182 Eva Castringius
Alexander Yurchenko, the head of the dosimetrists, a group of 18 workers
who were examining the ruins and recording their radioactivity. They
called themselves the “Roof Cats” and knew every corner of the ruin.
Kostin was thus moved from the roof of Reactor 3, which had to be
cleaned of the highly radioactive rubble, to Block 4, a much less dangerous place from which he could document the cleanup work. He photographed the so-called liquidators who had roughly forty seconds to throw
one or two loads of radioactive trash into the open hole of Block 4. The
maximum whole-body dose has been set at 25 roentgens by the military radiation protection standard. 27 The workers on the roof of Reactor
3 were exposed to much higher levels of radiation, namely, as many as
10,000 roentgens per hour. 28
Kostin, too, was a victim of high radioactivity as he took pictures on
the roof. The white areas of overexposure on the lower edge of the photograph in Figure 8.3 are commented on as follows in Chernobyl: Confessions
of a Reporter: “The cameras of Igor Kostin were not spared. The radiation
attacked the film, forming white stripes along the length of the images.
These shots cost him two Nikons.” 29 Apparently, the radiation reached the
film through the casing of the camera, since it is considerably more difficult
for radiation to pass through the glass of the lens. The catastrophe depicts
itself, as it were, in this stripe-like overexposure. The men dressed in protective clothing move through the fog that flickers flame-like on the lower
edge and stands out against the sad and gloomy backdrop of the ruin. The
graininess of the high contrast shot merges with the bright shimmering of
the black-and-white scenery. Clearly, the radioactive radiation has inscribed
itself into the film. It is added to the documentary photograph in a way that
contributes to the picture and becomes part of its message. This results in a
narration that becomes intelligible through the situation that created it. This
pictorial hybrid consists of two sorts of radiation, both of which are depicted
on the photosensitive film.
In an interview by the filmmaker Alexander Kluge, Kostin mentioned
that he had increased the contrast of the photograph to make the traces of the
radioactivity stand out more intensely. 30 By doing so, Kostin reinforced the
impression of danger and, accordingly, the message to the viewer. Kostin’s
increasing of the contrast – a process that standards for photojournalism interpret as an acceptable correction of the image – is used as a way of amplifying
the message. He made his construction of reality more intense by using a
format of reporting that emphasizes the photographer’s subjective look at the
catastrophe. Kostin felt obliged to use his photographs to warn against other
catastrophes of this kind. 31 To that end, he exposed himself to great health
risks and suffered from radiation sickness. With his camera, he followed the
cleanup work and the construction of the “sarcophagus,” having documented
over the years the psychological and physical damage to the workers and the
local population. 32
Alexander Yurchenko, the head of the dosimetrists, a group of 18 workers
who were examining the ruins and recording their radioactivity. They
called themselves the “Roof Cats” and knew every corner of the ruin.
Kostin was thus moved from the roof of Reactor 3, which had to be
cleaned of the highly radioactive rubble, to Block 4, a much less dangerous place from which he could document the cleanup work. He photographed the so-called liquidators who had roughly forty seconds to throw
one or two loads of radioactive trash into the open hole of Block 4. The
maximum whole-body dose has been set at 25 roentgens by the military radiation protection standard. 27 The workers on the roof of Reactor
3 were exposed to much higher levels of radiation, namely, as many as
10,000 roentgens per hour. 28
Kostin, too, was a victim of high radioactivity as he took pictures on
the roof. The white areas of overexposure on the lower edge of the photograph in Figure 8.3 are commented on as follows in Chernobyl: Confessions
of a Reporter: “The cameras of Igor Kostin were not spared. The radiation
attacked the film, forming white stripes along the length of the images.
These shots cost him two Nikons.” 29 Apparently, the radiation reached the
film through the casing of the camera, since it is considerably more difficult
for radiation to pass through the glass of the lens. The catastrophe depicts
itself, as it were, in this stripe-like overexposure. The men dressed in protective clothing move through the fog that flickers flame-like on the lower
edge and stands out against the sad and gloomy backdrop of the ruin. The
graininess of the high contrast shot merges with the bright shimmering of
the black-and-white scenery. Clearly, the radioactive radiation has inscribed
itself into the film. It is added to the documentary photograph in a way that
contributes to the picture and becomes part of its message. This results in a
narration that becomes intelligible through the situation that created it. This
pictorial hybrid consists of two sorts of radiation, both of which are depicted
on the photosensitive film.
In an interview by the filmmaker Alexander Kluge, Kostin mentioned
that he had increased the contrast of the photograph to make the traces of the
radioactivity stand out more intensely. 30 By doing so, Kostin reinforced the
impression of danger and, accordingly, the message to the viewer. Kostin’s
increasing of the contrast – a process that standards for photojournalism interpret as an acceptable correction of the image – is used as a way of amplifying
the message. He made his construction of reality more intense by using a
format of reporting that emphasizes the photographer’s subjective look at the
catastrophe. Kostin felt obliged to use his photographs to warn against other
catastrophes of this kind. 31 To that end, he exposed himself to great health
risks and suffered from radiation sickness. With his camera, he followed the
cleanup work and the construction of the “sarcophagus,” having documented
over the years the psychological and physical damage to the workers and the
local population. 32