AMMAN — After publishing “A Map and a Lens: Jordan Sights Unseen and Stories Untold”, “Unique and Outstanding” and “The Noble Sanctuary”, the Jordanian photographer Bashar Tabbah continues his mission to explore historical sites with his camera. This time, he explored the rich Jordanian cultural heritage and landscape from a helicopter with a group of scholars specialised in aerial archaeology.

Michael Sanchez was setting up his new camera to capture a waterfall at Oregon’s Hug Point at sunrise when he spotted a little bird hopping around. He snapped a few photos, and didn’t think much more of it.

A week later, those snapshots have made him the star – and the envy – of the local birding community. Sanchez, who is from Vancouver, Washington, may have inadvertently captured the first images of an extremely rare blue rock-thrush in North America.

The species, which is native to east Asia, has only once before been spotted in this region, in 1997. But that sighting was rejected by the American Birding Association. If Sanchez’s images are verified by local and national birding groups, he could be credited as the first person to successfully record a blue rock-thrush in the region.

“I was very very surprised to see just how stirred up this got folks,” he said. “It’s mind-blowing.”

Sanchez, a middle school band director and musician who very recently took up photography as a hobby, had never considered himself much of a birder. But as he was reviewing his photos from his trip to the coast, it struck him that the cute bird he saw was unusual – he’d never seen anything like it before. “So I thought, I’ve got to post it on the socials, right?” Not long after, a friend of a friend – an avid birder – reached out. From its unique blue and chestnut plumage, the bird looked distinctively like a male blue rock-thrush. It turned out, Sanchez may have set a birding record.

“A lot of times when something like this happens, there’s a lot of effort among the birding community to try and verify it, because everyone wants to go and see it for themselves,” said Brodie Cass Talbott, of the Bird Alliance of Oregon and the Oregon Birding Association.

Volunteer experts have been working with Sanchez to verify the image and confirm its location. No other local birders have been able to spot the bird since Sanchez photographed it – but oddly, there was another blue rock-thrush sighting four days later, at the Farallon Islands off the San Francisco coast.

It’s unclear whether this was the same bird or another bird. As Sanchez’s photos made rounds in online birding groups, another person reported seeing what may have been the same blue rock-thrush in January, but was not able to take a photo.

It is doubly uncertain how this bird even made it so far from its home, to North America. “Maybe this bird individually just has faulty navigation,” said Cass Talbot. It may have gotten lost, and then trapped in a strong wind system. Or it may have hitched a ride on a ship.

Usually, when ultra-rare, non-endemic bird species turn up on the west coast, they tend to be seabirds, spotted far off shore. “That’s part of why it’s been such a big story here, and people have been so excited about it,” he said. “It’s just sort of mind-bending.”

The implausible sighting has been a reminder of how unexpected and fascinating birding can be, Cass Talbot added. “It’s always neat for us to see how big the world is and how incredible these creatures are.”

Sanchez agrees. He wasn’t a birder before, but “this really has opened my eyes,” he said.

“I guess I’m a birder at this point,” Sanchez said. “I think I’m in the club.”

You might be right in thinking that the two main fine art printer companies – Canon and Epson – would like you to utilise their own brand of printing paper, and only their brand.

But what many people don’t know is there are other photographic paper producers such as Moab that have created many brilliant ‘museum-quality’ photographic papers that really bring a unique look to your fine art photographic prints.

Named after the town in Utah, USA, Moab were kind enough to send us some of their award winning Entrada Rag Natural Coldpress 300 (13″ x 19″) textured matte paper and we married this with the excellent top-of-the-line Epson Surecolor P906 printer for this review.

The listed qualities from Moab of its Entrada Rag Natural Coldpress 300 paper are:

• 300 gsm / 18 mil
• Whiteness 70
• Natural / OBA Free
• 100% cotton / machine made
• Natural White
• Single Sided
• Water-resistant
• Pigment (recommended) / Dye

What we loved 

My go-to style of paper is usually a Baryta Rag Semi Gloss – though printing on this Entrada paper has convinced me that I now have an equal favourite – in fact I prefer the Entrada in a lot of circumstances as it is so unusual in comparison to ‘normal’ photographic paper.

Naturally, it’s challenging to describe the texture accurately without you (the reader) being able to physically touch the paper, but I must emphasise that the tactile experience is truly remarkable. The heavy 300GSM weight is perfect and has a quality that many papers don’t exude.

You can see in this side-lit image below how textured the paper is. Going off other heavily textured paper I have used in the past, I usually found that the ink ‘bled’ a little and although still sharp, it wasn’t ideal. With the Entrada I was blown away with the level of sharpness.

We are so used to seeing things on screen and flicking mindlessly through images. But an image on this paper has a real ‘wow’ factor for anyone who touches it – it really elevates the work.

Do you need to calibrate everything?

The common issue with printing is there are so many variables between the screen, the printing software, the printer and the paper itself.

Usually a professional printer has everything calibrated as closely as possible, so that what is on the screen is what you get in print.

But you’ll find that even if you ‘sit in’ on a large art print at a professional print studio – they’ll still do a small test print or test strip to validate what the end print would look like.

In this case, even with our rudimentary setup printing straight from a Macbook Pro, we obtained excellent initial test results. Just don’t forget to download the ICC profiles from Moab to match the paper with the printer brand.

What type of image suits which paper stock?

Moab make many other photographic papers, and although it can be difficult to ascertain which suits a particular image, here are a few notes:

The Juniper Baryta Rag 305 is a semi-gloss 100% cotton rag that is what I call ‘the in-between paper’, meaning that it has a very slight texture, and it still feels a bit matte, yet is still has a gloss to it. It’s reminiscent of Canson Platine Fibre Rag for those in the know.

The Slickrock Metallic Pearl 260 harks back to the days of high glossy, contrasty metallic Cibrachrome prints. This would suit glossy colourful images such as colourful exotic cars, 1980’s fashion, or neon lit rainy streetscapes.

Moenkopi Unryu 55 is like no other paper I’ve seen – it has the feel of fine textured wrapping paper with random large long hemp fibres throughout. It gives images an ethereal, whimsical, and painterly vibe to an appropriate image. 

The wrap up

In a world saturated with digital images, there’s a unique joy in holding a tangible photograph in your hands, feeling its texture, and admiring its vibrant colors or subtle tones. Printing your own photographic prints not only preserves your memories in a tangible form, but also adds a personal touch to your living space.

Whether it’s a cherished family portrait, a beautiful landscape, or a candid street photography moment, printing your photos allows you to showcase your creativity and relive your favourite moments every day, and Moab’s papers are well worth a look – especially if you want to create a really unique print.

You can see the range of Moab photographic paper on the Total Image Supplies website. 

And finally, if you really want a deep dive into mastering the print process, then this video by Moab is worth a watch:

Further reading – choosing the right type of paper for right image

The choice of photographic paper depends on various factors such as the type of photo, desired finish, and intended use. Here’s a general guide:

1. Glossy Paper: Ideal for vibrant and colourful images with high contrast. Glossy paper provides a shiny finish that enhances colour saturation and sharpness. It’s suitable for photos with rich colours and high detail, such as landscapes, portraits, and still life images.

2. Matte Paper: Matte paper offers a non-reflective surface, making it suitable for images where glare is undesirable. It provides a soft, subtle look and is great for portraits, black and white photos, and images with a more subdued color palette. Matte paper is also preferred for displaying images in well-lit environments.

3. Lustre/Satin Paper: Lustre or satin paper strikes a balance between glossy and matte finishes. It offers a slight sheen while reducing glare, making it versatile for a wide range of photos. Lustre paper is often used for portraits, wedding photos, and commercial prints.

4. Metallic Paper: Metallic paper has a unique reflective surface that adds depth and dimension to images. It enhances colours and creates a metallic sheen, making it well-suited for photos with vibrant colours, landscapes, and images with metallic elements.

5. Fine Art Paper: Fine art paper is designed for archival-quality prints with exceptional colour accuracy and longevity. It comes in various textures such as smooth, textured, or canvas-like finishes. Fine art paper is commonly used for high-end prints, art reproductions, and exhibition-quality photographs.

6. Canvas: Canvas prints offer a textured, painterly look that adds character to images. Canvas is suitable for large-format prints, art reproductions, and images intended for display without glass or framing. It provides a classic, timeless appeal and is often used for landscapes, portraits, and fine art photography.

The award-winning photograph is sharp, well-focused, and gruesome. The body of Shani Louk, the 22-year-old German-Israeli tattoo artist who was kidnapped by Hamas from the Nova music festival on October 7 and murdered, lies face down in the bed of a pickup truck. She is partly naked, her arms and legs splayed and contorted. Men sit on either side of her and another stands on the driver’s side running board, hanging onto the window frame. One of the seated men holds a grenade launcher, his mouth open in a cheer and his leg draped over Louk’s body. Another man stands behind her in the truck bed and looks straight at the camera, pointing triumphantly at her body as the truck speeds toward Gaza. 

The image is part of a group of images taken by photographers from the Associated Press that recently took first prize in the prestigious Pictures of the Year competition (POY) run by the Donald W. Reynolds Journalism Institute at the Missouri School of Journalism. 

I do not believe that we can promote anti-war sentiments, encourage peace or struggle against evil through the secondary victimization of the dead that denies their individuality, agency and humanity.

It is not known if Louk was already dead at the moment the photo was taken or died later. Her body was never recovered, but a skull fragment that matched her DNA was found at the site of the music festival, suggesting that she may have been mortally wounded before her body was taken to Gaza. Nor do we know if she was raped. However, given what we now know about the events of October 7, as detailed in an extensive report by the Association of Rape Crisis Centers in Israel as well as in the UN report, it’s reasonable to suspect she was. Rape of civilians as an act of war is a war crime. And international law prohibits the taking of hostages during an armed conflict.

The POY award was given in the category of Team Picture Story for photos of the Israel-Hamas war.  But what story is this picture telling? It is a picture of military victors, but the vanquished is a young civilian woman who was brutally abused, kidnapped, and murdered. It is a picture of war crimes, yet not a picture of war, nor was it snapped in the heat of battle.  

To me as a woman, the award given to this picture is an offensive affront to Shani Louks’s memory and dignity. In fact, this winning picture was initially published with Louk’s body and part of her face visible to the viewers. Subsequently, after public and social-media protest, her body and the visible parts of her face were blurred by many media outlets. In a way, that only serves to make the picture even more horrific, suggesting that it really doesn’t matter who Shani Louk was, how she lived, what she dreamed of, whom she loved, or even what she looked like. All that matters is that she was a Jewish Israeli woman.

Furthermore, celebration of this picture is a horrendous affront to me as an Israeli and a Jew. The October 7 atrocities included genocidal rape, a strategy that is intended to terrorize, degrade and humiliate an entire people. The Hamas massacre was intended to demoralize us all, to make all Israelis, and perhaps all Jews, feel that we are unprotected, existentially and physically vulnerable. In this picture, the men who are cheering her conquest are celebrating their victory over us all. The picture and the award are thus a stabbing reminder of how threatened I have felt in my Jewish-Israeli female body since October 7. 

I know there are other ways to view this picture and this prize. Louk’s father, Nissim Louk, told YNet News, “It’s good that the photo won the prize. This is one of the most important photos in the past 50 years. These are some of the photos that shape human memory—the Jew raising his hands, the paratroopers at the Western Wall—photos that symbolize an era.”

And yes, it is the role of photojournalism to tell powerful and necessary tales. It is the responsibility of journalists and photojournalists to show the hideous face of war, forcing us all to look at reality and maybe, just maybe, push us a bit further toward peace. In fact, the Reynold’s Institute at the University of Missouri defended their choice for the award, stating, “While we understand the reactions to the pictures, we also believe that photojournalism plays an important role in bringing attention to the harsh realities of war.”

As a journalist, I take that role very seriously. I have dedicated my professional life to reporting, often about realities that many of us, myself included, would rather ignore. And yes, publication of some pictures, such as the burning girl fleeing napalm in the Vietnam War, may have helped to change the course of that war. And yes, pictures of the terrorization and murder of Jewish women during the Holocaust serve as evidence of the evil into which humankind can descend.

But in later years, these pictures have raised ethical questions, including whether we, the living, have the right to publish pictures that show human beings at the very moment when they were stripped of their dignity. I do not believe that we can promote anti-war sentiments, encourage peace or struggle against evil through the secondary victimization of the dead that denies their individuality, agency and humanity.

As a feminist and a Jew, I have found at least some of my answers to these dilemmas in two different, yet ultimately mutually reaffirming codes. Both feminists and Jewish tradition have codes and customs that, if the awards committee had considered them, might have prevented the Reynolds Institute from awarding the picture in the first place.

The Murad Code is a voluntary code of conduct that details existing minimum standards for the safe, effective and ethical gathering and use of victim or survivor information in relation to systematic and conflict-related sexual violence. Named for 2018 Nobel Peace Prize recipient Nadia Murad, a member of the Yazidi religion who survived unspeakable rape and torture at the hands of ISIS, the code is meant as a guide for everyone who documents, investigates, reports on or researches the use of information about victims and survivors of sexual violence—and should apply to journalists, photojournalists and awards committees, too.

The Murad Code reflects universal, core standards, including the right to dignity, privacy, justice and truth, must be upheld. Although it applies primarily to surviving victims, I believe it can and must be extrapolated to the dead as well and that awarding the prize to this picture denies Louk, whether or not she was already dead at the moment that the camera shutter was snapped, all of these rights.

Judaism, too, teaches us how we must treat the dead. Following an ancient Jewish custom, after the traditional cleansing of the body of a person who has passed away and after their burial, attendants humbly ask for forgiveness for anything they might have unintentionally done that didn’t show the deceased enough respect. “Everything we did…was for the sake of your honor,” they say. This is a reflection of the fact that we must act with humility toward the dead.  But to me, this picture is an epitome of attempts at superiority over an individual woman, over a people, over humanity. And it offers a prize to the man who took the picture that enshrined that conquest.

A Change.org petition is circulating calling on Nikon, the main sponsor of the award, to denounce the photograph. At the time of writing this column, the petition had garnered 162,178 signatures.

I believe the award can and should be rescinded, but I know the picture will be on the internet forever. We cannot restore dignity to Shani Louk’s final moments, nor can we ask for her forgiveness. I can only hope that when we see this picture, we will not see the sneering men or the helpless, degraded victim; I hope we will see it as a command to oppose all gender-based violence, all war crimes, and any attempt to deny the basic humanity of anyone.