Well yes.

The Stanley brothers were geniuses. But I never knew about them until recently.

A few weeks ago I flew to Estes Park, Colorado, for a friend’s 40th birthday party. The location was beautiful– as was the hotel where the event was held. Does the historic Stanley Hotel ring a bell?

Well, if you’re a Stephen King fan or a devotee of the Sci-Fi channel you may recognize the place. It is infamous for being haunted and the inspiration for King’s book The Shining. One year the Travel Channel named it the most haunted hotel in America.

I believe it. I captured lots of ghostly orbs on my Nikon digital camera during my tour of the grounds. And I felt that freaky energy. Joshua, our tour guide, explained to us, manner-of-factly, his own dealings with the so-called “permanent residents” of the Stanley Hotel.

King claims his one-night stay at the place was full of other-worldly encounters and freed him from a writer’s block. Later, his popular book The Shining, inspired from his stay, was made into a movie starring Jack Nicholson. But to King’s chagrin, the location for the 1970s Stanley Kubrick film wasn’t the Stanley Hotel. And the movie wasn’t true to the book.

So, in 1995, King directed his own Shining version, an ABC mini-series that represented the book and it was filmed at the Stanley. Candid photos from the making of the film line some of the hotel’s walls, strangely juxtaposed to some other really large, old, beautiful black and white photos. That’s when I discovered the hotel’s rich history and its strong link to photography.

Like a beacon of hope, the stark white hotel stands on a cliff overlooking the picturesque town of Estes Park, surrounded by the snow-capped Rocky Mountains. It was built by Freelan O. (F.O.) Stanley, one-half of the famous inventor twins, for his wife. How’d he get all that money to charm his wife with a fancy hotel?

I learned F.O. and his brother Francis E. (F.E.) were the inventors of the Stanley Steamer car and dry plate photography, among many other things. They formed the Stanley Dry Plate Company to manufacture the dry plates in 1883. The twins received a patent in 1886 for inventing a machine for manufacturing the dry plates. They sold the company to Eastman Kodak in 1903 and made a bundle.

The Stanley Hotel is a monument to this process. Antiquated, but detailed dry plate black-and-white photos are peppered throughout the hotels walls, adding to the place’s mystique. Some believe the invention by the Stanley brothers was what prompted their little sister, Chansonetta, to become a talented photographer. The Stanley Hotel’s official story is that invention was born out of watching their sister’s frustration with the wet plate process—that the enterprising brothers wanted an easier process for their sister, an aspiring photographer.

The dry plate process, which involves a glass plate coated with a gelatin emulsion of silver bromide, could be stored until exposure, and after exposure it can be brought back to a darkroom for development at leisure. These qualities were great advantages back then over the wet plate process. Wet plates had to be prepared just before exposure and developed immediately afterwards.

Whichever came first, Chansonetta Stanley Emmons gained fame in her own right, as one of the first female photographers in the country. Her images depict rural American life at the turn-of-the-century. She also captured many landscapes and Maine life. Today, there are many books devoted to her and her work has been exhibited nationally.

Underneath the photo of Chansonetta below are two of priceless photos as exhibited on the walls of the Stanley and a picture of the Stanley Hotel today.

[Unfortunately, I had to contend with a significant amount of glare (or maybe it was the ghosts…) on the glass. But notice the details despite subjects having to stand still for at least 15 minutes until each photograph was fully exposed.] –a.s.

A recent article in the London Times described a poster in the tube (American version of the subway) asking commuters to call a special hotline “if they don’t like the look of a photographer.” I didn’t “like the look” of the cop who wrote me a ticket last week. Is there a number I can call? (couldn’t resist)

Anyway, this is an official, government-funded campaign sponsored by its Metropolitan Police department. The poster text states:

Thousands of people take photos every day. What if one of them seems odd?

The poster goes to say that terrorists use cameras for surveillance. It gives a number to call.

Besides perptuating a climate of fear, there’s another thing the organizers of this campaign don’t realize. That most of the great photographers were street photographers–Robert Frank, Robert Doisneau, Cartier Bresson, Brassai, Diane Arbus, among others. How many of the campaign organizers have a Doisneau print hanging on one of the walls of their home? I bet at least of few do.

In New York, street photography is very popular among both tourists and the pros. When I began shooting in the early 1990s, my “genre” was to be in a car, ride in the passenger’s seat and ride slowly though the streets of New York taking pictures of unknown strangers in unique or gritty surroundings. I was in my 20s then and was trying to capture a feeling solitude and lonliness. This technique, combined with movement, was my art at the time. None of my subjects ever suspected a thing or they really didn’t care. It didn’t hurt anyone or even bother anyone.
This style is still among my favorite work today.

In London, the campaign relates to “the look of” anyone, from global tourists carrying point and shoots, to pros carrying DSLRS and tripods. But I doubt someone will call the number when they see a gaggle of tourists all photographing the same London building. This is targeted at the pros.

In the article, New York street photographer Jeff Mermelstein, who has been snapping the streets of the city since the 1970s and published a well-received book Sidewalk on the subject, is concerned about the latest poster in London.

“I think that’s awful,” he tells the Times. “Street photography is an important part of the documentation of our time. If that’s discouraged, in the long term that will be a substantial loss.”

So three questions remain unanswered in my mind.

Did this “Big Brother-like” campaign within a U.S. democratic neighbor evolve because the paparazzi took it too far in regards to Princess Diana? If so, I don’t see Paris getting on that bandwagon.

Or was the conception of the new world we live in, and the fact that terrorists could be randomly hanging out with us on the streets and in the subways? I just don’t see them doing street photography.

Third, is this campaign likely to move across the ocean to the U.S.? I certainly hope not. Then we will have let our fear rule our lives. And New York city, so far, has not fallen victim to this.

Certainly professionals entrusting a stock agency with their images have nothing to worry about. For, they pay or enter into a contract arrangement for their images to be organized and protected like the FDIC. Right?

Well, not exactly. It may depend on your birthday. Enter those who began using stock agencies in the 1970s when analog pics, known as slides or transparencies (to the younger folk), were as “in” as cell phone texting is now.

Many of these predigital snappers have now found themselves stuck in a stock purgatory…looking for lost conventional images somewhere between what images were and what images are. And while this may engender existential questions like, ‘if you can’t ever touch a digital image again does it still exist?’, pro shooters Chris Usher and Arthur Grace would say an image exists because it was captured by them.

Thousands upon thousands of images these guys took during the 70s, 80s and 90s of celebrities, politicians and high-profile news events were lost by Corbis and are now part of the MIA . Missing Images of Analog.

Grace and Usher, as well as many other pros which made the switch from traditional to digital, had made agreements in the 70s or 80s with Corbis, a stock agency privately held by Bill Gates since 1989.

Corbis admitted to losing thousands of Grace’s images but went to court to battle out the value of the images. Dissatisfied with a ruling of just under $500,000 for between 40,000 and 60,000 lost images, Grace appealed the judgment by a U.S. District Court. He was finally awarded $677,685: this breaks down to $300,960 for lost income in the past, $237,728 for interest on that amount, and $138,966 for lost furture income.

In Nov. 2007, it was determined that Usher should be awarded $157,121 for the loss of 12,640 of his images.

There are many other clients of Corbis and Sygma, the French stock agency Corbis bought in 1999, in this same time-warp continuum. A-list photographer, Michael Grecco, settled a similar case of lost transparencies with Corbis in 2000. Although these judgments may seems like a lot of bucks in one helping, they shooters would tell you it’s not worth it.

“It’s been a very long time, and all of those missing images were pretty much selects and I’m very sad not to have them,” Usher told News Photographer magazine after the trial ended.

“Regardless of what they are worth - the money is nice but I’d rather have the pictures back - and a lot of the pictures were of [George] Bush, and [Al] Gore, and the campaign of the century that was ultimately decided by the Supreme Court, and it was all on film. I worked hard on that material; I know what was there because I see the outs, and I’m so sad that there’s so much of it that’s missing,” Usher added.

Can money ever really compensate image makers for blocks of history stamped out of their career timeline like photographic amnesia? Missing are original portraits of celebrities, White House documentations, Pulitzer Prize image nominees, Parisian photos, global images.

I don’t know about you, but I want to know. . .

WHERE DID THEY GO?

WHO or WHAT IS USING THEM?

No one really asked this question in all the court documents I pored through. It is accepted that they are lost somewhere in a dustry drawer, a hanging file or whatever.

According to Usher’s lawyer: “After nearly a decade of litigating lost image cases against Corbis on behalf of photographers, we have yet to hear an explanation or excuse for any loss of any image by Corbis.” He went on to say: “one in every four historical or photojournalistic images entrusted to Corbis by Usher were lost by Corbis.”

Unbelievable.

Can these huge losses be explained by the static technology of yesteryear? Well, among other points, Usher’s judge determined “that there were serious deficiencies in Corbis’ tracking and storage practices…”

Similarly, in the Grace appeal, it stated that “Sygma had no adequate means of tracking the inventory of images entrusted to it by any of the photographers it represented. Apparently, Sygma never had a system to keep track of its New York inventory and, starting in 1977, only a limited means of tracking its Paris inventory.”

These shooters have been put through the emotional ringer. In addition to their loss, part of the monetary argument was contingent on proving the “uniqueness” of the missing photographs. I imagine it was difficult not to transfer that from the images to themselves and their craft.

To these guys, those images still exist somewhere, if not in their mind’s eye. Perhaps cyberspace is not such a bad place when you compare it to no place.

Let’s give the lost images a moment of silence.

PMA is over and things are beginning to settle down. I had a different role at PMA this year than in year’s past…in addition to updating the Web site, I worked on the PMA daily as the “Roving Reporter.” I thought this was a great experience and one that every PMA participant should have had the opportunity to live. Because I was the one who (a little cheesily) ran around the convention center with a point and shoot and a notepad at 7:30 a.m. asking people why they came out and what they expected to see, I really felt like I was on the edge of the rail, the finger on the pulse of the know, if you will, of the building excitement before the doors flung open on day one. It was a different “in the know” than usual–not so much what’s new in PMA products, but what’s new with the PMA people…

Upon reflection, I learned from the collective YOU that people go to a show like PMA with a purpose..at least initially. They have a goal–in their head or on their back…a little blue jay whispering in the ears, of what their purpose is. But it is difficult to stay on track when you enter the show, those doors fly open and you step on the “magic” purple carpet the size of a football field. And there’s all those booths. And now even two floors…and the goal flies out of the head and to the back of the room. Way back, near the wastebaskets that you can never find on the show floor. Until day two–that is.

Day two, people know what they saw that excited them, inspired them and they are reminded of the purpose set forth, the goal. While everyone has a purpose, however malformed and fuzzy, there is one. Still, everyone’s goal (at least with all the people I interviewed) is different. Yet, they all find answers at a show like PMA and that’s the beauty. Here are some of the goals and highlights of the people I spoke to as a “Roving Reporter” (no, I didn’t wear a newsboy cap and puff on a cigar, smokin isn’t allowed).

One young lady from a small town in the midwest was after cool supplies for her scrapbooking store for those who don’t like scrapbooking. She wanted to compete with the other scrapbooking store in town.

Another chic woman I spoke to was conducting market research to see if opening an online scrapbooking business was a viable option.

A young man I interviewed was excited to quit his day boring financial-laden desk job and become a professional photographer. He was particularly impressed with the dye sublimation process exhibited.

A female CEO from Scandinavia was searching for the future method of packaging memories for her wholesale business. She believed were are seeing the death of the stand-alone print.

A male retail manager was looking for new way to incorporate sports photography products and classes at his store.

A photography teacher from Vermont was supporting her students who placed at the special international exhibit by teachers and students from around the globe. She commented that it was a relief to see the show had struck a balance between traditional and nontraditional photography from the oversaturation of digital of past years. She added that her students look at both darkrooms as different tools of the same art of photography. Her students want to learn liquid darkroom! Awesome!

A professional photographer from Jamaica was searching to buy equipment that he can’t find on his island. I learned that in that country photographers are actually hired to shoot funerals (did you know that?). The reason is both cultural and the fact that many family members can’t fly there to attend.

And there were many more goals. The last guy really move me because it was his first time in this country, he was sick (i had to sit down with him and hand him some tissues) because he wasn’t used to the cold of Vegas. (I told him it was a cold front) And he was jetlagged. He flew into Vegas to get camera equipment..not to party…I learned a lot from visiting the halls of people this year.

Did you find what you were looking for?

Alysha Sideman

During the last eight weeks, more positive changes were going on here at imaginginfo than there are cell phones waiting to be recycled.

Now, more than ever, the focus is on you. We want to be the source you come to when you want to make yourself a better photographer, when you’re searching for business tips or the latest product and industry news.

Within the desert landscape of information out there, we want to be your oasis for photo inspiration. As your online editor, I’m dedicated to making this happen.

As you can see, we are breathing life into the Website with a totally revamped design. We’ve included room for many more images. The site has a sleeker look, making it easier to navigate and find the stories you need-fast.

Each week, you will find web-only features (with an edge, of course) that focus on the techniques you want to know about. To help accomplish this, we will scour the field to find some of the best experts in the business.

Also we’re pumping up our community section with new forum topics and blogs by each of the group’s editors. Down the road, there will be more opportunities for our online community as we add features like a photo critique area where you can have an image judged in real-time by your colleagues. Really, that’s like having 2,000 years of photographic wisdom at your fingertips. But don’t worry; the things you’ve come to love about us are all still there, especially the heart and passion that goes behind our work.

This is just the beginning of the next generation the Cygnus Imaging Group, which includes imaginginfo.com, Studio Photography, PTN, Cygnus PMA Show Daily and Cygnus Photokina News. (Check out PTN’s new size! It rocks!) We will continue to grow and get even better. Largely, what we will become will depend on your needs. We want to be the mirror image of your photographic information desires.

Tell us what you want from us. Share your story ideas, comment on our articles and what you think about the Website. You can leave a comment here or you can always drop me a line at: Alysha.Sideman@cygnusb2b.com. I would love hear from you.
Happy snapping! –a.s.

Ps. Special thanks to Sharon Wright, Eric Sorensen, Omid Jahanbin, Mike Sabroff and Kunmi Ayanbule for their work on the new site. You guys rock!

It was a drone that fit in the controversial keynotes headlining PhotoPlus that day. Themes like: megapixel size doesn’t really matter, and, the next generation won’t ever smell developer fluid, seemed to say it all….”shove it, shove it, shove it.”

Quite a contrast from sad outer New York was the lively party-like atmosphere when I finally did arrive at the Expo after my five block walk. As I was sucked in to the air-conditioned photo mecca that is PhotoPlus, I was greeted by those bright yellow plastic Nikon bags at the check-in. “Oh, what a sight for sore eyes,” I thought after a 4-hour train ride from Washington. I have arrived at my favorite show. Even if it is for just one day.

I visited the Cygnus booth briefly and met some of the new staff and touched base with veterans. Then I was off to see New York Times Technology Columnist David Pogue speak. I couldn’t wait. He was going to tackle what he defined as the “Megapixel Myth.” This was going to be good. Is he crazy? I thought. Does he know where he is? What does he think the trade floor is about? I CAN tell you one thing, it’s NOT about selling cameras NOT based on high megapixels. I’m sure there is some catch, I thought.

Pleasantly surprised, Pogue was true to form. He managed to give a talk at a professional photography show about (all his words) a “myth” that is perpetuated to make consumers believe that the larger the print size, the higher the megapixel number should be. While I haven’t tested the theory, I must say he was my hero, just for being a journalist willing to challenge corporate America. Investigative journalism is alive and on the New York Times Web site. Yeah.

When he first presented his theory first on this popular Times blog, before it even ran in the paper, he was lambasted with hundred of emails on the first day. By photographers, of course. Pogue explained why he believes this so-called myth about the megapixel is out there in the first place:

“The public is dying for a good grade,” he said. “They need a quick index to find how good a camera is [in relation to another one].” In other words, a marketing buzz word. Hmm. I not sure how i feel about this. If it’s true, I feel like many of us have been taken to the cleaners. If it’s false, I’m just..well..peeved at Pogue. Turns out the real answer lies somewhere in the middle. And more on the left for the pros. This is my theory. The more of a pro you are, the more the megapixel DOES matter.

Anyway.

Pogue explained how a 7-8 megapixel camera for most people, in his opinion, is more than adequate to make 13×19-inch prints. Other factors, he contended, impact image quality much more after about 7 megapixels-such as the camera’s frame and sensor. At a certain point, he explained, more megapixels begin to worsen a camera’s light-detecting capabilities. For an example, imagine 100,000 people standing naked in Times Square in the middle of summer wearing no sunscreen. Ok. Gross. Now, imagine one person standing there. That one person will get more burned because more space equals more sunlight. Get it?

Anyway, the keynote went on like a long anecdote as he told how he conducted an experiment to test his theory. What piqued his curiosity in the first place? Giant prints of his family, and particularly his big-eyed adorable baby, that hang all over his home, taken with varying megapixel cameras (most between 4 and 6 megapixels)–all looking pretty much the same (his language). He did an experiment with prints of varying megapixel cameras and asked New Yorkers if they could tell the difference. They couldn’t. But it turned out the experiment had one major flaw, as he was so “kindly” notified by his blog readers: Downrezzing all the images in Photoshop.

Finally guided by a photo tech editor at another pub, Pogue and the editor redid the experiment and claimed the same results. Admittedly, it was difficult to tell apart the prints that we all saw at his talk. For more on his final test, visit the blog entry at http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/02/15/deconstructing-the-megapixel-myth/
If it wasn’t wearing enough to be told that the sky is not blue by Mr. Pogue, there was more controversy at another afternoon keynote.

“Black-and-White Photography in the 21st Century,” presented a panel of top-flight photographers that are film-only users. They focused on the truth that film reveals as compared to digital and discussed the future of film. As I heard the photographers speak about how photography students today have never seen the inside of a darkroom, let alone ever used film, I felt old and sad. But not sad for me. It’s too bad so many will never have the tactile experience of “making something” that conventional photography allows, and the panels so eloquently discussed. Unfortunately, the feeling of the talk was of doom. That the future for film may be in museums and galleries and as a preserved antiquity for collectors.

I certainly hope not. I don’t believe it has to be one or the other. I mean, people said books would die. But people have not stopped picking them up. I hope photographers will continue to love the feeling of picking up a silver gelatin print and getting their clothes dirty and smelly. Maybe the new standard will be two darkrooms side by side–digital and traditional–whatever it takes to coax out the beauty inherent in photography. A short film showcased the film photographers’ work. All so gripping, I must mention their names: John Sexton, Kristen Ashburn, Michael Crouser and Liz Gilbert. They all agreed that photos created with film have more of the “photographer’s touch” embedded within–because of the process that is bathing, drying, pushing, pulling, dodging etc.

My money is that vintage is always cool. To those that say film is not cool I say: “Shove it, shove it, shove it.”

One footnote: I came out of all my drive-bys, that is, all my visits with companies on the trade floor, with an overwhelming feeling that there are so many talented students, technologists and young photographers out there. More and more photography schools are cropping up and I was invited to see some of this newbie work myself. In addition, in the 2 am cab ride home from the train station back to my townhouse in Virginia, I was riding with a photography student who had either ironically or coincidentally (i haven’t decided yet) just returned from the show too. She had been on the same train from New York that was three hours late (first we had engine damage and then hit a deer. Yes you heard right). She was deciding either to go into photography or real estate. You bet she got into the right cab. I was happy to save her life.

It’s bad enough that we have to endure logomania at most sports events. These days it seems that every inch of every stadium– and even some athletes —are for sale. We are accustomed to seeing “walking billboards” in golf and tennis, as the best (and ironically the wealthiest) athletes in the world sport Nike caps and Umbre T-shirts for dollars. But sports photographers aren’t for sale. They are just doing their jobs. They are journalists. And are supposed to be objective, unbiased. They carry all types of gear. What happens if a Nikon snapper is forced to wear a Canon vest? Oh, that’s doing the sponsor a real service.

Isn’t it enough that the media already helps to feed the monster NFL machine by shooting game after game–logos and all? What’s going on in this country with photographers’ rights?

If I could creep into NFL’s corporate offices might I see what’s next on the its unconstitutional marketing agenda: Sports writers must wear purple hats with logos of different computer companies. Can you imagine?

Photojournalists who go to cover any NFL game having to remove their ties or blouses and wear some heavy vest all beefed up with a sponsor of choice is just wrong. Maybe newspapers should begin mandating quarterbacks to wear jerseys with the names of newspapers covering the game. Chad Pennington’s says New York Times. This is dangerous stuff. And it’s really about respect. So far newrooms across the country are speaking out against the mandate. Some are even considering banning NFL coverage. But that can’t last for long since many newspaper buyers begin at the back of the paper–the sports section. Let’s hope this fiasco gets sorted out by September—when football season begins. I mean this craziness just crosses too many lines. How about the photographers will agree to stay safe behind designated yard lines if the NFL stays behind the fine line of good taste. What happened to “For the love of the game”? For more check out www.imaginginfo.com/web/online/News/Sports-Photographers-Debate-NFLs-Walking-Billboard-Rule/3$2948.

Believe it or not, this is a scenerio that could play out soon. NYC Mayor Bloomberg is at this moment considering a proposal that would require a permit to photograph and film in public places. The rules would pertain to any group of two or more people who want to shoot in a public location for more than 30 minutes or any group of five or more people who plan to use a tripod for more than 10 minutes, including set-up and break-down time.

The vagueness of the prosal by the Mayor’s Office on Film, Theater and Broadcasting has prompted threats of a lawsuit by New York’s Civil Liberty Union. To be fair, the rules do exempt news media and photographs of demontrations and parades. And while the permit process is lengthy and administrative-laden with red-tape, they are free. The $1 million worth of liability insurance required is another story.

The proposed rules don’t address tourists or semi pros or pros just photographing for pleasure. And PLEASE will someone tell me what your planning to do with busloads of tourists getting off at one stop, all with camera straps hanging from their necks. I thought NYC was trying to buoy tourist dollars.

The first comment period on the rules has ended but since the whole issue was on the table so surreptitiously, the comment period was reopened until August 3rd. Public comments can be sent to Julianne Cho, assistant commissioner, Mayor’s Office of Film, Theatre and Broadcasting, jcho@film.nyc.gov. Questions can be answered by the NYCLU at 212-607-3300.

Think this could never happen in your town? This week I saw similar stories about proposed public space photography bans in downtown Rockville, Md. and problems of photogs. getting harrassed in D.C. The point is, this is not only unconstitutional but an egregious misuse of police resources (that tax payers pay for). I can just see it now: “Dispatch all police units to Times Square, Rockefeller Center and the top of the Empire State Building. Hurry. People are taking pictures.”

Editor’s note: As of August 3rd, pressure from protesters has forced the Mayor to revisit the proposed rules. This process will be followed by another public comment period. Eye Openers will keep you posted.

For more check out www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/nyregion/28film.html?_r=1&oref=slogin”

That would be my advice to Annie Leibovitz this week as she’s getting beat up by the British press over the whole Queen photo debacle. If you have been, pardon the cliche, living under a rock, here’s the rub.

Annie Leibovitz was invited to take a portrait of the Queen at Buckingham Palace recently and was looking for the shot. She asked her majesty if she could dejewel–that is, take off the crown, for a less dressy look. Translated into photospeak: she just wanted more of a candid, real shot of the Queen, looking not so formal. After that incident it was reported that the Queen was a bit perturbed at American Annie and marched out of the session in a huff. That was later retracted by the BBC, who said she never actually left the room by was visibly annoyed and refused to take off the crown.

Whatever the truth, the British press would have you believe that Leibovitz asked the Queen to disrobe by the nasty coverage that ensued. Tabloid after tabloid made the photographer out to be some sort of scofflaw for asking such a forbidden question.

I mean, really. You’re telling me that the royal whatevers had no knowledge of the kind of work Annie does? As it is, I’m sure Leibovitz had to hold back from asking what she really wanted, because of manners and all, because the real photo would be a nude of the woman who has reigned for 56 years….Can you seen it? A blow-up on the cover of Vanity Fair of Queen E lounging on some royal piece of Buck furniture, drapped with an diamond-encrusted velvet throw with nothing but her birthday suit on. I mean, have we ever even see an elbow? But all Annie asked was to see the top of the Queen’s head.

I am rather appalled by the UK papers like the Telegraph, Evening Standard, Birmingham Evening Mail and Daily Mail. Those “publications” decided they would challenge Annie’s talent and the premise of photography as art, as a result of the visit. I thought the articles were really shallow and narrow-minded and displayed the writers’ ignorance on the subject of art, photography and Leibovitz herself. Either that, or they are a strange example of the loyalty British men have for their No. 1 mum.

Although no one really explained why Annie’s question was so egregious, one journalist did quote Shakespeare’s reason:

“My crown is in my heart, not on my head; Not decked with diamonds and Indian stones, Nor to be seen: my crown is called content” (Henry VI, Part III).

If your country is in your heart at all times, then why not take the crown off?

Particularly hilarious were the tabolids’ depictions of the photographer as some kind of controlling, conceited wretch who always gets what she wants. First of all, I’ve met the Leibovitz and she is a quiet, disarming, slight figure….bright, creative and insecure. Second, Annie’s questions and the chances she takes is what makes her one of the best photographers of our time.

The photo was taken at one of the most historic battles of World War II. Iwo Jima, a small island located 660 miles off the coast of Tokyo, was the last territory that U.S. troops recaptured from the Japanese. The statue reveals five marines and a navy hospital corpsman raising the American flag as a signal of the successful takeover of the island. This was extremely significant because it led to the end of the war.

Today, in the Arlington park, a real cloth flag actually flies from the 60-foot bronze flagpole 24 hours, seven days a week. The memorial served as an inspirational gathering on July fourth…some of us even broke into patriotic song. Maybe the park goers felt the energy from the statue’s history even they though they may have not known it was derived from an amazing photo taken more than 50 years ago. I believe images, old or new, can have palpitable power and energy.