Behind the lens: 100-year-old photos of modern Olympians

 

With a smartphone and the right app, any of us can take retro-looking photos.

But Times photojournalist Jay L. Clendenin took retro to a new level with his photographs of U.S. Olympians. And, he said, it was a "creatively rejuvenating experience."

Clendenin took black-and-white images on film to juxtapose with his digital color portraits. But that wasn't all. As he explains in a post on The Times' Framework blog, he used a 4-by-5-inch field camera outfitted with a 100-year-old lens. He then developed the black-and-white images in a makeshift darkroom in his bathroom.

The darkroom setup wasn't ideal; Clendenin noted that some of the photos ended up with fingerprints on them, while others had fixer stains. But, "it was a fun process."

Some of the images, such as those of fencer Alexander Massialas or the Men's Four rowing team (at right), look as though they could be from another era. In others, corporate swooshes on the athletes' clothing give away the modern time element. 

Clendenin said the process forced him to slow down and think about each frame. He wrote on Framework:

"The process was cumbersome and filled with experimentation. ... But shooting the large-format film was a relaxing and, most important, creatively rejuvenating experience."

"I was reminded of the creative serendipity that comes with shooting film: I couldn't look at the back of the camera and see what had just happened when I took that picture! ... Though there are obvious downsides to not seeing if your timing and composition were precise, I enjoyed the challenge and reveled in the 'mistakes' that happened along the way."

The black-and-white photos were published in the center spread of the initial London 2012 section, on July 27. The images with their corresponding color shots are on Framework.

-- Deirdre Edgar

Photo: Scott Gault, left, Charlie Cole, Henrik Rummel and Glenn Ochal make up the U.S. Men's Four rowing team. Credit: Jay L. Clendenin / Los Angeles Times

Afghan war photos: contrasting views

The Times’ front page story and photos on U.S. troops posing with the body parts of Afghan insurgents prompted thousands of online comments, and hundreds of phone calls, emails and letters to the editor this week.  

The  publication of the photos drew the most reaction, ranging from outrage to praise.

The debate was especially vigorous in the military community.

Here’s what a few readers had to say to The Times:

 

Angela Hughes wrote to the editor: "I am a retired officer from the U.S. Air Force.  I served in Iraq in 2007 before the surge when things were really violent and awful.  Those of us who serve in the Armed Forces do so freely and most of us are honorable and love our country and everything it stands for, including your right to publish whatever you believe to be newsworthy. However, all of us are human and I doubt very seriously you have any idea what it is like to be in a combat zone ...  By publishing the photos of the soldiers in Afghanistan, you have willingly put many innocent American lives in jeopardy.  I cannot understand how this was newsworthy."

Elizabeth Spatz offered online:  "As the wife of a service member currently serving in Afghanistan, I have to seriously question the decision to publish the photos of US personnel posing with deceased Afghans.  I'm no fan of this war and hope and pray for a speedy end and resolution. However, these photos will not get us there. Yes, the American public needs to have information and be well informed, but these images have the potential to put our already overtaxed military members under even more stress and potentially in greater danger. I feel there are other ways --- call for a draft, publish pictures of US military funerals, highlight the difficulties injured vets are enduring every day."

From Strykersville, NY,  Jamie Smith added: "As a parent of two military men, I am very upset with The Times decision to post the pictures in this article. The military personnel that I know would never condone these actions, and yet your article puts them at severe risk. When the media flaunts their "objectivity" it can stir up violence, not just against the few people who showed their lack of military discipline, but against innocent American military men and women around the world, and also friendly Afghan people." 

Julie Thomas commented online: "As the mother of a deployed U.S. soldier, I am outraged that you would put a story and photos that depict our soldiers as cold blooded killers. Unless you are in their “boots” you cannot image the pressure and stress they are under, what they just witnessed or what their "job" as a soldier calls for them to do… I fear for my son's life every day. "

Beth Murphy emailed to say: "I feel that there are always a few in every organization that disregard the rules. Most of our soldiers, including two of my sons, are professional, respect our country, and would lay down their life for America's freedom…  If you are concerned with these soldiers’ actions, I suggest you report it to the proper military leaders for action."

From Narrowsburg, N.Y., Thomas Prendergast wrote: "I am a former member of the 82nd Airborne Division and am extremely offended by the photos that you ran. Do you do these things to run down our country or are you just that smug?"

Others -- many with connections to the military -- had different but equally strong reactions:

Wrote John Gregory from Arcadia: "As a former public information officer of the 82nd Airborne Division, I am horrified, angered and mystified by the lack of discipline showed by troopers who posed for photos with body parts in Afghanistan. Kudos to the brave soldier who brought this sad incident to the public’s attention."

Elizabeth Apana of San Francisco weighed in: "The argument that publishing these photos puts our troops at risk is completely false. The people in Afghanistan witnessed this happening and saw the pictures being taken. The actions of the U.S. soldiers is what has offended them, and that is what will make them angry, and rightly so. If there is retribution, it is because of the actions of these soldiers, not pictures published in the U.S. If it is the stress of sending the same troops back to the battlefield again and again, then why doesn't the military do something about it? "

Commented Rose James to The Times: "As a former Army officer, you and the whistleblower are right in exposing the uncivilized treatment by U.S. military personnel. One person commented that these photos should have been given to superiors and investigated internally, but nothing would have been done and a massive cover-up would have ensued. The whistleblower would have been punished and the uncivilized brutes would been congratulated."

Added John Bute from Texas:  "Assuming the photos are real, most of the criticism I read is nuts. I'm a Vietnam-era veteran and my father fought his way through North Africa, Sicily, Italy, and France....  The security danger is to the Afghans in the pictures."  

In Long Beach, Alan Brooks commented:  "The Times was absolutely correct in releasing the controversial war photos. This is providing needed information to  the American public who must make decisions about ongoing wars they are paying for. We must understand the price we pay as a society when we take teenagers, give them guns and teach them to kill. And then we cluck like hurt hens when there are psychological aberrations."

 Finally, Alli Pyrah in New York, observed: "Please ignore all the hate mail you’ll get from those who would like to intimidate journalists attempting to accurately portray the U.S. military. It’s ironic that while claiming to fight for our freedoms, these troops attempt to oppress any opinions that don’t paint them in a positive light. Many of us appreciate the truthful, impartial reporting of The Times."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Controversial Afghan war photos: Readers react

Readers reacted strongly Wednesday to the publication of a Times Page 1 story headlined “U.S. Troops Posed With Body Parts of Afghan Bombers.”

As Times staff writer David Zucchino wrote: “The soldier who provided a series of 18 photos of soldiers posing with corpses to The Times did so on condition of anonymity. He served in Afghanistan with the 82nd Airborne’s 4th Brigade Combat Team from Ft. Bragg, N.C. He said the photos point to a breakdown in leadership and discipline that he believed compromised the safety of the troops.

“He expressed the hope that publication would help ensure that alleged security shortcomings at two U.S. bases in Afghanistan in 2010 are not repeated. The brigade, under new command but with some of the same paratroopers who served in 2010, began another tour in Afghanistan in February.... U.S. military officials asked The Times not to publish any of the pictures.”

In a statement, Times Editor Davan Maharaj said:  “After careful consideration, we decided that publishing a small but representative selection of the photos would fulfill our obligation to readers to report vigorously and impartially on all aspects of the American mission in Afghanistan, including the allegation that the images reflect a breakdown in unit discipline that was endangering U.S. troops.”

On Wednesday morning, Maharaj talked about the  story, its photos and the background of the piece in a live chat.

Some readers questioned the decision to publish the photos.

Anne Hoffler in Richmond, Va., emailed to ask: "Because of your supposed 'obligation' to the people who buy your newspaper, my husband and his colleagues will be in even more danger in Afghanistan.  Did that cross your mind?”

Jeffrey Cole of Westerville, Ohio, wondered: “What positive impact could you possibly hope for?"

Observed  C. Clingerman of Woodbridge, Va.: “Yes, we all understand that you have the right to publish whatever you want because you have freedom of speech, freedom of the press ... having said that, sometimes it's not a matter of whether or not you can, it's whether or not you should.  In this case, what's the purpose other than to make our military look bad?”

Not so,  commented “promote_liberty" online: “This has nothing to do with Anti-Americanism or making soldiers into villains. This is the position our government is putting soldiers into. Maybe if more images like this and more coverage like this was exposed ... people would be more vocal in the anti-war movement."

"Bytebear," also online, said: “The soldier who leaked these photos is correct that the chain of command has broken down.  Not just in the fact that the superior officers didn't put a stop to this behavior, but also because the whistle blower was not using the correct chain of command.  He should have reported the issue to his superiors and they should have acted.  This should never have been anything more than an internal incident."

Added Jason Tidwell  online: “Soldiers posing with dead enemies is NOT anything new. War is war, and war is hell. All the coffee-drinking, paper-reading arm-chair quarterbacks have no idea ... what our guys truly go through on a day-to-day basis.... There is no crime or misdeed here. If you don't like it, then ask your Congress to stop the war. Until then, put yourself in a 20-year old soldier’s shoes, maybe you will understand.”

In The Times article, Capt. John F. Kirby, a Pentagon spokesman, said the conduct depicted “most certainly does not represent the character and the professionalism of the great majority of our troops in Afghanistan.... Nevertheless, this imagery -- more than two years old -- now has the potential to indict them all in the minds of local Afghans, inciting violence and perhaps causing needless casualties.”

Kirby added: “We have taken the necessary precautions to protect our troops in the event of any backlash.”

 

Open-casket photo surprises some Etta James fans

Reporter Randy Lewis noticed that the first comment on his article about the funeral Saturday of R&B singer Etta James wasn’t about the story but the image that accompanied it. The photo, above, which ran online and as one of two in the print edition, showed mourners passing by James’ open casket.

In the discussion section, commenter budsaylor wrote: “pretty surprised they showed her actual BODY laid to rest in the photo. not usual (or really that cool to do)”

Another commenter, Lucy_Furr, added, “much better to remember someone in life (how they looked), than in death.”

Lewis thought the concerns were valid, and noted that mourners had been specifically asked not to take any photos when the casket was opened at the end of the private service.

“What are the parameters for deciding when this is appropriate and when it's not?” Lewis asked.

Deputy Director of Photography Calvin Hom said there are generally three factors that photo editors consider before deciding to publish an open-casket photo: “taste, newsworthiness and proportion.”

With the photo of James, the photo editor and page designer discussed whether it might be considered obtrusive, Hom said, and concluded that “the photo had a quiet dignity about it” and displayed “love and respect.”

Photographer Anne Cusack, who covered the funeral, said she had put her cameras down when the no-photos request was made. She then obtained permission to resume taking photos; the request was intended for members of the public carrying cellphones or personal cameras.

“We do not run open-casket photos just because we can,” Hom said. “In this case, the deceased was a famous woman, and the family was open to the idea of us covering the event.”

A later commenter on Lewis’ article wrote that he’d attended a public viewing for James the day before the funeral and had no problem with the photo: “I saw her Friday night, and she was beautiful.”

--Deirdre Edgar

Photo: Mourners pass by Etta James' casket at City of Refuge Church in Gardena. Credit: Anne Cusack / Los Angeles Times

 

Afghanistan bombing photo: Graphic, yet important

The attacks on Shiite Muslim gatherings in Afghanistan, which killed at least 59 people Tuesday, were shocking. So was the image of the aftermath, which ran on Wednesday's front page.

Several readers said they were disturbed by the photo of a blood-spattered young woman, screaming as she finds herself surrounded by bodies. Moments earlier she had been part of a procession to a Kabul shrine to mark the Shiite holy day of Ashura. Times reporters said a suicide bomber hid among the crowd of worshippers. Many of the victims were women and children.

"I can’t believe that you would put a photo like this in your paper, let alone on the front page," wrote Louis Cunningham of Ventura. "Yes, this goes on, and we know it. But we don't need it on the front page of a paper for all of the kids in the world to see."

Erlin France of Los Angeles wrote: "That's the way to go, L.A. Times: Put dead children on the front page. You are disgusting."

And Rolando Valdovinos of East Los Angeles said he found the image "extremely graphic." "Showing kids laying lifeless is uncalled for," he wrote. "Just take a couple of seconds to stare at that photograph yourself. Tell me the lifeless image of the toddler in yellow doesn’t sicken your stomach!"

The scene was difficult for AFP/Getty photographer Massoud Hossaini as well. He told the New York Times, which also ran the image on its front page, that he realized he was weeping as he took photos after the suicide bombing. He said he continued to cry as he drove to his office, as he transmitted the images and as he drove home. "I have never experienced that before," he told the New York Times' Lens blog.

Deputy Managing Editor Colin Crawford, who oversees the Los Angeles Times' photography staff,  responds:

We never run this type of image without discussions at the highest levels in the newsroom.

We understand that it is a tough image to look at, but we felt the news value of the photo made it worth publishing. We feel that we cannot hide important news from our readers, even when it is unpleasant.

The war in Afghanistan is an important and complicated story, and the violence seems to never end. In these attacks, the fact that it was sectarian violence adds yet another layer to the complexity of the situation.

The photo, while gut-wrenching, shows just how many innocents are being killed. The bodies of dead, maimed and wounded children breaks your heart but also lets you know how indiscriminate the killing has become.

--Deirdre Edgar

Photo: A cropped version of Wednesday's front-page photo. Credit: Massoud Hossaini / AFP/Getty Images

Making sure photos aren't muddling the message

A recent Opinion L.A. blog post ran into some misunderstanding with readers over the accompanying photo. The post noted the quiet opening of an Islamic community center near the ground zero site in New York and said the lack of outcry "may indicate a lull in Islam-bashing in political discourse."

The post was headlined "Is anti-Islamic sentiment subsiding?" and featured a photo (above) of a group of men attending the opening of the center.

The problem came with the juxtaposition of the headline about anti-Islamic sentiment and the photo of the men, who are Sikhs. Several readers interpreted this to mean that editors didn't know the difference between Muslims and Sikhs.

"It absolutely confounds me to think that no one at L.A. Times caught sight of the fact that although the article is related to the anti-Muslim sentiment, Sikh gentlemen are pictured next to it. Are we so ignorant that we are still perceiving a Sikh as a Muslim?" reader G. Singh emailed.

Likewise, reader Dolly Sidhu emailed: "The media has done it again. Showing Sikhs and talking about Muslims.  I am disappointed that people that write the stories are educated and knowledgeable, but they don't know the difference between Sikh and a Muslim."

Several others left similar comments on the post itself.

Web producer Alexandra Le Tellier was concerned about the comments and said, "We didn't intend to  offend anyone." And she explained the photo's selection. "The photo is from the opening of NYC's Islamic center, which is what the post is about, and the photo caption doesn’t misidentify the men as Muslim."

But that wasn't clear to readers.

Ultimately, Le Tellier updated the photo caption to read, "Members of the Sikh community attended the grand opening of the Park51 community center and mosque."

She also responded to each of the commenters with this note: "Thank you for your comment. We have updated our photo caption to identify the men in the above photograph as members of the Sikh community. We didn't intend to suggest they were Muslim; we simply selected a photo from the event discussed in the post. But we are sensitive to your concerns and appreciate that you shared them with us."

A memo on photo usage that was sent to the newsroom Thursday might have helped prevent the misunderstanding. The memo, signed by Managing Editor/Online Jimmy Orr, Deputy Managing Editor Colin Crawford and Assistant Managing Editor Henry Fuhrmann, included a checklist of points to consider before running a photo, including:

Is the image directly related to the content of the story? Does it illustrate the story fairly and accurately? Are you sure it's not being taken out of context?

The photo from the Islamic center's opening was indeed directly related to the content of the story. But taken out of context -- viewed only in relation to the headline -- it could be misunderstood.

--Deirdre Edgar

Photo: Members of the Sikh community attended the grand opening of the Park51 community center and mosque on Sept. 21 in New York. Credit: Mario Tama / Getty Images.

The full photo guidelines follow:

Afghan battle photo: Iconic or irresponsible?

Nothing catches a reader’s eye quite like a striking picture on the front page of the newspaper. Such was the case with an AFP / Getty Images photo (above) published Thursday of “foreign forces” leaving the Intercontinental Hotel in Kabul, Afghanistan, after an attack by Taliban militants.

The accompanying article described the attack on the upscale hilltop hotel, where elite troops from New Zealand were credited with helping quell the violence that left 19 people dead. The troops are part of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force.

Several readers questioned the decision to run the photo by Pedro Ugarte of Agence France-Presse, fearing that its publication could put the soldiers at risk. (The front-page photo was cropped into a vertical image and included only the three men to the left; it ran as a horizontal with all four men on the Framework blog.)

“The photo on the front page Thursday should never have been published,” wrote Edward Grant of Visalia, Calif. “Did you want to paint a target on their chests? Three soldiers who have just been in combat obviously don't want their faces in the paper. … Will you be happy to publish photos of their bodies if the Taliban manages to find and kill them using information from your article?”

The photo was published by many other major news organizations, including the New York Times, Seattle Times and the Guardian in London. The Guardian, however, took the extra step of blurring the men’s faces.

Steve Stroud, deputy director of photography at the Los Angeles Times, said the photo was selected because of “the weary, bloodied appearance of the soldiers that spoke volumes about the five-hour gun battle that pitted NATO and Afghan forces against the well-armed Taliban militants who had stormed the hotel.”

Questions about photos of a brawl and a ballet

This week, readers raised questions about the authenticity of two photos that appeared in the print edition -- both of them from the Reuters news service. In each, the readers thought the image was puzzling and must have been digitally altered.

Steve Stroud, The Times' deputy director of photography, examined both images and shared his findings:

CASE 1:

Question from reader John Powell:

"The guy in the lower left of the image associated with your article does not look right (yellow, grey and black hoodie). Is it possible photographer Shalash (Reuters) got a composite image past the editors? ... Or maybe the guy is a "little person"? Thanks for looking into it. And yes I am aware of the depth perception effect and shutter aperture."

Response from Steve Stroud:

"On close examination using Adobe Photoshop software, the photo by Reuters staff photographer Saad Shalash showing the Baghdad protest appears to be genuine. The 'little person' in the foreground, while he may be shorter than those around him, is also bending down as he prepares to deliver a blow to his opponent. Examining the photo at the pixel level of magnification turns up no evidence that the content of the picture was tampered with."

CASE 2:

Question from reader A.J. Van Herle, M.D.:

On Sunday, June 12, an article appeared regarding Alicia Alonso and the Cuban ballet, which I found very interesting. A photograph entitled 'The staying power of Cuban Ballet' puzzled me, however. Indeed, most of the ballerinas (not all of them) are shown with their legs in an awkward position. Their right legs face the photographer but their left legs are directed away from the photographer. Indeed, their popliteal fossa(e) face the camera, and this is further confirmed by the fact that the heel(s) of their ballet shoes face the camera.This implies that either most of these ballerinas have a complete 'luxation of the hip joint,' or the agency (Reuters) who provided these pictures have a fantastic expert in Photoshop in their service."

Response from Steve Stroud:

"Immediately upon opening the original photo file using Adobe Photoshop software it's evident the picture was greatly enlarged before being transmitted. Enlarging the photo only slightly more causes it to break up at the pixel level, causing aberrations for lack of digital information. It would be akin to putting together a puzzle without having all the pieces -- in this case, pixels.

"Without the missing information, the other pixels can be misleading because they are disconnected. The resulting lack of digital information makes the details look soft, small elements appear incomplete and, in this case, gives the appearance the feet might be facing in impossible directions.

"There's no indication of photo manipulation, rather an overzealous enlargement to achieve a dramatic crop."

-- Deirdre Edgar

 

Remote cameras make these shots a ... slam dunk

After viewing this photo by Wally Skalij on Wednesday's Sports cover, reader Andrea Goettinger emailed The Times:

"The photo of Kobe Bryant pulling off a dunk over Emeka Okafor of the Hornets in the April 27 edition is awe-inspiring. Where was he shooting from -- the top of the backboard? Kudos to Wally Skalij on one of the best sports photos I've seen in a long time."

Deputy Managing Editor Colin Crawford, who oversees the photography department, answered for Skalij, who is traveling: The photographer wasn't on top of the backboard -- but his camera was.

The Framework blog described the remote camera setup at Lakers games in an October post: "One photographer + 3 cameras = awesome angles"

--Deirdre Edgar

Yosemite's Half Dome at sunset: Readers are curious

This striking photo by Mark Boster of Half Dome in Yosemite National Park graced the cover of Sunday's Travel section. An essay by Boster and more of his photos of the park in winter were featured inside. But it was this photo that caught the attention of several readers.

Andrew Gero of La Crescenta was one who e-mailed to ask about the configuration of the photo. As he and other readers saw it, the sun couldn't be setting behind Half Dome because this view was looking east.

"If the sunset photograph of Half Dome was taken facing west, the image of Half Dome should be on the left," Gero wrote. He wondered whether the image had been reversed for publication.

Boster replied that the photo is printed "how the camera saw it -- no tricks, no mistakes."

And he explained how he got the image. "The sunset colors are a result of light reflecting from the west sky onto the clouds and atmosphere in the east," Boster said. "Half Dome is facing correctly -- due west. Nothing was reversed or flopped."

Boster's photos of Yosemite in fall and winter have been featured in the Travel section as well as online, with images featuring all four seasons, along with a journal by Boster and the transcript of a live chat he held with readers.

-- Deirdre Edgar

 

Two views of photo of a fallen Marine

The photo on Wednesday’s front page of Marines in Afghanistan waiting with the body of a fallen battalion member drew strong, and opposing, responses from readers. Cpl. Jorge Villarreal, who was based at Camp Pendleton, was killed by an improvised bomb while on patrol. In the photo, above, three fellow Marines await a helicopter that will evacuate Villarreal's body.

Sunny Alexander of Oak Park, Calif., said she was “appalled” to see the photo on the front page.

“Did you forget that he was someone’s son, or husband or friend? Does the publishing of the photo mean more than its impact upon his loved ones?” Alexander asked in an e-mail. “The right or wrong of our being in Afghanistan is not the issue in my comments. Humanity should supersede politics or point of view on this war. If not, are we not sinking to the level of those who place the IEDs?”

However, Sandra Bengel of Arcadia wrote to say thank you for publishing it.

“My heart goes out to the family and loved ones of this young man.  For too long all the media has been ignoring the true cost of this war in Afghanistan -- the death of thousands of young Americans,” Bengel said in her e-mail. “I applaud your courage in portraying soldiers in the field dealing with the death of one of their own.”

Deputy Managing Editor Colin Crawford explained the decision to run the photo.

“In my mind, the photo showed a tender moment, with a Marine placing his hand on his fallen comrade,” he said. “I feel we have a responsibility to remind our readers that we are at war and that our soldiers and Marines are still paying the ultimate sacrifice to keep us safe.”

Valerie Fields of Los Angeles found the photo moving.

“I do not cry easily, but the photo on Page One of today's Times had me in tears,” she e-mailed. “The president cannot start his withdrawals of our service members soon enough for me.  Losing our young for a worthy cause is bad, but losing them for during a war that should never have been started is unbearable.”

--Deirdre Edgar

Photo credit: Scott Olson / Getty Images

 

Pacific Time podcast: Developments in Bell saga, the story behind Project 50, a look behind the lens

The salary scandal in Bell continues to unfold. This week, The Times revealed that allegations of election fraud have been raised about the election that made the runaway salaries in the city possible. The Times also learned that the state retirement system, CalPERS, found out about the exorbitant salaries four years ago during a routine audit designed to stop pay spikes that can unduly enlarge retiree pensions.

Sacramento bureau chief Evan Halper talks about questions being raised about CalPERS in light of its inaction. (You can find out about how much the city manager in your Los Angeles County city makes here.)

Another topic that is a continuing story in Los Angeles is that of homelessness. If you missed Thursday's live chat with reporter Christopher Goffard, you can listen to him offer his account of covering, over the last two years, a Los Angeles County program aimed at helping the 50 most vulnerable people on downtown L.A.'s skid row.

His four-part series on the "Project 50" program, "Four Walls and a Bed," began Sunday and will conclude Saturday. The series is illustrated with stunning photography by Genaro Molina. 

Speaking of compelling photojournalism, Pacific Time listeners get a preview of new L.A. Times online feature focusing on its visual journalism set to launch on Monday.

Senior photo editor Alan Hagman talks about what to expect in this exciting new visual town square and about the role of photojournalism at The Times.

Listen to the podcast by clicking the play button below, or subscribe here.

-- Michelle Maltais

Photo: Project 50 participant Bobby Livingston found it hard adjusting to life in his Senator Hotel room. Soon after moving in, he was screaming at neighbors and the management. Credit: Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times