|
macgyver
|
 |
« on: December 13, 2005, 11:18:54 PM » |
 Reply
|
Time Year in PicturesI'm glad that Mr. Reichman noted this, I might have missed it. Number 18 captivates me. What about y'all, which ones catch you?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
DarkPenguin
Guest
|
|
« Reply #1 on: December 13, 2005, 11:44:12 PM » |
Reply
|
I voted for 21.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jani
|
|
« Reply #2 on: December 14, 2005, 04:38:40 AM » |
Reply
|
One of my favorites is the picture of the floating body under the bridge in New Orleans, as is the one with the burning reflections in the water. Michael's favorites are also good pictures.
But did anyone else notice that there was a disproportionate amount of TIME's own pictures there?
I didn't check absolutely all, but of those I checked (10 or 12), only one was not a TIME picture.
Perhaps the title should be "TIME's best photos of the year 2005".
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Jan
|
|
|
|
|
|
jeffreyluce
|
|
« Reply #4 on: December 14, 2005, 08:22:32 AM » |
Reply
|
#18 (Marine casket) gets my vote....
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Jeffrey Luce
|
|
|
|
HiltonP
|
|
« Reply #5 on: December 14, 2005, 09:54:34 AM » |
Reply
|
It says much about our world when 22 of the 24 photographs reflect human suffering and death, and the two that do not have tragedy as a backdrop.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Regards, HILTON
|
|
|
|
macgyver
|
|
« Reply #6 on: December 14, 2005, 04:45:26 PM » |
Reply
|
It says much about our world when 22 of the 24 photographs reflect human suffering and death, and the two that do not have tragedy as a backdrop.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=53524\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] Amen to that. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Scott_H
|
|
« Reply #7 on: December 14, 2005, 07:01:04 PM » |
Reply
|
I like 17.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Eric Myrvaagnes
|
|
« Reply #8 on: December 15, 2005, 11:20:44 AM » |
Reply
|
I liked Jan's assortment much better. There wasn't a single image in Time's collection that I would want on my wall, or that I felt would say something new to me a year from now. Their focus on the photojournalism of disaster to me was much too narrow. To call those the "Best photos of 2005" with no further qualification was insulting to all other forms of photography. The history of photojournalism has provided many images worthy of repeated viewing (some of those by F.S.A. photgraphers, for example). The events pictured were certainly momentous, but most of the photographs were ones that anybody with a camera in the right place at the right place would have taken.
Just my 2 øre's worth.
-Eric
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
gr82bart
|
|
« Reply #9 on: December 31, 2005, 12:56:47 PM » |
Reply
|
If those were the 'best' photos, I'd hate to see what the worst photos were.
Art.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Digiteyesed
|
|
« Reply #10 on: December 31, 2005, 02:01:42 PM » |
Reply
|
They were all good photos, but I can't say that they spoke to me as photojournalism just isn't my thing. Give me a picture of the prairies any day of the week. :-)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jule
|
|
« Reply #11 on: December 31, 2005, 07:26:45 PM » |
Reply
|
It says much about our world when 22 of the 24 photographs reflect human suffering and death, and the two that do not have tragedy as a backdrop.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=53524\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] Fascinating how we document, are intrigued by, and somehow revere images of human tragedy rather than expressions of joy. Julie |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
