What makes the Iwo Jima flag raising a great photo?

This photo is making lots of news since the new movie has come out. The photo has

been claimed to be one of the most influential and most reproduced photos of all time.

But what makes it great? Composition? Originality? Aesthetics? Technique? Black and

White? Context? If it popped up here and no one had ever seen it before, what kind of

ratings would it get?

It captures the moment.

A very good question. If it popped up on PN today, and if we could eliminate the fact that it is an iconic photo, my guess is that within 10 seconds it would have a 3/3. Overall, my guess is it would get mid to high fours.

That photo is well composed, but it is not exactly rocket science to compose it, as all of the key elements are in one relatively small space. I think the picture would never have had such viewership had it not been for the symbolism it entails. It was a huge battle, costing great losses on both sides. It was an important point in the war, and for a number of reasons it became the focal point or representation of emotions and took on a life of its own. Sort of a right time right place thing.

Mostly historical context and emotional resonance, combined with the dynamic gesture

(the sense of action) of all of the elements --people flag, torn up landscape, sky --

married to the composition the photograph makes, and the framing of the composition.

<P>

 

<I>If it popped up here and no one had ever seen it before, what kind of ratings would it

get?

</I><P>What a silly question. Should anyone actually care what a bunch of anonymous

people think about their work?

It's what the photo represents, not just the photo itself. If it was five guys at a

little league field putting up a light pole it would would just be a second

caught in time, but because of the fact that its a American Flag being raised

on the top of a Island in WWII that was Japanese soil, made the photo great.

Photographically its not a bad photo, good action, clean background, rule of

thirds, proper exposure.The United States was getting weary of the War at this

time and the Army decided that this was a good moral booster for the country

and made a big deal of it. The History channel had a very good program on it

last night.

The action is important to it as well. Had the pole already been there, and a secretary just stepped down and hooked the flag on the rope and ran it up the pole, it wouldn't be as dramatic. Seems like I've read somewhere that this was actually the second US flag that was flown over the island, the first being a smaller one elsewhere.

If one did not know the context then it's just a bunch of soldlers struggling with a flagpole on a windy hillside. Knowing the context then it suddenly becomes a photograph which truly deserves the designation 'iconic' since it encapsulates in a single shot the heroism of those who fought the war in the Pacific. The way in which the men are reaching out to raise the pole, the angle of the pole and the wind tearing at the flag all speak of triumph after adversity. Its iconic status, and its subsequent appropriation for war memorials, is further enhanced since no individual's face is visible, thus it speaks for everyone.

How about the diverse pictures of various Soviet soldiers raising the USSR flag on the Brandenburg Gate or on the Reichstag in Berlin?

 

What makes those pics great? Context, historic context, not the pic itself, I would say.

Taken out of the emotional and historical context, it is still a great photograph, capturing in an instant the godawful struggle of combat to victory. It's the pressing forward against the weight of the metal pipe which is the flagpole. The Spartans of Thermopylae would have appreciated it; it has the forward motion of a hoplite phalanx.

 

"Seems like I've read somewhere that this was actually the second US flag that was flown over the island, the first being a smaller one elsewhere." Stephen

 

The first went up a few hours earlier. Sgt Lou Lowry -- a professional USMC photographer -- captured that. It is interesting to compare the two. Lowry's is not a shot of the flag raising. It is a shot of the flag raised already. That fact is telling. The drama is the flag being raised, but he shot the flag raised. Rosenthal 'instinctively' went for the raising. That's the difference between a great shot and a so so document shot.

 

What saves Sgt Lowry's photograph from being just a mere snap is the Marine in the right-foreground on perimeter facing outward towards us, his M-1 carbine ready, his eyes scanning the view; it tells us this is occuring in hostile territory. I don't know if Sgt Lowry understood that that made the photo. For all I know, he considered it a flaw in an otherwise nice shot of the raised flag suitable for publication in Leatherneck Magazine (his billet).

 

--

 

Don E

 

USMC 1966-1971

<p><i>"That photo is well composed, but it is not exactly rocket science to compose it, as all of the key elements are in one relatively small space."</i></p>

 

<P>Over the weekend, by pure chance, I saw a documentary about that photo, I think it was on the History Channel. Evidently, the photographer who took it looked over, saw the men raising the flag on a heavy piece of pipe (which is why there were so many), and not thinking much of it, took the picture "without looking" (as said the documentary, I assume that it meant without looking through the viewfinder). He didn't think anything of it, and i wasn't until later when he looked at the developed prints that he realized how good it had turned out. According to the documentary, it turned out to be the most popular photograph in America of all time.</p>

Soviet war photographers felt the need to have their own version of the Rosenthal classic. As the Red Army overran Berlin Ukrainian photographer Khaldei, a specialist in flag raising shots for the Red Army, decided to stage a flag raising over the Reichstag. As he had run out of his own supply of red flags he used some red table cloths. The photo was passed by Stalin's censors after two changes - removal of two watches from the soldiers arm (suggested looting) and change the soldiers involved to Georgians (like Stalin). Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

It's hard to say. Take away the war and you take away a lot of that photo. Eddie Adams' famous photo of a Viet Cong prisoner being executed isn't what I'd call a "great photograph" if it's taken out of context.

 

In the context of its time and place and the emotions of the world at the time, it's an amazing photograph. Just like Rosenthal's Iwo Jima photo.

 

I can sit and wait weeks at my favorite sunset shot and take a thousand exposures to finally get that perfect sunset. Rosenthal had one instant. One exposure. And with that one exposure, he captured a feeling of progress in the war, a feeling that, while our losses were staggering, we were winning. It became something to rally around, something that gave our people hope. One chance to get the photo and he got one that came to symbolise America's determination. A picture like Rosenthal's is what it is because of when it was taken.

 

It's one of the rare photographs that is more than its technical and aesthetic pieces. Psychologically, it's tied into the country. For whatever reason, luck, skill, something in between the two, it showed a whole country what the country needed to see. To separate it from its time is to destroy it.

"Over the weekend, by pure chance, I saw a documentary about that photo..." Steve

 

In an interview Rosenthal said that his problem getting the shot was his height, which was 5' 5". People were moving in front of his view, so he began piling up rocks and sandbags as a platform. While doing so, the flag-raising began. He lept onto the rockpile and took his shot (a 4x5 press camera, I recollect) quickly. The film was sent off to Guam and he did not learn that one of his shots had become famous until some time later, and at first he didn't know which one had become famous, either.

 

--

 

Don E

I think the critical aspect is that so many guys are trying to be part of it. All those soldiers trying to get a hand on the flag as it goes up creates an impression that, despite going through a brutal battle, they hadn't lost sight of the symbolic underpinnings of the struggle.

 

If the poster above is correct that all those soldiers were necessary because the pole was so heavy, then that totally changes the meaning of the photo for me and, probably, for most people.

Incidentally, the movie "Control Room" has a fascinating examination of the Saddam statue-toppling and flag-raising upon the conquest of Baghdad in 2003. It shows footage shot by local cameramen (which U.S. viewers apparently were not shown) that demonstrates the amazing amount of choreography of the event being provided by American P.R. and media people. Clearly they were very aware of how important such images can be.

Beau, the flagpole was a steel pipe. As the photo shows, there weren't many trees remaining in the neighborhood after the naval bombardment.

 

Note the rhythm of the photo from left to right. It is like one body, from reaching, to setting, to driving the pole into the ground. Imo it captures that forward/downward movement and that gives it its power and transcends the medium of the "still" photograph.

 

 

--

 

Don E

Don E makes a great point in comparing the already-raised flag and the being-raised flag. "What is the story?" is a good question to consider in photojournalistic work. The headline may be that we captured the island, but the story is in the work to do so, or in this case in the act of recognizing the success. That's the story. That's the success of the photo.

David Said: " think the picture would never have had such viewership had it not been for the symbolism it entails. It was a huge battle, costing great losses on both sides."

 

That is very PC David but I can assure you that the US side found the casualties on the other side as just peachy. Those were different times. We are filtering the perceptions of the US homeland through 2006 glasses.

 

This picture represented victory. It is a concept that the WWII viewer understood in ways we frankly don't. Our US policy was unconditional surrender. Whether there was one Japanese left to surrender or a nation full of them. That was the nature of the challenge as they then believed it to be. Estimates were that there would be perhaps a million US casualties or more in taking the Japanese home islands. This photo spoke to that resolve.

 

One poster said that the US was tiring of the war. Nonsense. The war actually ended far faster than anyone thought it would.

 

To understand this photo it is necessary to look at it with eyes unclouded by doubt of our goals in that war. More than one in 14 Americans was on active duty in the Military. Any taste of victory offered hope to the families of those servicemen. This photo spoke to them of the suffering they already had endured and the certainty of victory.

 

Now imagine a generation where the vast majority of men had or were serving in the military and most of them in combat. This picture means a great deal to a soldier I can assure you. It carries a message that someone who has never served in combat, frankly, can't truly understand.

 

And on top of that it is a super picture.

Pure Emotion. This event/ photo happened long before the average family had a TV. So it was printed in newspapers and seen on newsreels just before a movie started in the theater, and heard about on the radio. This was the public's lifeline to the biggest war in history.

 

This one picture was given as hope that this 4 year nightmare might end, and it was. People knew how many people had died on that small island, and it was lauded as the turning point in the war.

 

In 1941, when our war started, the average American had no clue the Allies could win the war. They were really really scared. Had Hilter waited 2 years for his own technology to catch up. The outcome might had been drastically different.

 

From what I heard the photo was the reinactment of the first raising since Rosen missed it.

<i>Taken out of the emotional and historical context, it is still a great photograph, capturing in an instant the godawful struggle of combat...</i><p>

Yeah right. So much for taking out the historical content.

<i>It's hard to say. Take away the war and you take away a lot of that photo. Eddie Adams' famous photo of a Viet Cong prisoner being executed isn't what I'd call a "great photograph" if it's taken out of context. </i><p>

Put it <b>into context</b> for a perspective. The execution was a <i>media event</i>. Seen the movie of it from the wide side? Probably not. It was too real.

<b>Lee Ricks </b> [... snip most excellent post ...] <p>

You said it best. Right on. Thanks for that.

If you people would pay attention, the question specified that we were to erase our knowledge of the photograph and what it represented. Most of you have pretty well ignored that framework and gone all wishy washy emotional. If you take it out of context, it would be a good photo. Period. My speculation has nothing to do with the emotions so many of you have attached to the photo. The gentleman was speculating as to how it would be viewed on PN. I suggest that there would be the usual 3/3 folks and some that would rate higher. I do not think it would be top rated. Who knows? Pure speculation. I would also aver that if you were to take some Diane Arbus, or even Edward Weston photos, and put them up here, they would not fare that well. Ansel Adams, on the other hand, would do fairly well, because he does "pretty."

"Taken out of the emotional and historical context, it is still a great photograph, capturing in an instant the godawful struggle of combat...

 

Yeah right. So much for taking out the historical content." Pico

 

"Content" and "context" have very different meanings.

 

If you misspelled 'content' for 'context', "combat" does not refer to any specific, i.e., 'historical' context. I meant, it is not important who the combatants are, or who's flag it is, or what the outcome might have been, or what the historical consequences were, and what it all might mean to you or me.

 

 

"From what I heard the photo was the reinactment of the first raising since Rosen missed it" Neill

 

Abe Rosenthal wasn't some member of a power elite with the ability to get Generals and Admirals to do his bidding and get the USMC and the USN to do anything of the sort, not even if it had been a training exercise, much less major combat, if it had occured to him, which it didn't. Think about it. He was just one of a number of 'embedded' civilians.

 

--

 

Don E

From a formal point of view it is just an ok photograph but it is stunningly memorable because it depicts a great event. The original question exposes the relative immaturity of the photographic aesthetic where good photography as such becomes muddled with good subject matter as such.

 

The far more mature aesthetic of painting recognises that it is possible to make a bad painting of impeccable subject matter, say a Madonna and Child, while it is also possible to make a great one featuring anonymous bottles and jars. The work of Morandi is a fine example of this.