<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Did they get a picture of that?....
Review: I really believe this book fell way short of the mark.Other than taking a few snapshots with a point and shoot camera,I am not a photographer.You don't need to be an artist to enjoy art,a musician for music,a writer for literature;but when arts are well done, they should enthrall the public.While there are some of the more famous photos of the past 150 years,there are many that are just run of the mill.The book gives a history of photojournalism,it does not give the impression that the photographers have really anvanced the art.One even gets the feeling that the introduction of color has made the photographers lazy,trying to let color do the work for them rather than using it as an artistic tool.I don't really believe that is the case;it's just that the auhors haven't done that great of a job,in my estimation.With the writers access to the photos that Time must have,I get the feeling that very little effort or ability went into this book.Let's hope someone else will give it a try and do a better job of it.
Rating: 
Summary: Little educated comment
Review: One word? Awesome.If the following commentor want to see color then he better look for pictures of parrots, rainbows, snakes, bugs, peacock, children etc etc. The books is best example of photo journalism. In photo-journalism, no one look for colors or sharpness or distractions in pictures or cropping or placement of subject in picture. Definitely they are nice to have but if picture is telling some story then it conveyed its message it completed its job. Period.
<< 1 >>
| 
