Country Doctor

bdcolen

This is the best of the best. And when you've gone through it, look at some of the images LIFE didn't include, which are made available for the first time.

torags

Thanks for the link. My favorite was the blood pressure of the 85 yr old

Notice all photos had associated text (the devil made me say it)

RSL

Thanks, BD. Country Doctor always has been the reference I point to when I try to explain to somebody what a picture story should be.

lensmole

Thank you for the link B.D.
They certainly do punch you in the heart and hard, the Doc sure had a lot of heart .

Islandcrow

Very powerful stuff. Thanks for that link! Those are pictures that literally change the way a person looks at photography.

bdcolen

torags wrote: »

Thanks for the link. My favorite was the blood pressure of the 85 yr old

Notice all photos had associated text (the devil made me say it)

Come on, Rags - this really gets ridiculous. You can look at any of those photos without knowing a damn thing, and while some of them aren't much out of context, some are...works of art. (the devil made me say it rofl)

torags

bdcolen wrote: »

Come on, Rags - this really gets ridiculous. You can look at any of those photos without knowing a damn thing, and while some of them aren't much out of context, some are...works of art. (the devil made me say it rofl)

Hmmm... I disagree, but won't argue the point.

In general however, Life Magazine always had text with their photos, as I recall.

bdcolen

torags wrote: »

Hmmm... I disagree, but won't argue the point.

In general however, Life Magazine always had text with their photos, as I recall.

Rags, Country Doctor is a photo STORY. It is photo journalism. Yes, there are words. That's the way it works. And LIFE was telling STORIES. It was not an ART magazine.

As an aside, because of the legendary nature of the work of LIFE photographers, and all the references to the "golden age" of photo journalism - and they were great photographers and it was a golden age - it is fascinating to pour through old LIFE's and see how much crap they published along with the stuff that simply blows you away.

torags

bdcolen wrote: »

Rags, Country Doctor is a photo STORY. It is photo journalism. Yes, there are words. That's the way it works. And LIFE was telling STORIES. It was not an ART magazine.

As an aside, because of the legendary nature of the work of LIFE photographers, and all the references to the "golden age" of photo journalism - and they were great photographers and it was a golden age - it is fascinating to pour through old LIFE's and see how much crap they published along with the stuff that simply blows you away.

Probably because all they had was crap and the story was time sensitive, my guess

Now National Geographic was another story, they had a month to get material.

bdcolen

NOT trying to argue - but - a., no, I think it has more to do with the fact that some stuff is terrific, and some just isn't. And, b. - And I am NOT going to get into a debate with anyone over this, I'm just going to state my very controversial opinion and then duck - I am NOT a fan of the photography in Nat Geo. There are some terrific photographers who do work for it, and there are definitely some exceptions to what I am saying, but, on the whole, it publishes technically excellent, generally dull, pretty pictures. Again, there are glaring exceptions to this "rule." And this is a personal opinion.

MarkR

I'd seen the Country Doctor series before. It's still good. More interesting to me was the "75 best" pictures-- many of them are indeed iconic. And also this: http://www.life.com/gallery/66721/lifes-20-worst-covers?iid=ymal#index/0, the twenty worst covers of Life Mag. (Yes, they're pretty bad!)

seastack

B.D. - I saw in another thread a remark you made concerning HIPPA and the very real issues/liabilities/challenges it poses for photographers making photos in the medical world. Do you know of a link(s) giving a primer on this? As I work documenting the every day, and the not so everyday, life of a small community, I know at some point I'm going to face this from paramedics to hospitals. I need to educate myself before I even approach any issues of gaining access, let alone actually making photos. Any help or insight you could provide would be greatly appreciated.

RSL

bdcolen wrote: »

I am NOT a fan of the photography in Nat Geo. There are some terrific photographers who do work for it, and there are definitely some exceptions to what I am saying, but, on the whole, it publishes technically excellent, generally dull, pretty pictures. Again, there are glaring exceptions to this "rule." And this is a personal opinion.

Hear, hear, BD!

torags

National Geographic? As I recall that was the only place you could see bare breasted women before Playboy... and you could see them in the library..

Whoa... Some of the best wildlife photography... Boobs aside, Africa stories you were unable to get and see in school...

Of course the pictures were great but they served a larger purpose than street minutia.

edit: re the Country Doctor. It's a shame we can't get shots like that today....

sara505

Awesome and humbling.

bdcolen

torags wrote: »

National Geographic? As I recall that was the only place you could see bare breasted women before Playboy... and you could see them in the library..

Whoa... Some of the best wildlife photography... Boobs aside, Africa stories you were unable to get and see in school...

Of course the pictures were great but they served a larger purpose than street minutia.

edit: re the Country Doctor. It's a shame we can't get shots like that today....

Why can't we get shots like that today? (Other than the fact that Eugene Smith is dead?)

bdcolen

seastack wrote: »

B.D. - I saw in another thread a remark you made concerning HIPPA and the very real issues/liabilities/challenges it poses for photographers making photos in the medical world. Do you know of a link(s) giving a primer on this? As I work documenting the every day, and the not so everyday, life of a small community, I know at some point I'm going to face this from paramedics to hospitals. I need to educate myself before I even approach any issues of gaining access, let alone actually making photos. Any help or insight you could provide would be greatly appreciated.

Just google HIPPA and you will find yourself buried in minutia. Though, as some have pointed out, HIPPA governs those providing medical care, and not specifically photographers and reporters, what it has done is make gaining access to patients and institutions providing patient care extremely difficult. It doesn't mean that it can't be done - but shooting in a way that will not land you in legal difficulties usually requires a great deal of advance negotiation. Shooting this, for example, , required waiting almost a year until the then-new HIPPA regs went into effect and the hospital's attorneys could decide what the ground rules would be. Those ground rules required that there be a notice at the entrance to the NICU, warning parents and relatives that I might be present photographing, and required that before I photograph any infant or family member the family member, or infant's guardian, sign a release and that release be placed on file.

torags

bdcolen wrote: »

Why can't we get shots like that today? (Other than the fact that Eugene Smith is dead?)

You mean getting candid shots after getting permission, releases , etc.?... Nah

seastack

Thanks B.D. The real-world logistics was helpful. I knew it was a challenge, just not how big a challenge. Definitely worth a hard assessment of whether it's worth it, and a clear set of goals at the outset.

bdcolen

torags wrote: »

You mean getting candid shots after getting permission, releases , etc.?... Nah

Rags, I know you are our current Contrarian In Residence, but jeeees...
First off, while this is a guess, I am almost willing to guarantee you that Smith got releases for LIFE for what he shot on that project.

Second, it is possible to do that kind of project, it's just that setting it up would be more complicated.

Third, a photographer worth his or her cameras should be able in a very short period of time to simply disappear into the woodwork, and be ignored by the subjects. Don't forget, it's not like Smith was some Mutha from Anotha Planet, hovering in the clouds above the doc and his patients. Smith spent an extended amount of time with the doc, shadowing him day and night.

If one badly enough want to do something like this today, they can do it. But again, they won't be Eugene Smith.

By the way, noting that I make no claim to be a Eugene Smith, take a look at those neonatal pics. Yes, all the parents signed releases and signed them, for their infants. But for most of the infant shots, the parents weren't even around when I shot - and I doubt the infants posed for me. And in all the cases, the parents I photographed had previously signed releases, and in most cases were unaware of my presence - they were so absorbed in their personal life-and-death crisis that the last thing they'd be doing was posing for a photographer, as long as the photographer was even vaguely discrete.

torags

Good arguement.

We have different opinions

seastack

Smith spent three weeks on Country Doctor. I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to do the same today, even with the hoops, although few outlets would actually pay for that time commitment anymore. Though I do see work like this still being done today where photographers spend weeks, months or even years on a single subject. Aaron Huey's work on Pine Ridge Reservation is of this caliber, for instance, and I would argue building that level of trust on Pine Ridge of all places, as a white person, would be infinitely more work than dealing with HIPAA.

There is some movement afoot, especially among truly committed young photographers, for a return to the long-form photo essay. Some call it "slow photography," like slow food. New name, same form. To me, this is the most rewarding kind of work.

bdcolen

Absolutely.