With all of the recent hubbub surrounding Shepard Fairey’s artistic rendering of a Barack Obama photo, it made me start to think of all of the iconic photos of past presidents. There’s JFK having a powwow with Nikita Khrushchev. Then there’s Richard Nixon bidding adieu to the White House. And who can forget this rather amusing montage of past commanders-in-chief enjoying Thanksgiving dinner or pardoning the National Thanksgiving Turkey.

But in today’s 24/7 media-saturated environment, where a global leader can make the slightest public misstep and in seconds see his faux pas posted online for the world to see, it’s easy to forget about the relative visual anonymity many of our earliest forefathers enjoyed. We can view George Washington on the bucks in our wallet, but we’d be hard-pressed to find any type of actual photo of him toiling over the Constitution, or of Thomas Jefferson enjoying an afternoon at the fishpond at Monticello.

That’s what makes the possible discovery of a photograph of Ulysses S. Grant, our 18th president, such an astounding find. Collector Randall Spencer claims that the mid-1800s daguerreotype is the real deal, acquired at the San Jose Photographic Exposition in 1992 from a collector who had a whole stack of sixth-plate daguerreotypes.

Spencer stands by his find, and a forensic photo expert has backed him up. But it’s been a hard sell, mainly because historical institutions often want an “unbroken chain of custody” to prove an artifact is genuine.(Spencer says that a system that acknowledges probability would better serve such efforts). If he is able to sell the photo, Spencer will use the funds to continue what he’s referred to as his obsessive quest to find other remnant photos of historical figures. Nice job, Spencer, and for a noble cause — just don’t dig up anything that would incriminate our founding fathers too much. The country needs some optimistic news right now, not Monica-gate II circa 1802.

By now, everyone’s seen the Obama “Hope” image that was used on posters and other campaign paraphernalia during last year’s presidential race. Street artist Shepard Fairey manipulated a pensive photo of now President Barack Obama, turning an ordinary photograph into a red-, white-, and blue-infused work of art. Fairey’s already-iconic image has even inspired a pop-culture sensation through the Obamicon.Me website, which lets you upload your own photo and type in your own descriptor at the bottom of the image (you can even order a poster, T-shirt, mug, or stamp with your “Fairey-ized” likeness through the site).

Problem is, the Associated Press owns the copyright to the original Obama photograph, which was taken back in 2006 by photographer Mannie Garcia. The AP wasn’t happy about this and made public statements that hinted at possible lawsuits against the renegade California artist. The agency was subsequently taken by surprise, however, when Fairey actually filed his own lawsuit this week against the AP, claiming that his work is protected by the Fair Use Statute, which allows limited use of copyrighted material to make original works of art. Fairey and his supporters argue that he visually transformed the original photo to convey a completely new meaning.

Whether Fairey has a valid case in taking this David-versus-Goliath preemptive strike against AP to protect himself remains to be seen (and believe us, he needs all the help he can get in fending off the law—he was just arrested in Boston a few days ago for “defacing property with graffiti”). Posts on several blogs range from siding with the AP (Fairey should have sought permission before using an agency’s intellectual property; to defending Fairey’s creation (Obama always has that look on his face—does AP own that expression?; AP is not suffering any financial loss due to Fahey’s image). What do you think? Was it fair usage on Fairey’s end? Should he have filed suit against AP to protect himself, or was that just going overboard? Tell us your thoughts.

The digital revolution (it seems so antiquated to even call it that anymore) opened the doors for many to enter the photographic arena, but it also jump-started a quiet yet cranky undercurrent that chastised those who used Photoshop and other technological thingamajigs as a crutch instead of as subtle enhancement.

Professionals certainly had a valid gripe: After all, now even posers could manipulate, twist, and finagle photos with user-friendly hardware and software in attempts to create art, whether or not they had the vision or talent necessary to pull it off. Sometimes, the technology paved the way for hidden genius to erupt, but more often than not, it simply let loose a gaggle of layer-crazy wanna-bes who used every toolbar, gadget, and gizmo to create a chaotic hodgepodge that would be unrecognizable in its raw format.

That may be why the exhibit mentioned in the New York Times’ New Year’s Day edition is so refreshing. Entitled “First Doubt: Optical Confusion in Modern Photography,” the showcase at Yale highlights more than 100 “confounding” photos from the mid-19th century to the 21st century. They’re puzzling, strange, eye-catching—and totally unmanipulated. That’s right: According to the article, there was no digital trickery involved in any of the images. All the photos were exactly as the professionals saw them through the lens.

It’s an experiment in surreal comprehension—and a shout-out to old-school photography done the way it should be.

Here we find ourselves once more, at the end of another megapixel-filled year, hoping that Santa (or whatever gift-bearing mascot or family member you choose to affiliate with) will stuff our stockings with digital frames, rechargeable batteries—maybe even the new Nikon D3X (I’m not holding my breath on that one, though maybe my husband actually does read my blogs like he says he does).

It’s been a challenging year, and rough times may still be ahead for many: We’ve officially been notified that we are indeed mired in a recession, and many around us have lost their jobs, tapped into their dwindling 401Ks, and been forced to cut back all around. In the spirit of the season and in an attempt to spread a little humor and good cheer during these difficult times, I leave you with my top 5 photo-related stories of 2008, stories that caught my attention either because of their inspirational nature or because of their inherent inanity or bizarreness.

5. Jill Greenberg, meet John McCain: The avant-garde New York City photographer made an international name for herself by manipulating photos of the Republican presidential candidate originally shot for “The Atlantic” magazine, with the intention to cast him in as unflattering a light as possible (and considering he most closely resembled the craggy-faced Emperor from “Star Wars,” it appears Greenberg fulfilled her mission). Whether you sided with Greenberg on the platform of free speech or rebuked her for unethical behavior unbefitting a professional photographer, everyone can agree that it resulted in some of the more passionate posts in the blogging community we’ve seen in a while—and passion in the photography industry is just what we need right now.

4. As homo sapiens, we tend to carry a bit of species-specific narcissism. But National Geographic’s Best Animal Wildlife Photos of 2008 reminded us of how dangerous and beautiful our creature companions can be—and that we share this planet with them.

3. You can mash them, dice them, bake them, even cut them into crinkles and fry them—but 2008 was declared the International Year of the Potato by the United Nations, so it naturally followed that there be a photo contest to document this titillating tuber.

2. Who can forget that iconic 1945 WWII photo by Alfred Eisenstaedt of a nurse being swept off her feet in Times Square by a sailor right after the surrender of Japan? Well, the Navy didn’t forget, honoring the young woman in the photo (the now-90-year-old Edith Shain) this past Veterans Day.

1.After the public outcry that took Annie Liebovitz to task for provocatively draping a nearly nude Miley Cyrus in nothing but a blanket for her Vanity Fair shoot, the teen phenom recently came out and said that she’d “love” to work with the “amazing” photographer again. No hard feelings, I guess—and who am I to argue with Hannah Montana?

Haven’t gotten around to scanning and digitally archiving some of your old photos, even though you know it’s the right thing to do (or, at least that’s what certain magazine editors and other industry pundits keep telling you)? Well, stop making excuses—after all, if LIFE magazine can manage to scan and upload 10 million of their most personal images, surely you can clean out that snapshot-laden shoebox sitting in your hall closet.

In what is being touted as one of the largest professional photography collections on the Web, LIFE is making available its photo archive through a new hosted image service from search-engine behemoth Google. Even more amazing than the sheer bulk of the project itself is that 97 percent of the images have never been seen by the public.

Viewers can check out handsomely mustached Civil War hotties on display in the 1860s section; browse through iconic photographs of Pablo Picasso, Franklin Roosevelt, and Marilyn Monroe; and travel back in time to see photo documentation of the 1930s oil boom, Vietnam War, or the World’s Fair. And web surfers trolling for photos can hail from all walks of life from all over the planet: the search keywords have been translated into 16 different languages.

Plus, if you’re in the market for some high-end artwork (if only to impress your high-falutin’ friends), you’ll also be able to purchase fine-art photographic prints through Qoop.com, an online sales portal.

LIFE also announces the most comprehensive offering to date to purchase fine art photographic prints online. The general public will now have access to buy LIFE’s famous photography through QOOP.com, a leader in online art sales.

The project is far from complete—at last count, LIFE had only posted a few million of its archived photos (the staff hope to have all 10 million up in the next few months). But it’s yet another masterful melding of art and technology, joining two powerhouses in their respective industries. Photos are meant to be shared, and what better way to share them globally than by tapping into the Google machine?

Now get to work on that shoebox of yours.

So by now you’re probably a master at texting on your fancy cell-phone QWERTY keyboard, and a pro at downloading ringtones. You’ve also surely taken more than a few pictures with that handy in-phone camera of your kids, your friends, your dog. And while your “Albums” file probably doesn’t have a lot of pictures that rival those you’ve taken with your real digicam, perhaps there are a couple that show some artistic promise, a strange technological aesthetic that can only be achievable in the heat of the moment (when you don’t have your real camera with you and have to rely on the ol’ horn).

Well, now all those who have clicked and captured on the go can get their change to show off their skills to the world with a unique new exhibit being held by the Brandt Gallery in Cleveland, OH. The “At The Cellular Level — Cell Phone Photography as Art” showcase, scheduled to open next month, will be comprised of cell-phone photography from both everyday amateurs and (supposedly) professionals. Interested parties simply have to download images from their phone and send them to cellphonephotoshow @ yahoo.com, or e-mail them directly from their phone.

I anticipate most of the submissions will be from the amateur side, closet imagers who will test their creativity without having to outlay any money for new equipment. I’d like to think most people who own cell phones already have one with a built-in camera, though I sheepishly admit that I just updated my own dial-up dinosaur at the Sprint store over the summer (I was basically laughed out of the store when they saw how old my phone was).

I don’t think many professionals, on the other hand, will be entirely pleased with the quality of their captures, at least compared to what they’re used to getting on a daily basis in the studio or on location. However, there may be some pros who view this as yet another unique visual medium with its own requisite challenges; others may be drawn to the raw, on-the-fly nature that cell-phone photography necessitates.

it should be interesting, at any rate, to witness what comes out of this exhibit. I can’t ever see a pro trading in his or her Canon or Nikon for a Samsung or Nokia, but we could have a new creative outlet on our hands in its own right.

Pumpkin and apple spice, vibrant pressed leaves, the crisp air of a late-September evening (at least here in the Northeast), the jack-’o-lanterns and cornucopias dominating the seasonal aisle at Target — these are all harbingers of autumn, signs that it’s time to kiss the summer goodbye and start planning for the cooler months ahead.

It’s also time for back-to-school photos and (shudder) time to enter the planning stages for holiday pictures and greeting cards. My two children were born in August and September, so I’ve got to set up birthday portraits as well, or I’ll never hear the end of it from my mother.

For the past three years, I’ve been too tired/lazy/unmotivated/frazzled/cheap/add-your-own-”bad-mother”-adjective-here to hunker down and do the research to select a professional photographer who could adequately capture the essence that defines each of my kids. Instead, I’ve done what many others have done in similar moments of desperation: I’ve gone to the in-house studio of a well-known national baby retailer.

Now, this isn’t to say said retailer has done a bad job. I have some really cute images of my son sitting in front of a faux lighthouse, my daughter draped in pearls. And, amazingly enough, they’re smiling (and sitting!) in all the photos. Plus, the prices have been fairly reasonable.

But as the years have ticked by, a nagging feeling has started to set in. I’ve noticed that the lighting in these shots leaves much to be desired, with harsh shadows evident throughout. I’ve also started to feel cramped by the images I’m able to order: While the photo session itself is free, you’re only allowed to pick a few poses to create prints from, and the limited packages makes it nearly impossible for me to put together a customized a la carte package I’ve been happy with.

And while the smiles are precious, every pose and picture angle is pretty much exactly the same in all the images. There’s not much originality and, frankly, not much personality. Plus, the interaction between the store photographers and my kids is lacking — while the staff certainly tries hard, they’ve usually been young employees with little to no photography experience trying to rush through the shoot to accommodate the growing line of cranky people at the studio. They’re usually forced to resort to chasing my son and daughter around the studio with a feather duster to try to eke out one half-smile. If that one trick doesn’t bring the desired results, they usually look to ME to evoke the perfect expression (and after a full day of spilled goldfish, bedroom brawls, and preschool attitude, I’m usually feeling less than inspired).

In other words, all this time I’ve settled for a hodgepodge of mediocre imagery. So I’ve started to do the research to track down a pro in my area. I know I’ll have to pony up a little more dough this time around (hmmm…gas in the tank, or an extra few sets of 5×7s for the grandparents?), but from interviewing many child and family portrait photographers, I know that in return I’ll likely get a more-relaxed session that won’t feel rushed; lighting that adequately illuminates my little angels; creative closeups and precious poses; and a pro who’s been around the kiddie block and knows how to appeal to and calm my kids down (as well as how to calm ME down).

That way, when my two tax deductions head off to college in a decade and a half, and I’m wallowing in my empty nest, trolling through the family albums and scrapbooks, I’ll be able to relive these fleeting days through every mischievous expression and missing-tooth grin that only a professional could truly capture. And I’ll know it was worth it.

While I now love the convenience that consumer photo-sharing and printing sites such as Snapfish and Shutterfly offer, I admit that I haven’t always been in love with the online process.

I consider myself pretty technologically savvy for a thirtysomething mom: I navigate my iPod with ease, I text-message my husband and friends, and I can even figure out how to fix my MacBook laptop when things go awry (forget about PCs, though — they’re a whole different animal). Yet when I first joined the online photo portal world four years ago when my son was born (I’m a Snapfish member), I was annoyed by some of the glitches that I soon encountered during my uploading endeavors.

For a supposed time-saver, using this type of online service didn’t seem that convenient when I had to check each individual photo in my image library, a process that wasted many a summer afternoon when I should have been playing with my infant. Plus, more often that not, I would finally finish uploading all the images, only to find that half of them hadn’t uploaded correctly, or at all.

Now I know that I’m not the only one who has felt this type of photographic frustration. A new study by digital media management company Memeo shows that other consumers are also working around the kinks and conundrums that still plague some of these online solutions. The study found that some of the respondents’ biggest gripes were the time it takes to upload photos (36%) and that family members who want to access these photos can’t figure out how to use the sites (19%). (I can certainly relate to that last point — I don’t even want to reveal how many hours I’ve spent in an e-mail trail with my 80-year-old grandmother trying to explain to her how to see her great-grandkids on her computer screen as she tries to mouse around the Snapfish or Flickr screen.)

To be fair, things are much better these days than they were during the last Summer Olympics — I’m happy to report that I can now select multiple photos at once to upload, go stir the Classico, and come back a little later to view all my albums online. The service I use (still Snapfish) now offers a ton of gifts, photo books, and other photo accoutrements that keep me shopping for hours (I especially love the collage-poster option — I’ve started a tradition of creating a 20 x 30 version every holiday season to showcase my family’s favorite photos from the entire year, which I display next to the previous year’s version in our hallway).

Most telling (and most disturbing to those of us in the industry) from this Memeo survey, however, is that a whopping 79% of respondents revealed they have taken digital pictures they’ve intended to share, but never did. The photo industry still has a lot of work to do in terms of educating consumers and eliminating the intimidation factor. Only then will photo sharing reach its full potential online.

Photographers of all levels will soon be able to check out Photrade.com, a free new site (now in the private beta stage) where users can “share, protect, and make money.” Not only can you display your images, you can also sell stock, prints, and merchandise through the site’s Adcosystem, an ad-supported system that pays photo owners for every image view (unlike storage sites like Flickr, which allow you to maintain your galleries in cyberspace, but don’t pay you a penny for it).

Both amateur photographers and pros are invited to sell their images in a fully protected environment (all images are watermarked to prevent misuse or theft). If selling is your goal, photographers can pick a suggested minimum price, a suggested marked-up price, or a custom price. You can also earn money through an ad-revenue setup (either through banner ads in your gallery or in the images themselves, and from splash-screen ads). This ad-revenue service is similar to the newly launched Dimpls site, which allows users to place logos and ads next to relevant pictures to get click-through cash.

These two services (especially Dimpls) are obviously more geared to amateurs who don’t want to give away the photo farm for free (though isn’t sharing the real goal of posting your images online? I don’t even consider how much money I could be making off of the kids’ snapshots that I upload for Grandma and Grandpa to view in Florida). And how much money can I really make anyway?

I am curious to see if (and how many) pros would actually use Photrade.com (the site keeps emphasizing that it’s for professionals, too, though I’m hard-pressed to see why any pro would want to “compete” with your average Joe in selling his or her images here). Consumers and strapped-for-cash companies will likely be checking out sites such as these (and there will be more), instead of having to pony up their pennies for more expensive online stock houses.

You can never have too many megapixels — or can you?

Ask the consumers who may soon get to test-drive the Gigapan, the world’s first 1-billion-pixel camera.

Yes, you heard correctly — 1 billion pixels.

Call it the Iron Man of imaging. A tripod-mounted robot commands the uber-camera to capture several hundred photographs of a single scene, all from a slightly different angle. This creates, in effect, a panoramic 3D experience that’s unmatched by any other camera on the market. An image taken with the Gigapan retains phenomenal sharpness even as you zoom in and out of different parts of the image (think Google Earth).

Not that the beta product is without its detractors — early grumblers are commenting on everything from the time involved (it could take 10 to 15 minutes to capture 350 mini-images needed to pull together the composite final) to how the camera deals with moving objects to the fact that less-glamorous prototypes with motorized mounts have been used for years (and probably for a lot less money than the Gigapan’s likely price tag — though the word is that the camera will be less than what existing current high-res panoramic cameras go for).

Who came up with this piece of technical wonderment? It may sound like something straight out of a Marvel comic book, but it’s NASA, Google, and National Geographic who receive the kudos in this case.

Now if they could only get Robert Downey Jr. to endorse it, they’d have an unstoppable sell. No official word yet on the Gigapan’s price or release.

Speaking of celebrity endorsements, I’ve caught a few of Nikon’s new TV spots starring easy-on-the-eyes actor Ashton Kutcher. Nikon’s products have always been hot in my book, but the heat just got turned up with the appearance of Mr. Demi Moore in the ad campaign hawking the stylish, fashionable COOLPIX compact digicam line.

Let’s just hope viewers don’t think they’re being Punk’d. If they can take their eyes off Ashton’s sexy stubble for 1/250th of a second, they’ll see that the underlying message is not just about the trendy COOLPIX colors — it also emphasizes the cameras’ performance, simplicity, and quality.

In other words, there is substance beneath the veneer — something that’s sometimes lacking in a world where anyone can buy Photoshop and go to town on a photo.