Time magazine's best photos of 2007

[Tony-S]

http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1695460,00.html

[airfrogusmc]

Really great images, thanks for the link. Did ya notice a large majority were taken with wide angle lenses?

[3Turner]

Thanks for sharing....there are some powerful images on there.

[Tony-S]

Really great images, thanks for the link. Did ya notice a large majority were taken with wide angle lenses?

Yeah, you know when I watched War Photographer, Nachtwey's camera almost always had the 24-70L on it. Seems that wide-angle can evoke a visceral emotion.

[slimninj4]

Im not sure so many of these are Pics of the year. Some even seem snapshot-ish. Also how do you know these were taken with 25-70L? I am curious I do not see any EXif info.

[Tony-S]

Also how do you know these were taken with 25-70L? I am curious I do not see any EXif info.

I didn't say they were.

[R Hardman]

I think the majority of those photos suck. We lost what makes a great photo. Time seems to think any war related, political, or Hollywood theme will make a great shot. I have seen many more photos this year that had more emotional impact or beauty then these. Some on this forum.

[airfrogusmc]

Well Marine, for a news magazine and photojournalism which would be the criteria most were very strong images. Maybe not the case in Outdoor Photographer or some other landscape or nature type publication but for new and photojournalism I'd say pretty good stuff.
S/F

[Steve Parr]

I think the majority of those photos suck.

Such a comment is meaningless without an explanation of why they suck...

We lost what makes a great photo.

"We"?

Explain, please...

Time seems to think any war related, political, or Hollywood theme will make a great shot. I have seen many more photos this year that had more emotional impact or beauty then these. Some on this forum.

Well, given the topics that Time tends to cover, it makes sense that the subject matter of the photos would include those things...

[chauncey]

I'm afraid that I must agree with Mr.Hardman.

Oftentimes, in the scheme of things, these photogs are told what to "shoot". Even if they get a great shot, it's often trashed because it didn't show the "proper" political slant of the publication.

Cynical? You bet I am.

But then, I don't know what comprises a "great photograph". But I do know "slant" when I see it.

[TomTomTuning]

Nice Find!, thanks for sharing...

[nw85887]

Nice pics.

It must be nice to have a press pass and free (albeit sometimes dangerous) travel.

[sadatk]

I hate sensor dust :p

http://img.timeinc.net/time/photoessays/2007/poy/best_photos_2007/poty_20.jpg

[Familiaphoto]

Thanks for sharing.

[adam*]

Yeah, you know when I watched War Photographer, Nachtwey's camera almost always had the 24-70L on it. Seems that wide-angle can evoke a visceral emotion.

Just got that yesterday, might watch it later. I'm a massive admirer of his work. Thought (in the shots where there is no hood) alot was shot with a 16-35. Guess he's using a 1dmk2 or 1ds too.

[Cam101]

Perhaps they were images that were actually printed in the magazine during the '07 year. Therefore, the top photos would be limited to what was published.

In any case, I agree that for a news magazine, the pictures were quite relevant.

[vdao1972]

I'm afraid that I must agree with Mr.Hardman.

Oftentimes, in the scheme of things, these photogs are told what to "shoot". Even if they get a great shot, it's often trashed because it didn't show the "proper" political slant of the publication.

Cynical? You bet I am.

But then, I don't know what comprises a "great photograph". But I do know "slant" when I see it.

Hmmmm.... I guess I should put in my two cents considering I work as one of these "photogs". I have covered events in Southeast Asia for the last 4 years for several local and international agencies and have never been told where to go and what to shoot. Granted, I wouldn't last long at an agency if I just shot whatever I felt and nothing they can sell. Thats the nature of the business. But I have never been told in any certain way by anyone: "Go here because I want a slant on this event to sell it to more magazines." If agencies did that, they would have a hard time finding photographers. We don't do it for the money (I make crap compared to a commercial photographer).We don't do it for the fame (only photographers look at the photo credits). We do it because we believe the truth can be told through our images.
Also, Time Magazine is a top tier magazine to shoot for and has a reputation for even reportage. Corbis, Magnum and VII along with other photographer run agencies regularly have photos run in it. Those agencies would not purposely slant a photo to get it in any publication ever.

[Tony-S]

I think the majority of those photos suck. We lost what makes a great photo. Time seems to think any war related, political, or Hollywood theme will make a great shot. I have seen many more photos this year that had more emotional impact or beauty then these. Some on this forum.

Yeah, that one of the Japanese photographer getting shot and killed (http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1695460_1505880,00.html) in Burma looks staged to me, too.

[vdao1972]

On a side note, I had an opportunity to meet James Natchwey at a friends house in Bangkok. He was everything I expected to be (well, maybe for his height which is close to mine which means he's kinda short). We talked about his TED wish and his efforts to achieve it.
Also, we also talked a bit his move to digital photography several years ago so I got his equipment list for those who want to know. He shoots exclusively with Canon and with the 1Ds Mark II. As for lenses, he shoots with a UWA zoom lens and a fast prime. We also talked about his reluctance to shoot with anything over 70mm in focal range which is telling when you look at his images which are up close and personal.

[adam*]

I'd be interested to know what gear he uses :)

[Wazza]

Yeah, that one of the Japanese photographer getting shot and killed (http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1695460_1505880,00.html) in Burma looks staged to me, too.

Hardly call a man being shot at near point blank range, staged. There's video (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2550369.ece) footage of this shooting too.

That dust pic above is cool

[Tony-S]

Hardly call a man being shot at near point blank range, staged.

Yes, I know. Thanks for helping me make my point to Hardman.

[vdao1972]

I'd be interested to know what gear he uses :)

If I remember correctly, it was the 16-35L, 24-70L, 24 1.8 and 50 1.4.

[sjones]

...he shoots with a UWA zoom lens and a fast prime. We also talked about his reluctance to shoot with anything over 70mm in focal range which is telling when you look at his images which are up close and personal.

Interesting point for amateurs who might assume, particularly from reading this site, that the coveted 70-200, in any of its numerous configurations, is virtually mandatory. Yeah, yeah, yeah, if one is pursuing wildlife, sports, and so on…all disclaimers duly noted….

[adam*]

Interesting point for amateurs who might assume, particularly from reading this site, that the coveted 70-200, in any of its numerous configurations, is virtually mandatory. Yeah, yeah, yeah, if one is pursuing wildlife, sports, and so on…all disclaimers duly noted….

To be fair, whilst he doesn't use one ALOT of other great photojournalists do.

[adam*]

I'd also guess its the 24 1.4L.

What kind of film camera is he using?

[sjones]

To be fair, whilst he doesn't use one ALOT of other great photojournalists do.

Yes, hence, all disclaimers duly noted.

That many greater photographers from all fields use telephotos does not negate my point that novices considering their first lens purchases should not overlook the usefulness of a wide or even standard; it is already assumed, in most cases, that they appreciate the telephoto….

[adam*]

Sorry I missed that bit :p

[asysin2leads]

I have to agree on both sides of the debate. While I think that some of the pictures were not what I would call "good shots", but I don't publish the shots. The shot that stands out most is this one (http://img.timeinc.net/time/photoessays/2007/poy/best_photos_2007/poty_18.jpg
). Personally, I don't see much photographic merit to this shot; however, I'm not the one who published it. He/she must have seen something that I didn't. That's why they're a publisher of one of the largest magazines in the world and I'm just a lowly paramedic from Ohio. There are some moving images on there. Photojournalism is meant to evoke some emotion from the reader, whether it be anger, empathy or joy.

[ALaS]

This image is stunning! Yes "senor dust" lol.
http://img.timeinc.net/time/photoessays/2007/poy/best_photos_2007/poty_20.jpg

[Vinni]

These aren't the years best photos, they're '07 in photos.

[vdao1972]

Interesting point for amateurs who might assume, particularly from reading this site, that the coveted 70-200, in any of its numerous configurations, is virtually mandatory. Yeah, yeah, yeah, if one is pursuing wildlife, sports, and so on…all disclaimers duly noted….

True. I guess its a matter of personal taste. My only lens for the first 2 years of picking up photography was a 28mm f/2.0 on an old Canon AE-1. Great for shows in dimly lit venues so I pretty much learned to shoot wide early on. In fact, probably 70 percent of my shots are taken from 24mm-28mm. I own a 70-200 but hardly ever use it but its great to get me through a crowd though. You will be surprised how many people move for you when you put that sucker on! I have actually used it for this purpose and after getting to where I needed to be, taken it off and put on my 24-70!
Most of the agency guys I know shoot with a UWA and telephoto with optional TC's. That offers the best flexibility in terms of fast paced shooting.
I understand what you are getting at sjones. Most people underestimate wide angle lenses. Just not sexy enough I guess. Someone needs to bring sexy back to the wides. Maybe its time to place a call to Justin. He brought sexy back once. He could do it again....