People these days would rather record someone than help them

  • 113 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#51 Posted by Nibroc420 (13567 posts) -
[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"] Did you completely miss the part about a deranged man freaking pushed him onto the tracks, or are you intentionally trying to look stupid?

I saw no video. From what I've read though, no-one was there to help him up. If no-one was there, how do you know if someone pushed him? Was it you?

I guess that answers my question. Apparently you ARE intentionally trying to look stupid.

Can you show me the other photos showing a crowded subway? You're ASSUMING there were other people there, and you know what they say about assumptions.
#52 Posted by CreasianDevaili (4136 posts) -
Actually, no one's criticizing the man for that reason. I thought you were, but if I was mistaken on that point then apparently no one is (I thought it particularly strange that you'd be criticizing the guy based on the photo's journalistic merits). Everyone else seems to be criticizing the guy for the mere fact that he took a photo at all. Every other witness was anonymous, this guy has been publicly identified. So this guy gets publicly reamed. It doesn't really matter whether the photo shows anyone helping are not, people are pointing the finger at the photographer and saying "why didn't YOU help, you jerk?"MrGeezer
Are you sure people are not using the "why didn't you help him?" as camo for just being embarassed? I mean if a person who thinks they'd be a hero in such a situation or just a good person was counting their change on the steps down, and as they got down that guy took the hit they might have conflicting emotions. However there is a photo with absolutely no one trying to help. You can't even tell that the conductor is trying to slow down. So it goes without saying that at least some in that subway are either embarassed or ashamed.

Then you have this city with a few prideful mottos and sayings about new yorkers taking care of new yorkers and you can go even futher. The photo was great and it is memorable. I think most of the anger towards the photographer is coming from how the Post displayed it with DOOM!!. I honestly think if they just ran it with no words at all this wouldn't have blown back on the guy as bad. The words and layout purposely emphasized things to get people to rage.

Also it is human nature for many to prefer something to blame than to have only yourself to. It is easier to blame the photographer than to blame the sum of humanity, or lack thereof, in that subway as a whole. Hell I am sure somewhere someone is thinking why the hell didn't the conductor slam the emergency brakes. Even though doing so would endanger countless people for the sake of one. People expect people to kill each other these days. People hope people save other people. But people fuggin hate pictures that destroys the hope in the latter.

Guy needs to stop defending himself cause it makes it look like he feels like he did something wrong. Which is actually making the anger grow.
#53 Posted by harashawn (27603 posts) -
It's disgusting how many photojournalists will put getting the best shot ahead of being decent people.
#54 Posted by MrGeezer (56579 posts) -
[QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"] Are you sure people are not using the "why didn't you help him?" as camo for just being embarassed? I mean if a person who thinks they'd be a hero in such a situation or just a good person was counting their change on the steps down, and as they got down that guy took the hit they might have conflicting emotions. However there is a photo with absolutely no one trying to help. You can't even tell that the conductor is trying to slow down. So it goes without saying that at least some in that subway are either embarassed or ashamed.

Then you have this city with a few prideful mottos and sayings about new yorkers taking care of new yorkers and you can go even futher. The photo was great and it is memorable. I think most of the anger towards the photographer is coming from how the Post displayed it with DOOM!!. I honestly think if they just ran it with no words at all this wouldn't have blown back on the guy as bad. The words and layout purposely emphasized things to get people to rage.

Also it is human nature for many to prefer something to blame than to have only yourself to. It is easier to blame the photographer than to blame the sum of humanity, or lack thereof, in that subway as a whole. Hell I am sure somewhere someone is thinking why the hell didn't the conductor slam the emergency brakes. Even though doing so would endanger countless people for the sake of one. People expect people to kill each other these days. People hope people save other people. But people fuggin hate pictures that destroys the hope in the latter.

Guy needs to stop defending himself cause it makes it look like he feels like he did something wrong. Which is actually making the anger grow.

Valid point about the cover reflecting negatively on the photographer. That cover IS trashy as $***, even though there's nothing particularly wrong with the photograph. But the photograph is part of the cover, and that mere association probably contributes to people blaming the photographer. It's not his decision to use that headline, it wasn't even his decision to use that photo. But the association still sticks, even if that's not really fair. Maybe this should be a clue that he should stop working for the New York Post and go get a job with a more respectable publication. But yes, shame plays a part in it, just not in the way you're saying. Of course there's the guilt of not helping, which means diverting the blame. The photographer is the only one who isn't completely anonymous, so he takes the heat. You're reading too much into it. Actually, you know what? You're not reading to much into it. You're just reading the wrong thing. On second thought, you're probably completely right that the particular way this was shot and presented probably contributes to the criticism this guy is facing, and it's a big part of why I don't think this photograph works. You say that this photograph shows an ugly part of humanity, and that's what's getting people to go after this guy. The problem is that there's no one in that photograph but the guy on the tracks (and the driver). We DON'T see anyone else standing by idly. And that's a big problem. If we DID see people standing by idly, then this photo WOULD be able to serve as a portrait of humanity's complacency. But we don't see that. Taken at face value, there's no indication that there's even anyone else there. Sure, we know that there were other people present, but that's not even implied in the image. Anyone who goes and looks at this photo and thinks "someone should have helped that guy" is naturally gonna look towards the photographer. Because aside from the victim and the driver, there's exactly ONE person whose presence is implied, and that's the photographer. He implied his presence in that scene simply by taking that picture.
#55 Posted by harashawn (27603 posts) -

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"] Actually, no one's criticizing the man for that reason. I thought you were, but if I was mistaken on that point then apparently no one is (I thought it particularly strange that you'd be criticizing the guy based on the photo's journalistic merits). Everyone else seems to be criticizing the guy for the mere fact that he took a photo at all. Every other witness was anonymous, this guy has been publicly identified. So this guy gets publicly reamed. It doesn't really matter whether the photo shows anyone helping are not, people are pointing the finger at the photographer and saying "why didn't YOU help, you jerk?"CreasianDevaili
Are you sure people are not using the "why didn't you help him?" as camo for just being embarassed? I mean if a person who thinks they'd be a hero in such a situation or just a good person was counting their change on the steps down, and as they got down that guy took the hit they might have conflicting emotions. However there is a photo with absolutely no one trying to help. You can't even tell that the conductor is trying to slow down. So it goes without saying that at least some in that subway are either embarassed or ashamed.

Then you have this city with a few prideful mottos and sayings about new yorkers taking care of new yorkers and you can go even futher. The photo was great and it is memorable. I think most of the anger towards the photographer is coming from how the Post displayed it with DOOM!!. I honestly think if they just ran it with no words at all this wouldn't have blown back on the guy as bad. The words and layout purposely emphasized things to get people to rage.

Also it is human nature for many to prefer something to blame than to have only yourself to. It is easier to blame the photographer than to blame the sum of humanity, or lack thereof, in that subway as a whole. Hell I am sure somewhere someone is thinking why the hell didn't the conductor slam the emergency brakes. Even though doing so would endanger countless people for the sake of one. People expect people to kill each other these days. People hope people save other people. But people fuggin hate pictures that destroys the hope in the latter.

Guy needs to stop defending himself cause it makes it look like he feels like he did something wrong. Which is actually making the anger grow.

To be fair, the train driver probably isn't allowed to stop for a pedestrian on the tracks. The choice is killing one person v. potentially injuring the 200+ people onboard the train by trying to stop suddenly. I know that's the policy in the city in which I live.

#56 Posted by MrPraline (21321 posts) -
>mainstream media smh
#57 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12018 posts) -

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"]I saw no video. From what I've read though, no-one was there to help him up. If no-one was there, how do you know if someone pushed him? Was it you?Nibroc420
I guess that answers my question. Apparently you ARE intentionally trying to look stupid.

Can you show me the other photos showing a crowded subway? You're ASSUMING there were other people there, and you know what they say about assumptions.

I have to agree with MrGeezer in this case, you are an idiot. News reports like this one have been all over the news showing said video and people on said platform and the man who pushed him. If I recall right, it was even posted in the original thread about his whole incident. Everyone wants to focus on a 60th of a second of time in which one photo was made.

Being that they found a bottle of alcohol in the victims pocket does not mean the man was drunk either. A man was arrested in the attack and if you look closely, you can see others in the background of said picture waiting for the train to stop.

#58 Posted by Nibroc420 (13567 posts) -

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"] I guess that answers my question. Apparently you ARE intentionally trying to look stupid.WhiteKnight77

Can you show me the other photos showing a crowded subway? You're ASSUMING there were other people there, and you know what they say about assumptions.

I have to agree with MrGeezer in this case, you are an idiot. News reports like this one have been all over the news showing said video and people on said platform and the man who pushed him. If I recall right, it was even posted in the original thread about his whole incident. Everyone wants to focus on a 60th of a second of time in which one photo was made.

Being that they found a bottle of alcohol in the victims pocket does not mean the man was drunk either. A man was arrested in the attack and if you look closely, you can see others in the background of said picture waiting for the train to stop.

The man's wife (well, widow now) told reporters that her husband was unemployed and had been drinking for awhile that night.
#59 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12018 posts) -

It's disgusting how many photojournalists will put getting the best shot ahead of being decent people.harashawn

You might want to read about what truly transpired before pronouncing such judgements. Look at the whole picture that was shown in the second link I posted about the guy who pushed the victim being arrested. The uncropped picture shows people awaiting the train and doing nothing. The linked interview with the photographer shows that he was doing something and that the driver did see what the photographer was doing. You are one of those people I was talking about with MrGeezer. You should be ashamed for jumping to conclusions when you haven't bothered to get all the facts, which is typical of most people on this forum.

#60 Posted by CreasianDevaili (4136 posts) -
Valid point about the cover reflecting negatively on the photographer. That cover IS trashy as $***, even though there's nothing particularly wrong with the photograph. But the photograph is part of the cover, and that mere association probably contributes to people blaming the photographer. It's not his decision to use that headline, it wasn't even his decision to use that photo. But the association still sticks, even if that's not really fair. Maybe this should be a clue that he should stop working for the New York Post and go get a job with a more respectable publication. But yes, shame plays a part in it, just not in the way you're saying. Of course there's the guilt of not helping, which means diverting the blame. The photographer is the only one who isn't completely anonymous, so he takes the heat. You're reading too much into it. Actually, you know what? You're not reading to much into it. You're just reading the wrong thing. On second thought, you're probably completely right that the particular way this was shot and presented probably contributes to the criticism this guy is facing, and it's a big part of why I don't think this photograph works. You say that this photograph shows an ugly part of humanity, and that's what's getting people to go after this guy. The problem is that there's no one in that photograph but the guy on the tracks (and the driver). We DON'T see anyone else standing by idly. And that's a big problem. If we DID see people standing by idly, then this photo WOULD be able to serve as a portrait of humanity's complacency. But we don't see that. Taken at face value, there's no indication that there's even anyone else there. Sure, we know that there were other people present, but that's not even implied in the image. Anyone who goes and looks at this photo and thinks "someone should have helped that guy" is naturally gonna look towards the photographer. Because aside from the victim and the driver, there's exactly ONE person whose presence is implied, and that's the photographer. He implied his presence in that scene simply by taking that picture. MrGeezer
Well yeah thats the issue. Its a bad pun but this is tunnel vision. People at face value will have to put themselves into the position, perspective wise, of the photographer. I don't think the original is shown anywhere. We don't know how cropped and enhanced it is as to take out anyone who was caught on the far side. I think what brought up the uglyness in humanity to me is the offset of that previous subway incident where someone did save another person. It is a NY subway system nonetheless. I'd like to go into that but I think that is extending too far outside the realm of this thread.
#61 Posted by CreasianDevaili (4136 posts) -
To be fair, the train driver probably isn't allowed to stop for a pedestrian on the tracks. The choice is killing one person v. potentially injuring the 200+ people onboard the train by trying to stop suddenly. I know that's the policy in the city in which I live.harashawn
Well that was why i said he couldn't, but that does not stop being from desperately trying to associate some blame. Its how people are.
#62 Posted by harashawn (27603 posts) -

[QUOTE="harashawn"]It's disgusting how many photojournalists will put getting the best shot ahead of being decent people.WhiteKnight77

You might want to read about what truly transpired before pronouncing such judgements. Look at the whole picture that was shown in the second link I posted about the guy who pushed the victim being arrested. The uncropped picture shows people awaiting the train and doing nothing. The linked interview with the photographer shows that he was doing something and that the driver did see what the photographer was doing. You are one of those people I was talking about with MrGeezer. You should be ashamed for jumping to conclusions when you haven't bothered to get all the facts, which is typical of most people on this forum.

I wasn't referring to this incident in particular. Just sharing my distaste for the photojournalist culture of "This photo is more important than a human life" that is so common. I probably should've said that in my initial post. Anyway, even if the driver saw him take the photo, the driver couldn't do anything about it. Public transit train drivers are not allowed to stop because there is a pedestrian on the track.
#63 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12018 posts) -

[QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"] Are you sure people are not using the "why didn't you help him?" as camo for just being embarassed? I mean if a person who thinks they'd be a hero in such a situation or just a good person was counting their change on the steps down, and as they got down that guy took the hit they might have conflicting emotions. However there is a photo with absolutely no one trying to help. You can't even tell that the conductor is trying to slow down. So it goes without saying that at least some in that subway are either embarassed or ashamed.

Then you have this city with a few prideful mottos and sayings about new yorkers taking care of new yorkers and you can go even futher. The photo was great and it is memorable. I think most of the anger towards the photographer is coming from how the Post displayed it with DOOM!!. I honestly think if they just ran it with no words at all this wouldn't have blown back on the guy as bad. The words and layout purposely emphasized things to get people to rage.

Also it is human nature for many to prefer something to blame than to have only yourself to. It is easier to blame the photographer than to blame the sum of humanity, or lack thereof, in that subway as a whole. Hell I am sure somewhere someone is thinking why the hell didn't the conductor slam the emergency brakes. Even though doing so would endanger countless people for the sake of one. People expect people to kill each other these days. People hope people save other people. But people fuggin hate pictures that destroys the hope in the latter.

Guy needs to stop defending himself cause it makes it look like he feels like he did something wrong. Which is actually making the anger grow. MrGeezer

Valid point about the cover reflecting negatively on the photographer. That cover IS trashy as $***, even though there's nothing particularly wrong with the photograph. But the photograph is part of the cover, and that mere association probably contributes to people blaming the photographer. It's not his decision to use that headline, it wasn't even his decision to use that photo. But the association still sticks, even if that's not really fair. Maybe this should be a clue that he should stop working for the New York Post and go get a job with a more respectable publication. But yes, shame plays a part in it, just not in the way you're saying. Of course there's the guilt of not helping, which means diverting the blame. The photographer is the only one who isn't completely anonymous, so he takes the heat. You're reading too much into it. Actually, you know what? You're not reading to much into it. You're just reading the wrong thing. On second thought, you're probably completely right that the particular way this was shot and presented probably contributes to the criticism this guy is facing, and it's a big part of why I don't think this photograph works. You say that this photograph shows an ugly part of humanity, and that's what's getting people to go after this guy. The problem is that there's no one in that photograph but the guy on the tracks (and the driver). We DON'T see anyone else standing by idly. And that's a big problem. If we DID see people standing by idly, then this photo WOULD be able to serve as a portrait of humanity's complacency. But we don't see that. Taken at face value, there's no indication that there's even anyone else there. Sure, we know that there were other people present, but that's not even implied in the image. Anyone who goes and looks at this photo and thinks "someone should have helped that guy" is naturally gonna look towards the photographer. Because aside from the victim and the driver, there's exactly ONE person whose presence is implied, and that's the photographer. He implied his presence in that scene simply by taking that picture.

The problem with the picture that the Post used is that it is cropped so it can fit the page properly. If you look at the uncropped pic shown in the link where the guy was arrested, you can see, even if they are not completely lit up, people standing in the background waiting on that train to stop that they were not going to be able to board once the train hit the victim.

The man is as freelance photographer. He makes money by selling a license to his pics to whomever will buy them. In this case, the NY Post are the ones who bought the pics, even if they are a tabloid type rag. He can still license the pics to the NY Times if he wants to and they are willing to buy them. As I said, blaming him is outrageous as no one knows where he was and as you said, no one sees the others that were there due to the blind rage that have at the photographer, which is unwarranted.

#64 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12018 posts) -

Well yeah thats the issue. Its a bad pun but this is tunnel vision. People at face value will have to put themselves into the position, perspective wise, of the photographer. I don't think the original is shown anywhere. We don't know how cropped and enhanced it is as to take out anyone who was caught on the far side. I think what brought up the uglyness in humanity to me is the offset of that previous subway incident where someone did save another person. It is a NY subway system nonetheless. I'd like to go into that but I think that is extending too far outside the realm of this thread.CreasianDevaili

See the link I posted about the guy who was arrested, the unedited, uncropped photo is shown.

#65 Posted by MrGeezer (56579 posts) -
[QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"] Well yeah thats the issue. Its a bad pun but this is tunnel vision.

Good way of putting it. Not the pun part, but just that "tunnel vision" really is just a very good description. I still stand by the idea that the photograph SHOULDN'T matter, that it SHOULD be irrelevant. But in terms of the criticism this guy is getting, it's not. People should be able to realize that there's absolutely no indication that it was even possible for the photographer to save the man. People should realize that there were other people there and it's bull$*** to make the photographer the scapegoat. But...that's not the way it works. That's not right and it's not fair, but that's the way it is.
#66 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12018 posts) -

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

[QUOTE="harashawn"]It's disgusting how many photojournalists will put getting the best shot ahead of being decent people.harashawn

You might want to read about what truly transpired before pronouncing such judgements. Look at the whole picture that was shown in the second link I posted about the guy who pushed the victim being arrested. The uncropped picture shows people awaiting the train and doing nothing. The linked interview with the photographer shows that he was doing something and that the driver did see what the photographer was doing. You are one of those people I was talking about with MrGeezer. You should be ashamed for jumping to conclusions when you haven't bothered to get all the facts, which is typical of most people on this forum.

I wasn't referring to this incident in particular. Just sharing my distaste for the photojournalist culture of "This photo is more important than a human life" that is so common. I probably should've said that in my initial post. Anyway, even if the driver saw him take the photo, the driver couldn't do anything about it. Public transit train drivers are not allowed to stop because there is a pedestrian on the track.

The problem is, this photographer wasn't really interested in taking pictures. He took close to 50 shots trying to warn the driver who was already pulling into the station and who did say he saw the warning and tried to stop, but couldn't.

Photojournalism is a needed profession, be it that they use a still camera or a video camera. People are a visually stimulated animal and just words on paper do not necessarily convey what a reporter is trying to tell. Picures are needed. One can say that photojournalism has been taking place as long as man has been around be it paintings on a cave wall to the garbage people post in stuff like The National Enquirer. Even The Wall Street Journal knows the value of photographs for use in it's publication.

#67 Posted by CreasianDevaili (4136 posts) -
[QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"] Well yeah thats the issue. Its a bad pun but this is tunnel vision. MrGeezer
Good way of putting it. Not the pun part, but just that "tunnel vision" really is just a very good description. I still stand by the idea that the photograph SHOULDN'T matter, that it SHOULD be irrelevant. But in terms of the criticism this guy is getting, it's not. People should be able to realize that there's absolutely no indication that it was even possible for the photographer to save the man. People should realize that there were other people there and it's bull$*** to make the photographer the scapegoat. But...that's not the way it works. That's not right and it's not fair, but that's the way it is.

Well after looking at the second link WhiteKnight77 posted we got to see the uncropped photo. It is alittle late since most who saw that Post one will just remember that one. But regardless of this I think the photographer will be fine. All he needs to do is stop trying to reinforce that he isn't to blame as to now entice more blame. I think many in the field will attest to that. Either he loses his motivation to stay in this line of work or he becomes better than he was before by having thicker skin.
#68 Posted by bnarmz (1425 posts) -
Public transit train drivers are not allowed to stop because there is a pedestrian on the track. harashawn
Actually, the conductor did try to stop the train by frantically pulling the emergency break. I took this quote out of todays newspaper, It's from the motorman.("I saw the guy, and I did what i was trained to do, you're hopeful you're going to stop, but you don't have control of the train at that time.") The trains don't actually come to a complete stop, they slow down rapidly into a complete stop, preventing as much harm to the passengers on board. source: NYDaily News
#69 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12018 posts) -

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"] Well yeah thats the issue. Its a bad pun but this is tunnel vision. CreasianDevaili
Good way of putting it. Not the pun part, but just that "tunnel vision" really is just a very good description. I still stand by the idea that the photograph SHOULDN'T matter, that it SHOULD be irrelevant. But in terms of the criticism this guy is getting, it's not. People should be able to realize that there's absolutely no indication that it was even possible for the photographer to save the man. People should realize that there were other people there and it's bull$*** to make the photographer the scapegoat. But...that's not the way it works. That's not right and it's not fair, but that's the way it is.

Well after looking at the second link WhiteKnight77 posted we got to see the uncropped photo. It is alittle late since most who saw that Post one will just remember that one. But regardless of this I think the photographer will be fine. All he needs to do is stop trying to reinforce that he isn't to blame as to now entice more blame. I think many in the field will attest to that. Either he loses his motivation to stay in this line of work or he becomes better than he was before by having thicker skin.

This is why I try to withhold judgement on something until more facts become known. Like the cop who punched the girl at the Puerto Rico Day Festival who supposedly threw water at him who was eventually busted and fired showed that the girl didn't throw the water to begin with (it was some guy actually). It took a second video to show that the girl was innocent and the cop was wrong.

#70 Posted by CreasianDevaili (4136 posts) -

[QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"] Good way of putting it. Not the pun part, but just that "tunnel vision" really is just a very good description. I still stand by the idea that the photograph SHOULDN'T matter, that it SHOULD be irrelevant. But in terms of the criticism this guy is getting, it's not. People should be able to realize that there's absolutely no indication that it was even possible for the photographer to save the man. People should realize that there were other people there and it's bull$*** to make the photographer the scapegoat. But...that's not the way it works. That's not right and it's not fair, but that's the way it is. WhiteKnight77

Well after looking at the second link WhiteKnight77 posted we got to see the uncropped photo. It is alittle late since most who saw that Post one will just remember that one. But regardless of this I think the photographer will be fine. All he needs to do is stop trying to reinforce that he isn't to blame as to now entice more blame. I think many in the field will attest to that. Either he loses his motivation to stay in this line of work or he becomes better than he was before by having thicker skin.

This is why I try to withhold judgement on something until more facts become known. Like the cop who punched the girl at the Puerto Rico Day Festival who supposedly threw water at him who was eventually busted and fired showed that the girl didn't throw the water to begin with (it was some guy actually). It took a second video to show that the girl was innocent and the cop was wrong.

I never blamed the photographer myself but I knew how he would/could be blamed. It is human reaction, knee jerk even, for that to happen. Especially with how the first photo was published. My main thing is that I expect the photographer to also understand that, especially with photography as a career choice. The more the picture goes either direction the more admiration or hate it will bring. You can't really escape that.
#71 Posted by shadowkiller11 (7956 posts) -
[QUOTE="theone86"]

Psychology has actually explained this long ago. The principle is that if there is a situation where someone is in need of help and other people around everybody thinks that someone else is going to help so nobody actually helps. Guy gets mugged in a large crowd, people do nothing. Guy gets mugged in a dark alley, the lone person present will probably help. The takeaway, if you're going to get mugged then do it when very few people are around.

MrGeezer
Here's the thing, though. If that's really the reason why the photographer didn't help the victim, then that means that there were other people around. So...why are we singling out the photographer here? The question goes from "why didn't the photographer help the victim" to "why didn't ANYONE help the victim?" We're not bashing everyone who was there, we're just bashing one person who was there. The photographer, who took a picture instead of helping the victim. Here's the problem: it's diverting the issue away from the REAL problem (nobody helped the victim) towards a completely bull$*** problem (instead of just watching the guy die, this man actually took a picture). And I think we have to stay on focus here. IF there was a problem with the bystanders' actions, then that problem is "not helping the dude". That's the ONLY problem. What people did WHILE not helping the dude is completely f***ing irrelevant. If this dude failed to act because there were other people there who he thought would act, then it's pretty misguided to direct anger towards this ONE GUY just because he happened to be the one complacent bystander who actually got pictures.

The bystanders are also to blame but criticism is with the photographer who is benefiting off a potentially fatal situation (which ended fatally) and then exploited it by selling it to newspapers. theone86 basically nailed it.
#72 Posted by MrGeezer (56579 posts) -
The bystanders are also to blame but criticism is with the photographer who is benefiting off a potentially fatal situation (which ended fatally) and then exploited it by selling it to newspapers. theone86 basically nailed it. shadowkiller11
No he didn't. There's no indication that the photographer's actions had anything to do with bystander apathy. In fact, he very well may have been the only one there who actually tried to do anything to help.
#73 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12018 posts) -

[QUOTE="shadowkiller11"]The bystanders are also to blame but criticism is with the photographer who is benefiting off a potentially fatal situation (which ended fatally) and then exploited it by selling it to newspapers. theone86 basically nailed it. MrGeezer
No he didn't. There's no indication that the photographer's actions had anything to do with bystander apathy. In fact, he very well may have been the only one there who actually tried to do anything to help.

Thank you. I waas going to say something similar, but in not so nice words. BTW, your sig pic ins't showing up.

#74 Posted by gamerguru100 (10647 posts) -

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="themajormayor"]Doesn't the subway in NYC has an area under the platform where you can be safe from the train?KiIIyou

that's where the rats and hobos live

And hobo-rats.

And hobo-alligator-rats. Can't forget those gators.
#75 Posted by MrGeezer (56579 posts) -
Hey, take a look at this...http://www.petapixel.com/2012/12/04/photograph-of-doomed-man-on-subway-tracks-sparks-outrage/ That's the picture without the crop done for the cover. Take note of the people standing around. In this case it looks like they are way off in the distance and the photographer is close to the man, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything. Different lenses will give a different appearance, so one can't judge where the photographer was standing based just on one image. Now take a look at this, particularly 3rd image down, the one with the MSPaint text on it...http://nyc.barstoolsports.com/m/super-page/new-york-post-in-hot-water-for-showing-this-dude-about-to-get-hit-by-the-train/ One thing we notice here is "no f***ing train." We also see people standing around. And while we can't tell where the photographer is standing, it does appear that he is located in approximately the same place as in the published photo. It's hard to tell anything meaningful from one photo. But what if we compare them? In whatever time it took for the train to reach the guy, we can look at what has changed between the photos. And it doesn't look like much changed. However much time elapsed between the taking of those two photos, it looks as if the only thing that changed was that the train got closer.
#76 Posted by CreasianDevaili (4136 posts) -
Hey, take a look at this...http://www.petapixel.com/2012/12/04/photograph-of-doomed-man-on-subway-tracks-sparks-outrage/ That's the picture without the crop done for the cover. Take note of the people standing around. In this case it looks like they are way off in the distance and the photographer is close to the man, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything. Different lenses will give a different appearance, so one can't judge where the photographer was standing based just on one image. Now take a look at this, particularly 3rd image down, the one with the MSPaint text on it...http://nyc.barstoolsports.com/m/super-page/new-york-post-in-hot-water-for-showing-this-dude-about-to-get-hit-by-the-train/ One thing we notice here is "no f***ing train." We also see people standing around. And while we can't tell where the photographer is standing, it does appear that he is located in approximately the same place as in the published photo. It's hard to tell anything meaningful from one photo. But what if we compare them? In whatever time it took for the train to reach the guy, we can look at what has changed between the photos. And it doesn't look like much changed. However much time elapsed between the taking of those two photos, it looks as if the only thing that changed was that the train got closer.MrGeezer
It sounds like you are finding the photographer's actions in conflict with your earlier stance? Well maybe not entirely since you based it on that one photograph. But now with other photos, he may just indeed deserve some of the critic on his humanity?
#77 Posted by koospetoors (3245 posts) -

[QUOTE="JustSignedUp"]

people-nowadays-drowning-man-taking-phot

VanHelsingBoA64

what's with their clothes? r they in prison?

They're a prisoner to their own technology... or something deep like that, hell if I know.
#78 Posted by MrGeezer (56579 posts) -
[QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"] It sounds like you are finding the photographer's actions in conflict with your earlier stance? Well maybe not entirely since you based it on that one photograph. But now with other photos, he may just indeed deserve some of the critic on his humanity?

Not really, there still isn't enough information. How much time elapsed between those two photos? I don't know. I just thought it was interesting, and something to think about.
#79 Posted by leviathan91 (7763 posts) -

Sometimes it's better to record rather than intervene but that really depends on the situation.

#80 Posted by CreasianDevaili (4136 posts) -
[QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"] It sounds like you are finding the photographer's actions in conflict with your earlier stance? Well maybe not entirely since you based it on that one photograph. But now with other photos, he may just indeed deserve some of the critic on his humanity?MrGeezer
Not really, there still isn't enough information. How much time elapsed between those two photos? I don't know. I just thought it was interesting, and something to think about.

Well, damnit, what do you think about it then? The photo showing no train is kind of dark and I haven't tried to change the saturation yet. However if the photographer saw no train before he started taking pictures then that also throws into question his "I took pictures to warn the incoming subway train". Of course maybe he heard it coming. Or it was due any second. Etc.
#81 Posted by MrGeezer (56579 posts) -
[QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"] Well, damnit, what do you think about it then? The photo showing no train is kind of dark and I haven't tried to change the saturation yet. However if the photographer saw no train before he started taking pictures then that also throws into question his "I took pictures to warn the incoming subway train". Of course maybe he heard it coming. Or it was due any second. Etc.

Well, at first I thought that the "no train" photo seemed pretty damning. But then on second thought I decided that it was still too inconclusive. Like, the dude wrote "no train" on the photo. But if you look way in the background where the people are standing, there's a tiny bright spot above their heads and a little bit of light near their feet. And while it's hard to tell (especially with such a low quality photo), it's quite possible that that's the train. Which, if true, actually places the train a lot freaking closer than the "no ****ing train" caption would indicate. And depending on how fast the train was moving (hell if I know), it very well could be only a couple of seconds between those two photos. I think that comparing photos is a bit more meaningful than going off of a single photo, but it's still not nearly enough information to make any real conclusions. Photos lie.
#82 Posted by CreasianDevaili (4136 posts) -
[QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"] Well, damnit, what do you think about it then? The photo showing no train is kind of dark and I haven't tried to change the saturation yet. However if the photographer saw no train before he started taking pictures then that also throws into question his "I took pictures to warn the incoming subway train". Of course maybe he heard it coming. Or it was due any second. Etc.MrGeezer
Well, at first I thought that the "no train" photo seemed pretty damning. But then on second thought I decided that it was still too inconclusive. Like, the dude wrote "no train" on the photo. But if you look way in the background where the people are standing, there's a tiny bright spot above their heads and a little bit of light near their feet. And while it's hard to tell (especially with such a low quality photo), it's quite possible that that's the train. Which, if true, actually places the train a lot freaking closer than the "no ****ing train" caption would indicate. And depending on how fast the train was moving (hell if I know), it very well could be only a couple of seconds between those two photos. I think that comparing photos is a bit more meaningful than going off of a single photo, but it's still not nearly enough information to make any real conclusions. Photos lie.

I think those lights are actually one of the overhead LCD tvs. If you look at the one the post ran on the front page you see the TV. So it has to be there in the crappy quality one too. Since it's edge lines up with the edge of the platform I say thats the TV. So I cannot see any train or indication of one.
#83 Posted by MrGeezer (56579 posts) -
[QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"] I think those lights are actually one of the overhead LCD tvs. If you look at the one the post ran on the front page you see the TV. So it has to be there in the crappy quality one too. Since it's edge lines up with the edge of the platform I say thats the TV. So I cannot see any train or indication of one.

I wasn't sure about that, but there does seem to be a very small patch of yellow light by the peoples' feet, which looks like it's coming from down the tunnel. In any case, I can't really see down the length of the tunnel, the view down the tunnel is obstructed. In which case "no train" is a bit misleading. MAYBE there's no train and the train isn't anywhere close, but it's also entirely possible that the train is just past the end of the platform. It's just really hard to tell. I guess if the picture is that inconclusive, there really wasn't any reason to post it in the first place.
#84 Posted by CreasianDevaili (4136 posts) -
[QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"] I think those lights are actually one of the overhead LCD tvs. If you look at the one the post ran on the front page you see the TV. So it has to be there in the crappy quality one too. Since it's edge lines up with the edge of the platform I say thats the TV. So I cannot see any train or indication of one.MrGeezer
I wasn't sure about that, but there does seem to be a very small patch of yellow light by the peoples' feet, which looks like it's coming from down the tunnel. In any case, I can't really see down the length of the tunnel, the view down the tunnel is obstructed. In which case "no train" is a bit misleading. MAYBE there's no train and the train isn't anywhere close, but it's also entirely possible that the train is just past the end of the platform. It's just really hard to tell. I guess if the picture is that inconclusive, there really wasn't any reason to post it in the first place.

The thread may have ran its course but it was more interesting than half the front page. Well cept the star trek stuff mentioned. But it does deal with someone who was killed and regardless I think its a good discussion since it deals with people's perception of humanity and personal responsibility. Or, rather, obligations to their fellow man. I am sure someone with sufficient programs will enhance the photos and get a better glimpse.
#85 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12018 posts) -

That new photo is inconclusive and if you notice, there is a man closer to the victim compared to everyone else. That may have been the pusher though, there is not enough info to tell. Notice that no one else made any effort to move towards the victim to help him. Not one photo shows people moving closer to the man to aid him. I would say typical New Yorkers, but then that castigates those who do not live in the city or on Long Island.

#86 Posted by MrGeezer (56579 posts) -
I am sure someone with sufficient programs will enhance the photos and get a better glimpse.CreasianDevaili
I don't even know if that's worth it. I mean...what good would actually come out of it? At most it'd only confirm the photographer's story or prove that he was lying. In either case...so? If he's lying and he actually could have saved that man, does it really matter? He's not gonna get arrested or anything (same with all of the other bystanders) and he's already been damned by the media. Alternatively, if everything he said was true and he didn't do a single thing wrong, then I don't think that's gonna convince people. All I can say is that there's one clear thing that came out of this. This brought up discussion about people's responsibility to their fellow man (although I think too much of that discussion is focused on the photographer as a scapegoat). I think people should probably just leave it at that and hopefully use it as an opportunity to be better people. Hopefully there's something that everyone can take from this, be they photographers, newspaper editors, or just random people standing around in public.
#87 Posted by CreasianDevaili (4136 posts) -
[QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"]I am sure someone with sufficient programs will enhance the photos and get a better glimpse.MrGeezer
I don't even know if that's worth it. I mean...what good would actually come out of it? At most it'd only confirm the photographer's story or prove that he was lying. In either case...so? If he's lying and he actually could have saved that man, does it really matter? He's not gonna get arrested or anything (same with all of the other bystanders) and he's already been damned by the media. Alternatively, if everything he said was true and he didn't do a single thing wrong, then I don't think that's gonna convince people. All I can say is that there's one clear thing that came out of this. This brought up discussion about people's responsibility to their fellow man (although I think too much of that discussion is focused on the photographer as a scapegoat). I think people should probably just leave it at that and hopefully use it as an opportunity to be better people. Hopefully there's something that everyone can take from this, be they photographers, newspaper editors, or just random people standing around in public.

Possible civil suit if it can be proven that he let the man die in order to make money? I dunno. Not saying right or wrong but people do civil lawsuits for all sorts of weird or overly expansive reasons. Just saying one reason there might be a effect of the cause, in the photo timeline that is.
#88 Posted by MrGeezer (56579 posts) -
[QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"] Possible civil suit if it can be proven that he let the man die in order to make money? I dunno. Not saying right or wrong but people do civil lawsuits for all sorts of weird or overly expansive reasons. Just saying one reason there might be a effect of the cause, in the photo timeline that is.

I guess, but I suspect that would be pretty unlikely. If it did happen though, that'd be pretty disappointing. Even if he could have saved the man and did nothing about it, singling him out for a lawsuit sort of would send the message that saving him wasn't even the issue. The message sent isn't that we should help each other whenever possible, it'd simply be "don't take any pictures". The man's mistake wouldn't have been in ignoring the victim's need for help, his real mistake would have been in singling himself out by not doing what the rest of the crowd was doing (which in this case, was nothing).
#89 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12018 posts) -

Here are a couple of shots I took a few minutes ago showing how deceptive pictures can be. I used the same 70-300mm lens to take both pictures, one at each focal length, 70mm and 300mm. The train was approximately .4 of a mile away.

Train

Train

Both pictures were taken the with same shutter speed and ISO settings.

#90 Posted by masiisam (5721 posts) -

I hope his family can find relief for their lossRIP

Everyone is an ass on this one.

Btw the camera man was less than 20 feet from the victim..His flash clearly illuminates the victim and surrounding area

#91 Posted by airshocker (29930 posts) -

It's pathetic that no one even attempted to help this man.

#92 Posted by WiiCubeM1 (4728 posts) -

Welcome to the world when they first developed the camera.

#93 Posted by Lord_Omikron666 (4768 posts) -

Yeah, let's take a picture of a guy that's about to be destroyed by a train, hopefully someone else will help him.

#94 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12018 posts) -

I hope his family can find relief for their lossRIP

Everyone is an ass on this one.

Btw the camera man was less than 20 feet from the victim..His flash clearly illuminates the victim and surrounding area

masiisam

This statement shows how much you have followed this. He took approximately 50 shots trying to warn the train's driver. He was between 500-600 feet away. As you can see in the two pictures I posted, things are not always as they seem. The Post altered the pictures by lightening them up. The flash wasn't lighting anything up. Look at the original pic and you can barely see the front of the train unlike the Post pic does.

#95 Posted by Lonelynight (30041 posts) -
I'll probably just stand and watch, fvck you stranger I don't owe you anything.
#96 Posted by jeremiah06 (7169 posts) -

it is disturbing yes, but on the other hand, if someones committing suicide im sure as heck not gonna help em

Postal_Guy
Dude was pushed...
#98 Posted by MrGeezer (56579 posts) -
Here are a couple of shots I took a few minutes ago showing how deceptive pictures can be. WhiteKnight77
Oh yeah, I know. Like I said, photos lie. That said, it's VERY hard to get useful information from one photograph without knowing specific details. However, in the presence of multiple photos, information can be retrieved. Just so long as there are constants in how the pictures were made, then it's possible to gain information by COMPARING. Example...in the two photos I posted, the photographer wouldn't have been changing focal lengths or shutter speeds or anything like that. If he was telling the truth, then all of that stuff would have been constant for ALL of the photos (because why bother changing if his intent really was just to use his flash to get the driver's attention?) In such a case, it's easier to determine RELATIVE locations. We still wouldn't know where the photographer was, but we would be able to determine that his position didn't change that much between the two photographs. But like I said before, that's all irrelevant since there is no TIME data for the two photographs, and we don't know how fast the train was going. Could have been 15 seconds between the two photos, or two seconds between the two photos. It's impossible to tell. But yeah...photos absolutely lie.
#99 Posted by MrGeezer (56579 posts) -

I hope his family can find relief for their lossRIP

Everyone is an ass on this one.

Btw the camera man was less than 20 feet from the victim..His flash clearly illuminates the victim and surrounding area

masiisam
In the published photo, yes. However, that is CLEARLY the photo taken just before the man got hit, which means that at that point it was way too late to save the man anyway. That's actually consistent with the man's account that he was running towards the victim and wasn't able to get there in time. Show a comparison. Show a second photo taken from the same vantage point, and demonstrate that it was taken a significant amount of time BEFORE the photo that made the cover.
#100 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12018 posts) -

[QUOTE="masiisam"]

I hope his family can find relief for their lossRIP

Everyone is an ass on this one.

Btw the camera man was less than 20 feet from the victim..His flash clearly illuminates the victim and surrounding area

MrGeezer

In the published photo, yes. However, that is CLEARLY the photo taken just before the man got hit, which means that at that point it was way too late to save the man anyway. That's actually consistent with the man's account that he was running towards the victim and wasn't able to get there in time. Show a comparison. Show a second photo taken from the same vantage point, and demonstrate that it was taken a significant amount of time BEFORE the photo that made the cover.

I somewhat called him on the distance thing as the photographer stated that he was 500-600 feet from the man. Hence the second photo I took showing that distances in photos are hard to judge. A longer focal point makes things look closer then they really are.