Show off your LEGENDARY

The world of photography is way too large for me to pick a single favorite "legendary" photo. There are some great choices on this thread.

Some of mine:

Edward Weston: Pepper no. 30
Imogen Cunningham: Frida Kahlo (the one with wicker furniture under her elbow)
John Filo: Kent State Massacre
Yasushi Nago: Assasination of Inejiro Asanuma
Yousuf Karsch: The Roaring Lion (Winston Churchill)
 
mike rosenlof said:
The world of photography is way too large for me to pick a single favorite "legendary" photo. There are some great choices on this thread.

Some of mine:

Edward Weston: Pepper no. 30
Imogen Cunningham: Frida Kahlo (the one with wicker furniture under her elbow)
John Filo: Kent State Massacre
Yasushi Nago: Assasination of Inejiro Asanuma
Yousuf Karsch: The Roaring Lion (Winston Churchill)
Click to expand...
Pepper #30 is, possibly, Edward's finest moment. Thank you for the reminder.
 
Coldkennels said:
Churchill was no leader. In fact, by all accounts, he was a terrible human being. He was a racist (even by the standards of the day), who - at the very least - exacerbated the Bengal Famine (Churchill was quoted as blaming the famine on the fact Indians were "breeding like rabbits"); he wasn't a good statesman, and was basically played by Stalin in their first meeting (this summary really doesn't do the whole thing justice); and he was roundly rejected by the British public after the war was over. If he hadn't been Prime Minister during WWII, I really doubt anyone would remember him fondly.

That's a great portrait, though. Iconic, in fact.

Edit: I hadn't read all the wiki page I referenced for the racist claim. This is atrocious:

A lot of this sort of thing is (ironically) whitewashed. It's simpler to just take the popular view and only remember the "fight them on the beaches" speech. Churchill wasn't that at all. (In fact, if memory serves correctly, he spent most of WWII sitting in the bath - to the point where generals, politicians, etc. had to come to talk to him while he was in there, which famously led to the inventor of Pykrete walking in and dumping the stuff in the bath with Churchill to prove a point.)
Click to expand...
Last time I read about Monica's lover wife on WiKi, she was acussed on genocide of some not-well known territory.
This is the problem of all lefties. They accept myths, not facts. The facts indeed shows his words about rabbits been somewhat relevant. Look at world explosive population growth statistics and where it is happening most. Anyone who would bring these facts to the left is to be proclaimed as racist.
Americans put Japanese Americans to concentration camps. In Finland they are firing Russians who been working for decades. They won't even give remote access for person with Russian name. Those are racist actions, not some words.
English participated in convoys under Churchill been in power.
Americans run away under Joe been in charge from Afghanistan. Canadian troops were not allowed to evacuate Afghan interpreters because dude who was in charge commanded to evacuate his alike. Racism is indifferent to skin color, it happens every time one group put it's interests and gives preference, while undermining others. Actions speaks louder than words.
 
Ko.Fe. said:
Last time I read about Monica's lover wife on WiKi, she was acussed on genocide of some not-well known territory.
This is the problem of all lefties. They accept myths, not facts. The facts indeed shows his words about rabbits been somewhat relevant. Look at world explosive population growth statistics and where it is happening most. Anyone who would bring these facts to the left is to be proclaimed as racist.
Americans put Japanese Americans to concentration camps. In Finland they are firing Russians who been working for decades. They won't even give remote access for person with Russian name. Those are racist actions, not some words.
English participated in convoys under Churchill been in power.
Americans run away under Joe been in charge from Afghanistan. Canadian troops were not allowed to evacuate Afghan interpreters because dude who was in charge commanded to evacuate his alike. Racism is indifferent to skin color, it happens every time one group put it's interests and gives preference, while undermining others. Actions speaks louder than words.
Click to expand...

Classic Dunning-Kruger

This forum has been gratefully free of politics except for a few. Let's try and keep it that way. There are other boards where politics are for discussion. This is Range Finder Forum. We are here to discuss cameras and about them. Let's keep sex, politics and religion off this board.
 
Last edited:
When I was a kid, Life magazine put out book with their best photos in it. That was in 1973, and my grandparents bought the book. I used to look through it every visit for Sunday dinner for years. It is full of so many absolutely epic photos that it is difficult to think of this thread without thinking about that book. They'd have been even more epic in the original large format Life magazine.

Scott
 
boojum said:
Classic Dunning-Kruger

This forum has been gratefully free of politics except for a few. Let's try and keep it that way. There are other boards where politics are for discussion. This is Range Finder Forum. We are here to discuss cameras and about them. Let's keep sex, politics and religion off this board.
Click to expand...
Good photography, and good photographers, engage with the world. Sex, politics, and religion are part of that world, and whatever we try to repress comes back to bite us on the arse.
 
Retro-Grouch said:
Good photography, and good photographers, engage with the world. Sex, politics, and religion are part of that world, and whatever we try to repress comes back to bite us on the arse.
Click to expand...

What you say is true. But there is plenty already to disagree about. This is not repression, this is suggesting that this is not the place nor is this the time. The fact that you are a boxer does not mean you can have a match in a dining room or a drawing room. There is a time and place for that.

I, for one, have no interest in your sex life, how you practice religion if you practice it at all and and no interest in what you do in a voting booth. In civil society these are considered private matters. And for good reason. And I have even less interest in your opinion on how I prosecute these maters in my own life.
 
boojum said:
What you say is true. But there is plenty already to disagree about. This is not repression, this is suggesting that this is not the place nor is this the time. The fact that you are a boxer does not mean you can have a match in a dining room or a drawing room. There is a time and place for that.

I, for one, have no interest in your sex life, how you practice religion if you practice it at all and and no interest in what you do in a voting booth. In civil society these are considered private matters. And for good reason. And I have even less interest in your opinion on how I prosecute these maters in my own life.
Click to expand...
Do we then ignore photographers whose work deals with these topics? Like you, I'm not interested in photographers who want to lecture me about their private tastes. But I'm very interested in photographers for whom nothing human is foreign, and who seek to understand the full spectrum of human behavior. We engage with the world through photography to understand it and to share that understanding (always provisional and partial) with others. This is, or should be, a place where we explore what it means to be a photographer, and by extension, a human being. Personally, I'd like to see more sex, politics, and religion involved in our discussions of photography and its engagement with the world. I like cameras, sure, but if RFF were to insist that cameras are all I should or could talk about here, I'd leave in disgust. And I think that a fair number of members may have indeed left over time because they were bored with the tendency to keep it light and keep it safe.
 
Retro-Grouch said:
Do we then ignore photographers whose work deals with these topics? Like you, I'm not interested in photographers who want to lecture me about their private tastes. But I'm very interested in photographers for whom nothing human is foreign, and who seek to understand the full spectrum of human behavior. We engage with the world through photography to understand it and to share that understanding (always provisional and partial) with others. This is, or should be, a place where we explore what it means to be a photographer, and by extension, a human being. Personally, I'd like to see more sex, politics, and religion involved in our discussions of photography and its engagement with the world. I like cameras, sure, but if RFF were to insist that cameras are all I should or could talk about here, I'd leave in disgust. And I think that a fair number of members may have indeed left over time because they were bored with the tendency to keep it light and keep it safe.
Click to expand...

I don't mind the presentation of photography that documents controversial subjects, as long as the discussion remains about the photography in question. But it's rare that the discussion doesn't derail into heated arguments about those subjects, forgetting all about the topic of photography. That's what I don't like.

- Murray
 
Ko.Fe. said:
Yousuf-Karsh-Winston-Churchill-1941-1557x1960.jpg


karsh.org

Winston Churchill

1941 © Yousuf Karsh
karsh.org karsh.org

Word needs leaders, not brezhnev's vintage corruptionists or EU apparatchiks.
Click to expand...
I heard the story behind this portrait and have no reason to doubt it. Apparently the photographer tried to persuade Churchill to lose the cigar - he refused. Just prior to this image being taken the photographer strode up and snatched the stogie. Hence the belligerent look.
*edit* Just realised this is all explained in the attachment. Jumping the gun again. ;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom