I'm not sure how I feel about the criterion, mentioned in the introduction, that In the history of photography there naturally have been many anonymous masterpieces or less extensive bodies of work, but these were not taken into consideration for this volume.
Only individuals with an impressive corpus
were eligible, and this is not
a "photos of the century" collection. On the one hand -- fine, I get that, although maybe they should've titled it Iconic Photographers
instead. On the other hand, the result of this criterion seems to be the inclusion of many individuals and images that are so well known as to be redundant. Stieglitz? Mapplethorpe? Ansel Adams? Diane Arbus? Anyone with any interest in photography knows who they are and what they did. Probably almost everyone even without a particular interest in photography has seen Bourke-White's portrait of Gandhi and Korda's of Che Guevara. Anyone who has been to a poster sale has seen the lovers kissing in Paris. If we're collecting photos to save in a time capsule for a post-apocalyptic future world, I'm fine with those being included, but as it stands they seem like a waste of very limited page space.