Monthly Archives: April 2013

On the Gosnell Media Blackout.

Here’s an editorial published in the Wilkes-Barre  Times Leader on the Kermit Gosnell trial.

Commentary: Dr. Henry F. Smith Jr.

April 17. 2013 10:28PM

The national news media seems to cover every detail of seemingly inane events. We are bathed in coverage of the latest regarding Kim Kardashian’s pregnancy, or Tiger Woods’ latest romance. It’s a lead story in the national press when a Republican senator’s campaign staff is caught saying insensitive things about a potential political opponent on an illegal recording. But at the same time, the press is unwilling to cover apparently monstrous crimes that have taken place in our midst. We need to be asking why.

In Philadelphia right now there’s a trial underway involving gross misconduct of a physician (always good fodder for the news media). There are lurid details of dead bodies stored in rooms, dismembered corpses kept as trophies, underage untrained people performing gruesome medical procedures. The details are so graphic and so startling, that properly exploited, they would surely grow huge ratings in media outlets such as Court TV. But short of very select media coverage, there is an almost total press blackout of this story. The reason: the medical procedure this trial involves is abortion and the victims are babies.

Kermit Gosnell is a physician who ran a clinic called the “Woman’s Medical Center” in West Philadelphia. Apparently a major service there was performing abortions by the thousands each year. Dr. Gosnell, allegedly, would play fast and loose, with the gestational age of the fetuses he was paid to dispose of, allowing a woman the option of a later-term abortion than might actually be illegal.

When inconveniently, such an infant would have the temerity to be born alive, Dr. Gosnell according to testimony, had a solution. He would take a set of sharp scissors, open them, stab the points into the back of the baby’s neck, and then “snip” the baby’s spinal cord, killing it. Included in testimony, are very graphic descriptions of a baby’s typical reaction to this.

Workers at the clinic have described conditions as “raining fetuses”. The clinic has been described as filthy, with blood spatters on the wall. There has been testimony from underage workers, and workers with no formal training, who performed the ultrasounds used to determine the fetal age. After all… No point in being too accurate about that sort of thing.

Apparently Dr. Gosnell was happy in his work. He cheerfully described one particular late-term fetus that he dispatched as being “big enough to walk me to the bus stop”. He allegedly kept body parts of his victims in jars.

And from the press: The sound of crickets, chirping.

At some sadistically twisted level, it is possible to feel a degree of sympathy for Dr. Gosnell. After all, he was just trying to give good and complete value for the fees he charged. His “clients” had one request, that their pregnancy be terminated, and that no living baby would survive. And remember, he practices in a litigious society, where a patient actually sues her abortionist when she ends up with a live healthy baby rather than a jar full of parts.

What’s the difference whether the vivisection occurred in the vaginal canal or on the operating table a few minutes later? Quite honestly, in a society that permits the slaughter of innocents, such nuances should be inconsequential. Hey, our own president has supported legislation in Illinois, that would have allowed fetuses born alive, to expire without medical care.

Ann Coulter has written that abortion is the “sacrament” of liberalism. On a first read, I thought she was just being provocative. Watching the news media boycott this trial, an event that, given its sensationalism could be a huge driver for network ratings and profits, is chilling. Clearly burying the details of this gruesome court proceeding, which could cause harm to the institution of abortion, trumps all other concerns.

To liberals in the press, or put another way, to the entire media complex, this case is radioactive. It threatens to demonstrate that we can truly not rationalize the moral choices we’ve made — the “devil’s bargain” that we have struck, to permit legalized abortion. The arbitrary age limits, and the limits we place on the procedure, and particularly when and where the killing may occur, are indefensible morally, and logically. Dr Gosnell’s true crime was to violate the self-righteous boundaries we have placed on this brutality, so we may delude ourselves that we remain a moral society.

If he is guilty of the crimes for which he is charged, Kermit Gosnell is indeed a monster. But that barbarity in part, would extend from actions defended as a cornerstone of liberal ideology. He allegedly just took it to the next logical step.

That’s why they don’t want us to know about him.

Dr. Henry F. Smith Jr. is a pulmonary and sleep physician from Fairview Township.

The Gear That I Use: The Fuji XF 14mm f2.8 ( and a little more on Trans X conversion)

Dixieland ( Fujifilm X Pro 1, XF 14mm f 2.8 @ f2.8)

I am not a generally a wide angle shooter. When many years ago, I began to get serious about outdoor photography  I, like many other photographers just starting out, assumed that proper landscape photography was most appropriately done with short focal length lenses encompassing a wide field of view.

It seems to me this is a very common beginner’s mistake. I quickly found out that capturing scenes that are attractive to the naked eye using such lenses, often created a visually uninteresting, unfocused image. Too wide a field of view can leave an image without much of a focal point, with which to draw the viewer “into the picture”. Wide angle lenses also offer little magnification of distant objects, and can make a scene, for instance with a backdrop of mountains, appear uninteresting relative to the photographers own visual viewpoint.  Longer focal lengths work better for this.

But ” wide’s” have certain advantages.  They can make linear objects appear longer and more dramatic.  They do this in the same way they  deemphasize distant objects; by making the end of a fence line, or road appear further away.   They have better depth of field than longer lenses.  This can all be used to one’s advantage.

Danger Keep Out (Fujifilm X Pro1, XF 14mm f 2.8)

I have noticed over the years, that a lot of my truly wide-angle lenses like my Tokina 12-24 mm for DX, did not get much use. I seemed to gravitate into shooting mid-range and mild telephoto zooms and primes for landscape, which in my mind allows better isolation of the subject, and improves with prominence of the background  as well as the bokeh  of most of the photos I produce.

Nonetheless, when Fujifilm introduced its XF 14mm f2.8 R optic, I just sold some equipment, and had a little extra cash. Because of the affection I have for the system, and the excellent reviews of this lens,  I figured it would be reasonable to acquire one for myself, and perhaps reinvigorate my wide-angle photography.

I ordered one up from B&H in New York, and as it often is the case, it arrived on the next day.

The lens itself is fairly large. If anything it’s a bit larger than the XF 18-55 mm midrange zoom lens with which it shares its petal shaped sunshade . It has a detented aperture ring, a fairly broad focusing ring, and in a touch reminiscent of my Tokina glass, a slip clutch that allows a quick switch from auto focusing, to manual focusing.  It also has a focus distance scale embossed in the front of the lens.  It is the best finished of the XF primes that I own.

The Lens ( Nikon D 7000, Nikkor 16-85mm f3.5)

Like all the XF lenses, it feels extremely well-built, and balances nicely on my X Pro 1.

You can read the reviews. Pretty universally, the lens is thought to be quite sharp, pretty much edge to edge by f4. Also in different from other XF lenses, its native and distortion is very low, and there is little, if any correction required in software.  This is great for architecture, but sometimes leaves one wanting, if you’re looking for that slightly fish eyed perspective that can make some portraits and street shooting visually interesting.

I do not intuitively shoot with wide-angle lenses.  For me it is a challenge, but certainly a joyful one. Given the drab browns of early spring. I find myself looking for unusual patterns particularly in shadow and light, and opportunities to find color in the bland surroundings.

The Little Bridge ( Fujifilm X Pro 1, XF 14mm f2.8)

My copy of the lens seems as sharp as advertised.  Autofocus is slightly slow, but again you’re not going to use this lens for sports or action photography.  I think it is better specified for deliberate shooting.  Flare is extremely well controlled.

The time of my testing of the new lens, was coincidental with the availability of Camera Raw version 7.4, the final release. I had already played with the release candidate, and was eager to see whether the final version offered additional benefits.

Pine Plantation ( Fujifilm X Pro 1, XF 14mm f2.8)

I developed a number of X Pro 1 images, with Capture 1 Express, and then again with the newest version of ACR. I didn’t notice much difference between the release candidate, and the final version, but I agree that Adobe has clearly improved the raw file extraction since its earlier efforts, probably to a point where in most situations the differences between its capabilities, and those of competitive raw converters, are minimal.

Trust me, I spent a lot of time on the sharpening of both images. Still, particularly in looking at prints, I think for fine detail, looks more natural and dimensional in the Capture 1 (and the Fuji Raw File Converter) results.

100% Crop ACR

100% Crop Capture 1

Yeah, I know, the ACR image has a different color signature, than the one done on Capture 1.  Try as I might in ACR, I had a really difficult time duplicating the color balance on the second image which to me  were the colors that I was seeing at the time the image was shot.  I think this is an idiosyncratic situation, and not typically a problem for ACR.

You can be the judge, but to my eye, color aside, the second image looks much better,  slightly in terms of detail perhaps, but with significant improvements in micro contrast.  To me it just looks more real.  And it prints that way also.

All this aside, I think this additional lens, and the improving  options for raw file conversion are really great enhancements for the Fuji X interchangeable lens bodies.  I continue to love shooting with them.

Oh, and I’ve pre-ordered an X 100s.

It’s going to be a fun Spring.