Just flicking through some news websites and came across a good example of image quality in news photography being secondary to getting the photo at all. Tiny crop, horribly out of focus, intense purple fringing - but it's Mullah Omar so it makes the CNN lead story: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/07/10/pakistan.taliban.omar/index.html . Of course, it would be better if it was a clear, crisp shot. But then I don't think whoever took the photo would still be around. Also, if it was a clear shot it'd probably be on every news website and in every paper. But my point is that an image with clearly terrible IQ can still be the lead photo. Does anyone else have examples of similar? I seem to remember some amazing blurry ones from the Mumbai attacks. I really only posted this because I was reading a post (from several years ago now) where someone said Robert Capa's Falling Man wasn't so great because the contrast wasn't quite right. Wonder what they'd say about the D-Day pictures.