They want you to sell them their own soul.
That's why people expect so much from wedding photographers. I don't shoot a lot of weddings. I don't enjoy them. I end up making my photos look how someone else wants them to look instead of making them look how I want them to look. People are supposed to hire a wedding photographer whose style mixes with their own, but yet I get requests to shoot them. And then when I meet with the bride, she asks for something bright and pretty. I'll take a wedding on occasion if I need to or wanted to, but I don't love shooting them. It's a constant decision between the opportunity to make more money shooting events like weddings, or shooting something I love for less money. Even when you're your own boss, you sometimes need to do things you don't love. I also don't love accounting, but if I don't do it, the IRS would be knocking on my door and asking for money; not only that, but it is unethical to not file your taxes.
Marketing is a challenge for my business. I am sometimes loud about the fact that Facebook and Google Plus make it harder for me by not allowing me to post my best work on their platforms because it has nudity in it (though, for some reason, other people can get away with it, but that is the subject for another time.) That's their choice, as it is their business to make a model for, but it complicates my marketing plan and again forces me to choose between doing what I love and compromising that in order to be able to market my work on social media. It gives other artists what I consider to be an unfair advantage over me in the business world, and therefore, I consider that kind of segregation to be harmful to the consumer.
Social media isn't the only internet source pushing me to make that compromise. One would think that I can do whatever the hell I want with my own site. I can, really, but it's hard to build links to my website. People who focus on search engine optimization know why that is important. A lot of directories or linking companies put a restriction on their sites, saying that anyone under the age of 18 should be able to see what they link to. I have warning messages on my site saying that minors should not use it because I do what I love, and I love horror and macabre. I love the human body, so I do art pertaining to that. I have to find creative ways to market that don't always include the internet.
I'm still trying to figure out how to do what I love and survive. But for now, I'm surviving.
I am currently working with an author on illustrating her book. I'm working with a cast to make the scenes come to life, and I'm travelling to faraway exotic places, hiking up mountains, and climbing down canyons for pictures. And I love it. I'm working on some horror scenes that will be used as stills for a movie. And I love it. I'm working on some personal projects right now, something I haven't had time for in a long time. And I love it.
Giving good benefits and being nice isn't the only thing that contributes to a positive working environment. When I left my previous job, I also promised myself I would always conduct business in an ethical way. I also love journalism. So in addition to my own business, I was working for a while as the photo editor for a paper here in San Diego. I loved it, but the moment I decided I didn't love it, I quit.
When the editor-in-chief and some of the other editors on the paper needed a photo and we didn't have it, didn't want to license it, and couldn't get a courtesy photo, they pressured me to steal a photograph off the internet and publish it. I decided I didn't love it anymore. I will not steal work from someone, especially someone like myself who is just trying to pay their bills doing what they love. The other editors tried to hide behind a law that is still a gray area and not intended to be used in that way. I was all of a sudden once again faced with a decision to either do something I don't love - something that compromised my moral code, and even jeopardized my reputation and possibly my wallet - or to make less money.
My reputation as an ethical entrepreneur is very important to me, so I chose to resign from that position.
That closed another marketing door for me, so I'm branching out. I decided I also enjoy graphic design elements, and I enjoy producing and making short films. So I'm going to do a lateral branch out, and hopefully I'll be able to market those better than I can market photography because I won't have to contend with no-nudity rules as much.
I'm showing my work in galleries in other areas around my country and the world besides just places that are close to where I live. I'll let you know how that goes, too.
It's a complicated, hard thing... making your living doing what you love, but I'm determined to make it work for me.
Photographers... do you use Apple or PC products? I think there is a good split between the two. I use Windows. There comes a day in business' lifetimes when equipment becomes obsolete and must be replaced. My Dell Inspiron still runs, actually, and is a great personal computer now, but it's past its forecast business lifetime and was therefore up to be replaced.
After much unwanted drama with Best Buy (read it HERE), I ordered a Lenovo IdeaPad for my photography business, and like most new computers, it came with Windows 8, a steep learning curve for me.
Please allow me to give you this Windows 8 tour.
It seems that most of the tech-minded people I know don't like Windows 8 for some reason. For me, every time Microsoft Corp. decides to update their operating system, it is a learning activity for me to figure out how to do all the things I need to do. I remember being in awe of XP when I took the tour of it. My Dell Inspiron runs on Windows XP, and I love XP.
That said, my only real complaint about Windows 8 is that it doesn't have a function to run in XP mode. I checked, and it does not exist.
Otherwise, so far, I'm satisfied. I think a lot of people just haven't figured out how to use Windows 8 yet, and that's understandable. In fact, it makes me feel better that I'm not the only tech-challenged sub-35 year old individual on the planet. (I know of at least one other, and he has had the same last name as me since he was born.)
Contrary to popular belief, you can customize the Windows 8 start screen. If you click on the tiles and drag them to new positions, they will be stuck there. I have a nice dock of Adobe functions so they're all together for me to use for my photography business. Then I have another dock of office programs, accounting programs, etc. For touch-screen computers, you can do it on screen. You can create a new dock by holding a tile between established docks. A vertical bar will show up, and then drop the tile there.
If you right click a tile, it brings up a menu, and you can ask it to make the tile smaller (or bigger), or you can deactivate the animated tiles. You can un-pin a tile from the Windows 8 start menu so the tile never shows up on that screen again. You can even uninstall a program from the right click function.
Allegedly, Windows 8 was developed for people who like touch screens. They're trying to turn your computer into a phone. As a photographer, I like my screen to be clean, so I don't have a touch screen.
If you have a touch screen you can still right click, but you can also touch the bottom segment of the screen, and a dock will pop up. Click on the tile and hold onto it for a second until a check mark pops up, and then you should be able to utilize all the functions as if you right clicked.
Pressing the windows button from the desktop brings you to the start screen. Pressing the windows button from the start screen brings you back to the desktop. You're welcome.
You can also get back to the start menu from the desktop by moving your mouse to the lower left corner where the Windows icon used to be. The Windows 8 start menu will pop up once you move off screen, and then you can click on it.
Pressing the windows key and holding it while you press w brings you a small new Windows 8 menu where you can search for programs on your computer easily. Again, you're welcome. Make sure you have the apps option selected if you are looking for a program (I guess Microsoft wanted to emulate a phone operating system and utilize the word "App.")
Pressing the windows key and holding it while you press c gives you a menu where you can go to the start. Or if you click on "settings" in there you can shut down or restart windows.
If you downloaded something and it doesn't show up on the start screen, you can find it in the windows w menu and ask the computer to pin it to the start menu. If you downloaded something as a zip file, you have to unzip it in order for it to show up on the start menu, just like before.
You can update your start menu profile photo by clicking on it and uploading one or taking one with your webcam.
Are you bilingual? If you click on your photo and name in the start menu, click on "change profile photo" but instead click on "general" in the menu and scroll down to "languages" to install a second language on your machine. Go to "language preferences," and from there you can "add a language." This is actually much easier to do with Windows 8 than it has been with previous operating systems.
Clicking or touching the top of a program and moving downward off the screen will close the program for you. Also, moving or touching from the left side to the right side will change the screen to your most recently used app. If either of those things annoy you, you can deactivate them under the profile photo on your start menu, under the general tab and "app switching." This tab is generally your control panel now.
You can change the background of your lock screen and start screen under the new control panel and the "personalize" menu. Change your desktop background by right clicking an image and saying "set as desktop background," just like before.
To change the screen saver you can go to the windows w menu and search for "screen saver." That will find the menu for you. And holy cow you'll realize that the menu is the same as what you remember from previous versions of Windows.
Do you have any other questions about Windows 8? (That a dummy like me could answer?)
I'm about to go abroad for some great photography fun! (Are you?)
Obviously, I'm going to pack cameras, lenses, batteries, etc. and depending on where you're going and what you're shooting, your list for what to bring for that will probably be different than mine.
Before you start packing every piece of photographic equipment you own, there are some things you need to pack and check on first!
Make sure you have a guidebook for the place you're going. Read it. Now pick the places you want to see, and think about what lenses you might need to capture them in images. Set only those lenses aside, along with two camera bodies, batteries and chargers, and at least two memory cards.
Some of the photographs in this blog post could be TRIGGERS or considered of graphic nature (none are newer than 2001.)
Photojournalists often go hunting for doom and gloom because that's news, and nobody wants to report boring news (well almost nobody.) Some of the world's most famous photojournalists have taken horrific photographs.
Shouldn't photojournalists help their subjects instead of selfishly dramatizing the suffering for the sake of a paycheck?
Let's check the record books...
"Napalm Girl" by Nick Ut, Associated Press
This Pulitzer Prize-winning photo of a girl (Phan Thi Kim Phuc), was taken in Vietnam on June 8, 1972. She was running away from her village after the South Vietnamese forces dropped a napalm bomb on it.
After taking the photograph, Ut took Kim Phuc and the other injured children to Barsky Hospital in Saigon, where doctors said her burns were so severe that she probably would not survive. After a 14-month hospital visit and 17 surgical procedures, Phuc beat the odds and returned home. Ut continued to visit her until he was evacuated during the fall of Saigon.
Today Phuc is a Canadian citizen. Ut still works for the Associated Press and is currently based out of Los Angeles.
Vulture and Kid - by Kevin Carter, Johannesburg Star & NYTimes
Carter photographed this Sudanese boy trying to reach a feeding center when the vulture landed behind the child. It won the Pulitzer Prize in 1994.
This photograph was the source of a lot of controversy about Kevin Carter because he was rumored to have stopped to take the photo and then leave without helping the starving child.
The St. Petersburg Times in Florida said this about Carter: "The man adjusting his lens to take just the right frame of him suffering, might just as well be a predator, another vulture on the scene."
The photo was sold to the New York Times in 1993, and the Times was contacted numerous times about the fate of the boy, to which they truthfully said that they did not know if the child reached the feeding center.
On July 27, 1994, Carter took his own life. His suicide note said: "I am depressed ... without phone ... money for rent ... money for child support ... money for debts ... money!!! ... I am haunted by the vivid memories of killings and corpses and anger and pain ... of starving or wounded children, of trigger-happy madmen, often police, of killer executioners ... I have gone to join Ken (recently deceased colleague Ken Oosterbroek) if I am that lucky."
An alternative account of the scene of this photo was provided by João Silva, a Portuguese photojournalist based out of South Africa, who accompanied Carter to Sudan.
According to Silva, Carter and Silva traveled to Sudan with the United Nations aboard Operation Lifeline Sudan, landing in southern Sudan on March 11, 1993 with only 30 minutes to take photos. Silva went looking for guerrilla fighters, while Carter strayed no more than a few dozen feet from the plane.
After some time, Silva also started to take photos of children on the ground as if crying, which were not published. The parents of the children were busy taking food from the plane, so they had left their children only briefly while they collected the food. This was the situation for the boy in the photo taken by Carter when a vulture landed behind the boy. Carter took a few photos before chasing the bird away.
Is it biased to publish a photo that only shows a portion of the global story?
The short answer is, maybe. But the thing is, even though a photojournalist's goal is to capture the story in one frame, it's not always possible. In the case of Carter's photo, he could have zoomed out to get the adults in the frame as well. Doing so would have probably saved him some controversy, which may or may not have saved his life.
People who argue this were not there when the photo was taken. The fact that the bird flew and landed behind the boy was the story behind the photo. The starving child was lying in a position that even had the bird wondering if the child was deceased. When the adults approached with more food, the bird would have likely flown away.
With all the prestige associated with winning a Pulitzer, how do we know the photos are not staged?
Photojournalists are not allowed to pose an image, add anything to an image, or take anything out of an image after it was taken. That is treated the same as when a reporter knowingly publishes information that is made up.
Even before today, there was always a curiosity about award-winning photos, and whether or not they followed the rules. In fact, this was something that Ut experienced with his photo of Phuc (Napalm Girl). Audio tapes from 1972 reveal that then President Richard Nixon said, "I'm wondering if that was fixed" after seeing the photo.
After discovering that, Ut commented, "Even though it has become one of the most memorable images of the twentieth century, President Nixon once doubted the authenticity of my photograph when he saw it in the papers on 12 June 1972. The picture for me and unquestionably for many others could not have been more real. The photo was as authentic as the Vietnam War itself. The horror of the Vietnam War recorded by me did not have to be fixed. That terrified little girl is alive today and has become an eloquent testimony to the authenticity of that photo. That moment thirty years ago will be one Kim Phuc and I will never forget. It has ultimately changed both our lives."
Raising the American Flag on Iwo Jima by Joe Rosenthal, Associated Press
Rosenthal was standing on Suribachi, a Japanese observation post on Iwo Jima island in World War II when he made this photo and the two that followed it. This image is the most reproduced image in history and won a Pulitzer Prize.
The third photo in the series, depicting 18 Marines smiling and waving under the flag, is what caused accusations that this photograph was staged.
The confusion about Rosenthal's photo stems from a report from Guam, where the reporter asked Rosenthal if his photo was posed. Rosenthal allegedly thought the reporter was referring to the third photo of the 18 men under the flag, which was posed.
Why do photojournalists take images depicting death (taking advantage of victims), in the interest of getting rich and famous?
One of the "Boston Photographs" by Stanley Forman, the Boston Herald American
Stanley Forman documented a young woman and two year old girl falling from this building that was collapsing because of a fire. He won the Pulitzer Prize for it in 1976.
The two-year-old baby survived this fall, but the young woman, the mother, died.
A lot of people say it is unfair to the victims to publish a photo like this, showing the death of the young woman in slow motion. However, it is what actually happened. One argument was that the two-year-old, when older, would be traumatized by this photo, seeing the death of her mother.
Is it necessary to dramatize the death so publicly? It's not for shock value, and Forman didn't take the image in order to become famous. In fact, he happened to be at the scene documenting the fire. He was not expecting, and surely not hoping that such a tragedy as this would happen.
Showing images like this, what actually happened, is important. Without the truth of what happened in an image, how is the average American supposed to take anyone's word for it? The old phrase "pics or it didn't happen" holds true more than ever, especially since we have the tools to show the images.
Conspiracy theories happen if people don't get to see what happened with their own eyes, as is evident by the death of Osama bin Laden, where some Americans now say they don't believe he is dead because they didn't see a photo of him deceased before he was buried at sea.
Showing images of death is not new and not old. In fact, it's been happening the entire time that photojournalism has been a profession.
Monk Sets Himself on Fire - by Malcolm Browne in Saigon, Vietnam 1963
This Buddhist monk lit himself on fire to protest the poor reforms of the South Vietnam government. Browne photographed the monk as he was dying.
Footage of the tornado in Joplin, Missouri in 2011 seems to have cemented the
guidelines of documenting death. That is the first time I can remember as a journalist or consumer of the media's product, when I ever remember it happening. When one of the reporters from The Weather Channel walked over a hill he took a look, and turned to the cameraman. With a tear in his eye he said, "CUT IT NOW!"
It's worth clarifying why he did that. Journalists don't like to announce to a person's family that their loved one has died. Journalists like to wait for the police or other proper authorities to do that first. Nobody wants their first notification to be from national television or from the newspaper; it's just not right. Journalists are human beings and follow guidelines that would be expected of other human beings.
I, along with other photographers, was recently on Billy Wilson's online photography show, featuring horror photographers. Please watch it to learn more about the genre and my inspiration.