That’s Dan Chung’s motto.

Dan Chung is a news photographer who shoots moving images with an HDSLR. Dan was recently at the centre of a bit of controversy over the use of what appears to be a dolly shot in the context of great devastation and human loss. A dolly shot is typically one where the camera moves sideways, as it is pushed along a track on a dolly. Since it takes 2 people to push a dolly, it implies there is a large crew of people. The implication is behind the camera is an industrial scale of cinematic film making in the middle of a disaster area. (Have these people no pity?) A dolly shot is a cinema move. It is not a news move.

In fact, it is a slider move. HDSLRs are tiny cinema cameras. Sliders are a solution to the problem of how to move the camera along a track, but instead of putting a camera, tripod, and operator on a dolly, and having 2 men push it, we can put the HDSLR on a tiny track mounted to the top of a tripod, and push it with 2 fingers.

For more on the debate.

I think it’s compelling that the language of moving images is changing. If a camera moves, it does not necessarily mean it’s a big production anymore. And I think it’s equally compelling that Dan wants to make news look as good as cinema. Why not? We don’t have to follow the conventions of old technology and old economic models when new technology and new economics come into play.

“We were going to shoot it on an iPhone, but then we realized it wasn’t going to save any money.”

Equally to the point: as a matter of human dignity, everyone should be represented as well as possible. If we are representing impoverished people, for example, there is no reason to impoverish the image. In fact, our purpose is invariably to make the richest, most powerful and affecting image we can create.

The children in the movie above are in Haiti. It is the first day school has been back since the earthquake.

Here is an earlier example of the ‘slider’ controversy by Khalid Mohtaseb, this time immediately after the Haiti earthquake.

UPDATE:
A similar treatment of last week’s tornado in Alabama. I think this is the 1st time I’ve actually seen tornado damage. TV images are normally too low resolution to see details in the images. The destruction is really amazing.

Devastated – F-5 Tornado in Pleasant Grove, Alabama by Andrew Winchell

charity:water helps us imagine New York City’s water supplies are like much of the developing world. If you want water, you pick up your jerry can and walk for miles to get it out of the Central Park reservoir. And the water is dirty.

I have to enthusiastically say, I do love the creative approach where we get to put the privileged of the world in unprivileged circumstances. It has the same appeal as last-man-alive-in-the-world scenarios, like The Quiet Earth (below). WaterAid did a campaign using this approach, where Londoners had the toilet facilities of the developing world. I forever imagine a man in a suit with a brief case stumbling though an Ethiopian wasteland.

I like this approach for a number of reasons. It’s always a bit surreal – or near-future sci-fi. And it’s emotional. There is the sense of indignity demanded by the circumstances, but there is also empathy for anyone in these circumstances. Since it appears we need to empathize before we can help others, the job of the film is helping the viewer to concretely imagine what it is like to be in the shoes of another. Instead of suggesting, “Imagine you are in their shoes,” the film can simply show us: “you are in their shoes.”

A more typical approach will focus on the people we want to help, rather than the people we want help from. It would describe the problem in a realistic rather than imaginary way. And viewers would need to work harder to empathize. They don’t share the same circumstances or social context. It’s easier to think: this wouldn’t ever happen to me. (I have actually met people, who argued: I cannot respect the destitute (they smell bad) because I could never be destitute myself.)

I also like the way charity:water call this a PSA, or Public Service Announcement. It’s not a commercial for charity:water. It’s a public service: by the way, a billion people don’t have clean water and you can help. (And someone has left their lights on in the parking lot.) Why not? It’s a good attitude to take. Of course, on TV, it’s a direct response commercial restricted to web response. And on the web, it’s a direct response film. It tells you what charity:water do and links to their web site. (Imagine if you could click a link on a TV ad!) It’s a PSA more consistently than it is anything else.