If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
A truly HORRIFIC tsunami picture
I guess ths is the type of images that were unsuitable for publication. I've read papers and websites, and the ~130,000 death toll seemed difficult to comprehend, but I guess it's true that one image is worth a thousand words, or more. Now I can imagine the massive death toll. [WARNING : VERY, VERY DISTURBING!] http://img145.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img1...uumiita4ft.jpg [WARNING : VERY, VERY DISTURBING!] |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
I guess ths is the type of images that were unsuitable for publication.
I've read papers and websites, and the ~130,000 death toll seemed difficult to comprehend, but I guess it's true that one image is worth a thousand words, or more. Now I can imagine the massive death toll. [WARNING : VERY, VERY DISTURBING!] http://img145.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img1...uumiita4ft.jpg [WARNING : VERY, VERY DISTURBING!] Is it just me, or do others have issues with photos like this one, posted on a site that asks you to "rate this image?" Yes, I understand that, regardless of subject, one can analyze a photo on its technical and artistic merits, but just because you *can* do that doesn't mean you *should.* I don't fault the original poster, who did warn that it was a very disturbing thing to view. But the context (the site where it was posted) just seems way-wrong to me. Way way wrong. Expecially so close on the heels of the tragedy. Ah, the wonders of the age of the Internet. No time to ponder responsibility, just post it quick before somebody else does. No ethics involved, because ethics are to be decided by the viewer, and to not post would imply censorship. But again, I'm not taking to task the OP for posting it here. After all, I apparently found it interesting enough to want to follow the link and see what it was all about, so there's some relevance to the newsgroup. But to display the photo on a page with advertising, and with this caption underneath the photo- "Rate this image! 3697 people have rated this image, and the average rating is 3.88."... Makes you wonder what people were rating it for, and what it would have taken to get a higher rating. --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReactionBicycles.com |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote: I guess ths is the type of images that were unsuitable for publication. I've read papers and websites, and the ~130,000 death toll seemed difficult to comprehend, but I guess it's true that one image is worth a thousand words, or more. Now I can imagine the massive death toll. [WARNING : VERY, VERY DISTURBING!] http://img145.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img1...uumiita4ft.jpg [WARNING : VERY, VERY DISTURBING!] Is it just me, or do others have issues with photos like this one, posted on a site that asks you to "rate this image?" Yes, I understand that, regardless of subject, one can analyze a photo on its technical and artistic merits, but just because you *can* do that doesn't mean you *should.* I don't fault the original poster, who did warn that it was a very disturbing thing to view. But the context (the site where it was posted) just seems way-wrong to me. Way way wrong. Expecially so close on the heels of the tragedy. Ah, the wonders of the age of the Internet. No time to ponder responsibility, just post it quick before somebody else does. No ethics involved, because ethics are to be decided by the viewer, and to not post would imply censorship. But again, I'm not taking to task the OP for posting it here. After all, I apparently found it interesting enough to want to follow the link and see what it was all about, so there's some relevance to the newsgroup. But to display the photo on a page with advertising, and with this caption underneath the photo- "Rate this image! 3697 people have rated this image, and the average rating is 3.88."... Makes you wonder what people were rating it for, and what it would have taken to get a higher rating. --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReactionBicycles.com Hi. I didn't post it on that site. I saw the link on some news forum and it shocked me, so i shared it here. In fact, it shocked me enough that i didn't notice the rating thing you mention. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Henley" wrote in message ups.com... Mike Jacoubowsky wrote: I guess ths is the type of images that were unsuitable for publication. I've read papers and websites, and the ~130,000 death toll seemed difficult to comprehend, but I guess it's true that one image is worth a thousand words, or more. Now I can imagine the massive death toll. [WARNING : VERY, VERY DISTURBING!] http://img145.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img1...uumiita4ft.jpg [WARNING : VERY, VERY DISTURBING!] Is it just me, or do others have issues with photos like this one, posted on a site that asks you to "rate this image?" Yes, I understand that, regardless of subject, one can analyze a photo on its technical and artistic merits, but just because you *can* do that doesn't mean you *should.* I don't fault the original poster, who did warn that it was a very disturbing thing to view. But the context (the site where it was posted) just seems way-wrong to me. Way way wrong. Expecially so close on the heels of the tragedy. Ah, the wonders of the age of the Internet. No time to ponder responsibility, just post it quick before somebody else does. No ethics involved, because ethics are to be decided by the viewer, and to not post would imply censorship. But again, I'm not taking to task the OP for posting it here. After all, I apparently found it interesting enough to want to follow the link and see what it was all about, so there's some relevance to the newsgroup. But to display the photo on a page with advertising, and with this caption underneath the photo- "Rate this image! 3697 people have rated this image, and the average rating is 3.88."... Makes you wonder what people were rating it for, and what it would have taken to get a higher rating. --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReactionBicycles.com Hi. I didn't post it on that site. I saw the link on some news forum and it shocked me, so i shared it here. In fact, it shocked me enough that i didn't notice the rating thing you mention. EXACTLY!!!!!! He was so busy looking for ways to get offended, that he completely ignored the horror of that image, and instead focussed his supposed "sensitivities" on total irrelevant BS. I'm so sick of his kind of "sensitivity" that he now resides in my kill-file. Thank you for posting this image. People need to understand the enormity of this tragedy, and if even it is posted on the cover of PLAYBOY...I would appreciate it, simply because people need to be confronted with REALity these days, rather than the candy-coated versions so many of these quasi-sensitive phonies insist upon. Thank you again for this link. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"MarkČ" mjmorgan(lowest even number writes:
Thank you for posting this image. People need to understand the enormity of this tragedy, and if even it is posted on the cover of PLAYBOY...I would appreciate it, simply because people need to be confronted with REALity these days, rather than the candy-coated versions so many of these quasi-sensitive phonies insist upon. Thank you again for this link. I agree. This sort of image makes the magnitude of the disaster much easier to grasp. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Mxsmanic" "MarkČ" mjmorgan(lowest even number writes: Thank you for posting this image. People need to understand the enormity of this tragedy, and if even it is posted on the cover of PLAYBOY...I would appreciate it, simply because people need to be confronted with REALity these days, rather than the candy-coated versions so many of these quasi-sensitive phonies insist upon. Thank you again for this link. I agree. This sort of image makes the magnitude of the disaster much easier to grasp. If someone needs a photo to grasp 120 thousand plus people dying something is missing. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Mxsmanic" "MarkČ" mjmorgan(lowest even number writes: Thank you for posting this image. People need to understand the enormity of this tragedy, and if even it is posted on the cover of PLAYBOY...I would appreciate it, simply because people need to be confronted with REALity these days, rather than the candy-coated versions so many of these quasi-sensitive phonies insist upon. Thank you again for this link. I agree. This sort of image makes the magnitude of the disaster much easier to grasp. If someone needs a photo to grasp 120 thousand plus people dying something is missing. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Hi. I didn't post it on that site. I saw the link on some news forum
and it shocked me, so i shared it here. In fact, it shocked me enough that i didn't notice the rating thing you mention. EXACTLY!!!!!! He was so busy looking for ways to get offended, that he completely ignored the horror of that image, and instead focussed his supposed "sensitivities" on total irrelevant BS. I'm so sick of his kind of "sensitivity" that he now resides in my kill-file. Thank you for posting this image. You fail to understand my point. I will try again (but now that I'm kill-filed...). My point wasn't that the photo shouldn't be shown. I think the opposite in fact. But it detracts greatly from the tragedy to put it in the context of being "rated" as a good-or-bad photo. You're trying way too hard to to find offending examples of censorship & political correctness that you're missing my point. Context *is* relevant. --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReactionBicycles.com |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
Hi. I didn't post it on that site. I saw the link on some news forum and it shocked me, so i shared it here. In fact, it shocked me enough that i didn't notice the rating thing you mention. EXACTLY!!!!!! He was so busy looking for ways to get offended, that he completely ignored the horror of that image, and instead focussed his supposed "sensitivities" on total irrelevant BS. I'm so sick of his kind of "sensitivity" that he now resides in my kill-file. Thank you for posting this image. You fail to understand my point. I will try again (but now that I'm kill-filed...). My point wasn't that the photo shouldn't be shown. I think the opposite in fact. But it detracts greatly from the tragedy to put it in the context of being "rated" as a good-or-bad photo. You're trying way too hard to to find offending examples of censorship & political correctness that you're missing my point. Context *is* relevant. Whereas you seem to just be trying too hard to be easily offended. Personally, the first thing I thought when I saw the "rating" thing and the advertising is that it was just something inherant to the site that the photographer (or whoever posted the image) used, and that he probably uses that site on a regular basis, if not exclusively, and so naturally placed that photo there as well. Some people just seem to have to FIND things to complain about, I guess... |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
Hi. I didn't post it on that site. I saw the link on some news forum and it shocked me, so i shared it here. In fact, it shocked me enough that i didn't notice the rating thing you mention. EXACTLY!!!!!! He was so busy looking for ways to get offended, that he completely ignored the horror of that image, and instead focussed his supposed "sensitivities" on total irrelevant BS. I'm so sick of his kind of "sensitivity" that he now resides in my kill-file. Thank you for posting this image. You fail to understand my point. I will try again (but now that I'm kill-filed...). My point wasn't that the photo shouldn't be shown. I think the opposite in fact. But it detracts greatly from the tragedy to put it in the context of being "rated" as a good-or-bad photo. You're trying way too hard to to find offending examples of censorship & political correctness that you're missing my point. Context *is* relevant. Whereas you seem to just be trying too hard to be easily offended. Personally, the first thing I thought when I saw the "rating" thing and the advertising is that it was just something inherant to the site that the photographer (or whoever posted the image) used, and that he probably uses that site on a regular basis, if not exclusively, and so naturally placed that photo there as well. Some people just seem to have to FIND things to complain about, I guess... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What caused the horizontal stripes in my picture? How do I fix it? | Bubba | Digital Photography | 5 | October 30th 04 05:47 AM |
Picture editing question, help wanted please | Andy | Digital Photography | 6 | October 9th 04 01:32 PM |
[SI] Old stuff comments | Martin Djernæs | 35mm Photo Equipment | 23 | August 18th 04 08:30 PM |
How to Exhibit and Sell your picture and photos from your website | Film & Labs | 0 | January 26th 04 08:52 AM | |
How to Exhibit and Sell your picture and photos from your website | Other Photographic Equipment | 0 | January 26th 04 08:52 AM |