Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Poynter Online: Slideshow of images from Hurricane Katrina

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 4:56:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

Some remarkable photojournalism here.

**Warning: includes images that some people may find upsetting:**

http://www.poynterextra.org/Katrina/gallery/index.htm

Background at:

http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=68&aid=88304
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 4:56:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

"Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ajmmi1dte78rip513uhga390gm1600k3m0@4ax.com...
> Some remarkable photojournalism here.
>
> **Warning: includes images that some people may find upsetting:**
>
> http://www.poynterextra.org/Katrina/gallery/index.htm
>
> Background at:
>
> http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=68&aid=88304
>

It leaves me speechless.

Katrina, I think, has been the strongest hurricane yet. These photographs
show the fury of nature, the nature of humans coming to the aid of others in
need, and unfortunately, those who profit in times of adversity and must
loot or create wrong.

~Robert C.
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 11:00:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

"Robert C." <robc638killspam@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:_zLWe.4280$6Z1.1050249@news20.bellglobal.com...
> "Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ajmmi1dte78rip513uhga390gm1600k3m0@4ax.com...
>> Some remarkable photojournalism here.
>>
>> **Warning: includes images that some people may find upsetting:**
>>
>> http://www.poynterextra.org/Katrina/gallery/index.htm
>>
>> Background at:
>>
>> http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=68&aid=88304
>>
>
> It leaves me speechless.
>
>Fantastic photos, but can anyone explain to me why the Americans continue
>to build their houses out of timber. Tornadoes destroy them, fire destroys
>them, floods destroy them: what about bricks at least they are stronger
>given their climatic extremes. I assume it is cheaper in the short term.
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 2:30:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

"Robert C." <robc638killspam@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:_zLWe.4280$6Z1.1050249@news20.bellglobal.com...
> "Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ajmmi1dte78rip513uhga390gm1600k3m0@4ax.com...
>> Some remarkable photojournalism here.
>>
>> **Warning: includes images that some people may find upsetting:**
>>
>> http://www.poynterextra.org/Katrina/gallery/index.htm
>>
>> Background at:
>>
>> http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=68&aid=88304
>>
>
> It leaves me speechless.
>
> Katrina, I think, has been the strongest hurricane yet. These photographs
> show the fury of nature, the nature of humans coming to the aid of others
> in need, and unfortunately, those who profit in times of adversity and
> must loot or create wrong.

Katrina was a strong storm, but the real tragedy here is the total lack of
preparedness by our own governments. We've known for decades that this may
happen, and we did nothing. This tragedy could have been much less if New
Orleans had levees that were sufficient.

>
> ~Robert C.
>
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 2:30:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

"Diane Epps" <epps@spamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:IaPWe.71512$2n6.29440@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Robert C." <robc638killspam@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:_zLWe.4280$6Z1.1050249@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> "Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:ajmmi1dte78rip513uhga390gm1600k3m0@4ax.com...
>>> Some remarkable photojournalism here.
>>>
>>> **Warning: includes images that some people may find upsetting:**
>>>
>>> http://www.poynterextra.org/Katrina/gallery/index.htm
>>>
>>> Background at:
>>>
>>> http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=68&aid=88304
>>>
>>
>> It leaves me speechless.
>>
>>Fantastic photos, but can anyone explain to me why the Americans continue
>>to build their houses out of timber. Tornadoes destroy them, fire
>>destroys them, floods destroy them: what about bricks at least they are
>>stronger given their climatic extremes. I assume it is cheaper in the
>>short term.
>
>

You're right; look at the picture of the McDonald's: The building is still
standing although the windows are all blown out. Actually, I asked an
architect once why we build our houses out of wood, and his explanation was
due to our (in Canada) cold environment: wood is a good insulator. I wonder
if in the States it is the same reason: to insulate or for economic reasons
(?).
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 10:32:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Robert C. wrote:

>
> You're right; look at the picture of the McDonald's: The building is still
> standing although the windows are all blown out. Actually, I asked an
> architect once why we build our houses out of wood, and his explanation was
> due to our (in Canada) cold environment: wood is a good insulator. I wonder
> if in the States it is the same reason: to insulate or for economic reasons
> (?).

The amount of wood between the inside and the outside is nothing that
adds to insulation. It's there for structure. Brick cladding (or wood
clapboard or alu or...) with thick 3/4" tarboard to cut the wind and the
space in between filled with fibreglass insulation. The wood adds
almost no insulation value ... covers only a few % (if that) of the
surface. If the house were a log cabin, then it would be both structure
and some insulation, but it's nowhere as efficient (on a volume, weight
or cost basis) as 3.75" of pink fibreglass or blue foam insulation.

Wood works in most of North America as a construction material because:

-it is plentiful and cheap here
-the humidity level is relatively low year round (compared to most of
Europe) in most places.
-allows for high variation in modeling and re-modeling of houses. Many
"do-it-yourself-ers" gleefully tear down walls and add new ones or add
additions to their houses. Were our houses made of concrete, there
would be much less opportunity to do so.

There are many houses here well over 200 years old that are wood frame
with a stone cladding. No problem. As long as there is "breathing"
space, the wood is good indefinitely.

Cheers,
Alan.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 10:37:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

>Fantastic photos, but can anyone explain to me why the Americans continue
>to build their houses out of timber. Tornadoes destroy them, fire destroys
>them, floods destroy them: what about bricks at least they are stronger
>given their climatic extremes. I assume it is cheaper in the short term.

Bricks are only the facade. The interior walls, the rest of the building is
wood.
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 12:21:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

"Diane Epps" <epps@spamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:IaPWe.71512$2n6.29440@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Robert C." <robc638killspam@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:_zLWe.4280$6Z1.1050249@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> "Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:ajmmi1dte78rip513uhga390gm1600k3m0@4ax.com...
>>> Some remarkable photojournalism here.
>>>
>>> **Warning: includes images that some people may find upsetting:**
>>>
>>> http://www.poynterextra.org/Katrina/gallery/index.htm
>>>
>>> Background at:
>>>
>>> http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=68&aid=88304
>>>
>>
>> It leaves me speechless.
>>
>>Fantastic photos, but can anyone explain to me why the Americans continue
>>to build their houses out of timber. Tornadoes destroy them, fire
>>destroys them, floods destroy them: what about bricks at least they are
>>stronger given their climatic extremes. I assume it is cheaper in the
>>short term.
>
>

Diane,

Houses and building of brick and mortar were also destroyed in the
ferocity of Hurricane Katrina. One cannot imagine the overwhelming strength
of a category five (or just under like Katrina when she hit land) hurricane
unless one has lived through one. Nothing is safe.

Jim
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 4:39:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 10:30:46 -0400, "Kinon O'cann"
<Yes.it's.me.Bowser> wrote:

>This tragedy could have been much less if New
>Orleans had levees that were sufficient.

I just heard on CNN it would have cost 2.5 billion to repair them the
way the Engineer Corps wanted to. Now the estimated cost is 200
billion.
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 4:39:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

"McLeod" <cerveza@xplornet.com> wrote in message
news:uprpi1lad2jag40eh53icrgrqr0ua8hot7@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 10:30:46 -0400, "Kinon O'cann"
> <Yes.it's.me.Bowser> wrote:
>
>>This tragedy could have been much less if New
>>Orleans had levees that were sufficient.
>
> I just heard on CNN it would have cost 2.5 billion to repair them the
> way the Engineer Corps wanted to. Now the estimated cost is 200
> billion.

Yes. Losing a good horse is frequently 100x more expensive that putting a
good lock on the barn door......
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 9:55:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

McLeod wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 10:30:46 -0400, "Kinon O'cann"
> <Yes.it's.me.Bowser> wrote:
>
>
>>This tragedy could have been much less if New
>>Orleans had levees that were sufficient.
>
>
> I just heard on CNN it would have cost 2.5 billion to repair them the
> way the Engineer Corps wanted to. Now the estimated cost is 200
> billion.

As I understand the news being reported about the Corps of Engineering
report, the levees that were supposed to be repaired are not the levees
that failed. CNN seems to have their version of news as opposed to news
being reported over the Fox network.
September 19, 2005 5:14:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

nick c wrote:

> McLeod wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 10:30:46 -0400, "Kinon O'cann"
>> <Yes.it's.me.Bowser> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> This tragedy could have been much less if New Orleans had levees that
>>> were sufficient.
>>
>>
>>
>> I just heard on CNN it would have cost 2.5 billion to repair them the
>> way the Engineer Corps wanted to. Now the estimated cost is 200
>> billion.
>
>
> As I understand the news being reported about the Corps of Engineering
> report, the levees that were supposed to be repaired are not the levees
> that failed. CNN seems to have their version of news as opposed to news
> being reported over the Fox network.

Go with CNN. Fox isn't the most reliable.
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 5:14:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

"no_name" <no_name@no.where.invalid> wrote in message
news:BhoXe.69353$Jp.1045518@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> nick c wrote:
>
>> McLeod wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 10:30:46 -0400, "Kinon O'cann"
>>> <Yes.it's.me.Bowser> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> This tragedy could have been much less if New Orleans had levees that
>>>> were sufficient.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I just heard on CNN it would have cost 2.5 billion to repair them the
>>> way the Engineer Corps wanted to. Now the estimated cost is 200
>>> billion.
>>
>>
>> As I understand the news being reported about the Corps of Engineering
>> report, the levees that were supposed to be repaired are not the levees
>> that failed. CNN seems to have their version of news as opposed to news
>> being reported over the Fox network.
>
> Go with CNN. Fox isn't the most reliable.

I don't know if we are voting on this or not, but if we are....My vote is
with Fox News.....
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 5:14:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

no_name wrote:
> nick c wrote:
>
>> McLeod wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 10:30:46 -0400, "Kinon O'cann"
>>> <Yes.it's.me.Bowser> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> This tragedy could have been much less if New Orleans had levees
>>>> that were sufficient.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I just heard on CNN it would have cost 2.5 billion to repair them the
>>> way the Engineer Corps wanted to. Now the estimated cost is 200
>>> billion.
>>
>>
>>
>> As I understand the news being reported about the Corps of Engineering
>> report, the levees that were supposed to be repaired are not the
>> levees that failed. CNN seems to have their version of news as opposed
>> to news being reported over the Fox network.
>
>
> Go with CNN. Fox isn't the most reliable.

Neither is CNN.
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 5:14:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

William Graham wrote:
> "no_name" <no_name@no.where.invalid> wrote in message
> news:BhoXe.69353$Jp.1045518@twister.southeast.rr.com...
>
>>nick c wrote:
>>
>>
>>>McLeod wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 10:30:46 -0400, "Kinon O'cann"
>>>><Yes.it's.me.Bowser> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>This tragedy could have been much less if New Orleans had levees that
>>>>>were sufficient.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I just heard on CNN it would have cost 2.5 billion to repair them the
>>>>way the Engineer Corps wanted to. Now the estimated cost is 200
>>>>billion.
>>>
>>>
>>>As I understand the news being reported about the Corps of Engineering
>>>report, the levees that were supposed to be repaired are not the levees
>>>that failed. CNN seems to have their version of news as opposed to news
>>>being reported over the Fox network.
>>
>>Go with CNN. Fox isn't the most reliable.
>
>
> I don't know if we are voting on this or not, but if we are....My vote is
> with Fox News.....
>
>

The Cops of Engineer report was fully discussed on Fox news. Charles
Kruthammer (sp) the columnist discussed the subject with panelists.
Sections of the report were shown on the air and there was no
questioning the areas that the Corps of Engineering was concern about
were not the areas that failed. It was said the areas of concern were
built to withstand a level 3 hurricane and was theoretically determined
the areas could withstand a level 4 but the concern was only a level 3
could be assured. The report said the areas should be reinforced to
withstand a level 4 hurricane. But those areas withstood the level 5
hurricane.


Why anyone interested in obtaining news would watch CNN for actual news
remains a mystery.
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 12:30:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

William Graham wrote in part:

> "no_name" <no_name@no.where.invalid> wrote in part:

>>Go with CNN. Fox isn't the most reliable.
>

For breaking stories, FOX is very good. They often get reporters and
cameras on the scene ahead of anybody else, and do a good job of getting
bulletins out. It's just that after they catch their breath they compose
themselves, remember whom they exist to serve, and start dutifully lying
out their asses again.

>
> I don't know if we are voting on this or not, but if we are....My vote is
> with Fox News.....

If by "Fair and Balanced(TM)," they mean "consistently fellating W,"
well by cracky I guess they are.

--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
The Julio Franco of rsfc.
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 3:30:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

"Unclaimed Mysteries"
<theletter_k_andthenumeral_4_doh@unclaimedmysteries.net> wrote in message
news:WGuXe.565$q1.422@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> William Graham wrote in part:
>
>> "no_name" <no_name@no.where.invalid> wrote in part:
>
>>>Go with CNN. Fox isn't the most reliable.
>>
>
> For breaking stories, FOX is very good. They often get reporters and
> cameras on the scene ahead of anybody else, and do a good job of getting
> bulletins out. It's just that after they catch their breath they compose
> themselves, remember whom they exist to serve, and start dutifully lying
> out their asses again.
>
>>
>> I don't know if we are voting on this or not, but if we are....My vote is
>> with Fox News.....
>
> If by "Fair and Balanced(TM)," they mean "consistently fellating W," well
> by cracky I guess they are.
>
No campaigning within 100 yards of the voting booth......
September 19, 2005 5:40:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

nick c wrote:

> no_name wrote:
>
>> Go with CNN. Fox isn't the most reliable.
>
>
> Neither is CNN.

My experience is that when CNN & Fox disagree, CNN is usually correct.
And when they prove fallible, they correct the mistake, something I've
never seen Fox do.
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 1:21:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

no_name wrote:
> nick c wrote:
>
>> no_name wrote:
>>
>>> Go with CNN. Fox isn't the most reliable.
>>
>>
>>
>> Neither is CNN.
>
>
> My experience is that when CNN & Fox disagree, CNN is usually correct.
> And when they prove fallible, they correct the mistake, something I've
> never seen Fox do.

I used to watch CNN almost religiously. Slowly I awakened to the fact
CNN was writing the news as CNN wanted the viewer to understand and
grasp the news. I found many instances where CNN reported news that
wasn't accurate or possibly true. For example, during the Watts riots
CNN claimed the Rioters were contained by the National Guard when in
fact the National Guard arrived 4 days (without ammo) after the riots
had started. The containment of rioters was accomplished by armed home
owners and shop keepers who stopped the riots from spreading out to
neighboring communities. CNN never disclosed that information, but other
news agencies reported the information. There is much that CNN does not
disclose.

As for Fox news, the first thing that has to happen is for Fox to make a
mistake. :) 
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 1:36:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

"nick c" <n-chen@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:rfadnamsQsbZE7LenZ2dnUVZ_s-> As for Fox news, the first thing that has
to happen is for Fox to make a
> mistake. :) 

Of course, that has never happened. If it ever does, all the hounds of Hell
will descend upon their fannys, and they will be drummed out of existence.
There are 50 million liberals watching them every minute of the broadcasting
day, hoping to catch them in a mistake....:^)
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 10:26:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

Unclaimed Mysteries wrote:
> William Graham wrote in part:
>
>> "no_name" <no_name@no.where.invalid> wrote in part:
>
>
>>> Go with CNN. Fox isn't the most reliable.
>>
>>
>
> For breaking stories, FOX is very good. They often get reporters and
> cameras on the scene ahead of anybody else, and do a good job of getting
> bulletins out. It's just that after they catch their breath they compose
> themselves, remember whom they exist to serve, and start dutifully lying
> out their asses again.

Respectfully, .... I strongly doubt the implication.

>
>>
>> I don't know if we are voting on this or not, but if we are....My vote
>> is with Fox News.....
>
>
> If by "Fair and Balanced(TM)," they mean "consistently fellating W,"
> well by cracky I guess they are.
>
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 10:28:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

William Graham wrote:
> "nick c" <n-chen@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:rfadnamsQsbZE7LenZ2dnUVZ_s-> As for Fox news, the first thing that has
> to happen is for Fox to make a
>
>>mistake. :) 
>
>
> Of course, that has never happened. If it ever does, all the hounds of Hell
> will descend upon their fannys, and they will be drummed out of existence.
> There are 50 million liberals watching them every minute of the broadcasting
> day, hoping to catch them in a mistake....:^)
>
>

LOL .......
!