Smithsonian.com

Honestly, I simply cannot see what is so distinguished about these images and I cannot understand how these images (there are a few exceptions) are considered to be so outstanding. At this rate, my work ought to be equally outstanding by these standards. Overall, I am not impressed because I have images that are just as good if not better. Unfortunately I do not have the access to famous galleries or influential photographers these people do so I guess my work and that or other equally deserving photogs is/are doomed to obscurity by the standards of contemporary photography.

you seem to contradict yourself: first it's: "In a camera-phone world, serious photography matters more than ever." then it's: "Their selections show that it’s not about the camera but the eye behind it." which is it? personally, i agree with the latter, it is NOT about the camera but rather the eye behind it.. be that camera film, digital or iphone (i happen to work with all three and take each as seriously)..

Not a very distinguished group of images. Pretty incestuous selections, as most chosen photogs paid for seminars with the recommenders. Nothing published here is new, different, particularly artistic or challenging. Certainly we would expect a lot more from Smithsonian. Even my 92-year-old mother was very disappointed! Definitely no new stars. As a photo writer I have had occasion to meet dozens of photographers who run rings around this bunch.

And iPhone photography is a very viable art form. Many museums agree, and I myself have been invited to show my own iPhone work at the Littlteon Museum of Art.

My previous comment today (Saturday) should be addressed mainly to Andy Royston, it looks like, not Uwe Hoffman. My apologies. I take people photos, lots of them, and they are usually very artistic, in the documentary line, these days using digital cameras, not iphone cameras. It would be nice if SM devoted more time to photographers of a humanistic nature, not always seeking the art for art's sake type or the super-tech type, whether or not either of the latter is truly art or not. I don't have my own website, but there are plenty of Weblinks to my photos and writings, and I used to write for the Indelible Images Department in SM, but that's no more, unfortunately. I do like Mary Ellen Mark's work, though she wanted to charge a lot of money for the use of her photos, when I directed-edited anthologies like 'Spirit of America'. I decided not to lease rights to her works then, but she is a very talented documentarian.

Uwe Hoffmann's comment would be helpful, if Uwe wasn't just as guilty for thinking the new stars of photography should use iphone cameras. Unless the camera does absolutely everything for you, the eye behind it is the key, no matter the camera's old age, super-technology, etc. I use digital now, but don't own a cellphone, and take some fairly beautiful photos, of everything/everyone from everyday people/life to celebrities. I've taken more than 300,000 photos the last 32 years, and you can see a few of them on my Digital Photographer Weblink, at: www.dphotographer.co.uk/user/dave764 -- Some of my photos there pay old debts, and may not seem artistic, others are very artistic, and I've taken lots of both types. Pay attention Smithsonian Mag -- publishing one of my photos cropped in 2007 isn't sufficient. You need to do more, for a lot of talented, serious-enough photographers-writers, including me, David Joseph Marcou.

"In a camera-phone world, serious photography matters more than ever"

Hmm. You can't REALLY think that the cameraphone is the opposite of 'serious photography'? Can you? The camera really IS more important than the eye, is how I'm understanding this statement. From an insitution as trusted and verable of yours perhaps your writers need to choose their words a little more artfully.

As someone who has been taking 'serious' photographs using a cameraphone for three years I hold that your introductory notion is ridiculous. It is not the camera but the photographer that makes or breaks the shot.

Any 'serious' photographer might even consider a mobile device - combining the camera, built-in processing tools and a direct means of sharing it - a compelling tool to use.

With such a lazy sub ed's notion on the table I might equally argue that perhaps you're picking out the 'old' stars of photography.

The 'new' stars use the iPhone.

Up and Coming Stars? Dead Birds as props? Really? Distasteful, disgusting, and not even a bit artistic; hence the over-sharpened Photoshop edge of the raptor. The "medium's vitality" is certainly not captured by morbid play with avian carcasses. Maybe Mr. Martinez ought to join us real wildlife photographers in capturing live birds to prove his artistic skill - I am not impressed, maybe he should work for a fried chicken franchise since he seems to prefer dead subjects.