Gift Guide

The Cruel Radiance: Photography and Political Violence

( 1 )


In The Cruel Radiance, Susie Linfield challenges the idea that photographs of political violence exploit their subjects and pander to the voyeuristic tendencies of their viewers. Instead she argues passionately that looking at such images—and learning to see the people in them—is an ethically and politically necessary act that connects us to our modern history of violence and probes the human capacity for cruelty. Grappling with critics from Walter Benjamin and Bertolt Brecht to Susan Sontag and the ...

See more details below
Paperback (Reprint)
$14.46 price
(Save 27%)$20.00 List Price

Pick Up In Store

Reserve and pick up in 60 minutes at your local store

Other sellers (Paperback)
  • All (8) from $8.70   
  • New (6) from $12.19   
  • Used (2) from $8.70   
The Cruel Radiance: Photography and Political Violence

Available on NOOK devices and apps  
  • NOOK Devices
  • Samsung Galaxy Tab 4 NOOK 7.0
  • Samsung Galaxy Tab 4 NOOK 10.1
  • NOOK HD Tablet
  • NOOK HD+ Tablet
  • NOOK eReaders
  • NOOK Color
  • NOOK Tablet
  • Tablet/Phone
  • NOOK for Windows 8 Tablet
  • NOOK for iOS
  • NOOK for Android
  • NOOK Kids for iPad
  • PC/Mac
  • NOOK for Windows 8
  • NOOK for PC
  • NOOK for Mac
  • NOOK for Web

Want a NOOK? Explore Now

NOOK Book (eBook)
$9.99 price
(Save 44%)$18.00 List Price


In The Cruel Radiance, Susie Linfield challenges the idea that photographs of political violence exploit their subjects and pander to the voyeuristic tendencies of their viewers. Instead she argues passionately that looking at such images—and learning to see the people in them—is an ethically and politically necessary act that connects us to our modern history of violence and probes the human capacity for cruelty. Grappling with critics from Walter Benjamin and Bertolt Brecht to Susan Sontag and the postmoderns—and analyzing photographs from such events as the Holocaust, China’s Cultural Revolution, and recent terrorist acts—Linfield explores the complex connection between photojournalism and the rise of human rights ideals. In the book’s concluding section, she examines the indispensable work of Robert Capa, James Nachtwey, and Gilles Peress and asks how photography should respond to the increasingly nihilistic trajectory of modern warfare.
A bracing and unsettling book, The Cruel Radiance convincingly demonstrates that if we hope to alleviate political violence, we must first truly understand it—and to do that, we must begin to look.

Read More Show Less

Editorial Reviews

Greil Marcus

“It’s not enough to say that Susie Linfield looks at photography with fresh eyes. Throughout this book—for me, most powerfully when she takes on Nazi extermination camp photographs—she sees with a mind unintimidated by fashion, shibboleths, attitude, cliche. She sees behind the pictures she looks at, to their motives, fears, ambitions, and lies. She writes through them.”
Claudia Roth Pierpont
“A profoundly thoughtful account of the role of photojournalism in an irremediably violent world, Linfield’s book is as much about conscience and empathy as it is about photography. Examining images from the Spanish Civil War to Rwanda, she accepts no easy, sweeping answers. Rather, with vivid common sense and with painstaking, often abashed humanity, she guides us through the moral minefield where horror meets art, and helps us to see.”—Claudia Roth Pierpont
Michael Walzer
“This is a magnificent book. Susie Linfield has a good eye for the photographs and a good head for the politics. And she has the moral strength to look at these images of mutilation, death, and destruction, explain their value, and demand that we look at them, too.”
Kiku Adatto
The Cruel Radiance is a brilliant, lucid, and incisive exploration of photography and political violence. It looks deeply and unsparingly at how photographers have pictured war, genocide, and atrocities, and in so doing illuminates photography’s democratic promise. By making the world present to us even when we want to look away, photographs have the potential to make us think and question together, to draw us into a community of witnesses.”
New Humanist
“Linfield’s great achievement is more than to shake up the orthodoxy that says, ‘Look away!’ It’s a call to arms, an incitement to look closely at the world via the medium of photography, and, implicitly, to do something about it.”
Los Angeles Times

"A smart, very readable dismantling of postmodern criticism's confusion over the power of photojournalism."

"At its best, the passionate intensity and intellectual rigour of Linfield's writing may convince you that looking away, or not looking at all, is not an option. To make sense of a violent world we must, she contends, 'look at, and look into, what James Agee called "the cruel radiance of what is."' Whatever the cost."—Guardian (UK)

Design Observer
“Beautifully crafted, exquisitely written, and exceptionally powerful in its arguments.”--Design Observer

"Susie Linfield has written a brave and unsettling book . . . and she creates a calculus for a new kind of photography criticism--one that respects photography rather than distrusts it, derives its power from intellect and feeling."
The Nation
"To look at a photograph entails a peculiar kind of participation: distanced in time and space, and severely limited in regard to the context leading to and consequences stemming from the moment fixed on film, yet often viscerally affecting. . . . Susie Linfield writes forcefully about this predicament. In The Cruel Radiance her eye for the unplanned, wounding photographic detail that Roland Barthes called the punctum is acute, and her empathic intelligence shines."
New Republic
The Cruel Radiance is a beautifully considered and unabashedly impassioned plea for the continuing moral relevance of photojournalism. . . . Linfield offers a defense of photojournalism that honors the photographers without turning them into saints or their work into sacred icons.— Jed Perl
The National
"While images of violence and human degradation should never be easy to consume, this book contends that their wordless stories demand the kind of imagination, interpretation and thought that brings the wider world closer to our doors. As such it offers a timely analysis that is itself challenging, unflinching and, for the most part, generous in its aims."
Times Literary Supplement
The Cruel Radiance is a treatise on moral witness and empathic leaps: a book of brief lives—grief lives—on both sides of the camera. . . . For Linfield, criticism is a high calling. There is a scrupulous attentiveness to her looking-in and arguing-out.. . . As criticism, The Cruel Radiance is a work of deep distinction. It will surely become part of the history of its field.— Alex Danchev
 "After years of intellectual stagnation in the field of photography criticism, The Cruel Radiance offers a stimulating, lively discussion and successfully repositions documentary photography in its rightful place, highlighting its decisive impact on how we come to understand the world. For restoring documentary photography's lost dignity, Susie Linfield deserves the thanks of photographers who still believe in the power of their craft."
New Republic - Jed Perl

"The Cruel Radiance is a beautifully considered and unabashedly impassioned plea for the continuing moral relevance of photojournalism. . . . Linfield offers a defense of photojournalism that honors the photographers without turning them into saints or their work into sacred icons."
Los Angeles Times - Christopher Knight

"Extraordinary."–Christopher Knight, Los Angeles Times
"While images of violence and human degradation should never be easy to consume, this book contends that their wordless stories demand the kind of imagination, interpretation and thought that brings the wider world closer to our doors. As such it offers a timely analysis that is itself challenging, unflinching and, for the most part, generous in its aims."
Times�Literary Supplement - Alex Danchev

"The Cruel Radiance is a treatise on moral witness and empathic leaps: a book of brief lives--grief lives--on both sides of the camera. . . . For Linfield, criticism is a high calling. There is a scrupulous attentiveness to her looking-in and arguing-out.. . . As criticism, The Cruel Radiance is a work of deep distinction. It will surely become part of the history of its field."
Library Journal
Photographs of war atrocities and genocides are very difficult to look at and comprehend, but, as Linfield (journalism, New York Univ.) writes, only by viewing such images can people begin to understand, rectify, and perhaps prevent these horrors. She first traces the history of photography criticism, devoting much space to the work of Susan Sontag and Roland Barthes, then delves into the role photojournalism has played in documenting human-rights violations in places such as Auschwitz, Cambodia, Sierra Leone, and Abu Ghraib. Rounding out her study are profiles of three influential photojournalists—Robert Capa, James Nachtwey, and Gilles Peress. VERDICT While Linfield's book contains graphic descriptions of the photographs and events that she examines, it is not an exploitative or titillating exposé. Instead, it is a somber, heartfelt plea for readers to see the truth and acknowledge and understand the consequences of humans' potential for inhumanity. This should be required reading for students of journalism and political science and general readers with an interest in human-rights activism.—Donna Marie Smith, Palm Beach Cty. Lib. Syst., FL
Read More Show Less

Product Details

  • ISBN-13: 9780226482514
  • Publisher: University of Chicago Press
  • Publication date: 4/15/2012
  • Edition description: Reprint
  • Pages: 344
  • Sales rank: 796,370
  • Product dimensions: 6.00 (w) x 8.90 (h) x 0.80 (d)

Meet the Author

Susie Linfield has been an editor for American Film, the Village Voice, and the Washington Post and has written for a wide range of publications including the Los Angeles Times Book Review,the New York Times, Bookforum, the Village Voice, Aperture, Dissent, and the Nation. She is associate professor of journalism at New York University, where she directs the Cultural Reporting and Criticism program.

Read More Show Less

Table of Contents

List of Figures

Preface: The Black Book


1  A Little History of Photography Criticism; or, Why Do Photography Critics Hate Photography?

2  Photojournalism and Human Rights: The Calamity of the Kodak


3  Warsaw, Lodz, Auschwitz: In the Waiting Room of Death

4  China: From Malraux’s Dignity to the Red Guards’ Shame

5  Sierra Leone: Beyond the Sorrow and the Pity

6  Abu Ghraib and the Jihad: The Dance of Civilizations


7  Robert Capa: The Optimist

8  James Nachtwey: The Catastrophist

9  Gilles Peress: The Skeptic



Read More Show Less

First Chapter


By Susie Linfield

The University of Chicago Press

Copyright © 2010 The University of Chicago
All right reserved.

ISBN: 978-0-226-48250-7

Chapter One


In 1846, Charles Baudelaire wrote a short essay called "What Is the Good of Criticism?" This is something that virtually every critic asks herself at some point, and that many have had trouble answering; it has been known to evoke hopelessness, despair, even self-loathing. Baudelaire didn't think that criticism would save the world, but he didn't think it was a worthless pursuit, either. For Baudelaire, criticism was the synthesis of thought and feeling: in criticism, he wrote, "passion ... raises reason to new heights," and he urged his fellow critics to eschew antiseptic writing that "deliberately rids itself of any trace of feeling." A few years later he returned to the subject, explaining that through criticism he sought "to transform my pleasure into knowledge": a pithy, excellent description of what criticism should be. Baudelaire's American contemporary, Margaret Fuller, held similar views: she urged her colleagues to reject dogma-"external consistency," she called it-in favor of "genuine emotion." The critic, she wrote, should create an I-thou relationship between herself and her readers and guide them "to love wisely what we before loved well."

By "pleasure" and "love" Baudelaire and Fuller didn't mean that critics should write only about things that make them happy or that they can praise. What they meant is that the critic's emotional connection to an artist, or to a work of art, or to a genre, is the sine qua non, the ground zero, of criticism. Who can doubt that Edmund Wilson loved literature-and that, to him, it simply mattered more than most other things in life? Who can doubt that Pauline Kael found the world most challenging, most meaningful, most vivid when she sat in a dark movie theater, or that Kenneth Tynan felt the same way at a play? This same sort of intuitive connection was at the heart of James Agee's approach to writing about the movies. Introducing himself to the readers of the Nation in 1942, he wrote that he had been lovingly immersed in movies since childhood and yet-just like his readers-was "an amateur" who knew little about them; he must, therefore, "simultaneously recognize my own ignorance and feel no apology for what my eyes tell me as I watch any given screen." A similar emotional affinity led a young woman named Arlene Croce, who knew nothing about dance, to begin writing criticism after a life-changing evening at the New York City Ballet in 1957; that performance, she said, "made an addict out of me." Croce, who developed an uncannily astute understanding of Balanchine's modernism, would go on to become the best dance critic of the twentieth century. "All I can tell you is, dance is the thing that hit me the hardest," she explained.

For these critics and others-those I would consider at the center of the modern tradition-cultivating this sense of lived experience was at the heart of writing good criticism. Their starting point was, always, their subjective, immediate experience, which meant that they had to be honest with themselves. Randall Jarrell wrote that "criticism demands of the critic a terrible nakedness ... All he has to go by, finally, is his own response, the self that makes and is made up of such responses." Alfred Kazin agreed; the critic's skill, he argued, "begins by noticing his intuitive reactions and building up from them; he responds to the matter in hand with perception at the pitch of passion." For such critics, emotional reactions and critical faculties weren't synonomous, but they weren't opposites, either. These critics sought, and achieved, a fertile dialectic between ideas and emotions: they were able to think and feel at the same time, or at least within the same essay.

The great exception to this approach is photography criticism. There, you will hear precious little talk of love, or terrible nakedness, or passion's pitch. There, critics view emotional responses-if they have any-not as something to be experienced and understood but, rather, as an enemy to be vigilantly guarded against. For these writers, criticism is a prophylactic against the virus of sentiment, and pleasure is denounced as self-indulgent. They approach photography-not particular photographs, or particular photographers, or particular genres, but photography itself-with suspicion, mistrust, anger, and fear. Rather than enter into what Kazin called a "community of interest" with their chosen subject, these critics come armed to the teeth against it. For them, photography is a powerful, duplicitous force to defang rather than an experience to embrace and engage. It's hard to resist the thought that a very large number of photography critics-including the most influential ones-don't really like photographs, or the act of looking at them, at all.

Susan Sontag's On Photography was published in 1977, though the individual essays that comprise the book began appearing, and making an impact, in 1973. The book remains astonishingly incisive, and has been immensely influential on the thinking of other photography critics-and immensely influential, too, in setting a certain tone of photography criticism. Look, for instance, at Sontag's description of photography in the book's first chapter, which establishes a voice, an attitude, and an approach, all of which she maintains throughout. Sontag describes photography as "grandiose," "treacherous," "imperial," "voyeuristic," "predatory," "addictive," and "reductive." Photographs, we learn, simultaneously embody "seductiveness" and "didacticism," "passivity" and "aggression." Sontag's coolness is unfaltering, as is her unfriendliness: photographs are described as "a sublimated murder-a soft murder" and as "the most irresistible form of mental pollution." A typical Sontag sentence reads, "The camera doesn't rape, or even possess, though it may presume, intrude, trespass, distort, exploit, and, at the farthest reach of metaphor, assassinate-all activities that, unlike the sexual push and shove, can be conducted from a distance, and with some detachment." Metaphor indeed!

Three years later came Roland Barthes's Camera Lucida. This book, delicate and playful, is a love letter to the photograph (and to Barthes's dead mother). Barthes celebrates the quirky, spontaneous reactions that photographs can inspire-or at least the quirky, spontaneous reactions they inspire in him: "A photograph's punctum is that accident which pricks me (but also bruises me, is poignant to me)." Still, Camera Lucida is a very odd valentine, and it shares an intellectual approach, if not a literary style, with Sontag. Barthes describes photographers as "agents of Death" and the photograph as "fl at," "platitudinous," "stupid," "without culture," a "catastrophe," and-the cruelest cut-"undialectical." The photograph "teaches me nothing," Barthes insists, for it "completely de-realizes the human world of conflicts and desires."

Continuing this tradition of photography criticism is John Berger, the most morally cogent and emotionally perceptive critic that photography has produced. "My first interest in photography was passionate," Berger has written; and when you read his work, you know this is so. (As a young man, Berger dreamed of composing a book of love poems illustrated with photographs.) Berger has frequently included photographs in his books. More important, he has argued that photographs represent an "opposition to history" by which ordinary people affirm the subjective experiences that modernity, science, and industrial capitalism have done so much to crush: "And so, hundreds of millions of photographs, fragile images, often carried next to the heart or placed by the side of the bed, are used to refer to that which historical time has no right to destroy." Like Sontag, Berger is acutely aware of the central place that photography occupies in modern life; unlike Sontag, he respects the prosaic yet meaningful ways in which people throughout the world use photographs.

Yet in Berger's canonical essays he, too, took a decidedly dark view of photography, and he was especially critical of photographs that document political violence. Such images, he insisted, were at best useless and at worst narcissistic, leading the viewer to a sense of self-conscious helplessness rather than to enlightenment, outrage, or action. Thinking about photographs by Don McCullin of the then-ongoing Vietnam War, Berger observed that "McCullin's most typical photographs record sudden moments of agony-a terror, a wounding, a death, a cry of grief." He continued:

These moments are in reality utterly discontinuous with normal time.... But the reader who has been arrested by the photograph may tend to feel this discontinuity as his own personal moral inadequacy. And as soon as this happens even his sense of shock is dispersed: his own moral inadequacy may now shock him as much as the crimes being committed in the war.... The issue of the war which has caused that moment is effectively depoliticised.

More generally, drawing on a metaphor clearly derived from the atomic bomb, Berger described the photograph-all photographs-as a "fission whereby appearances are separated by the camera from their function." Yet the particular instance of the Vietnam War that Berger cited undermines rather than supports his thesis. Photographs of that conflict-such as the one taken by Eddie Adams of a streetside execution or by Nick Ut of a naked, napalmed girl-didn't foster feelings of moral inadequacy. (Neither did McCullin's.) On the contrary, they mobilized political opposition to the war.

Barthes, too, held no brief for photographs of violence. Writing about an exhibit of "Shock-Photos" in Paris, Barthes argued that "most of the photographs exhibited to shock us have no effect at all." Such images are too finished, too complete-"overconstructed" is Barthes's word. As such, they deprive us of our freedom of response: "We are in each case dispossessed of our judgment: someone has shuddered for us, reflected for us, judged for us; the photographer has left us nothing." (Walter Benjamin, as we'll see, also feared that photography impairs independent judgment.)

Sontag's objections went further. Because photographs present us with scenes of catastrophe but can do nothing to explain their histories or causes, she was highly skeptical of the photograph's ability to be either politically or ethically potent; photographs, she argued, present archetypical abstractions, whereas "moral feelings are embedded in history, whose personae are concrete, whose situations are always specific." And she insisted-an insistence that has now become the conventional wisdom-that the cumulative effect of such photographs is to create a society of moral dullards: "The shock of photographed atrocities wears off with repeated viewings ... In these last decades, 'concerned' photography has done at least as much to deaden conscience as to arouse it."

Starting in the mid-1970s, the postmodern and poststructuralist children of Sontag, Berger, and Barthes transformed their predecessors' skepticism about the photograph into outright venom; in an influential essay written in 1981, for instance, Allan Sekula decried photography as "primitive, infantile, aggressive." Indeed, for the postmoderns, a relentless hostility to modernist photography-and to any belief in the photographer's authenticity, creativity, or unique subjectivity-was an ethical stance, though I see it as more of a pathological one. At the same time, the postmoderns were attracted to photography precisely because they saw the medium-with its infinite capacity for mechanical reproduction-as the worm in the modernist apple. In assaulting photography, the postmoderns hoped to undermine modernist "claims to originality, showing those claims for the fiction they are," as Douglas Crimp wrote; the aim, he continued, was "to use the apparent veracity of photography against itself" and to expose "the supposed autonomous and unitary self" as "nothing other than a discontinuous series of representations, copies, fakes."

These critics weren't really alive to photographs per se, much less to the world they reveal; what attracted them to photography-especially the postmodern photography of appropriation-was, as Rosalind Krauss wrote, "photography's travesty of the ideas of originality, or subjective expressiveness, or formal singularity," its ability to "undermine the very distinction between original and copy," and its "refusal to understand the artist as a source of originality." The assault on photography was, in short, a servant to the larger postmodern "project of deconstruction in which art is distanced and separated from itself." To attack photography, especially high-modern and documentary photography, was to storm the bastions of modernism itself.

In the view of the postmoderns, one of photography's original sins was its supposedly supine relationship to capitalism. In particular, photography's admittedly maddening (and obviously false) claims to objective truths-truths divorced from class and culture-made it a particularly dangerous ideological tool that could hinder critical thinking about the prevailing class system. The postmodern refusal of the fiction of objectivity-and of its close cousin, neutrality-was a genuine intellectual accomplishment.

But whereas Sontag had written that advanced industrial capitalism requires a ceaseless production of images, the critics who followed her were far more reductive. For the postmoderns, photographs were not just an integral part of capitalism but its obedient slave. Abigail Solomon-Godeau, for instance, charged that the documentary photograph commits a "double act of subjugation" in which the hapless subject is victimized first by oppressive social forces, then by the "regime of the image." John Tagg went further, describing photography as "ultimately a function of the state" that is deeply implicated in the ruling class's "apparatus of ideological control" and its "reproduction of ... submissive labour power"; he added, in a particularly inapt metaphor, that photography is a "mode of production ... consuming the world of sight as its raw material." Martha Rosler proclaimed that "imperialism breeds an imperialist sensibility in all phases of cultural life"; and photographs, it turned out, were the most imperialist of all.

Photographers are usually drawn to, and excited by, the new. In contrast, a deep sense of fatigue permeated postmodern photography and the criticism that praised it. In 1986, the critic Andy Grundberg observed that postmodern photography "implies the exhaustion of the image universe: it suggests that a photographer can find more than enough images already existing in the world without the bother of making new ones." Fredric Jameson described this enervated worldview:

In a world in which stylistic innovation is no longer possible, all that is left is to imitate dead styles ... Contemporary or postmodernist art ... will involve the necessary failure of art and the aesthetic, the failure of the new, the imprisonment in the past.

Postmodern criticism and photography became notable for embodying, indeed celebrating, this sense of weary repetition; as the artist Richard Prince wrote, the way to make it new was to "make it again."

The postmoderns declared war on the formalism of high-modernist critics like John Szarkowski who, they charged, isolated photography from its social and political context. (They reviled Szarkowski as a cold mandarin, yet failed to notice that he wrote about photographs with more empathy and insight than they.) But they were equally hostile to documentary photography that rooted itself in the social and political. Sneering at liberal, socially conscious photojournalists who clung to old-fashioned ideas such as progress and truth became common, if not mandatory; Rosler, for instance, charged that the "liberal documentary assuages any stirrings of conscience in its viewers the way scratching relieves an itch.... Documentary is a little like horror movies, putting a face on fear and transforming threat into fantasy." Similarly, Sekula assailed the photographer Paul Strand's belief in "human values," "social ideals," "decency," and "truth" as "the enemy"-a statement that, I admit, I have always found shocking.


Excerpted from THE CRUEL RADIANCE by Susie Linfield Copyright © 2010 by The University of Chicago. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

Read More Show Less

Customer Reviews

Average Rating 2
( 1 )
Rating Distribution

5 Star


4 Star


3 Star


2 Star


1 Star


Your Rating:

Your Name: Create a Pen Name or

Barnes & Review Rules

Our reader reviews allow you to share your comments on titles you liked, or didn't, with others. By submitting an online review, you are representing to Barnes & that all information contained in your review is original and accurate in all respects, and that the submission of such content by you and the posting of such content by Barnes & does not and will not violate the rights of any third party. Please follow the rules below to help ensure that your review can be posted.

Reviews by Our Customers Under the Age of 13

We highly value and respect everyone's opinion concerning the titles we offer. However, we cannot allow persons under the age of 13 to have accounts at or to post customer reviews. Please see our Terms of Use for more details.

What to exclude from your review:

Please do not write about reviews, commentary, or information posted on the product page. If you see any errors in the information on the product page, please send us an email.

Reviews should not contain any of the following:

  • - HTML tags, profanity, obscenities, vulgarities, or comments that defame anyone
  • - Time-sensitive information such as tour dates, signings, lectures, etc.
  • - Single-word reviews. Other people will read your review to discover why you liked or didn't like the title. Be descriptive.
  • - Comments focusing on the author or that may ruin the ending for others
  • - Phone numbers, addresses, URLs
  • - Pricing and availability information or alternative ordering information
  • - Advertisements or commercial solicitation


  • - By submitting a review, you grant to Barnes & and its sublicensees the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to use the review in accordance with the Barnes & Terms of Use.
  • - Barnes & reserves the right not to post any review -- particularly those that do not follow the terms and conditions of these Rules. Barnes & also reserves the right to remove any review at any time without notice.
  • - See Terms of Use for other conditions and disclaimers.
Search for Products You'd Like to Recommend

Recommend other products that relate to your review. Just search for them below and share!

Create a Pen Name

Your Pen Name is your unique identity on It will appear on the reviews you write and other website activities. Your Pen Name cannot be edited, changed or deleted once submitted.

Your Pen Name can be any combination of alphanumeric characters (plus - and _), and must be at least two characters long.

Continue Anonymously
Sort by: Showing 1 Customer Reviews
  • Anonymous

    Posted May 8, 2013

    Nook edition disappointment

    The writing and thoughtful examination of the world of photojournalism is excellent. The author has done a wonderful job.

    My disappointment is with the publishing decision to not include any of the photographs that accompany the text in the Nook version, instead telling readers to view the print edition. The Nook is perfectly capable of rendering excellent quality images.

    A photography book with no photography. A poor decision.

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
Sort by: Showing 1 Customer Reviews

If you find inappropriate content, please report it to Barnes & Noble
Why is this product inappropriate?
Comments (optional)