LIFE at 75

LIFE celebrates its 75 anniversary, well at least it kinda does. The history of LIFE is as varied as the content of the magazine itself. LIFE magazine in its purist form lasted from November 1936 to December 1972 - after that, the title lost its way. Only recently has LIFE really returned to a close approximation of its original role as part of  an online venture between Getty Images and TIME/LIFE. Something is still missing though.

A series of poor 'specials' and various misguided comebacks over the years, have done the brand no favours whatsoever. The Life.com website does have its finer moments, but it can veer towards a tabloid fuelled, celebrity dominated content at times - mostly at the expense of its own back catalogue of classic work. A return to a broad mix of stories, like those carried by the original magazine, would be nice.

A number of galleries celebrate the 75 years of LIFE, with one of the best showcasing the best photography that made the magazine's name. The likes of Larry burrows and Margaret Bourke-White (both LIFE photographers) have more than one image featured. The 75 best LIFE photographs can be found HERE

More galleries cover aspects from magazine covers to LIFE photographers looking back at a favourite or iconic photo story they produced. Every edition of LIFE ever produced, a great look back in time, and still a good read, can be viewed via Google Books HERE

Joker in the pack

Is a photography degree worth taking? With the growing costs of studying, it comes as no surprise that people are asking this more and more. I was lucky. I managed to go to university before the grant system disappeared.  I don't think I'd apply for a degree now unless i could prove it was a worthy investment.

A great post on the duckrabbit blog (yes them again!) nicely sums the pros and cons of the photography education system. If you are thinking about photography education, then I'd definitely recommend you read this article. It may help answer your question.

Are photography degrees the joker in the pack?

More Murmurations

More murmurations for you. Amazing. Astounding. Beautiful.

This wonderful little film was found via the duckrabbit blog - a recommended read.

Nine Goats

It's amazing how far a goat will go to get a meal. At first glance i thought it was a manipulated image, which maybe says a lot about how cynical I'm getting when viewing new images. A few years ago i would have looked at this photograph with no doubt in my mind that it was genuine.

This photo was just a number of animal photographs featured in a superb gallery put together by the Telegraph website. The first image in the collection of 38 photographs captures a wonderful moment. That gallery can be found HERE

The second link from this week's photography are also from the animal world, but in a more abstract sense. The magical shape-shifting patterns (called murmurations) made by thousands of starlings in the skies above Gretna in Scotland, have been photographed by Owen Humphreys.

No one knows why the aerial display by thousands of birds takes place. The remarkable images can be found HERE

A daily round-up of the best photography news and links can be found HERE

All about Eve

Marilyn Monroe, 1955 |  Photograph by Eve Arnold

This isn't going to be backed up with any scientific proof, but i did make a rather interesting observation when i was at an exhibition on Friday . The exhibition in question was 'The Photographers' at Nunnington Hall, a rather grand little country Manor not far from where i live.

The observation wasn't anything to do with the excellent exhibition itself but rather the collection of exhibition catalogues on sale on a table nearby. Nunnington Hall has exhibited photography for a number of years and the work displayed has often been by one or a number of photography's top name talents.

On the table next to the exhibition spaces were around 10 or 12 different high quality exhibition catalogues from previous shows dating back a number of years.  All were available to buy, however, some appeared to be far more popular than others. The top seller was obvious - Steve McCurry - just one, slightly over handled catalogue left. The other photographers seemed to have faired pretty well too with well over half of the catalogues gone for Bruce Davidson, Lord Snowdon, Bailey and a multitude of others.

Who wasn't popular? Well this surprised me - by a landslide it was Eve Arnold. The wonderfully talented Eve Arnold! Poor Eve had a full compliment of catalogues piled high. Now this observation in popularity is based purely on what i saw on the table at that time yesterday afternoon. Maybe Eve's catalogue had sold out the day before and the staff had added a new stack of Arnold catalogues from the stock room.

On the other hand, did that that table reflect that the exhibition viewing public are more receptive to Steve McCurry's colourful and exotic photography? Maybe it is no coincidence that the top selling catalogue on that table featured colour images - the others all contained black and white imagery.

Maybe the general viewing public just prefer the bright colour of McCurry's India to the monochrome tones of an Eve Arnold portrait of Marilyn Monroe. I don't know. I do know that I'll be back in a week or two for another exhibition and I'm going to take another look at that table.

iPad Edition

My photography book Sea, Sky, Sand and Street, featuring over 70 photographs shot in locations around the fabulous English county of Norfolk this summer, is now available for the iPad and iPhone for just £3.49

To grab a copy go to http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/detail/2432334

Data Based

"These pictures show several sides of global human activities," said 34-year-old Felix, from Montreal, Canada. "We see everything from paved and unpaved roads, light pollution, railways, electricity transmission lines. All the way to submarine cables, pipelines, shipping lanes and air traffic. 


The representations are not to scale, however, as electrical wires could not be seen from space. But it shows the extent of our civilisation, the patterns of our global sprawl, how human-influenced our planet now is."

The images are made up from real data collected by Felix Pharand-Deschenes from various US government agencies. Although not to scale, the resulting photo-illustrations are impressive visualisation of how human activity has influenced the Earth.

Take a look at a fascinating collection of Felix Pharand-Deschenes's images HERE

Suspicious Photo?

Suspicious photo? Potential Terrorist? Of course not.

When does a family photo stop being a family photo? The answer is when it turns into the image that fuels a PR disaster. Yes, yet again there has been a case of photographer equals enemy of the state, this time at a Glasgow shopping centre. Yet again the terrorism laws have been cited and abused in the name of privacy.

The crime in question was for a dad to photograph, using his mobile phone, his daughter enjoying her ice cream. Staff instantly reported this activity as suspicious. They called security, who called the police which finally led to one idiotic police officer threatening to delete the Dad's family photo under the misguided believe he could do so under terrorism legislation - you actually need a court order to do that in the UK. The photograph had already been posted on Facebook so it was too late anyway.

A Facebook campaign combined with extensive coverage on Twitter and the news websites turned a ice cream photo into a major pr disaster for the Braehead Shopping centre. There's been so much criticism aimed at Braehead that Capital Shopping Centres, who own the Braehead centre, have even decided to change their policy on photography within the 11 shopping complexes they own around the UK. If they had acted in a more thoughtful  and subtle way in the first place, all of the furore that ensued could have been avoided. Yet again it seems to be poor training and communication compounded by ill-informed security and police who abuse laws set up to protect the public. It needs sorting out!

The questions that have to be asked are why do public places impose such stupid rules in the first place? Why is it OK now to take photographs in the Braehead shopping centre when it wasn't before? A public place where families and friends meet up and they expect no one to take photographs during their visit? It seems a ridiculous thing to ask in an age where most people carry a mobile phone capable of taking images or video.

Privacy is an important issue for us all, but more and more it seems the rules are bent, abused or applied in situations that just make a mockery of the law. Is a shopping mall a private place? I would say not. What is even more ironic is the fact that the Braehead Shopping centre is probably bristling with CCTV cameras (like most of the UK) watching the shoppers for 'security' purposes. Where is the privacy in that?