Grim. Weird. Morbidly fascinating

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39798988

Good advert for whatever brand of camera was used. Must be fairly durable.

Or at least the memory card is…..

Crikey. The second pic, taken by the Afghan soldier is more shocking, I think.
Horrible, but yeah fascinating.

That’s a bit creepy looking at those images.

Given that there are two images from different people showing the same thing taken at the same time, I guess these are images taken from a video feed, rather than ‘photographs’ in the traditional sense?

No spoilers from me but you might want to read it.

video feed, rather than ‘photographs’ in the traditional sense

Read the article?

Thought this was gonna be about the daft weegie taking selfies on the Autobahn….

joshvegas – Member

Read the article?

Yep. Did you?
Did I miss something??

Yes 🙄

somafunk – Member

Yes

Go on then. The suspenders are killing me……

The whole bit about she was training an afghan photographer when it happened?

They’d be firing off the shutter like mad or just holding the release down for multiple shots.

joshvegas – Member

The whole bit about she was training an afghan photographer when it happened?

They’d be firing off the shutter like mad or just holding the release down for multiple shots.

But the photo taken by the Afghan (2nd pic down) appears to show someone; presumably the 4th Afghan (?) with a video camera, rather than a stills camera – so it made me wonder if they all had video cameras or ‘normal’ cameras?

The article calls her a ‘photographer’ and a ‘camerawoman’, so to me it is not wholly clear.

From what I have seen, if you were trying to capture an explosion it would be done using some kind of high speed camera – rather than a still camera. Obviously, they weren’t trying to capture the moment of an explosion here (it was an unfortunate accident) but nevertheless that it what 2 different people have managed to achieve in this situation, completely independently using 2 separate pieces of equipment….

Even ‘holding the shutter down for multiple shots’ would only get you to perhaps 10 frames/sec – whereas a video camera could be recording at 30 or 60fps.
How fast would that flame front have propagated from the explosion? Bloody quickly (speed of sound?), yet they have captured it at almost exactly the same time…..
The images look more like the sort of still you would get from a HD video, rather than taken from a high quality camera.

That’s how I see it anyway. The chances of two people capturing almost exactly the same point of an unpredicted explosive event seems pretty small to me.
It seems more likely to me that they were using video equipment rather than camera equipment, hence why I was pondering the point.

It might seem trivial, or a pointless question…..but in my head there is quite a difference between ‘woman photographs the moment of her death’ and ‘woman’s video camera is recording at the point she died’.
From a journalistic/reporting/story point of view – the ‘photograph’ is a stronger story than the ‘video’ one…..

Anyway – sorry to have de-railed the thread. Just trying to read between the lines and perhaps think more about the headline than just taking it as read……You can blame my history teacher for that.

if you were trying to capture an explosion

Erm…
But, yeah – that’s obviously her camera in the 2nd pic. Could be a video camera. Still, amazing and disturbing images however they were captured.

Obviously, they weren’t trying to capture the moment of an explosion here (it was an unfortunate accident)

Erm…..

DezB – Member

But, yeah – that’s obviously her camera in the 2nd pic. Could be a video camera. Still, amazing and disturbing images however they were captured.

Is it her camera in the second image? I initially thought that. But the guy in her image is almost completely side-on.
Comparing her image to the one taken by the Afghan, I think she was positioned to his right – probably kneeling down due to the amount of sky in the image (shooting upwards).

The image taken by the camera that you can see in the second pic would show more of the front of the unfortunate bloke, hence why I don’t think it was her.

Yep, a pretty amazing set of images however they were obtained.
It looks to me like the bloke in her image has just loaded the mortar & is reaching to cover his ears. The other guy next to the mortar already has his hands on his ears so presumably wasn’t the one dropping the mortar into the tube.

It reminds me of the downhill photographs where someone’s wheel has just collapsed, but they are resolutely gripping the bars & looking down the trail, as the camera has caught a moment that their brain hasn’t caught up with yet….

What I found weird about this was that they say “The photos were published with the permission of the Clayton family.”, but nothing about whether the other families involved were consulted.

Worse still the article (and all other coverage I have seen) focuses solely on Clayton and describes the other photographer as “an Afghan whom Spc Clayton was training in photojournalism. He was among the dead.”

Seems a bit ripe!

The Metro coverage yesterday even gave the impression that the second (arguably “better”) photograph was the one Clayton took.

This isn’t the first time that a photographer/cameraman has caught the means of their own death on camera, there was a well known occasion during one of the Chilean coup that brought Pinochet to power (I think it was during that) when a cameraman was filming a group of soldiers, one of whom turned, took aim and shot the cameraman.

Looking at the images in the article, the second image clearly shows a video camera in the bottom left corner and the caption for the first states that it was the image(sic) taken by Clayton. If you were training someone then it’s likely you’d be using similar equipment so I’d guess that the unnamed Afghan was also using a video camera. I’d agree with GrahamS’s comment about the Metro coverage as it only had the shot taken by the Afghan.

brings home the reality of what the armed forces face doesn’t it, the rest of us sat safely at home really don’t have a clue.

Yup – and this wasn’t even in hostile action, it was just a training exercise! 🙁

What I found weird about this was that they say “The photos were published with the permission of the Clayton family.”, but nothing about whether the other families involved were consulted.

Worse still the article (and all other coverage I have seen) focuses solely on Clayton and describes the other photographer as “an Afghan whom Spc Clayton was training in photojournalism. He was among the dead.”

Pretty much my reaction too – American person profiled and, oh yeah, some dead Afghans..

@gave yes indeed. They have my greatest respect.

Good advert for whatever brand of camera was used. Must be fairly durable.

Looks like Sony HVR Z1

But, yeah – that’s obviously her camera in the 2nd pic. Could be a video camera. Still, amazing and disturbing images however they were captured.

It is a video camera.

Comparing her image to the one taken by the Afghan, I think she was positioned to his right – probably kneeling down due to the amount of sky in the image (shooting upwards).

The image taken by the camera that you can see in the second pic would show more of the front of the unfortunate bloke, hence why I don’t think it was her.

Claytons photo is slightly earlier – explosion is smaller, guy has just dropped the mortar into the tube.

The Afghans photo is ever so slightly later. The soldier on the right has just been exposed to the front wave of the blast and is rotating slightly. His face is just about to be exposed to it and almost looks like a mannequin. Quite horrible really.

I expect the frame after either cannot be shown or doesnt exist.