RailPictures.Net Forums

RailPictures.Net Forums (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/index.php)
-   Railroad Photography Forum (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Fire (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/showthread.php?t=16102)

GBR 01-23-2013 01:15 PM

Fire
 
Is there any policy about the shots of accidents?

[photoid=422220]

Although in the picture is not visible, but the bodies are there in the fire. In my opinion, no matter how good composition (with the advertisement) and interesting shot, it is not correct to publish here in a few hours after the incident.

magicman_841 01-23-2013 01:30 PM

It's unusual for RP, maybe, but there are websites devoted exclusively to stuff like that.

DWHonan 01-23-2013 01:45 PM

Images such as, and worse than, this are published by news organizations all the time. There is no RP guideline prohibiting submitting newsworthy photos. Given those two simple facts, I do not see how it is "not correct" to upload the photo here.

Joe the Photog 01-23-2013 01:50 PM

So how long should pass before the above image can be posted? It's a fine pice of photojournalism..... in spite of it being a wedgie.*

* See also inane thread on ObsCar YahooGroup

WMHeilman 01-23-2013 05:56 PM

I'm glad the shot was accepted AND got the mass views it did from being on the front page. Just a great (but chilling) example of what can happen if you're enough of a dumbass to try and beat a train to a crossing. I feel no sympathy for the driver. I can't say the same for the passenger...

KevinM 01-23-2013 08:03 PM

Personally, I'm not a fan of shots like that, and I found this one particularly distasteful, for the very reason the OP mentioned. I didn't need to see a shot of the carnage in Newtown, CT and I certainly don't need to see a cremation in progress.

There are times when one has to just put that damn camera down and either help deal with the issue, or show some respect for those less fortunate than the rest of us. Any one of us could make a mistake tomorrow and end up cashing in our chips.

It's OK for RP to have a documentary side. I'd just hate to see that become a tabloid side. ;-)

sd9 01-23-2013 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GBR (Post 163394)
Is there any policy about the shots of accidents?

[photoid=422220]

Although in the picture is not visible, but the bodies are there in the fire. In my opinion, no matter how good composition (with the advertisement) and interesting shot, it is not correct to publish here in a few hours after the incident.

You know this for a fact that they are there, or are you assuming they are?

wds 01-23-2013 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sd9 (Post 163417)
You know this for a fact that they are there, or are you assuming they are?

That would be a pretty safe assumption I should think in this case...
It <b>is</b> possible they foamed the car, did the extraction then the fire flared up again however.

Flowing 01-24-2013 03:00 AM

If nothing else, this photo has generated lots of talk. I find it particularly horrifying and my gut feeling is that I don't like seeing it on Railpictures. However, I acknowledge that the photo would be a powerful candidate for use in highway and railroad crossing safety education, such as an Operation Lifesaver program. If this photo wouldn't get the message across, what would? In those instances, it's the intent not to sugar coat reality and show the harsh consequences of thoughtless actions. However, Railpictures isn't the venue I'd have chosen for this 'harsh reality' photo had I taken it (which I probably wouldn't have in the first place).

Ween 01-24-2013 03:29 AM

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.1246217

Doesn't say it in the article itself, but the photo caption says:

"She was rushing her elderly father to the doctors office when she drove around a crossing guard at the Long Island Rail Road station."

Don't know if it was a routine visit (and she was running late) or if it was an emergency situation. Either way, the train wins...

GBR 01-24-2013 03:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sd9 (Post 163417)
You know this for a fact that they are there, or are you assuming they are?

"Once the fire was extinguished, first responders extracted two bodies from the vehicle, which Arena described as ‘burnt beyond recognition.’"

Watain 01-24-2013 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GBR (Post 163449)
"Once the fire was extinguished, first responders extracted two bodies from the vehicle, which Arena described as ‘burnt beyond recognition.’"

Very sad, cant help but feel sorry for the families of the victims, and the crew of the train. Considering that there are human beings in that car, I don't think it should have been posted. But then again newspapers do it all the time..

crazytiger 01-24-2013 05:18 AM

I'm going to pipe up in defense of it being posted for a few reasons. 1) That there were bodies in the car at the time the picture was taken, to me, doesn't mean it shouldn't be shown. This type of photo is published all the time. For that matter, no pictures of 9/11 should ever have been shown. Sh*t happens. 2) By all accounts, someone didn't heed the warning and paid for it. And as such, in the ensuing publicity, I hope this provides a lesson to someone somewhere that may decide not to bypass the gates in a given situation. That seems like plenty enough reason to me for it to be shown. Yes, it's disturbing, but I don't think that's a reason to reject this photo. If it were genuinely gory, I would have a different opinion. Finally, IMO, it should be up to the photographer to decide and, in this case, he elected to post it.

GBR 01-24-2013 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazytiger (Post 163452)
Finally, IMO, it should be up to the photographer to decide and, in this case, he elected to post it.

This has become immediately (and forever?) the most popular and most favorited image of Chris from 359. Maybe he already regretted the upload... (Just IMO, I don't know the Truth.)

Holloran Grade 01-24-2013 08:08 AM

I would have photographed this.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by wds (Post 163420)
That would be a pretty safe assumption I should think in this case...
It <b>is</b> possible they foamed the car, did the extraction then the fire flared up again however.

LOL!:lol:

I thought it was great how all the comments on this image talk about how two people were killed, and yet none address that fact that they are still in there.

I thought about posting "Nice BBQ picture ya got there" but I figured the faithful would freak out if I eluded to the obvious.

Funny how shallow many of the people on this Site are, and yet they have kittens over something like this:

[photoid=324321]


I would have taken the shot and submitted it, what the heck.

Joe the Photog 01-24-2013 12:25 PM

It makes me glad some of you guys weren't around when Nick Ut took his iconic "Vietnam Napalm" photo for the AP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Ut

I'm not sugesting that Chris Allen's shot is on par with that. Certainlyit is not as far as a historical context, but life often is not pretty and neither is death, but sometimes it needs to be seen. Just as that awful day in Sepetember, 2001 when we saw people jumping from the highest floors of the World Trade Center.

I don't *see* the carnage here. I don't consider it gruesome, either. I know there were people in the car when this shot was taken, but I don't see any remnants. This should be here on RP and I'm glad he loaded it.

hoydie17 01-24-2013 01:28 PM

Is RP.net a photography site, or a news website?

On it's very own title bar is says the "Best Railroad Photos On the Net"... nowhere does it say RP is anything about news, or current events. They only accept "newsworthy" photos when they think it'll result in a click-fest which means it generates revenue for the site. (tarp-covered UP heritage units inside a dimly lit building, anyone, Bueller...?)

Quality is obviously subjective, the only thing that makes that photo remotely railroad related is that it happens to be in front of a LIRR commuter train.

I don't go to RP.net looking for news, I go looking for quality photos of railroad subjects. This particular specimen is piss poor in quality, especially for RP's occasionally enforced standards. First rejection should have been for "distracting shadows" (tree shadows on side of railcar, foreground in shade). Second rejection "unlevel" since it's obvious the photographer didn't level the photo at all. Thirdly, the cropping is awful, cropped off half of the passenger car, wires and poles hanging in the background with no place to go.

But it's RP.net... all is forgiven as long as it's "newsworthy".... nevermind that news reporting is not their forte. If it was, there should be a dozen screeners on duty 24/7/365 waiting for photos to get posted, not 4 or 5 that get to the screening queue as they find the time.

Holloran Grade 01-24-2013 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe the Photog (Post 163465)
It makes me glad some of you guys weren't around when Nick Ut took his iconic "Vietnam Napalm" photo for the AP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Ut

I am glad you bought that shot up Joe, since people are always bashing on the quality and relevance for "grab shots."

This was a grab shot, and it won the Pulizer.

bigbassloyd 01-24-2013 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoydie17 (Post 163468)
Is RP.net a photography site, or a news website?

On it's very own title bar is says the "Best Railroad Photos On the Net"... nowhere does it say RP is anything about news, or current events. They only accept "newsworthy" photos when they think it'll result in a click-fest which means it generates revenue for the site. (tarp-covered UP heritage units inside a dimly lit building, anyone, Bueller...?)

Quality is obviously subjective, the only thing that makes that photo remotely railroad related is that it happens to be in front of a LIRR commuter train.

I don't go to RP.net looking for news, I go looking for quality photos of railroad subjects. This particular specimen is piss poor in quality, especially for RP's occasionally enforced standards. First rejection should have been for "distracting shadows" (tree shadows on side of railcar, foreground in shade). Second rejection "unlevel" since it's obvious the photographer didn't level the photo at all. Thirdly, the cropping is awful, cropped off half of the passenger car, wires and poles hanging in the background with no place to go.

But it's RP.net... all is forgiven as long as it's "newsworthy".... nevermind that news reporting is not their forte. If it was, there should be a dozen screeners on duty 24/7/365 waiting for photos to get posted, not 4 or 5 that get to the screening queue as they find the time.

You should win an award for this. Nailed it! RP is all about quality unless it's a photo of an accident, women, LTE, or a flash shot at night with 2 flashes :D


Loyd L.

Joe the Photog 01-24-2013 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoydie17 (Post 163468)
Is RP.net a photography site, or a news website?

The easy and most obvious answer is: Yes! It can be both and nowhere do they suggest otherwise. They obviously accept newsworthy shots and sometimes those shots are, shall we say, less than great. But this is a railroad photography web site and it would seem silly to reject a newsworthy shot because it's not perfect.
Quote:

Originally Posted by hoydie17 (Post 163468)
I don't go to RP.net looking for news, I go looking for quality photos of railroad subjects.

And that's totally fine. For you.
Quote:

Originally Posted by hoydie17 (Post 163468)
This particular specimen is piss poor in quality, especially for RP's occasionally enforced standards. First rejection should have been for "distracting shadows" (tree shadows on side of railcar, foreground in shade). Second rejection "unlevel" since it's obvious the photographer didn't level the photo at all. Thirdly, the cropping is awful, cropped off half of the passenger car, wires and poles hanging in the background with no place to go.

To be honest, I didn't note any of those issues except for the cropping until you brought them up. When I was in news if I went to shoot this scene and came back empty handed, my boss would want to know why. If I said, "but there were distracting shadows on the car, all those power lines and poles..." Well first, my boss would have a heart attack. And then they would have screamed at me so loud that windows would have shattered, the anchors ears would have bled and the boss would have broken vocal cords.

Of course, this isn't a newsroom, as you are about to say. But the point remains. You don't reject what frankly is a unique shot for reasons that people would have brought a typical shot in here for complaining about. It shows something I personally have never seen -- a car on fire after being hit by a train. I guess I have seen the aftermath before, but not the actual scene.

At a passenger platform, nonetheless. The real story here might actually be that only two people lost their lives and not more.

GBR 01-24-2013 03:26 PM

There is no doubt that this image has a very strong dramatic effect. It could win press photo award.

But: This site is not only an informational database, for me (and I think most of us) this site is a forum where we can present our creations, we can get (competent) audience and we are competing for views, favorites, etc. In this picture, two humans currently die. Might be I am wrong, but in my opinion this theme is not “correct” to this site.

Joe the Photog 01-24-2013 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GBR (Post 163476)
There is no doubt that this image has a very strong dramatic effect. <SNIP> but in my opinion this theme is not “correct” to this site.

The truth is that as much as debate the contents of this site, none of our opinions matter much. The admins and now the screeners rarely come to these forums anymore and since they took the photo, I suppose their intentions were clear.
Quote:

Originally Posted by GBR (Post 163476)
this site is a forum where we can present our creations, we can get (competent) audience and we are competing for views, favorites, etc.

Which is what the photographer of the photo in question has done.
Quote:

Originally Posted by GBR (Post 163476)
In this picture, two humans currently die. Might be I am wrong, but in my opinion this theme is not “correct” to this site.

It's not the only photo on the site that depicts death, though, and I do not recall a debate over those pictures. I realize this shot is a little different in that regards as the bodies have not been moved, but death is death.

hoydie17 01-24-2013 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe the Photog (Post 163473)
The easy and most obvious answer is: Yes! It can be both and nowhere do they suggest otherwise. They obviously accept newsworthy shots and sometimes those shots are, shall we say, less than great. But this is a railroad photography web site and it would seem silly to reject a newsworthy shot because it's not perfect.

And that's totally fine. For you.

To be honest, I didn't note any of those issues except for the cropping until you brought them up. When I was in news if I went to shoot this scene and came back empty handed, my boss would want to know why. If I said, "but there were distracting shadows on the car, all those power lines and poles..." Well first, my boss would have a heart attack. And then they would have screamed at me so loud that windows would have shattered, the anchors ears would have bled and the boss would have broken vocal cords.

Of course, this isn't a newsroom, as you are about to say. But the point remains. You don't reject what frankly is a unique shot for reasons that people would have brought a typical shot in here for complaining about. It shows something I personally have never seen -- a car on fire after being hit by a train. I guess I have seen the aftermath before, but not the actual scene.

At a passenger platform, nonetheless. The real story here might actually be that only two people lost their lives and not more.

Joe, they reject more unique shots than that from this site all the time for the very same reasons I listed above... sorry, that dog don't hunt.

You're correct, a newsroom and especially news producer would have every reason to give you the riot act for not getting the photos. But you make my point with your pre-emptive "this is not a newsroom" comment. That is your profession and why you would have been sent to the scene in the first place.

KevinM 01-24-2013 07:01 PM

No argument that most news organizations would shoot whatever they could while in the field. It is also true that the Program Managers and Editors at any major media outlet would likely cull out anything like the shot we are discussing, because of the potential public outcry over the insensitivity of showing accident victims being cremated....or worse yet, burning alive.

Only the tabloids would publish material like this. That is because they only care about views (sales). Community standards mean nothing to them because they don't have to renew their FCC licenses every so many years, like the broadcast media does.

I don't see any police, fire or EMS people in this photo. If this were indeed the scene of a fatal accident, it would never have been left alone, because the NTSB has to be involved and the evidence needs to be preserved. That really makes me wonder about the circumstances in which this photo was taken. If this person was on-scene and the authorities had not arrived yet....then why the hell wasn't he looking for a fire extinguisher vs. standing around taking silly-ass pictures?

hoydie17 01-24-2013 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinM (Post 163482)
No argument that most news organizations would shoot whatever they could while in the field. It is also true that the Program Managers and Editors at any major media outlet would likely cull out anything like the shot we are discussing, because of the potential public outcry over the insensitivity of showing accident victims being cremated....or worse yet, burning alive.

Only the tabloids would publish material like this. That is because they only care about views (sales). Community standards mean nothing to them because they don't have to renew their FCC licenses every so many years, like the broadcast media does.

I don't see any police, fire or EMS people in this photo. If this were indeed the scene of a fatal accident, it would never have been left alone, because the NTSB has to be involved and the evidence needs to be preserved. That really makes me wonder about the circumstances in which this photo was taken. If this person was on-scene and the authorities had not arrived yet....then why the hell wasn't he looking for a fire extinguisher vs. standing around taking silly-ass pictures?

Kevin wins this thread hands down... and raises a very strong argument about the security of the scene...


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:20 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.