Visiting disaster sites

[Frank Petronio]

Taking a page from Frank Gohlke, who photographed tornado damaged communities and Mt. St. Helens post-eruption, what do you folks think of photographing the Gulf Coast and New Orleans?

How would you approach getting there, when would you go, and what about the mechanics of photographing in a post disaster situation?

Reference info:

http://www.frankgohlke.com/
http://www.moma.org/press/gohlke/gohlke_1.html

Photos of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake: http://www.sfmuseum.org/1906/photos.html

[Paul Butzi]

Based on the news footage and photography up on the web out of New Orleans, if you want to photograph in NO, perhaps a shallow draft boat would be in order. A tripod with extra long legs (or leg extensions) will allow you to set up the camera in standing water, although the 8 foot plus depth might make that tough. Maybe just use small format and shoot handheld from the boat.

Working from a helicopter would work, but I suspect every available helicopter is pressed into use by emergency services for the forseeable future.

In areas where you'd be photographing after the waters have receded, a four wheel drive vehicle with good ground clearance and some obvious equipment (e.g. a chain saw) would probably suffice.

I think, if you plan to use small format digital equipment, you had better plan on supplying your own electricity. One of those itty bitty generators would do the trick for running computers, charging batteries, etc. as long as you can get your hands on gasoline.

The bottom line is that all the infrastructure (electricity, communications, roads) you depend on is gone completely or so shattered that you can't depend on having in in any particular place.

[Bruce Watson]

Having lived through hurricanes Fran and Floyd, I suggest you stay home. The last thing those people need is yet another photographer getting in the way and competing for scarce resources.

[Diane Maher]

From what I can tell, they are trying to get everyone out of NO, so they can decide how best to deal with the situation. I'd have to agree with Bruce; it's better if you stay home.

[John Kasaian]

Assuming you can get credentials to be allowed in, I'd guess something like a duece and a half would have the clearance to get you around some of the areas(I'm thinking N.O where there is and probably will be standing water for quite some time.) You'd probably get some really incredible images with aerials as well. As Paul Butzi stated, the rotary wing assets will probably be taken but fixed wing aircraft from outside the area should be available. ou might even be able to hitch a ride with CAP as an observer. While the subject of destruction is certainly important to record, the human tragedy is also important---I'm guessing that there are scores of towns on the outside of Katerina's path that a bulging with refugees. How they are going to be sheltered, fed, and educated(remember the school year just started) is also part of Katerina's legacy. A very sensitive subject, but also an important one.

[tim atherton]

or like Meyerowitz with his "unofficial" extended portrait of the WTC site post 9/11 - which eventually became "official".

You would basically need to be self-sufficient and have the gift of the gab.

One photographer more or less isn't going to make a difference one way or the other - every news vrew under the sun is down there so the rest of America and the world can get its news fix. Maybe the right to vicarious viewing of disasters on TV should be written into the constitution?

[Kevin M Bourque]

Having lived through hurricane Hugo, I can recommend being as sensitive as possible to the people around you, and maybe staying home altogether! I had cameras in my face on two occasions and I got quite irritated the second time. After a day or two people are over the stress of the initial event and start getting very testy because their lives are upside down.

I recall a house (or what was left of one) on Sullivans Island with a bedsheet draped across the front porch. The owners had spray-painted "Gawkers go home" in big red letters. Suffering is tough enough but being a circus exhibit only makes it worse.

You need to have your house blown over to really understand what that's like.

[John Kasaian]

This brings up an interesting point. Disasters like Katerina are really in the provence (literally) of those photographers who live in the area. Frank's comment about the SF earthquake and Tim's reference to 9-11 are great examples. We know there are LF photographers in NO and on the gulf coast. Were they able to 'ride out' Katerina? Did they survive? WQere they able to reenter thier home towns after evacuation? Did they think to(were they able to) take photographs of the disaster? Like Meyerowitz in NYC and those old time photographers in the San Francisco quake, they are the ones who have the opportunity to best put this tragedy on film. Time will tell.

Arrgh! The idea referring to this tragedy as an "opportunity" strikes me as utterly tasteless, but it is Our history---it needs to be documented and photography is/has been the means of doing so since it's inception.

Video is a fine media---the airplanes crashing into the twin towers and the panic in the streets aas the dust clouds blocked out the sun is chilling footage (that needs IMHO, to be seen more) yet a still photograph is something you can hang on your wall and it will tell you something about history, good or bad, 24/7.

[John_4185]

A few of the remarks here are simply impressionistic, uninformed.

Some observations from a former news photographer (me) - Washouts, collapsed roads, exposed infrastructures: Driving inside a flooded area will likely put you into a hole twice as large as your vehicle and then you become part of the problem. Driving through a mildly flooded neighborhood causes waves that the citizens won't appreciate - in the right area a citizen is likely to shoot your ass for that. Besides, you won't find any gas in NO. You will have to have enough to get in and out. Way out.

[John Flavell]

Some observations from a current news photographer (me). Stay home. Those photojournalists who are there are credentialed and have worked out ways to do their jobs within the confines of the disaster. Most are from there and they are covering their neighbors, friends and loved ones dealing with it. Many are from the wire services and national publications and have vast experience working in war zones and disaster zones. Look at some of the Associated Press photographers' names, for example, and you'll see the same names from the Iraq war. They know what they're doing.

If you must go there for photographs, wait. The best documentary photographers are waiting. They're letting the initial disaster pass. They'll move into the area with experience and, most importantly, the ability to show respect and dignity to a population who are now reguees. They won't brandish more camera equiment than the B&H showroom. They won't put their careers above the victims.

They don't go there looking for pictures. They go there to use their pictures to tell a terrible story. Please understand the difference.

[darr]

I live in Homestead, Florida and our power, water and telephone has finally been restored. It was out for only six days. We still have trees and telephone poles down and standing water, but we are VERY LUCKY compared to our neighbors in the area and to the east. My advice to anyone wanting to come here or to New Orleans, etc. to photograph the disaster caused by Katrina is to "Stay Away!" Most people I see are tired, upset and some are very angry. Not a place I would venture into if I did not live here. We have a considerable amount of damage to our property, but we are not sick or hurt; we are very thankful!!

[Calamity Jane]

I will echo the advice STAY AWAY!

I have been in disaster areas, helping with cleanup, sandbagging, etc., and I can tell you that a person walking around with a camera and not contibuting to the immediate relief will be VERY unwelcome! Open hostility would be VERY likely.

Then there is the issue of the "authorities" - they have their hands full and do not need another body to shepherd around. With the looting that has happened, just walking around with a camera (without official credentials) could well get you arrested.

As to over-flying the area, I would be very surprised if the airspace has not been closed to all except relief traffic.

What the people on the coast are facing today deserves respect and that means stay out of the way unless you're prepared to pitch in and help.

[Paddy Quinn]

of course, every up and coming news photographer and photojournalist who wan'ts to make a nmae for themselves and can commandeer some transport is also making their way down there - as did many of the well known "names" of today - stills, print or TV. Hitching a ride to a war zone or disaster. As much as it is about telling the story (and often very well told), it's also very much about careers.

[Scott Rosenberg]

stay home, Stay Home, STAY HOME!

as someone who lived through the Hurricane Andrew disaster and clean-up, the last thing they need in NO right now is another person fumbling around that is not involved with the rescue efforts. if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. since i'm assuming you have nothing to offer in that regard and are only going down there to take pictures, you would most assuredly be part of the problem.

[Michael J. Kravit]

As part of a damage assessment team during hurricane Andrew my suggestion would be to stay away from New Orleans and the surrounding states.

Conditions are tenuous, people will become very depressed and desparate as time goes on. Water, Ice, food and other basic necessities will be in short supply.

No to sound crude, but the last thing these people need is you running around taking photos.
Stay home and send money to the Red Cross.

[Frank Petronio]

The responses are interesting. I wonder if my name was "James Nachtwey" or "Joel Meyerowitz" rather than "Frank Petronio" if it would have been more acceptable with many of you to go to New Orleans...

I also have to wonder what things would be like if photographers didn't photograph the Civil Rights Movement in the early 60s, or the Vietnam War; or the African famines. Or any war for that matter, going back to Fenton and O'Sullivan. Certainly the photographers interfere with the people and consume resources (especially in a famine). And I bet Dorthea Lange met more than a few impoverished, humilated Okies who didn't want their shabby visages photographed either. She probably didn't get beat up because she was a woman, but given that she was an upper middle class professional, they probably didn't like her much.

But maybe those photos never really mattered. Afterall, Ansel Adams was off photographing rocks and trees during the depression and run-up to WW2 and maybe you think his photos really are more important than Capa's, the WPA, and all those nosey LIFE photographers.

I also have to wonder about using a hand camera instead of a large format camera. The whole point would be to capture images that the hundreds of press photographers won't because they likely aren't thinking in the same terms that a large format photographer might. Even if that means you don't get hundreds of shots.

It's all hypothetical of course. I don't have the cojones, selfishness, or the stupidity to venture south until things settle down in a few weeks. I do agree that right now is inappropriate and my presence would have a human cost. But for several months there should still be interesting photos to make, and by that time I should be able to get around without getting shot (at least as long as I don't run into some of you guys!)

[Jonathan Brewer]

The eternal paradox..............................being there/having to be there to get the story or shot, telling a story without using a crisis to achieve a selfish agenda at the cost human suffering. I was watching TV when Oswald was 'silenced' after he shot Kennedy(although I'm not too sure about that).

I watched Shepard on top of a crude rocket along w/everybody else, wondering if he was gonna get blown up, or take America into space for the first time, saw the picture in the paper Adams shot of the Vietnamese official shooting a prisoner in the head.

The one thing that galvanized me the most, made the hairs on the back of my head stand up, was the video taken by the Docter who was at the bottom of the World Trade Center, at the very moment it came down, he was sure he was watching and taping his own death, incredibly he survives, and then is lost in a dense and black fog, it looked like the bottom of hell,.........................his luckily coming upon a fireman w/oxygen,........................and asking for a 'toot' of oxygen so that he could keep breathing................................that video was priceless in terms of what it was like to go through that ordeal, and the heroism of the doctor, the moment was pure because I watched it knowing he wasn't a reporter playing it for all it was worth to boost his career.

What was more heroic about him was the fact that he wasn't looking for a story, he was the story, I guess there will always be someone there to tell the story, I wonder where the line ends in the need to tell a story for the benefit of the rest of us, and the line begins w/self promotion, can you seperate them at all?

[Roger Richards]

John Flavell has it just right. It would be best for those not working for a news organization to stay out of the area now. My paper has a photographer/writer team enroute, because much of the rescue ops will be done by folks from our area . Jonathan, most of the best photojournalists do not do it for the money or the adulation..there is very little of both to go around, and those who do soon find another way to earn a living.

Frank, to earn the rep that Jim Nachtwey has is at a cost to him that no one else can possibly calculate. The price he has paid, many times over, is why he can do what he does. The seasoned photojournalist knows when it is appropriate to make pictures, and when to just fade into the background. You have a great point about using LF to document another side of what is being recorded by most photographers now. Still, I believe that it would require someone with a lot of experience, luck, resources and people skills to pull it off at this present moment. I know several of the folks on scene and they are not rookies.

[Brian C. Miller]

For something like this, me, I'd wait until the water drained and the electricity was back on all over. They won't be razing all the damage within a couple of weeks, or maybe months. There will be plenty to photograph after everyone has calmed down.

From what I saw on the news this morning, things aren't going to be like they were for a very long time. I remember driving across some of the bridges that are now missing. That's going to take a long time to restore. There's going to be lots of devastation to photograph for some time.

[QT Luong]

Photojournalism is often about photographing people that are miserable. People that are miserable often don't like to be photographed. Yet I don't really see a general condemnation of photojournalism. Could it be the fact that the victims are, this time, American strike a particular chord with the American readership on this forum ?

[darr]

Wow QT what a comment. How would an American that has been subjected to the wrath of Katrina respond to your query?

I'm down here in Homestead Florida feeling pretty darn thankful for our small loses to Katrina after I viewed the television coverage of New Orleans, Mississippi, etc. I did hear some incredible comments given by an interviewer from Europe on the Fox News today say that a lot of Europeans think Americans deserve this disaster because of global warming and something about Americans having three cars to a household.

I know being an American is not as popular as it use to be (more popular during/after WWI and WWII), but if a photographer would come to Homestead Florida to photograph the three car homes I would gladly drive them through this lovely community to search for such a windfall. It doesn't exist here!

Like a lot of America today, Homestead Florida is economically in the dumps and full of immigrants. Most of the immigrants are here illegally at the mercy of the so-called greedy hard working American who pays his taxes to support them and their families. I could get into this, but then I would probably appall so many forum readers you would delete this message.

Instead of photographing three car homes, right now the picture where I am at is one of incredible stench. I am lucky enough to live on the rural side of Homestead where the horses, cows, goats, chickens and lots of stray dogs usually live. Unfortunately a lot of those animals are laying out in the fields and side of roads, bloated and very dead. I see great pictures of an American tragedy, but then you suggest it probably is only being thrown out on this forum by Americans because we are very close to it and not just on the other side of the TV screen. Well I do not think it is a bad thing to talk about it. It may actually help someone who is depressed over the scene just to know that others shed some sympathy and compassion their way.

“Could it be the fact that the victims are, this time, American strike a particular chord with the American readership on this forum?”

I think the recent financial aid and services donated by America and her hard working people speak to how American’s respond to tragedies globally. This response is not intended to inflame anyone, but your query is questionable to me, but I do not know how the forum readership went when other natural disasters happened abroad and/or nationally in the U.S.

Give cash to the <font color=red>American Red Cross</font color> just as you did for the tsunami tragedy!

Darlene

[Jonathan Brewer]

'Jonathan, most of the best photojournalists do not do it for the money or the adulation..there is very little of both to go around, and those who do soon find another way to earn a living.'......................................................................I certainly agree, but that goes for anybody who wants to do anything who is in fact sincere..................keyword in what you said involves 'the best' of the photojournalists which doesn't cover them all, I watched what I always thought was the best of journalism, 'Frontline', because when they interviewed somebody you usually didn't see the interviewer, so there was no cult of personality only the story, then again, 'making a name for yourself' IS part of the equation or how else do your get the credibility and the job?

My point is that there's been several references to 'people who know what they're doing', at some point they didn't know what they were doing, they had to learn, who then subsequently gave them the right/permission to here/there/anywhere where the story is and not someone else?

We went through this with the second gulf war, it was well chronicled how some of these freelance folks got killed trying to do this, one of these was a photographer on the 'fringe' who paid his way down there to get that 'seminal' image that stamp him with legitimacy because he didn't have the contacts or whatever, there are probably countless journalism/photojournalism students out there that will NEVER get a job in their chosen field, I think the process of selection is pretty much arbitrary.

My point is that I agree w/you that the best folks doing anything don't do it for the money, but then again how do you stand out to get the job, and how do you stand out to get the job w/o being a 'self promoter'?

Thinking about what Darlene said, it struck me that RIGHT AFTER 911, EVERYBODY felt our pain, many from other countries said 'WE ARE ALL AMERICANS', in reaction to the terrorist attacks.....................................decisions and subsequent events AFTER 911 changed things, and this was sad.

[Rainer]

"I did hear some incredible comments given by an interviewer from Europe on the Fox News today say that a lot of Europeans think Americans deserve this disaster because of global warming and something about Americans having three cars to a household"

Just let me say, that an overwhelming majority of Europeans definetly does NOT think like this!

Yes, you are responsible for environmental pollution and global warming, but so are we in Europe!

As much as I´ve seen on Fox and their way of doing "journalism" (if you want to call it so), i suspect they are even looking for people to bring up antiamerican slogans ... which results in anti-european slogans on the other side. That´s the way the media machinery works nowadays ...

[Roger Richards]

Jonathan, I totally agree with you on Frontline being an example of excellent journalism. Also, young photographers will always try to break in to the business and create a name for themselves by just showing up. usually there are many of them who do. The vast majority soon realize that they are in over their heads, and that the 'glamor' is just a myth. Over the years, in many a nasty situation, I have seen this personally.

One example. In December 1992, the Serbs had a total stranglehold on Sarajevo; no UN aircraft were flying into or out of the city because one had been shot down by a SAM a couple of months before. The only way in was by road through Serb checkpoints, and then through open 'free-fire' territory. On the outskirts of the city, in a town called Kiseljak, I ran into a couple of Japanese journalists, a reporter and photographer from Asahi Shimbun, who were attempting to get into the city. There was heavy bombardment, so it was a no-go for anyone that day, even the UN aid convoys. I was going to make the attempt the following morning. I realized that these two guys were totally green, and were likely to get into trouble. They had been in Italy for an assignment and decided to go 'visit' the war to see for themselves what was going on. Anyway, I took them under my wing and we made it into Sarajevo the next day. The following day, a Sunday, only hours after we entered, they both cracked when heavy shelling started. I had to find a sympathetic Canadian officer attached to the UN who arranged for me to have them evacuated in an armored personnel carrier. They had almost too late realized that war was not a party when metal begins singing through the air.

The young photographer you mention was Gad Gross, a very talented Harvard grad working for JB Pictures, and he got killed because of inexperience. He was working with my agency colleague, Gamma photographer Alain Buu, and someone else with a group of Kurdish resistance fighters when they were overwhelmed by Saddam's soldiers. Alain and the other journalist disassociated themselves from the Kurds, while Gad Gross stayed with them as they tried to escape. Saddam's guys caught them and shot them all. Alain was captured and then released.
One bad decision, and bad luck, no second chance. The majority of journalists killed in war are either very inexperienced or those who stick around in the profession too long.

All this said, I believe that what has happened on the Gulf Coast is a significant historical event. A dedicated LF photographer's documenation of it would be thanked by history, IMHO.

[Brian C. Miller]

QT, I don't think that its about photojournalism, its about an amateur photographer going in with only personal support into the immediate aftermath of a major disaster. I have seen (we all have seen, haven't we?) incredible photographs of the devistation. These photographs come from news crews which have lots of underlying support from major networks, etc. I have been reading reports of gunfire, and mentioned in one article is that a supply truck was hijacked by gunmen. Going in right now is a bad idea. Visiting in a month or two is a much better idea.

[Oren Grad]

But photojournalism is changing, too. With digital P&S cameras of decent quality now ubiquitous, an increasing amount of on-the-spot documentation is coming from amateurs who happen to be there, much more than used to be the case when you could only work with a film camera. Yes, a lot of it is junk, but there's also lots of really good stuff being created by local people who are by definition not at all out of place. How this flood of pictures will get sorted into a systematic historical record remains to be seen, but it's no longer the case that if the "pros" didn't come riding in, there would be no record to speak of.

As for artsy LF documentation by outsiders, it needs to wait until the crisis is past, just like other private indulgences.

[Ed Richards]

I live in Baton Rouge, where we are staging the rescue effort for NO. They are doing their best to clear out the city and have ejected as many news photographs as they can. This is due to the looting and I also suspect because they are parnoid about the coverage, but the reason does not much matter. While I would love to be down there doing LF, the odds of getting mugged by an armed gang are good, and the odds of getting run off by a guardsman, maybe without getting to grab your stuff, are better. They threw the parish president (county commissioner) out of his own parish!

[John Cook]

I would be interested in seeing this thread take a different tack away from the logistics and danger of travel and the nuisance factor of the photographer (all excellent points) to the anticipated visual content of the large format images which might be sought or obtained.

Traditional LF documentation of the civil war seems to concentrate on dead soldiers arranged around the battlefield. (Some, it is alleged, by the photographer to enhance his composition.)

The dust bowl images I recall are largely quiet, passive, sad portraits of destitute shack-dwellers.

But as this is written, the television images I am seeing show a lot of action. Things which are perhaps better photographed with handheld digital or pushed film, as with a wartime firefight in action.

It may be that the images from the past were made after the main action settled down. Or it may be that modern technology has allowed a different sort of news coverage.

We have excellent “big picture” overview documentation from satellites. Lots of medium-distance telephoto video “fly-bys” from helicopters. And “in-your-face” video and 35mm images of poignant moments from photojournalists on the ground.

Supposing for a moment that we were welcome by everybody and had all the logistical resources required, what sort of images would be on the “shot wish-list” for slow and careful photography in 8x10 or ULF?

[GPS]

The thing is in fact very easy - someone who asks so "green" questions has nothing to do there at this time.

[Paddy Quinn]

"I would be interested in seeing this thread take a different tack away from
the logistics and danger of travel and the nuisance factor of the
photographer (all excellent points) to the anticipated visual content of
the large format images which might be sought or obtained."

one aspect is the fact that this isn't exactly a "natural" disaster - it is in large part man made and was predicted.

Even National Geographic - usually sleepy and irrelevant - got it (read their worse case scenario in the first few paras: http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0410/feature5/ )

FEMA studies in 2001 listed it as one of the top three potential disasters in the US (along with a terror attack on NY city). The US Army Corps of Engineers had it funding for expanding protection of New Orleans from flooding cut by 44% (said funding apparently diverted to Iraq), as well as their study of flooding following a disaster scrapped last year. Finally, the ban on developing the wetlands around New Orleans was lifted by the Administration in 2003. The wetlands provide the flooding buffer for the city - developing them reduces that buffer dramatically.

The New Orleans Times-Picayune, headline online was: "No one can say they didn't see it coming ..."

Story:
"No one can say they didn't see it coming":

http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2005/08/31/disaster_preparation/index.html

So finding a way to photogrpah some of that back story seems very suited to LF, as well as the general aftermath?

[John Flavell]

What we have in New Orleans is The World Trade Center in slow motion. I agree with Roger Richards that a dedicated LF photographer documenting the siuation would be appreciated. In the context of his writing, he's also pushing for experience. This is now a multi-year situation. As with Roger's example of the Sarajevo situation, the gulf coast will take a long time to recover. There are still documentary photographers working on the Sarajevo story. Ten years from now, we'll be looking at new work from the gulf coast. For the moment, the time being, it's being covered as an ongoing story. Soon, hopefully, the documentary work will reveal the deeper stories of people and place/ loss of people and loss of place. This is where the LF photographer can best get to the grit of the aftermath. There will be thousands of stories to tell.

To further push aside the idea of glory during a situation such as this: My company owns several gulf coast newspapers between New Orleans and Biloxi. We haven't heard from some of those people. There is no glory there.

[Ed Richards]

Here would be my targets if I could get in:

The downed oaks on Jackson Square around the statutes.

The drowned historic homes.

Vistas of the flooded parks and the Quarter

Basically, the same shots I would do as a landscape/architectuaral photographer, but now with the destruction. NO is well documented in LF, this would be a terrific/terrible addition to that record. The stuff that can be done with digital and 35mm is being done, so a LF photographer should concentrate on the images where LF excels.

(I had my plans all lined out as I was weathering the storm, but once I saw what was going on in NO, I put the gear back in the trunk.)

[Roger Richards]

John Flavell has hit the nail bang on the head. Unless one is working as a news photographer it would be best to stay out of the area. Once things 'stabilize' then long term photo documentary work should begin. It will still require an experienced hand, as dealing with people grieving the losss of lives and livelihood is also really traumatic for a sensitive photographer.

[Jonathan Brewer]

The moment that is stuck in my head about New Orleans was the on the air 'interview' one TV anchor had by cell phone with a woman who was trapped in her attic along w/her 70something mother and kids, she gives her address over the air and the anchor promises to pass it along to the authorities, that along w/the tape of the 3 poorest excuses for humanity I've seen that looted the shoe store, I can see folks thirsty and hungry busting open a supermarket to get something to eat, that's not criminal, that's survival, but amidst all this, looting a shoe store? Three woman willing to paste their faces on national TV without shame and there so their kids and their kids kids to watch in shame, all for some shoes.

These tragedies always bring out the worst, and the best of what's in us, I hope the story brings out the people to get rid of, who could've implemented measures to avoid this, and the story of the heroes and heroines who always rise up to help others in a crisis.

[darr]

To my friend Rainer,

Thank you for your response. I certainly do not think all Europeans hate Americans! Heck between my husband and myself, our genes qualify for a seat on the EU. I was just letting off some "storm steam" if I may. I wanted to voice the ridiculousness that I have felt through the TV News, be it Fox or others. On a personal note that will irritate a few: I love Europeans; its MALE Hispanics I find difficult to deal with at times. I can say that ... my maiden name is Almeda!

Kind regards,
Darlene

[darr]

"These tragedies always bring out the worst, and the best of what's
in us, I hope the story brings out the people to get rid of, who could've
implemented measures to avoid this, and the story of the heroes and
heroines who always rise up to help others in a crisis."

Get rid of Congress! It was they that decided to spend the money on the Category Three Hurricane Disaster Prevention Plan over the recommended Category Five Plan the Army Corps of Engineers petitioned for when it came to the New Orleans levy infrastructure! Seems they feel it is more important to spend money on community programs that amount to nothing except pork spending to keep their jobs.

[Ed Richards]

This really does not belong on the list. We have all the speculation we need already down here.

[Frank Petronio]

Just an aside, but it is amazing how quickly the media has ordained that the global warming superstition is the cause of the disaster. And that the USA and President Bush are at fault.

Boy, those Southeast Asians must have been really bad people to get their Tunsami...

[mark blackman]

Go there and shoot, Frank. Your photos will record your memory of the place, not one steered by biased news-gathering services whose desire is to deliver profits.

Be prepared & take enough stuff so you don't drain limited local resources and have enough to give to those who need. It will be risky for you, understand that and take that risk - don't add to rescue-worker's burden.

[Paddy Quinn]

"Just an aside, but it is amazing how quickly the media has ordained that the global warming superstition is the cause of the disaster. And that the USA and President Bush are at fault. "

And here I thought it was cutting the budget of the US Army Corps of Engineers almost in half so they could only protect against a Class 3 and not a class 5 hurricane.

That and lifting the moratorium on commercial development of the protective wetlands around N.O.

"Every two miles of wetland between the Crescent City and the Gulf reduces a surge by half a foot. Bush had promised "no net loss" of wetlands, a policy launched by his father's administration and bolstered by President Clinton. But he reversed his approach in 2003, unleashing the developers."

Build condos and housing developmentss on the wetlands and you remove the flood protection buffer they provide

This was written last October:

"It was a broiling August afternoon in New Orleans, Louisiana, the Big Easy, the City That Care Forgot. Those who ventured outside moved as if they were swimming in tupelo honey. Those inside paid silent homage to the man who invented air-conditioning as they watched TV "storm teams" warn of a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico. Nothing surprising there: Hurricanes in August are as much a part of life in this town as hangovers on Ash Wednesday.

But the next day the storm gathered steam and drew a bead on the city. As the whirling maelstrom approached the coast, more than a million people evacuated to higher ground. Some 200,000 remained, however—the car-less, the homeless, the aged and infirm, and those die-hard New Orleanians who look for any excuse to throw a party.

The storm hit Breton Sound with the fury of a nuclear warhead, pushing a deadly storm surge into Lake Pontchartrain. The water crept to the top of the massive berm that holds back the lake and then spilled over. Nearly 80 percent of New Orleans lies below sea level—more than eight feet below in places—so the water poured in. A liquid brown wall washed over the brick ranch homes of Gentilly, over the clapboard houses of the Ninth Ward, over the white-columned porches of the Garden District, until it raced through the bars and strip joints on Bourbon Street like the pale rider of the Apocalypse. As it reached 25 feet (eight meters) over parts of the city, people climbed onto roofs to escape it.

Thousands drowned in the murky brew that was soon contaminated by sewage and industrial waste. Thousands more who survived the flood later perished from dehydration and disease as they waited to be rescued. It took two months to pump the city dry, and by then the Big Easy was buried under a blanket of putrid sediment, a million people were homeless, and 50,000 were dead. It was the worst natural disaster in the history of the United States.

When did this calamity happen? It hasn't—yet. But the doomsday scenario is not far-fetched. The Federal Emergency Management Agency lists a hurricane strike on New Orleans as one of the most dire threats to the nation, up there with a large earthquake in California or a terrorist attack on New York City. Even the Red Cross no longer opens hurricane shelters in the city, claiming the risk to its workers is too great." :

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0410/feature5/

[darr]

Thank you Frank! You made my day and I really appreciate that!

Have a good one!

[Paul Butzi]

So, Paddy, where do you hail from?

[Paddy Quinn]

originally? Tanganyika

[Paul Butzi]

So you're a UK citizen, then? Or Tanzanian?

[Terence McDonagh]

I myself would stay away out of self interest. But there are undoubtably career making shots to be made there. I think QT Luong is probably closest to the truth.

Which is worse? Someone making the photographs for money or someone making the photographs for the love of the image?

Photojournalism is no more needed in the disaster area than an amatuer. I can hear people saying, "But the people need to see what's going on there." No. They don't. When I'm told New Orleans is 80% flooded and 500,000 people have been (or are being) evactuated, I know exactly what is going on there. All the PJ shots I've seen are purely showing the dramatic to satisfy the prurient (myself included).

As a structural engineer I'm itching to see the damage to buildings and houses. From these my industry will (hopefully) learn how to better deal with such events. These are important images that in the long run will have a bigger impact than a shot of another person sitting on their roof, and they will be made. But it's not what is being photographed by the "pro's". They are not doing something "necessary". Their presence will not save another life any more than the presence of any other compassionate person.

To say the field should be limited to PJ's because they have the experience is pure hogwash. It's the old conundrum of not being able to get a job, where you would get experience, because you don't have experience.

As an aside, the idea of living below sea level next to the sea always seemed like a truly BAD idea to me. Many an engineer (and others) should realize that just because we can does not mean that we should.

[Paddy Quinn]

actually dual British and US (took out the US when I lived in Calfornia) if you really need to know. What the bug in your butt there Paul?

[Paul Butzi]

What the bug in your butt there Paul?

No bug. Just curious. I take it you no longer live in the US then?

[Paddy Quinn]

this was sent to me by a good frined from NO whose home is now under water (says he just watched news footage of a bodies washing down his street) and who escaped north and is now with friends across in Texas.

He's furious about both the highly disorganised response and lack of resources, as well as the well known problems that led up to it. He normally works at the Times-Picayune. He points out they had been raising these issues for months and people in N.O. have been well aware of the problems:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001051313

[Terence McDonagh]

The problem is not the lack of funding. The problem is people building in untenable locations. Year after year the U.S. spends hundreds of millions of dollars to replace beach sand lost to erosion in order to "protect" waterfront housing. It's like trying to stop gravity. Until a law is created that you can only rebuild once in a flood zone, etc. we'll be going through "natural" disasters like this.

In all honesty, rebuilding New Orleans as it was will be a tremendous waste of money in the long run. I know it's impossible to decide where to draw such a line, but building a city below sea level next to the sea is probably a good place to start. You'll notice that the oldest parts of town are the highest. Maybe there's a reason. "Reclaiming" land from nature is a good way to learn it's not reclaiming. It's borrowing. I'm sure this event will spark a huge discussion in the engineering field of the ethics of such construction. Now if we can only get everybody to understand that designing for a "100-year storm" means that in any given year there's a 1 in 100 chance such a thing will happen (I'm sure I'll hear from the statisticians on my math). Not such good odds when you think about it.

[Roger Richards]

"Which is worse? Someone making the photographs for money or someone making the photographs for the love of the image?" --Terence

So very big of you to look down your nose at the work of photojournalists, many of whom are risking their lives, willingly, in order to bring news of what is taking place in the world. I have yet to meet anyone in the profession who does it for money. I have lost several colleagues in the field who were killed performing their duties, and none of it was for cash. Unlike what some of you might think most soldiers in the field often are very surprised and happy to have someone there to tell it like it is. I suggest you speak of what you know instead of throwing around generalizations. Just like the folks who characterize photographers and others in the media as being soft, liberal and well-meaning morons who nevertheless have no idea of the 'real world'. Not to say that there are not any of the afore-mentioned types. Often professional photojournalists who spend a lot of time in conflict or disaster areas have more war and tough experience than soldiers around them. I know this to be a fact.

"To say the field should be limited to PJ's because they have the experience is pure hogwash. It's the old conundrum of not being able to get a job, where you would get experience, because you don't have experience. "--Terence

Absolutely not. You pays yer money, you takes yer chances. If someone decides to enter a disaster or conflict zone in order to make compelling photos, good on them, if they have the guts, skills and instincts and of course luck, to pull it off, then I am all for it. For folks who happen to be there when something dramatic happens and can make a great photo, way to go! A great photo is a great photo, no matter who made it. To do it year in and year out at consistently high levels is another thing completely.

By the way, when you think back to historic images of WWII, Vietnam or 9/11, what comes to mind? Is it happy snaps by non-pros? Or is it by and large the work of the photojournalists who were there, like Bill Biggart who kept shooting as the second tower fell and killed him?

Perhaps you should stick to speaking about engineering?

[Frank Petronio]

I read that when the French were setting up New Orleans, their engineers told the commander that it was a lousy location because of the swamp, elevation, lake, river, etc. but they built there anyway.

Like most screwed up situations, we can blame it on the French. I'm sending this tidbit on to FOX News next...

[tim atherton]

"I read that when the French were setting up New Orleans, their engineers told the commander that it was a lousy location because of the swamp, elevation, lake, river, etc. but they built there anyway.
Like most screwed up situations, we can blame it on the French. I'm sending this tidbit on to FOX News next..."

But just like Ebay, they sold it to the first gullible buyer to come along... :-)

[tim atherton]

"I myself would stay away out of self interest. But there are undoubtably career making shots to be made there. I think QT Luong is probably closest to the truth.
Which is worse? Someone making the photographs for money or someone making the photographs for the love of the image?

Photojournalism is no more needed in the disaster area than an amatuer. I can hear people saying, "But the people need to see what's going on there." No. They don't. When I'm told New Orleans is 80% flooded and 500,000 people have been (or are being) evactuated, I know exactly what is going on there. All the PJ shots I've seen are purely showing the dramatic to satisfy the prurient (myself included). "

I'd have to agree (even having worked as a photojournalist, including the aftermath of Hurricane Mitch in Nicaragua and working in N.I.). Nobody actually needs the wall to wall coverage of dozens of different TV stations, newspapers and magazines we are and will continue to be getting from New Orleans. - it's a luxury we can most of us (apart from the poor souls stuck there) enjoy from our armchairs.

We all basically know what we need to know already - after that all the rest is really sophisticated rubbernecking. "Telling peoples stories" etc makes no real difference one way or another - it can be nice and heartening (or depressing - depending on the story) to know - but that's about it really.

We don't need "great pictures" of these tragedies - but we seem to enjoy the vicarious and somewhat voyeuristic experience of consuming them, but lets not pretend they are somehow essential to our existence and lives. In the majority of cases simple radio report, for example, would provide most of what we need to know to make some kinds of informed decisions.

Now, I'm all for great, meaningful photographs - even of such circumstances as New Orleans - but lets not pretend that making them is some kind of noble and all important mission

[Roger Richards]

I totally agree that the wall-to-wall coverage that happens with most news events these days is overkill. But there are still places where the presence of a dedicated journalist can bring to light things that need to be seen and known by the general public. For example, an intrepid BBC-TV journalist made her way into Niger a couple of weeks ago at considerable risk. Her reports on the suffering helped bring aid to a place that was totally off the radar. There is an inherent nobility in that.

What I object to is the characterization of people in the profession as doing it primarily for the money, which is totally inaccurate. Maybe you did not read into the stereotypes which were being thrown out, such as anyone with a camera and on the spot can make great photos. Granted, the technical hurdles that once got in the way are mainly overcome. But that is no replacement for having an 'eye'.

[Jonathan Brewer]

Cheers are in order for a young Afican American name 'Wordell'(I don't know if I have his name right), and several loving mothers, during the flooding many mothers could not fit in the one boat available to them so it was either them or their children, they put 18 infants and small children in the boat and entreated Wordell to save them, Wordell rowed them to safety.

I agree about not needing to watch anymore suffering, I would like answers, and wish they would confront some of the authorities about why, what, and where, and stories of people helping people.

[Frank Petronio]

Jesse Jackson is now talking to Larry King from New Orleans. If he can go, you should be able to go...

[Terence McDonagh]

Mr. Richards,
I apologize if you took my comments for belittling the photojournalist’s profession. That was not my intention.

An above post more eloquently states what I was trying to say. By definition, as a professional, photojournalists are doing it for the money. Nobility ends when you pick up the paycheck. Doctors perform an important service. When they are performing a service for a fee that is not noble. If they perform services pro bono (for other than tax purposes) that is noble. As an engineer I could easily go work in the financial field and make much more money with the same skill set. My work carries an enormous responsibility to the public. I stay with the profession because I love it. Is it noble? No. I perform a service for a fee. It’s a profession. If I dropped out of the field tomorrow there are plenty of folks to take my spot.

The photojournalist takes pictures as a profession. Is he a better photographer than amateur photographers? Maybe. He has more practice than most amateurs and may have a “good eye” for marketable photos if he is to succeed. But are his photos “better” than what lots of the LF users here produce? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I’ve certainly seen plenty of mediocre shots in even the top papers. As with photography in general (including my own) I often see clichéd photos. Do they resonate? Maybe. But they are still clichéd.

There’s certainly a place for photojournalism, but let’s not make it more than it is. The folks on the Gulf Coast are begging for water, food, shelter, etc. They may want people to know about their plight, but I have yet to see one saying, “Take my picture.”

And no, I don’t think my amateur attempts at photography are noble either.

[tim atherton]

from Don Winslow at the NPPA:

Subject: Photojournalists Covering Katrina Fall Victim To Growing
Violence, Chaos
Importance: High

Full Story Online At:
http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2005/09/hurricane2.html

Photojournalists Covering Katrina Fall Victim To Growing Violence, Chaos

AUSTIN, TX (September 1, 2005) * As photojournalists continue to document
the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina¹s violent assault on the Gulf Coast,
today they also found themselves documenting new violence and death among
the survivors, the refugees, and the looters and police and rescuers in New
Orleans, while some photojournalists even fell victim to the violence
themselves.

Two veteran photojournalists - NPPA member Rick Wilking of Reuters and
Getty's Mark Wilson - were robbed of cameras and computer equipment today
while on assignment in a neighborhood in New Orleans, and a photojournalist
and a reporter were confronted at gunpoint and slammed against a wall by
police following a shoot-out between looters and cops that left at least one
person dead.

Another photojournalist - Lucas Oleniuk of the Toronto Star - was knocked to
the ground by police, his gear taken from him initially, when he
photographed them shooting at looters and then beating one. A New York Times
photojournalist and Times-Picayune reporter Gordon Russell were slammed into
a wall by police at gunpoint after they witnessed a shoot-out between cops
and looters that left at least one person dead.

In response to the growing violence and an increasing sense of despair among
the stranded survivors, some television networks have hired armed private
security firms to protect their journalists as they work to cover the story.

Full Story Online At:
http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2005/09/hurricane2.html

[Roger Richards]

Terence, if you had no intention of belittling my profession, then really your apology is unnecessary. I understand your point.

The thing is, any profession can be a noble one. The purpose above all is what matters. Personally, what I believe made me able to live with myself and continue to do what my Dad said matters most, to look oneself in the mirror with a clean heart, was because I truly showed up with a camera at these places with people in terrible straits because my motive was pure.....to show what was taking place. If I felt that I was crossing the line I had set for myself I pulled back. I have to earn a living, so I got paid for the job, but not as much as some would believe or anywhere near the price I have paid in other ways. Not to say that there are not some who do it for the thrill; but never usually for money. It is as someone said, not usually a great way to earn a living but offering instead a great life. I am no saint, done my share of stupid things. But I have always been proud of what I have done as a photojournalist. I no longer do that kind of crazy work, not fair to my wife and children once they came along.

As for the definition of amateur photographer and professional, I know many pros who are not very good and many so-called amateurs who are great photographers. Makes no difference to me what they call who made the shot if it is exceptional. There are many people on the LF board, amateurs some of them, whose work I admire tremendously, and that is why I come here, to learn to be a better LF photographer. Much of the stuff in newspapers is really cliched, as you said. What happens is that only really visually progressive publications run the very good stuff. It is like shorthand to use cliche shots. The main reason is simplicity; the image is the same but the faces are different. It is like a formula. Very boring.

Tim, thanks for posting that note from Don Winslow. I am an NPPA member, and Mark Wilson is an old friend. Hope they are not in too bad shape.

[John Flavell]

I think the orginal question from Frank in this thread now has a concrete answer. In fact, it's far worse on the victims and the photojournalists who are there than we first thought or could have predicted. This is not an "I told you so" message. In fact, I'm stunned it's worse than we thought.

Having said that, I'd like to suggest to Frank that this situation has made him think which is a rare gift even to some of the most talented photographers. The disaster has sparked his drive to go do something photographically. Perhaps something more local to him, something not as obvious, something he'd have all to himself is available to him as a project. I'd hate to think we've slammed the drive along with the idea of going to New Orleans. That would be a sin by those of us in this business and I'm compelled apologize to Frank for jumping on his idea without appreciating the motivating desire.

Those people above who are saying they don't need to see more sufferening are today seeing the results of those pictures being shown. The government officials are saying one thing on the tv screen, and the split screen shows us images that refute what is being said. This is purpose of thsoe images. People are suffering. The officials, as we have seen through the images, were not prepared and they themselves clearly didn't understand the the extent of the suffering.

The images are driving the kickstart of the response. Those purpose of the images it clear.

[John Flavell]

Sorry, I hate screwing up profound statemenets

The purpose of the images is clear.

[Roger Richards]

I had decided to not post anymore on this subject as regretfully it had strayed a bit into something else. There is a danger of seeming to take oneself too seriously, and pontificating from a high horse in a self-serving manner. But I just want to say that John Flavell's comment is very appreciated. Fact is, the best photojournalists do not take themselves seriously. They do take the work seriously, though. There is an incredible responsibility and gravity when one is faced with a situation where people are dying and you are being implored to bear witness and communicate it to others. Unless you have faced this it can never be explained. I read of many young photographers eager to get to the area who see this as a chance to make great images that will boost their careers. I guarantee you this: the ones who do get there will be changed. Either they continue to do it for different reasons or they are so shattered by the reality they have seen that they do something else in photography. That is why there is truly only a small cadre of photographers who document conflicts in the world. It culls the ranks by attrition.

On the other hand, go for it, Frank, if you feel compelled. Just be aware of what you are going into. Perhaps it would be more prudent to wait until things are more under control, but that is a personal decision. I believe the situation to come in the weeks and months ahead, without the fires and gunshots, will be dramatic enough where a distinct photographic record will still be welcomed by history.

[Ed Richards]

> Frank, if you feel compelled. Just be aware of what you are going into.

Even in the face of orders by civilian and military officials to stay out? With a chance that you will end up in the field hospital down the street from me, displacing someone who could not get out of town? Come on folks, while I think the photojournalists are important in this because the offical message and what is really happening are so different, I hope no one else goes in because you will be a drain on the resources. Even a place to go to the bathroom is a limited resource, not to mention a drink of water.

[Frank Petronio]

I already posted that I wasn't going anytime soon, and given the developing situation it may be a LONG time before I ever go, if EVER.

I'd kind of like to be around to take pictures AFTERWARDS.

And I don't think any other non-essential people should be going there until things are under control. That includes Dan Rather, Jesse Jackson, and all the political wannabees.

Hats off to the photojournalists and aid workers already there.

[Jonathan Brewer]

'Those people above who are saying they don't need to see more sufferening are today seeing the results of those pictures being shown'....................................................I DON'T need to see any more suffering and pretty much have changed to the radio for updates now....................that doesn't have anything to do w/prompting these politicians and Government officials to get off that 'fat asses' and do something.

Emergency plans should've been blind to the amount of money in a persons pocket, the poor should've been accorded the means to get out of town particularly since they didn't have the means of the rich, the point is why do these folks need to be shamed into doing something after the fact, they should've been doing something for these folks before Katrina hit.

Place the Hurrican aside, all these folks were told to go to the Superdome, and for 4 days nobody does anything while they drop like flies? That's criminal, the babies that died of dehydration in the Superdome didn't shoot at anybody, why let them die because somebody else did? People shooting at folks didn't stop 'em from staying in and supposedly helping Iraq?????????????

[Brian C. Miller]

Johnathan, from listening to people that were still residing in New Orleans before Katrina hit, the general evactuation order came a little late. Even with a car, it took hours to leave the city. There's only one major road through NO, and that's I-10. One fellow was saying that he had taken the back road, Hwy 90, out of the city, and he had gotten as far as Gulfport.

Nobody's ever evactuated a major city before. From what it looks like, an effective evacuation would have to start a week prior.