Toronto Photography Meetup Group

Most of the images here are heartbreaking. If I was the photographer, I'll probably have a nervous breakdown with the telling of just one of our stupid side as human beings. I don't know how this guy does it.

http://tomstoddart.com/iwitness.html

i agree.

But i am sure he know that by sharing the stories, it can help many others become aware of what's going on too. Sometimes that can be much more valuable than giving temporary help from one guy.

just because there's a brain-dead mass clamoring for another "awesome" story doesn't mean someone is telling stories. what you see in the photographs simply is just as the photographer is--a condition generally referred to as life (in stoddart's case it's also his job). the only "stupid side" is seeing these photographs--and then getting another starbucks coffee, killing company time nine-to-five, renting a comedy on the way back home, buying a so-called friend a make-believe beer... war, famine, disasters, they're innocent by nature, devoid of will they simply are--but how can people do that?

What really makes me sick is that I can't find a link on his ENTIRE website to donate to a charity to support/help these people. But I can certainly find a quick link to buy his book or to buy prints.

I wish this was Facebook and I could LIKE your comment well said

I have mixed thoughts.

What is worse? A photographer making money by taking extremely powerful images and raising awareness, or a charity taking money and giving most of the money to a charity CEO making well into the six digit salary range? Both are noble and parasitic at the same time.

Personally, I always flip the channel when I see a commercial to feed starving children. The powerful images I just saw made me stop and think

You can. Quite simply, stop taking. Not just once (as is usually the case with giving) but forever from now on. Soon their existence will become less unimaginable.

(Magic, nothing personal, it's a generic "you". I referred to some of your words because you focused your post well, mixed thoughts included.)

http://www.torontopubliclibrary.ca/deta ... 4&R=585174

place hold. they'll deliver to your branch

No worries. I take nothing personal as we live in a world that we each view with our own eyes. Diversity is the gift and curse of humanity.

I don't see that on his site at all. Why wouldn't that be there if it was something he felt he should advertise...?
Where do you get your information from?

As someone who loves being behind the lens, I thought the discussion would be about his style and his ability to compose and work under stressful situations.

He has great skill as a photojournalist and one I would never be able to do myself. I would drop my camera and start helping.

I really can't comment on his integrity. That is something left to the off topic section I guess.

I don't think the discussion of the behaviour of a photographer in a photography forum belongs in off topic.

What behavior? Speculation at best and I'd rather leave it outside. But it's everyone forum do as you please.

My point was to keep it photography. I have no interest if Ansel Adams kept three paramours.

Ansel shot some hills. Not starving people. Separating the landscape photographer from their content is a far cry from separating the journalist photographer from that which they are journaling. You said yourself in the first post that it would break your heart, you couldn't separate yourself from it. I don't get the criticism of allegedly moving off topic; were we supposed to say yes that starving person is perfectly framed so their scrawny limbs created aesthetically pleasing leading lines? The sole purpose of this type of photography are the moral implications the work has on us as photographers and as people.

You're right. I misunderstood you there. Sorry.

I thought the integrity of the photographer was in question (with what he does with the photos), I think should be left to another topic.

His integrity is. Where is he displaying it? As utsc pointed out we can't find where he's using these images to help anyone but himself. If he is he's hiding it. The purpose of his site should be just as much "buy my stuff" as well as "help these people." Look at David duChemin - he shot stuff like this for ages, and still does afaik, but I haven't double checked. He did/does for a humanitarian aid organization, too lazy to check, but he does engage with the idea that what he's doing has implications. I do recall him offering links to various ways to provide aid for those people... perhaps later I'll dig up the link. It's my opinion that if you're going to take pics of starving, or people distressed in that magnitude, commercially you have to make as much of an effort to help them or you're a douche.

Oh no not flowers! Flowers take up valuable agriculture lands plus resources that would be better off used to grow food to feed the hungry.

Just in case you didn't know every piece of electronics (including your DSLRs) has strategic metals and chemicals stolen by exploiting some poor developing (third world) country.

<i>"The sole purpose of this type of photography are the moral implications the work has on us as photographers and as people."</i> Elucidate please? I can think of several important reasons that you left out.

Well, if you're after something specific I'm not sure what to offer you as just about any reason you would take a picture of someone injured by war in Rwanda, or starving in Sudan or whatever else falls under, at least to me, a morality. Whether that be political, humanitarian or, allegedly with this photographer strictly commercial. That's what I meant if I was not clear. Do you think there are reasons beyond some type of moral obligation to photograph and record such things? Are you suggesting this as a medium of art purely for its own sake?

And for the record, I was not suggesting that we not photograph that which is difficult, but that we don't be callous greedy dickheads when we do it and pass on any aid we can when we are profiting from suffering. In case that's what was interpreted from what I wrote... somehow....

I suggested nothing about art! What on earth give you that idea? Is this simple definition what you mean by moral obligation?
moral obligation - an obligation arising out of considerations of right and wrong;

If it is close to your definition then the only moral obligation is for the people that saw his pictures and didn't do anything about it to get off their collective ass or at least feel shame. I hope that the human race lives long enough to look back at his work as a record of our era from a historic perspective and say how primitive was man and how could we have seen this and still done nothing.

The above maybe a bit melodramatic but what he has presented as a photojournalist regardless whether or not you consider it art is far more important and morally valuable to society now and in the future then harping over whether he made money or did or didn't have a donation button on his website. I find it sad that people think this is exploitation just because he makes a living by documenting areas and conditions that few of us will see or heaven forbid experience, after all he's not stealing their souls.

I didn't intend to suggest your method was anything by mentioning art, I was sincerely curious what you meant by other "important reasons" for this type of photography.

I agree with you, these photos should incite some form of action/reaction from those that view them. But I can not dismiss the responsibility of the shooter. I find it derelict of him not to provide channels in which to provide aid alongside his work. Without that his work carries as much a message of his own callousness as it does a message about the content. We live in a world where the method and medium of delivery is very much a part of the message. It's a Web site for selling his name & photography! This is not his work on its own that utsc was judging, not to put words in her mouth, but she did clearly criticize the site. I think it's irresponsible of him not to provide links to aid on his site. I would think so if he were shooting polar bears, endangered tigers or something else in a precarious mortal position and he did not provide support. The day of the artist revealing their work and not standing behind it is gone. I would argue that journalism, particularly of this type, should rarely stand on its own. It's such a simple thing for him to provide a link to the Red Cross, or Doctors without Borders or whatever the friendly else. But he didn't and that's douchey.

And beyond that, or perhaps alongside this argument?... his work is hardly f8 and being there journalism. This isn't direct reportage. I can't say for certain for obvious reasons but I would find it very hard to believe that a lot of the more vulnerable shots of people he has are candid journalism shots. Does this change his responsibility? I think so. It becomes less of a detached reportage and a more engaged response and filtered product which he is selling, again, without providing links to aid.

As you stated, these cameras are made with icky things that hurt the world. Although I'm unclear as to how that's relevant here, but anyway, that's just one level of responsibility we have as photographers, as people, that very few acknowledge or even think about momentarily, hey it's all just pictures right? why be a dick about it and think too much about it and question? Well, some of us want to. Some of us think artists, or maybe everyone, is accountable for the things they do. Bad us?

"yo, dude, i saw this web site and it was, like, awsome, ya know, those big-eyed starving third-world kids and, like, art or whatever, and i felt, like, mebbe i should give some donation or something, but there was no link, the guy's such a douchebag..."

at which point st. peter will smile and say, "up yours, jimmy, up yours. next!"

and this will be pretty much it

Amen

The Sudan images were taken in 1998. This was the same time Sebastiao Delgado went to the Sahal though I am not sure if it was taken in the same area.

He did work with charitable fund raising efforts with Medicins San Frontieres and celebrities to raise awareness after his trip there. If you don't see any links, that's because more than a decade has passed and you missed the boat. There's George Clooney's efforts with Darfur if you are interested.

It's irresponsible to question integrity when you don't know the person. If you want to go there, on the very least find out more about the person and "too lazy" to get your facts will just make you look like Elmer Fudd.

<object width="480" height="360"><param name="movie" value="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/video/x4053d?width=480&theme=none&foreground=%23F7FFFD&highlight=%23FFC300&background=%23171D1B&additionalInfos=1&hideInfos=1&start=&animatedTitle=&iframe=0&autoPlay=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/video/x4053d?width=480&theme=none&foreground=%23F7FFFD&highlight=%23FFC300&background=%23171D1B&additionalInfos=1&hideInfos=1&start=&animatedTitle=&iframe=0&autoPlay=0" width="480" height="360" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always"></embed></object>

good lord, the voice of that hunter, i'm too lazy to research but he does sound like eddie from to have and have not!

SAY, WAS YOU EVER BIT BY A DEAD BEE?

In an attempt to steer this juvenile conversation into better waters... if the original post was about the art side of these images... What would you like to say about them? Try to comment on the pure art without bringing up the situation any of the people on his site are in.

I think they have great processing and he's made some wonderful images. Not sure what he shoots with or what his process is though.

Can we talk about the questions that arise when looking at them? Do we think he posed the people in him images? If you look at the Sudan image of the boy behind the tree....was that a natural action for him? For those people so see a "white guy"(I have no idea what Tom looks like) with a camera which is possible these people have never seen before...why do they look so natural?

F trying to steer the conversation a certain way. This is Photography in General, just as long as there is no personal attacks then everything is fair game. Carry on.

Ya coz calling someone Elmer Fudd is TOTALLY appropriate.....

The thoughts I had was how he could distance himself from his emotions. This was what was eating me. I can only respect what he does since I will lose a job if I was sent to document a situation like this or it will change me into something else.

The situation in Sudan was war and famine and caught in between was this group that you see now.

He shot with Leica and used 40 rolls on that trip. Definitely no processing here. No self respecting photojournalist will attempt to manipulate his prints.

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/fe ... 00205.html