TO STAGE OR NOT TO STAGE...
21/04/10 08:10 Filed in:Photojournalism
... THAT IS THE QUESTION
By Jørn Stjerneklar: The last few years has brought more and more competitions for photographers around the world. We have seen excellent pictures winning big prizes – then later to find out the photos were staged. Or photoshopped. Or otherwise manipulated.
I would like to join the discussion with two pictures shot by the Italian photographer Marco Vernaschi, who won in the General News Story category of the World Press Photo 2010.
Today a world famous photographer can reach rock star status, prize money, glory and more than 15 minutes of fame. Marco Vernaschi is one of them. He is an extremely talented photographer, but...
The old way to define “documentary” and “photojournalism” has changed – and not to the better in my opinion. Photographers add props into their frames to make their story “better”. And it seems the new ways are accepted by the people judging these “documentary” photographs in the competitions. If we do not stop this trend we will for sure kill photojournalism. Our audience will with good reason start to NOT believe our stories.
I met Marco Vernaschi (MV) in Denmark at the annual "input-to-members"-conference of the Danish Press Photographers Association in November 2009. To an audience of more than a hundred photographers Marco talked about his work. Two of his pictures stood out. Not only because of the dangerous situation they were taken in but also because of the story behind the pictures.
After MV's session at the conference I discussed his work with a collegue. We both felt something was rotten, not only in The State of Denmark, but also in MV’s story. What we talked about was: Is there more ”story” behind his pictures than is acceptable?
The two pictures that worried us showed three men in front of a car in the middle of the night somewhere in Guinea-Bissau. One man is very, very neatly blindfolded with a very, very white cloth, while he is about to be executed by the two other men. The first picture is part of the winning series in the World Press Photo competition. It is a dramatic picture.
The interesting thing about this picture is the hat on the man about to shoot. The hat is positioned so low on his forehead, that he can´t see anything of what he is doing. The hat clearly obstructs his view.
A collegue of mine has used Photoshop to lighten the head of the man with the hat in Marco´s picture to see which kind of head gear the gunslinger is wearing. It makes a strange viewing. My collegue wrote this to me:
"If you zoom in it looks like the executioner wears two hats. At his eyes its strangely black while the pic burns out in the black mans skin around the ear. It´s not tecnically possible that the hat goes in 100% black while the skin burns out when talking about a single light source".
The other picture - not included in the WPP-series - is from the same situation, but taken from a completely different angle. Or let me be more precice: The three men have moved 180 degrees compared to the WPP-picture. This is in itself very interesting.
What is even more interesting; Marco is in direct line of fire of a hunting riffle. For an experienced photographer as MV, it looks extremely stupid to be in exactly that place. According to MV himself he is very nervous at this point and only manages to ”take two or three pictures”. MV moves towards the center of the pic, either by zoom or actual movement towards the person about to be shot. What I also see as strange when I compare pictures, story and technique is the movement in the picture where MV is in the direct line of fire. It is either created in Photoshop or the picture has been cropped heavily. After having worked in Africa for 30 years as a photographer and covered wars, prostitution, drugs, you name it, me myself would never go in front of a loaded gun in a tense situation, just to take a photograph.
And this situation must be very tense. Shouting, threats, fingers on the triggers. Do you really put yourself in direct line of fire in this commotion? If you do, would you make movement towards the guy with the hunting riffle when you are in the dark and he is half blinded by the strong beams from the car? I find it difficult to believe.
I can’t see which lens or shutterspeed MV has used. Probably a Nikon zoom (MV uses Nikon) set on 30-35 mm. and with a shutterspeed around 1/15. The focus is at the hunting riffle above the center. It is extremely difficult to keep focus that sharp (on the riffle) with such a slow shutter speed if you are nervous and only allowed to make ”two or three” pictures, and you at the same time move towards the victim. If not impossible.
And MV is scared according to himself. He writes in one caption to the situation: ”They acted like they were going to shoot their captive to death. However, they eventually sent him back unharmed. This demonstration was meant as a warning to me”.
Well, it did not work, did it? MV answered the warning by putting himself in front of the riffle.
In another caption to that same picture but on another web page the victims fate is changed. “The hostage was finally abandoned in the middle of nowhere, but was not killed”. It opens the question, did they send him back or did they leave him in the middle of nowhere? I know we photographers are not too good at focusing when it comes to words, but….
Marco Vernaschi has said several times he was only able to take few photographs that evening. Well, is it two or three? Coming back to town from the African bush having survived this stressful ordeal he must have checked his raw files. When he reveals the story later he should not have any doubt about how many shots were fired (by him) that night. He is not talking about 15-20 pics here. So lets us know for the record; did you take two or three?
The whole idea about driving 40 minutes into the bush in the African night also seems a bit over the top. Anybody seasoned in travelling in Africa knows how precious petrol is. I am sure these guys could have made their point to the victim in the closest backyard around the corner. I think this point of MV’s story is strange. Petrol is expensive. Why waste it?
But what finally made me write this blog was a comment on the Pulitzer Centers homepage.
Here’s what a Pedro Mbunde wrote:
”And the photos!!! Lol, a person been executaded and you just happen to be there, by miracle??? And by the way I know the person. It's the son of the former head of the Air Force and hes alive until today.
Ah, and the sniper gun! How did you convince him to bring his father's gun? by payment.
Very good! I will vote on you for the "pulitzer for the best fiction journalim". (sic)
I don’t know Pedro Mbunde. But it seems he knows Marco Vernaschi. And his words does raise more questions.
I cannot claim to know the truth. MV is for sure an excellent photographer, but has he allowed himself to fall into the trap of staging his pictures to make a more convincing story? I hope he will answer to all the questions raised so this matter can be laid to rest.
Some pictures are difficult to judge if they are staged or otherwise manipulated. Robert Capa’s famous picture from the Spanish Civil War in 1936 of a soldier being shot – you all know it – was finally proven to be a staged photo last year. Or was it?
With all the technology at our hands today we should not discuss pictures for 70 years before a conclusion is reached. We have to react whenever there is doubts raised around pictures. We need the photographers to come clean and show his/her negatives/raw files to enlighten us all when doubts are raised. True or not?
When I was writing the last paragraphs my wife, journalist Helle Maj, found a new discussion on the web about Marco Vernaschi. If I had any doubts about Vernaschi belonging to a new category of photographers that doubt is now definitely buried in the Ugandan soil. When you start digging up a body of a 10 year old girl to stage your pictures...
You can read his own account of this here.
UPDATE:
26.4.2010: Please see our latest blog "Musical chairs" with some more questions about the ethics of photojournalists.
25.4.2010: Tewfic el-Sawy has some very valid remarks in his updated blog The Travel Photographer on the Pulitzer Center and Marco Vernaschi.
23.4.2010: Anne Holmes from the Vigilante Journalist yesterday retracted an interview with Marco Vernaschi after investigating into the Ugandan story. In her blog she writes: "This act, this desecration in the name of journalism is beyond debate. It is immoral, perverse and cannot be endorsed, condoned or explained away by Mr. Vernaschi or the Pulitzer Center. What’s done is done. As you make your bed, so you must lie in it".
22.4.2010: The Pulitzer Center has withdrawn two of Marco Vernaschi pictures from it´s website and apologises for having published them. The center admits it was wrong of Marco Vernaschi to have the body of a 10 year old Ugandan girl dug up from her grave in order for him to take pictures of her.
21.4.2010: Journalist Benjamin Chesterton today questions the ethics of The Pulitzer Center. Read his blog on: http://www.adevelopingstory.org/2010/pulitzer-center-crisis-in-ethics
By Jørn Stjerneklar: The last few years has brought more and more competitions for photographers around the world. We have seen excellent pictures winning big prizes – then later to find out the photos were staged. Or photoshopped. Or otherwise manipulated.
I would like to join the discussion with two pictures shot by the Italian photographer Marco Vernaschi, who won in the General News Story category of the World Press Photo 2010.
Today a world famous photographer can reach rock star status, prize money, glory and more than 15 minutes of fame. Marco Vernaschi is one of them. He is an extremely talented photographer, but...
The old way to define “documentary” and “photojournalism” has changed – and not to the better in my opinion. Photographers add props into their frames to make their story “better”. And it seems the new ways are accepted by the people judging these “documentary” photographs in the competitions. If we do not stop this trend we will for sure kill photojournalism. Our audience will with good reason start to NOT believe our stories.
I met Marco Vernaschi (MV) in Denmark at the annual "input-to-members"-conference of the Danish Press Photographers Association in November 2009. To an audience of more than a hundred photographers Marco talked about his work. Two of his pictures stood out. Not only because of the dangerous situation they were taken in but also because of the story behind the pictures.
After MV's session at the conference I discussed his work with a collegue. We both felt something was rotten, not only in The State of Denmark, but also in MV’s story. What we talked about was: Is there more ”story” behind his pictures than is acceptable?
The two pictures that worried us showed three men in front of a car in the middle of the night somewhere in Guinea-Bissau. One man is very, very neatly blindfolded with a very, very white cloth, while he is about to be executed by the two other men. The first picture is part of the winning series in the World Press Photo competition. It is a dramatic picture.
The interesting thing about this picture is the hat on the man about to shoot. The hat is positioned so low on his forehead, that he can´t see anything of what he is doing. The hat clearly obstructs his view.
A collegue of mine has used Photoshop to lighten the head of the man with the hat in Marco´s picture to see which kind of head gear the gunslinger is wearing. It makes a strange viewing. My collegue wrote this to me:
"If you zoom in it looks like the executioner wears two hats. At his eyes its strangely black while the pic burns out in the black mans skin around the ear. It´s not tecnically possible that the hat goes in 100% black while the skin burns out when talking about a single light source".
The other picture - not included in the WPP-series - is from the same situation, but taken from a completely different angle. Or let me be more precice: The three men have moved 180 degrees compared to the WPP-picture. This is in itself very interesting.
What is even more interesting; Marco is in direct line of fire of a hunting riffle. For an experienced photographer as MV, it looks extremely stupid to be in exactly that place. According to MV himself he is very nervous at this point and only manages to ”take two or three pictures”. MV moves towards the center of the pic, either by zoom or actual movement towards the person about to be shot. What I also see as strange when I compare pictures, story and technique is the movement in the picture where MV is in the direct line of fire. It is either created in Photoshop or the picture has been cropped heavily. After having worked in Africa for 30 years as a photographer and covered wars, prostitution, drugs, you name it, me myself would never go in front of a loaded gun in a tense situation, just to take a photograph.
And this situation must be very tense. Shouting, threats, fingers on the triggers. Do you really put yourself in direct line of fire in this commotion? If you do, would you make movement towards the guy with the hunting riffle when you are in the dark and he is half blinded by the strong beams from the car? I find it difficult to believe.
I can’t see which lens or shutterspeed MV has used. Probably a Nikon zoom (MV uses Nikon) set on 30-35 mm. and with a shutterspeed around 1/15. The focus is at the hunting riffle above the center. It is extremely difficult to keep focus that sharp (on the riffle) with such a slow shutter speed if you are nervous and only allowed to make ”two or three” pictures, and you at the same time move towards the victim. If not impossible.
And MV is scared according to himself. He writes in one caption to the situation: ”They acted like they were going to shoot their captive to death. However, they eventually sent him back unharmed. This demonstration was meant as a warning to me”.
Well, it did not work, did it? MV answered the warning by putting himself in front of the riffle.
In another caption to that same picture but on another web page the victims fate is changed. “The hostage was finally abandoned in the middle of nowhere, but was not killed”. It opens the question, did they send him back or did they leave him in the middle of nowhere? I know we photographers are not too good at focusing when it comes to words, but….
Marco Vernaschi has said several times he was only able to take few photographs that evening. Well, is it two or three? Coming back to town from the African bush having survived this stressful ordeal he must have checked his raw files. When he reveals the story later he should not have any doubt about how many shots were fired (by him) that night. He is not talking about 15-20 pics here. So lets us know for the record; did you take two or three?
The whole idea about driving 40 minutes into the bush in the African night also seems a bit over the top. Anybody seasoned in travelling in Africa knows how precious petrol is. I am sure these guys could have made their point to the victim in the closest backyard around the corner. I think this point of MV’s story is strange. Petrol is expensive. Why waste it?
But what finally made me write this blog was a comment on the Pulitzer Centers homepage.
Here’s what a Pedro Mbunde wrote:
”And the photos!!! Lol, a person been executaded and you just happen to be there, by miracle??? And by the way I know the person. It's the son of the former head of the Air Force and hes alive until today.
Ah, and the sniper gun! How did you convince him to bring his father's gun? by payment.
Very good! I will vote on you for the "pulitzer for the best fiction journalim". (sic)
I don’t know Pedro Mbunde. But it seems he knows Marco Vernaschi. And his words does raise more questions.
I cannot claim to know the truth. MV is for sure an excellent photographer, but has he allowed himself to fall into the trap of staging his pictures to make a more convincing story? I hope he will answer to all the questions raised so this matter can be laid to rest.
Some pictures are difficult to judge if they are staged or otherwise manipulated. Robert Capa’s famous picture from the Spanish Civil War in 1936 of a soldier being shot – you all know it – was finally proven to be a staged photo last year. Or was it?
With all the technology at our hands today we should not discuss pictures for 70 years before a conclusion is reached. We have to react whenever there is doubts raised around pictures. We need the photographers to come clean and show his/her negatives/raw files to enlighten us all when doubts are raised. True or not?
When I was writing the last paragraphs my wife, journalist Helle Maj, found a new discussion on the web about Marco Vernaschi. If I had any doubts about Vernaschi belonging to a new category of photographers that doubt is now definitely buried in the Ugandan soil. When you start digging up a body of a 10 year old girl to stage your pictures...
You can read his own account of this here.
UPDATE:
26.4.2010: Please see our latest blog "Musical chairs" with some more questions about the ethics of photojournalists.
25.4.2010: Tewfic el-Sawy has some very valid remarks in his updated blog The Travel Photographer on the Pulitzer Center and Marco Vernaschi.
23.4.2010: Anne Holmes from the Vigilante Journalist yesterday retracted an interview with Marco Vernaschi after investigating into the Ugandan story. In her blog she writes: "This act, this desecration in the name of journalism is beyond debate. It is immoral, perverse and cannot be endorsed, condoned or explained away by Mr. Vernaschi or the Pulitzer Center. What’s done is done. As you make your bed, so you must lie in it".
22.4.2010: The Pulitzer Center has withdrawn two of Marco Vernaschi pictures from it´s website and apologises for having published them. The center admits it was wrong of Marco Vernaschi to have the body of a 10 year old Ugandan girl dug up from her grave in order for him to take pictures of her.
21.4.2010: Journalist Benjamin Chesterton today questions the ethics of The Pulitzer Center. Read his blog on: http://www.adevelopingstory.org/2010/pulitzer-center-crisis-in-ethics