I don’t see that, sorry.The difference in facial expressions is minimal and more or less inevitable.

Don’t get me wrong, I like the before/after concept a lot, I just think that the result isn’t exactly striking. Smirk – no smirk,  is something you can do in one session. A little change of light and contrast and there goes the glow as well. You don’t need a soldier or even war for that.
She should have gotten “better” faces for that special purpose. 

I think the smirk comes from that boyish sense of them embarking on an
adventure, that sense of the unknown. That’s what makes the during and
after shot so moving. I personally get the sense that some of the
during portraits show bewilderment, just
trying to get through today and, most chillingly, intent focus. The most haunting and  upsetting for me is that there’s no relief in those after portraits.
There’s no sense of, like, “OK that’s behind me now.” The third after
portrait from the top, where he’s looking away, gives me the sense he’s
reflecting, and it ain’t pleasant childhood
memories he’s got in mind.

Yes, the photos are edited. Those who suggest this project is slanted are correct, but are foolish to think any photo essay is not. Isn’t that what media is? Like, on a really basic level, aren’t we pointing out “Hey, look at this! Look at what I’m seeing here” [even if it's *just* a magnificent sunset while on honeymoon].

I buy it that Ms. Felicie spent time with these men, and chose these images to tell the story of what she saw, heard, felt, etc. If she didn’t and these images were, say, artistic renditions, could we blame her for creating a visual series that tells the story which we hear in the news about soldiers returning from war?

As to comments about soldiers being paid killers who are not at all forced to go off to war, yes, one could make that argument. However, I would reserve judgement until I found myself in the situation of needing to put food on the table for my family and having to choose between an employer such as Wal-Mart, the drug dealer down the street, or the armed forces. I’ve been fortunate not to have been in that position.

BTW Jamie Weir, ‘”I can do this” to “I had to do that”‘ is a very eloquent
way to describe what you’re seeing in this series of portraits. Thx.

The first and third photos are lit differently than the second frame, where here the photographer managed to light the eyes and each portrait (with the exception of the top one) is consistently illuminated from both sides, thus altering the shape of the face. I recall being taught in photography class that lighting on both sides was the method to create a more ominous portrait. Note the shadow line in the center of the nose and face which tells you where the light was placed. Not that this was intentional on the part of the photographer- the lighting on the 1st and third photos of each set is uneven across the board. Don’t read too much into the “dead” eyes in the third frames- they are in a shadow (as were the first, incidentally), with the lighting source directly above. It’s funny that although the second photos appear more open and “alive” due to the reflections in the eyes, people adhere to the concept of the toll of war, as was ascribed to the series, and choose to see increased torment as the series progresses.

How can I explain the obvious. The difference is devastatingly haunting.

How could you not be different returning home as a still young man after seeing others killed, maybe your best friends, maybe women or children.  Maybe after killing others.  

The first set of faces is calm, at peace, maybe smirking, maybe smiling; the second set shows a kind of alertness, a hypersensitivity, a embodied presence in the moment.  The third shows an absence.  Nobody is home in some of those last faces, the eyes are hooded or blank, the expressions hidden.  

My late husband fought in Viet Nam.  He was a photographer and writer who was almost drafted off the streets of Haight Ashbury in the 60′s after completing his B.A. and becoming a hippie.  Instead, as an Air Force brat, he enlisted and took documentaries of action for the U.S.  I have his writing from before and after.  He was a loving, open man who came back closed and haunted.  Every night of his life, his voice ramped up as he dreamed and unless I was awake enough to stop him, began screaming.  He never talked about what happened there and he never watched a war movie.  

I think some people are missing the point.  Nobody is arguing whether or not war changes you because everybody agrees it does, and devastatingly so.  

I have to agree with the people above that between the differences in lighting and selection of shots, it doesn’t fairly depict the affect of war.  In basically all of these shots I feel if the 2nd and 3rd images were swapped, I would still read into it the same way.  If you walk into something already knowing what you hope to find.. you will find it.

Unfortunately it looks too much like the photographer forced her agenda. People that come back from war still have the ability to smile, smirk, laugh, frown, and have  blank gaze. It is actually really unfair to anyone who has survived war to suggest that they are forever frozen in this dead stare. The photographer created the idea in her head and then used photography to perpetuate the lie.

from left to right they look relaxed, alert, detached.

You, also, have been duped by the photographers agenda. Even modern soldiers have the ability to show more than one emotion. To say they can only be photographed with sullen expressions is doing them no favors.

I’ve read through the previous 68 comments (which, as of this moment, is all of them), and seen several different viewpoints. Some have been critiques of technique, some have been comments on political agendas, some on the effects of war itself. There have been comments in support of war, and those against it. There has been ignorance and opinion, some positive, some negative.

What I have not seen has been the thoughts or opinions of someone who has actually *been* in combat, in war. (I do acknowledge those posted by wives and family, but there is still a factor of remove from the experience.)

I am a veteran of the first Gulf War, back in 1991. I have both done and seen things that have made substantial changes in my life. I suffer from PTSD. You could ask my family if I changed between the time I saw them last and the time I came back from the war. In every instance that I can recall the answer has always been that I had. You could ask my wife if I still have nightmares after twenty years. I still do.

There are differences in the portraits. I see them despite the high contrast (which, to be honest, I am not a fan of, but I understand why the photographer chose to use it). I won’t try to tell you what those differences are, since many others have done so in those 68 comments. If you cannot see them, if you choose *not* to see them, that’s just the way it is for you. This in no way does not mean they do not exist at all.

War changes people. Combat changes people. Sometimes that can be seen in photographs. Sometimes it can’t. I think Claire Felicie has something here, and has chosen to present it in a manner that highlights something that is often very hard to see in the first place. I applaud her efforts to do so.

I’m not a follower of this site, and only comment here as a result of another friend linking to this piece. Commenting is not something I do often. Sometimes, however, I feel it is important enough to bring up a viewpoint that perhaps hadn’t been considered.

Wow, I am amazed at the lack of compassion and empathy of some of you.  That is pathetic and obvious that you have never seen anything horrible happen in your lifetime.  Sad, just completely sad.

They all lost the smile that was shown in their eyes

It never ceases to amaze me how insensitive, stupid, or just plain ignorant some people can be.  If you cant see the obvious differences in their eyes alone, why even bother to comment and waste everyone else time, and show your ineptitude to boot….furthermore, whether the military member is from the U.S., Canada, or wherever, we are all working together as a team for a common goal.   

Just an idea, but maybe you could focus on the point the photographer was trying to make. We all know that soldiers can smile and laugh and even live normal lives after war. No one is that stupid. I think the point that has been quite well made is that they went to war as hopefull, happy optimistic young men who smiled easily, and when they returned, they were less so.

Surely that’s really the only point?

Congratulations, you bit the worm the photographer dangled in front of you.

None of these men were forced to join the military.  Heading to Afghanistan or Iraq is NOT the same as enlisting to zee Germans in WWII.  If they didn’t want to kill people, why did they join?  Is it just me, or are people stupid when they say things like “talk to a person who has had to kill someone?”  NO ONE has to kill anybody.  They choose too.

Anyone else mad that the title says soldiers but the photos are of marines? I know most marines would be.