1) The man was killed when confronting a pushy mendicant and being shoved into the tracks of an approaching train. He was trying to calm the person down, but ended up being harshly pushed to death. The photographer was able to take the photo by running up to the scene in act to save the man.
2) The photographer supposedly trying to catch the attention of engineer by signaling with his camera's flash.
3) Honestly, I don't believe it should have been him necessarily. There were probably many others who could have saved the fallen man, but choose to ignore him and walk away.
4) The photographer could have made more of an effort to help the fallen man, but on the other-hand he truthfully was really only doing his job and anyone else could have saved him.
5) I don't think it was a bad decision to run the photograph on the front of the magazine, because it really did happen and the world wants to know what occurs daily, so why hide the death of this man?
6) For a photojournalists naturally their first instinct is to capture the photo, but it doesn't entitle them not to aid others.
7) I do think it is acceptable for a photographer to return to scene and help people once they have captured a photo of the scene. It probably relives them of being helpless and only there to photograph the scene, when photographers do help.
8) Truthfully, I don't think its necessary for photographer's to not capture true events, just to avoid the influence of a dreadful situation.
9) Most professional photographers would most likely would capture the situation because its become a part of them, and that's just who they are naturally.
No comments:
Post a Comment