View Full Version : Some rhetorical questions about iconic images
TEZillman
12-04-2007, 15:30
It's a cold and snowy night in Chicagoland, so I thought I'd throw out some general interest questions to discuss:
There are several dozen photos that everyone who has ever taken a basic photography history or appreciation class would recognize as "iconic" for their particular genre of photography. Photos that exemplify the highest reaches of technical and artistic ability on the part of the photographer. It's seems to me that society has stopped adding to these or replacing them. Is it possible for anyone to create an iconic image in the 21st Century? I should qualify this, in the area of photojournalism, for example, there are events recorded daily and yet one photo of the Hindenburg Disaster by Murray Becker is always trotted out as the icon. Why has this photo "held the record" for 70 years? What would it take to unseat it? It is a fine photogragh, but is it the ultimate in photojournalism? Perhaps I am looking at this from a purely American viewpoint. Please point out if things are different in your country.
If we were to retire all of the iconic images and replace them with photos made in the past 25 years, what photos would you nominate in whatever catagory you choose to take their place?
ClaremontPhoto
12-04-2007, 15:44
Very interesting.
I'll be thinking about this.
The photo that springs to mind is the National Geographic cover pic of the young Afghan woman with the big eyes. But I'm not sure if it fits in the requested timeframe.
mfunnell
12-04-2007, 15:49
Well, for the 21st Century the one that immediately occurs to me is The Falling Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Falling_Man).
I'm sure there are others, but that's what popped into my mind when I saw the question.
...Mike
They happen all the time. Think about 9/11.
Just a few month ago the San Diego fire-fighter under cover photo
falls in this category, for me.
Roland.
I'm not so certain that we will see a few great, iconic images from here on out. I don't mean to imply that there isn't great photography being made these days, it's really the issue that we are media-saturated with images more so than at any time in previous human history. Something like 1/4 of the internet is images, I've read. So it's really difficult to expect just a few great ones to stand out from all the background noise, so to speak.
Although, as a lad in the early 1970s I recall seeing a National Lampoon magazine with a picture of 'The Burning of the Hindenbird;' it was a chicken leg, poised in mid-descent, fireball erupting out of its top. :)
~Joe
If we were to retire all of the iconic images and replace them with photos made in the past 25 years, what photos would you nominate in whatever catagory you choose to take their place? __________________
Tom
I'm not sure I understand your timespan thing. I think there are plenty of iconic images taken within the last 25 years. I'm sure I'll never forget Nachtwey's Rwandan with those machete scars across his face, or Salgado's oil workers capping the flaming wells in Kuwait.
Photoshadow
12-04-2007, 16:33
Actually, there's a really wonderful new book on just this question: "No Caption Needed: Iconic Photographs, Public Culture, and Liberal Democracy" by Robert Hariman and John Louis Lucaites. It looks at photos of the Hindenburg and 9/11, among others, and explores what gives images like this such a long afterlife. It might not answer the question, but it does give a lot of food for thought.
I don't have a particular iconic image that I'd vote for at the moment (although I agree that Salgado has a number in his Migrations book, too), but for myself I've been completely haunted by the cover photograph of Alex Webb's book, Istanbul, for weeks.
TEZillman
12-04-2007, 17:32
OK, The time period was totally random, so feel free to expand or contract it a bit. I guess I was trying to think of images that have been made fairly recently and that have regularly been held up as an example of the best of their genre. I could think of some from the 70s, but was at a loss after then. Photos of Monica Lewinski or OJ Simpson parading around with a pack of lawyers may stick in one's memory, but they probably aren't the height of photojournalism.
I was thinking outside the realm of photojournalism as well and didn't mean to limit things by my example. Are there fashion or fine art or landscape or street photos that have been done that should get more recognition?
9/11 has been mentioned a couple times, but for me, there is no one photo that stands out. There's like a montage of photos that go through my mind. Of course we Americans all saw each one about 100 times a day in the following week, so that's not too surprising. Many great photos where made that day, but there's no single one that stands out for me. To tell you the truth, I don't recall ever seeing "The Falling Man" before now. Thanks for the link.
Thanks also for the tip on the book, it sounds like an interesting read
It's impossible NOT to have iconic images, images that speak of and to the human spirit. As long as the human condition is available and on display (and when isn't it?), as long as "stuff happens" (and when doesn't it?), as long as there is someone with a camera there to photograph it (and that's increasing everyday), there will be images, and some of those will speak directly to everyone (everywhere, or in a particular culture).
I prefer smaller more personal images, anyway. Looking back over photographic history, photographers like HCB had many big iconic images, but that never diminished the works of other photographers. I was looking at Sudek images the other night and was thoroughly enjoying his "view from my studio window" series.
.
nikon_sam
12-04-2007, 17:43
The first photo that comes to mind is "The Challenger Disaster".
ClaremontPhoto
12-04-2007, 22:45
The Lockerbie plane crash.
If we were to retire all of the iconic images and replace them with photos made in the past 25 years, what photos would you nominate in whatever catagory you choose to take their place?
This one:
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/05/03/slideshow_040503
Iconic image is not timeless. It represents some issue that have had a great impact on the society, localy or globaly. It can be country dependent or global. Today, the huge communication channels emit many iconic images, but we are oversaturated of them and hardly can choose something iconic.
The first photo that comes to mind is "The Challenger Disaster".
That's the one I would nominate. The Wiki article (here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_disaster)) even names it as an iconic image.
Today, the huge communication channels emit many iconic images, but we are oversaturated of them and hardly can choose something iconic.
I disagree. There are few truly iconic images among the millions of images circulated around the world. I believe my example above is one. Here is another:
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0410/adams20.html
and another:
http://www.ojodigital.com/foro/showthread.php?t=141329
and another:
http://www.shorpy.com/files/images/8b29516u.jpg
and another:
http://www.artandperception.com/v01/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/molotovman_susan-meiselas.JPG
They become iconic because of what they come to mean.
Pablito, these images are globaly known icons, but I can show you same type of images and better from my country. May be you don't know them, because they were not globaly shown by respectful journalists
Pablito, these images are globaly known icons, but I can show you same type of images and better from my country. May be you don't know them, because they were not globaly shown by respectful journalists
That is an interesting thought, and quite probably true. But surely the purpose of photo-journalism is to create images that deserve, and achieve, wide publication and bring attention to important issues?
Sure, no doubt about, Chris, but publications are widely known also as political issue, and as so, sometimes pushed deep into the drawer
Give it some time, 21st century have been around for only 7 years. All iconic images withstood test of time, am sure some of the current ones will do too.
ClaremontPhoto
12-05-2007, 01:53
Princess Diana Alone at the Taj Mahal.
http://www.taj-mahal.net/augEng/textMM/seatengN.htm
A news photo at the time, and later a political photo during her high profile divorce.
Spider67
12-05-2007, 01:56
One that comes to my mind is the shooting of an alleged Vietcong by the south Vietnamese General Loan I saw it on TV when I was a kid and it haunted me.
A strong indication would be for me right now that as soon as the picture is mentioned it pops up in peoples memories.
Those are the pics that came up as soon as I read about them in this thread:
-The Hindenburg
-The Challenger Explosion
-The Afghan Girls with green eyes
Some recent examples (Which came into my mind in a matter of seconds):
-young people in a Cabrio taking pics with their cellphones in destryed Beirut
-The second plane hist the WTC seems to be a still from video
-American soldiers preparing Saddams statue to be torn down.
Clearly the iconic images do stand out from the crowd and are remembered over time.
Some get a head start, if no one else got the shot at all of an important event, but even with thousands of shots of 11/9 available the “the falling man” stands out both from the general noise and the sequence it came from. It is simply a great photo.
We are seven years into the 21st century, and have one icon already, that’s about the same rate as last century; no?
PS anybody got a link to the full sequence of the falling man photos?
ClaremontPhoto
12-05-2007, 03:30
1 Some news organizations clearly have talented and experienced photographers: Time, The Guardian, The Independent, and the Observer spring to mind. Not only are their photos often good and strong, but so is the way the picture editor uses them.
2 Many news organizations now encourage people to send their Nokia-type photos in. Sky News for example. So we get to see news almost as it happens but without the skilled eye of a competent photographer.
3 Other news organizations employ photographers who seem to be transferred in from the weather map or the tv guide yesterday. They know nothing about exposure, light, composition, news value, and so on. I have seen so many awfully bad photos of this sort.
Lewis Morley's shot of Christine Keeler astride an Arne Jacobson chair is one that springs to mind. I thought it would be limited by age and nationality until it popped-up on the Simpsons
You may be correct, time will tell, however because you have a parochial US view are you in the best place to judge?
Here in the UK it has had TV documentaries made about it and I get more matches on Google with” iconic image Falling Man” than “iconic image Margaret Thatcher”
Do you recall the sensibilities and politics at the time of the Hindenburg disaster? would you have pulled that one too?
You may be correct, time will tell, however because you have a parochial US view are you in the best place to judge?
Here in the UK it has had TV documentaries made about it and I get more matches on Google with” iconic image Falling Man” than “iconic image Margaret Thatcher”
Do you recall the sensibilities and politics at the time of the Hindenburg disaster? would you have pulled that one too?
There is even a documentary of a guy who searches for the identity of the falling man on google video. You see this image (and plenty of others like it) over and over.
Sitemistic, I see you thinking while shooting, meaning, You need or have the filters dictated by the boss. Good news and smart PJ. Going back to icon imagery, I can't get the connection. I think iconizing is one good snap, or one good cooked (well done) shot.
nikonhswebmaster
12-05-2007, 06:12
You are a glum bunch...
The world, for me, has always been separated between the guy who wants to go off to war, and the guy who wants to stay home and have sex with his girlfriend. The first guy always tells the second guy that he is making it all possible for the second guy, and the second guy just shakes his head, wondering if the first guy just doesn't like sex.
A Buddhist walks up to a hot dog stand, and says "make me one with everything."
The world, for me, has always been separated between the guy who wants to go off to war, and the guy who wants to stay home and have sex with his girlfriend. The first guy always tells the second guy that he is making it all possible for the second guy, and the second guy just shakes his head, wondering if the first guy just doesn't like sex.
:D :D :D:D :D
I don’t think it makes any difference where I am actually; it’s more of an availability thing
Anybody in the US recognise this image as an icon?
Anybody in the US recognise this image as an icon?
An answer off the top of my head: Sex scandal that brought down a Prime Minister?
(Can't recall the name.) I didn't google it, so I'm not sure I'm right. :D
An answer off the top of my head: Sex scandal that brought down a Prime Minister?
(Can't recall the name.) I didn't google it, so I'm not sure I'm right. :D
That’s correct, early 60s; I didn’t think it would be known outside the UK until I saw this
pesphoto
12-05-2007, 07:48
Red after another win:
http://celtic-nation.com/images/interview_photos/red1.jpg
ClaremontPhoto
12-05-2007, 07:57
Sparrow:
I understand.
Two iconic images for me would be:
Michael Portillo losing at Enfield by election,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Portillo
And Tony Blair's 'Presidential' Christmas cards...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4548698.stm
But you have to know the circumstances, and they not likely to be at all well-known internationally.
Instead of human perversity, let's contemplate beauty and truth as those qualities which deserve to be recognised in modern iconic images.
sitemistic
Did someone run market research on it?
For someone working in the press you seem unduly keen on censorship, at least where domestic sensibilities are involved, do you not think the press has a role of presenting reality and letting the public make its own mind up.
Sparrow:
I understand.
Two iconic images for me would be:
Michael Portillo losing at Enfield by election,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Portillo
And Tony Blair's 'Presidential' Christmas cards...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4548698.stm
But you have to know the circumstances, and they not likely to be at all well-known internationally.
Hi Jon
I remember those, but I doubt most people in the UK would, and very few in the US would have any idea what they were about, to be an icon I think it has to be universally recognised, like the Marilyn Munroe shot posted earlier
...do you not think the press has a role of presenting reality and letting the public make its own mind up.
Whatever views an individual might hold in this country, he or she learns to keep themselves in the workplace if they want to remain employed.
An iconic image that would illustrate the point comes to my mind, but I can't place the name of the pic or the photographer. It's the business end of a gelded stallion with the caption "American ......." Anyone know it? :confused:
That’s correct, early 60s; I didn’t think it would be known outside the UK until I saw this
Those Simpson's writers are a pretty clever bunch...!
Whatever views an individual might hold in this country, he or she learns to keep themselves in the workplace if they want to remain employed.
An iconic image that would illustrate the point comes to my mind, but I can't place the name of the pic or the photographer. It's the business end of a gelded stallion with the caption "American ......." Anyone know it? :confused:
Those Simpson's writers are a pretty clever bunch...!
It’s one thing to be prudent with your views in the workplace something else to promote them here.
The discussion of an iconic photo should have nothing to do with one persons’ opinion of good taste, were way off topic now, sorry
ClaremontPhoto
12-05-2007, 08:40
I remember those, but I doubt most people in the UK would...
Wasn't this what IZr was saying a few hours back?
Those two political photos would be iconic to many British people with an interest in British Labour party politics, but not outside that group and not internationally.
Wasn't this what IZr was saying a few hours back?
Those two political photos would be iconic to many British people with an interest in British Labour party politics, but not outside that group and not internationally.
Probably, I got sidetracked, but if your applying the title “ikon” you lose credibility if you have to add “British” or “labour party” to gain recognition wouldn’t you say
PS do you remember dear old Neil falling in the sea Bournemouth in the late 80s?
ClaremontPhoto
12-05-2007, 09:05
PS do you remember dear old Neil falling in the sea Bournemouth in the late 80s?
This one by any chance:
Two of the most iconic images of the later part of the 20th century. Not just for who they are, but what those images have become.
This one by any chance:
Yes :D :D
even better on vidio, and I liked the chap
PS do you remember dear old Neil falling in the sea Bournemouth in the late 80s?
How can that be "iconic" when it's so topical and localized? It's like Jimmy Carter with the attack rabbit; funny, but hardly "iconic."
How can that be "iconic" when it's so topical and localized? It's like Jimmy Carter with the attack rabbit; funny, but hardly "iconic."
it's not, it's just funny
I think too many of you are getting way off track here. An iconic image must stand up by itself, without having to know where and who and why!
A balding welshman slipping on the pebbles means absolutely nothing!
Two of the most iconic images of the later part of the 20th century. Not just for who they are, but what those images have become.
This is more iconic in respect of China for me
Thats more like it! Even if you knew nothing about Tiannenmen, you can see that it's a lone guy standing up against an army! That speaks to everybody.
I think too many of you are getting way off track here. An iconic image must stand up by itself, without having to know where and who and why!
A balding welshman slipping on the pebbles means absolutely nothing!
Agree entirely, the only two pictures I see so far are Marilyn Munroe and Che Guevara.
nikon_sam
12-05-2007, 11:15
Interesting that with the exception of the "attacking rabbit" all of the images mentioned are of man or manmade items...
How about the Earth Rising shot taken on the Moon...???
If we were to retire all of the iconic images and replace them with photos made in the past 25 years, what photos would you nominate in whatever catagory you choose to take their place?
The picture of the man in front of the tanks in Tiananmen, Paul Watson's shot in Somalia of the dead American soldier being dragged around. Just two of the shots that come first to mind.
Interesting that with the exception of the "attacking rabbit" all of the images mentioned are of man or manmade items...
How about the Earth Rising shot taken on the Moon...???
Its true about the human content, and I think thats normal. I've seen pictures of entire forests killed by acid rain in scandanavia, but thats not so iconic as even just a few children dead from starvation in africa.
Thats more like it! Even if you knew nothing about Tiannenmen, you can see that it's a lone guy standing up against an army! That speaks to everybody.
Yep!
And a free press without ethics is useful for what exactly?
Selling candy to diabetic children...? :D
Interesting that with the exception of the "attacking rabbit" all of the images mentioned are of man or manmade items...
How about the Earth Rising shot taken on the Moon...???
The one with the Earth’s reflection in the helmet’s visor did it for me
What do you deem unethical?
Internalizing the values of our system so thoroughly that you stop noticing that you're censoring your own work before you even press the shutter button...?
Internalizing the values of our system so thoroughly that you stop noticing that you're censoring your own work before you even press the shutter button...?
Thats SO right!!
Whether its falling men or dying kids, if you're half a PJ then you shoot first and worry about ethics later.
Tuolumne
12-05-2007, 14:36
Anybody in the US recognise this image as an icon?
Yep. I was a teenager and after seeing that photo I always had a special place in my heart for British women, anyone named Mandy, and all women with hyphenated last names. How many photos have you ever seen that could change your life so profoundly? ;)
/T
Sophistry. Every photo we take is filtered through internalized presuppositions. We can't escape that as adults. Nobody is without bias.
It's not sophistry just because you don't like it or agree with it. It affects anyone who's an employee, actually, you either internalize the values of whoever signs your paycheck or you're unemployed.
I don't mean to be personal by using the pronoun "you," BTW...
Others seem to understand; it’s difficult to be plainer. A press that puts profit before all other considerations is a bad thing: is that any better?
And I for one don't want my news "filtered" before I see it. The american press today is already filtered by the white house.
Yep. I was a teenager and after seeing that photo I always had a special place in my heart for British women, anyone named Mandy, and all women with hyphenated last names. How many photos have you ever seen that could change your life so profoundly? ;)
/T
That one is Christine Keeler the other one was Mandy Rice-Davies
Tuolumne
12-05-2007, 14:45
That one is Christine Keeler the other one was Mandy Rice-Davies
That makes it iconic for sure. You didn't have to recognize or name the right person for the photo to have impact. It's a good thing I didn't think it was Mother Theresa or my subsequent life would have been a real mess! :D:D
/T
Tuolumne
12-05-2007, 14:50
For a photo to be iconic it has to be iconic in its own right, as a standalone photo, without external reference to the contex or identity of the people. So, the photo of Pricess Di in front of the Taj Mahal, for example, does not qualify as iconic. It's just a photo of an attractive woman in front of the Taj Mahal. Without knowing who it is and what was happening at the time, it has no special impact.
/T
That makes it iconic for sure. You didn't have to recognize or name the right person for the photo to have impact. It's a good thing I didn't think it was Mother Theresa or my subsequent life would have been a real mess! :D:D
/T
This is Mandy Rice-Davies, enjoy
:D
Tuolumne
12-05-2007, 14:54
This is Mandy Rice-Davies, enjoy
:D
Thank you, Sparrow, thank you. :angel:
/T
For a photo to be iconic it has to be iconic in its own right, as a standalone photo, without external reference to the contex or identity of the people. So, the photo of Pricess Di in front of the Taj Mahal, for example, does not qualify as iconic. It's just a photo of an attractive woman in front of the Taj Mahal. Without knowing who it is and what was happening at the time, it has no special impact.
/T
Yes that’s how I understand an icon; in the modern secular sense, that is
Tuolumne
12-05-2007, 15:04
This is Mandy Rice-Davies, enjoy
:D
Sparrow,
Is this photo for real? Time is so cruel!
/T
Here in the old world we've heard that the average american would rather go to the mall than read a newspaper.
Most newspapers here are just fluff designed to appeal to whatever demographic the advertisers who own the paper target their goods to, so you're not entirely wrong. The "special supplements" are where the real effort goes.
Sparrow,
Is this photo for real? Time is so cruel!
/T
I do hope not
For a photo to be iconic it has to be iconic in its own right, as a standalone photo, without external reference to the contex or identity of the people. So, the photo of Pricess Di in front of the Taj Mahal, for example, does not qualify as iconic. It's just a photo of an attractive woman in front of the Taj Mahal. Without knowing who it is and what was happening at the time, it has no special impact.
/T
Or you could argue that reference to the content is essential in making an image iconic. You might say that in order for a photograph to become iconic it must move beyond its role as a simple image, no matter how graphically complelling, and enter the public imaginary, taking on a life of its own. For intstance, (the obvious example) , Korda's Che, or Susan Meiselas' soldier throwing a molotov (seem my link in previous post) Meiselas' image was published worldwide, then appropriated by BOTH sides in the war in Nicaragua, used in murals, postage stamps, propaganda, etc.
Or you could argue that an image like Weston's green pepper is iconic for what it represented in the history of photography. A lot has to do with how you think of "iconic". As for me, I prefer to believe that iconic pictures are few and far between and that they don't necessairily have to be strong graphic statements if the content is unique or compelling enough.
Not an insult at all. The sad truth is that once they finish any kind of formal education, researchers have found that most Americans never read a book or magazine again that they don't have to read for their work. That's a real danger to democracy.
So glad you agree sitemistic. The only democracy we're seeing is that fed to us via fox/the whitehouse, and that affects us even here in europe!
nikonhswebmaster
12-06-2007, 06:00
The NEA still says 1/2 of Americans are still reading literature. However it is decreasing among the young. But the book stores are still going strong, even if the little ones have been destroyed by Amazon and friends.
As usual I live in an odd place, where people fill the subways reading books on their way to and from work. Some mornings I will see 10 people reading around me, and they aren't reading for school. In addition there are kids doing homework, even using laptops.
People are bound to change their habits because of the internet, I for one no longer read any popular literature, including the new yorker anywhere but the web.
Not an insult at all. The sad truth is that once they finish any kind of formal education, researchers have found that most Americans never read a book or magazine again that they don't have to read for their work. That's a real danger to democracy.
So glad you agree sitemistic. The only democracy we're seeing is that fed to us via fox/the whitehouse, and that affects us even here in europe!
You definitely need better news sources in your own country. No one pays any attention to the White House at this point, since it is now a lame duck administration, and as for FOX, it is the stuff of comedy routines, not that many don't watch.
We have a press that you have to read from all sides, read the NY Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the NY Daily News, throw in the St. Louis Post Dispatch, and the LA Times and you will have a clearer idea. Nice thing about the internet is they are all right in front of you.
An interesting article on this subject that cites the book mentioned in post #7:
http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=vgpv1p3qtzkrscpsbzh5f2qv9rrmhfvc
...and as for FOX, it is the stuff of comedy routines, not that many don't watch.
Fox News is The Daily Show for the mildly retarded.
Fox News is The Daily Show for the mildly retarded.
if only it were so benign.
nikonhswebmaster
12-06-2007, 08:41
Thank you. I wish everyone would understand this when they post images that do not belong to them. See RFF rule number 6.
If I say "I sound like a broken record" that will give away my age. But I sure am tired of asking folks to "obey rule number 6" . I don't want to get into a "fair use" argument either and I know it's convenient when discussing photos to post them. But (here goes the broken record) ..this rule is mostly to protect photographers, and, I imagine, RFF. I have had my work posted without authorisation many times (not here) and have had to fight hard to get it removed (conext was not appropriate, for one thing).
Even the mods seem to ignore this rule (unless one specifically complains). Maybe this is not fair to them as the rule is violated so often it's hard to pick up on every violation.
What's so hard about posting a link? it's EASIER actually
I would say generally posting images from another site is not a good idea, but I admit on sites like museums I usually do it on the premise that as long as the photo is of the space (not individual work) the museum owns the photo (work for hire) and the museum is getting publicity.
I do not care much about my own, but I do not want my name attached to anything on someone else's site, because I do not want Google going there, instead of on my site. I certainly could care less is someone prints an image and hangs it on their wall, or uses it in a newsletter. I just care about the paying customers, and they rarely steal.
These days however with Google putting up images from everywhere, the president of putting up linked thumbnails is pretty well established. If you don't want it you really have to protect the images with code as flicker does, and include "no robots" on your meta tags.
As for credit, I do not publish without it, even my very first photos in the "Pictures" section of the Post Dispatch, when 20, had credits. Call it ego, but not much hope someone is going to know who you are if you don't tell them.
I rarely see photos without credits published these days, except in advertising -- where they actually pay large sums of dinero.
Here in france credits are now compulsory for all photos, in the press as elsewhere.
nikonhswebmaster
12-06-2007, 09:04
You're quite right sitemistic. In some recent cases (before this law) it was the paper editors who were sued if there was no credit.
Not just photos but political cartoons also.
It sure would tend to put a damper on internet image theft! And I want to know the source of images. It matters if the source is the government or a newspaper, or wire service. I am suspicious of all "embedded" photographers, these days, so I look at names.
I am actually a bid saddened that all my editorial work was well before the internet, so is all invisible.
nikon_sam
12-06-2007, 09:18
I thought we were discussing 'Iconic Images"...???
nikonhswebmaster
12-06-2007, 09:45
I thought we were discussing 'Iconic Images"...???
Right now we are discussing how we know who takes them. Or at least the new ones.
But feel free to put up your favorite and get us back to the focus.
crawdiddy
12-06-2007, 12:18
As usual I live in an odd place, where people fill the subways reading books on their way to and from work. Some mornings I will see 10 people reading around me, and they aren't reading for school.
It isn't just Americans who read books less than they used to, it's global. And I'm skeptical that Manhattanites are so different. Quite a few of them are reading the New York Post, aren't they? (Rupert Murdoch's flagship publication.) What is the circulation of that thing, anyway? About 700,000? And you know, it's not read so much in the "fly over country."
Back to the subject.
Here's an iconic image for me; my son's first flying lesson.
52852
52853And here's his flight certificate.:eek:
crawdiddy
12-06-2007, 14:27
OK, Pitxu, that's some photo you posted there. Looks fairly technical to me. I think it belongs in one of the "gear" threads, but I don't know which one.
OK, Pitxu, that's some photo you posted there. Looks fairly technical to me. I think it belongs in one of the "gear" threads, but I don't know which one.
Scanning huge negs ?
crawdiddy
12-06-2007, 14:41
Exactly. You've got some great shadow detail, but the highlights are WAY overexposed.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.