Before I start please spare a thought for the thousands who died when Cyclone Nargis hit Myanmar and the thousands more affected by it, who have lost loved ones, their homes and their livelihoods.

For a news pictures editor in charge of Asia yesterday was a tough day. The death toll was rising steadily as the enormity of the tragedy slowly unfolded and we worked hard at getting pictures from staff and stringers. Handout pictures from pressure groups were scrutinized and checked for usage rights usage and potential bias. We had staff waiting at airports to speak to tourists who may have had images of the scene as the cyclone struck.

The day was a stream of planning meetings, coordination with text and TV meetings, safety meetings, negotiations with wide eyed tourists all believing they had shot a million dollar picture, editing and captioning the results, trying to find staff with the requisite experience for the conditions, stroking those who had volunteered but lacked the experience and speaking to the photographers on the ground (compared to whom my day was a walk in the park - no power, no water, no food was the least of their worries).

So what was all this stressing about? The bottom line is to tell the story, honestly, fairly and objectively so the rest of the world can see something of this disaster in one of the most closed and oppressively run countries in the world.

At the end of yesterday I went home believing that a caring world knew about what was going on.

Once at home, after explaining to my 12 year old son why so many had died in a cyclone, I browsed a few of the international news sites to see how the world was reacting to something I felt  was the most important news event of the day.

The first blog I read under a slide show of pictures on a major US news site read (I paraphrase as it has been removed now) “why should we care about this dirty little washed up country and who gives a damn anyway”

This comment on the blog chilled me, not because it was there but because it was supported by many other comments.

But I care and so do the team who will deliver today’s file and tomorrow’s. 

Am I just shouting into the wind? Should we all become wedding photographers?
 

This is my favourite painting by Matisse - The Dance. It displays a perfect balance of colour, tone, line and shape. Looking at this picture you can hear the music, feel the movement, almost taste the wine the dancers have consumed and the sexual tension is almost palpable - all this from just paint on canvas. 

Good news photography captures the moment of an event and potentially evokes emotion that goes far beyond what is possible with paint and canvas.

Yesterday I spent the time looking at pictures on the wires not for news content but just in terms of the balance of shape, tone, colour and line. While a few sang out their song of pictorial balance, many sat silently, dull and flat 6 x 4 boxes of colour where composition seems to be an out of fashion and dirty word, shape a forgotten skill, line and design discarded for cramming the picture into the convenient proportion of one by one and a half.

Potential bloody noses lurk in portraits as faces of actresses, politicians and news makers crash into the borders of the frame in uncomfortable space; limbs are amputated, toes cut off full lengths; dead space or unnecessary highlights lead the eye away from the point of the picture; pointless deliberate or hopeless accidental skewing; words and letters from advertising hoardings draining the grace and power from a winning goal shot skillfully from the far end of the pitch in driving rain; intrusive shapes and incidental lines left in. So many visual blunders which could so easily be corrected by the juidcious application of a sensitive crop.

With a little more time spent listening to the shapes, tone, line and colour that scream out how to crop a picture there would be far more strong resonant images and fewer that lay silent and dull. The world does not fit neatly into “one by one and half” proportions. There is a place for the letterbox crop, the tilted image, the long thin upright, the image with acres of space or so cropped so tight that the viewer feel claustrophobic. There is of course room for the 6 x 4 but only when the voice of the dance permits.

Photo: Visitors to the preview of the “From Russia” exhibition of French and Russian master paintings 1870-1925 at the Royal Academy of Art in London view “Dance II” by Henri Matisse January 22, 2008.  London’s Royal Academy unveiled a blockbuster exhibition of paintings from Russian galleries on Tuesday, relieved the show has gone on despite an ongoing row over ownership of priceless works that threatened to derail it.       REUTERS/Stephen Hird     (BRITAIN)
 

The difference, only visible on closer inspection, is the intention of the picture. The first is a picture of film idol and heart throb Johnny Depp arriving to the cheers of waiting fans. The second shows fans waving to film idol and heart throb Johnny Depp. The difference is the focus of the picture, in terms both actual and intentional.  

The first is of Depp arriving in Japan. He is in focus, you can see his face, his fashion and his body language. You can see where he is - a Japanese airport - it’s very much a news picture about the arrrival of a film star.

The second shows the fans clamouring as their hero arrives. They have prepared messages of love written on white gloves, their camera phones are charged, their autograph books ready to be signed. They have waited hours to catch a glimpse of the star, who in comparison to the tack sharp fans is shown slightly soft

However, given their apparent similarity do we need both versions? Do these pictures justify their place on a crowded wire as complimentary alternative views with real commercial value? Or is this just an overfile?