On 13 Jul 2004 at 19:42, Bob W wrote: > It seems to me that unless you have a problem with that type of > photography in general then it is probably rather inconsistent to > single out that particular picture.
Well yes I do in fact, I'm totally at odds with it usually, the arguments/self justifications presented by most photographers engaging in these types of activities are generally poor to say the least. > I think you're putting a very negative spin on his motives. According > to what I have read, he returned many times looking for her to try and > learn what had become of her, partly to satisfy public curiosity, > partly to satisfy his own, and partly to tell her the story of her > photograph. Eventually he succeeded. I'd like to know what the motives really were and who drove/financed them. > NG and McCurry set up a fund for Afghan girls at the request of the > woman in question. Here is some information about it: 17 or so years later, and they had to be asked, think about it. > http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/12/1205_031205_afghanfund.html > > It's probably true that National Geographic and Steve McCurry have made more > money out of the photograph than the fund has earned, but that is one of the > dilemmas of having professional journalists telling us about the world. > Different journalists resolve the dilemma in different ways. It may be but I've seen the particular National Geographic and Steve McCurry "how they found the Afghan girl" production and it's pure exploitation regardless of what has since been born out of it. But that's just my opinion of course, I don't even like shooting people on the street here without asking permission and I know legally it's entirely unnecessary. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
