Alex Todd Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Robert, you say it like it is. Tough and brutal probably right from the beginning. I guess you could say Mathew Brady (said to be the father or photojournalism) was "shooting stock" of the American Civil War 150 years ago. Put everything he had into it hoping the US would buy his imagery and he'd recoup his investments and be financially rewarded handsomely for his efforts- which never happened, except for his legacy.. New 'threats' to the old order are all part of the constant evolution in the industry- later came 35mm, then color, then SLRs, then motor drives, digital, etc., Going O/T with regards Mathew Brady - an article in the Mail Online today claims he took credit for photographer's working for him http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2545241/Haunting-images-Civil-War-casualties-captured-Abraham-Lincolns-Scottish-photographer.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMiller Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 << Going O/T with regards Mathew Brady - an article in the Mail Online today claims he took credit for photographer's working for him http://www.dailymail...otographer.html >> Yes,it's already widely known that Gardner and others worked for Brady and took many of the famous Civil War photos. But it was operating procedure in his day- like a business taking credit for whatever anyone in 'his' company does. Brady couldn't cover it all, so assigned others, Work for hire, I suppose like a news agency. The comments were interesting (and some a bit nasty), but none of that (such as alleged 'photo-fakery') is new material, history we learned even in college. Gardner's work was phenomenal regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.