If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New York Magazine)   Iwan Baan tells how he got the iconic shot of a darkened Manhattan on the cover of New York magazine--it involved luckily being in town, a $2000 rental car, a drive halfway across Long Island, a brand-new camera, and 2500 shots to get a sharp image   (nymag.com) divider line 2
    More: Followup, Long Island, Manhattan, New York, rental car, modern architecture, rescue missions  
•       •       •

6763 clicks; posted to Geek » on 09 Nov 2012 at 4:26 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-11-09 10:02:43 PM
1 votes:
Also, Brian Butler of WPRI-TV in Providence didn't ruin his video by chanting "oh shiat" or "World Star Hip Hop." More videographers should take his lead.
2012-11-09 07:21:50 PM
1 votes:

Jedekai: The amount of noise in the 'sharp' pictures is something to notice. You'd have to be a frickin' brain surgeon to nail that image.


It's not so much a matter of holding the camera steady in his hands while trying for a long exposure as that he's in a helicopter that's moving and vibrating while trying for a long exposure shot. That he got anything remotely sharp is a wonder. Looking at the noise and knowing the camera model, then checking review sample shots, I'd guess he had to bump the ISO up to 25600 and avoid using much noise reduction to avoid blurring out the windows. Real good shots considering the situation.

miniflea: Because resources were not "diverted" to this guy. He paid for the rental car himself, and then paid for the helicopter himself. Which of course, makes me wonder how much he sold the photo for.


The helicopter he hired could've been used to help those in need instead of being hired out to a photographer. The car and the fuel it was using, much the same. Doesn't matter if he paid for them or not; they were limited resources in a disaster zone that could only serve one function at a time: to render immediate aid or to document and possibly help more in the long run or not. It's a big gray area in terms of photographic ethics. Should he use his resources to help those in distress or to record said distress for the history books? The question will probably remained unanswered, but remains one that hounds professional photographers. They remember the example of Kevin Carter.
 
Displayed 2 of 2 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report