D-Day: The Lost Evidence (Above the Battle)

Rating:
Summary: TOO SMALL!
Review: Do not WASTE your money. If ever a book needed to be large format, this is the one. I was extremely disappointed with the quality and size of the aerial photos. The dot-resolution is so low (about 85 lpi) that the detail is deminished in these already small images. Most photos are on average 1.5 to 3 inches on the page making if impossible to see the subject that is highlighted. Some photos are scanned from other books and have a pattern morray showing the dot on dot distortion. I would have done better to spent my money on the History Channel DVD.

Rating:
Summary: An entralling visual window into a great moment of history
Review: Obviously, opinions about books - and reviews of them - are highly subjective, and two different people can look at the same work and come away with honest, but diametrically opposed views of the book's merits. I found Going and Jones' presentation of the aerial reconnaissance photographs of the D-Day invasion to be strongly compelling. In a very real sense, in my opinion, readers are transported back to a "you are there" moment, looking far down upon men desperately fighting for their lives, unaware of the observation. Those tiny dots are individual soldiers. Tanks and combat engineering vehicles are slightly larger dark blocks. We see smoke drifting across the land, the white wakes of landing craft making their runs to the beaches, shell and bomb craters scarring the fields, discarded parachutes ... all from a literally bird's eye view, albeit a very high flying bird. There is an immediacy to these aerial reconnaissance images that I personally found enthralling. I do not claim that this is a book for everyone, not even for every military history enthusiast, but I do know that for some of us, such photographs provide a powerful link to this momentous event. As for the criticisms expressed in another review ... yes, it would have been good to have some larger-sized photographs, although I am not convinced that the limitations imposed by original image resolution would have supported greater enlargement in any meaningful way, but might have instead yielded merely larger blurs, perhaps even more difficult to visually interpret. The authors state quite clearly that they have already passed these images through modern computer enhancements, so apparently what we face are limits stemming from the originals. For me, what Going and Jones have done is to present us with an enthralling window into an important and dramatic moment of history.