Add a Comment

Comment by David Aparicio on April 11, 2011 at 15:32

See this video. In spanish.

http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2011/02/18/comunicacion/1298054483.html

Two Spanish journalists showed another reality quite different. Despite 
I said and repeated a thousand times, the vultures were not in the village 
Sudan die waiting for malnourished children. 

Scavengers flocked there because he was a dunghill 
where waste and was pulling people defecating, including 
children in the pictures. One received the Pulitzer because it sold like 
time before being devoured by the vulture, the other reflects the harsh 
reality. 

In mid-March 1993 Kevin Carter traveled with a photographer 
Joao Silva on Sudan to do a report on the famine in that country. 
In the town of Ayod, Carter would be the photograph that would change 
life. 

A malnourished girl prostrate on the floor and a vulture approaching. A 
bombing, he must have thought Carter, who had the nerve to avoid being 
carried away and waited twenty minutes to open the scavenger 
wings so that the photograph had more impact. 
At the end did not happen and Carter had to settle with the picture 
would take to win the Pulitzer. From there began his ordeal. It 
then said a lot about Carter's performance, even you 
has come to compare with the vulture, but the reality is quite different. 

A few months after Carter immortalized famine, a 
Spanish journalists arrived in the town of Ayod. It was José Maria Davilla and Luis Arenzalla,

who had not even seen the Carter Photography. 

In the village, Davilla did his job and took photographs of the famine 
place. Among his photographs, was one of a child with a vulture 
at his side. But the reality seemed another. 
Davilla explains himself to Digital Journalist, one morning he 
Pepe Arenzana took him and to Ayod, where they were almost all 
time in a feeding center where locals go. 

At one end of the enclosure, which was pulling a manure pit 
waste and people going to defecate. As these children are so 
weak and malnourished head is giving them the feeling that they are 
dead. As part of the fauna are vultures who go for these remains. 

So if you catching a telephoto crush the child's perspective 
foreground and background and it seems that the vultures will eat it, 
but that's an absolute hoax, perhaps the animal is at 20 meters. 

Whether Carter cheated or not? Davilla is cautious: 

The photographer is not cheating, the use of a telephoto lens 
optical resource is part of the camera technology. You 
taking reality, cheating would have put the vulture on the side. 

Arenzana, meanwhile, is not as restrained as his colleague and recognizes 
being "tired" of everything that was said about the picture of Carter. 

It is true that photography is such an impact that leaves no one 
indifferent, but many people did stupid questions raised. 

If you cut a piece of reality and can be isolated or not 
expressing real things. And in this case, which expresses the photo is 
pretty good reflection of what happened and is happening there, in Sudan. Acts 
with an enormous power over the audience and this is how it must be 
to reflect that grim reality.