50 Photographers You Should Know

by Peter Stepan

Now available in a new edition, this book gives a lively overview of the world’s greatest photographers. This dynamic introduction to the most important photographers from the inception of photography to today bears witness to the magic of the camera. From Félix Nadar’s awe-inspiring aerial photos and Eugene Atget’s images of fin de siècle France to Walker Evans’ stirring photos and Nan Goldin’s poetic scenarios, each of the photographers featured here represents a vital aspect of photography’s evolution. The artists are presented in double-page spreads that include reproductions of their most important works, concise biographies, and informative sidebars. The result is a fascinating overview of the way photographers continue to push the limits of their genre, offering their audiences new ways of seeing and understanding our world.

Genres: Photography, Art, Nonfiction, History, Art and Photography, Reference

160 pages, Paperback

First published September 30, 2008

Reviews

[Bethan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not enough photos for me but it was good as an introduction to what is considered great photography e.g. one thing I took from it is that there are way more photographs of people than anything else. I supplemented it with google imaging for more photos from the photographers featured but I hope to find some more books with more photos.

Basic format for each of the 50 photographers featured: a life timeline, a thumb size picture of the photographer, a written description on one page, 1-3 photos from the photographer, and some historical context. The latter also has some names of photographers not featured, whom I sometimes looked up, like Cindy Sherman. I also discovered that a photo I tore out of a magazine and pinned up because I liked it was actually an Edward Weston. I had no clue but that was good to know: my taste is not extinct.

[Claire · Rating 2 out of 5]

On nearly every front, I wanted more. The book is smaller than a high school text book and about 1/4 as thick with only 170 pages including the index (just the contents alphabetized). Most of the photographers only get two pages, some get four. They all get about 3/4 of page of text describing their lives, which is fine for me, but many only get 1 or 2 photos. That's not enough to get a feel for anyone's body of work. The book is an abridged selection of encyclopedia entries.

And speaking of abridged, I wanted to see more women. There were only 5 on the list and one of those was part of a husband-wife team. Really?! Annie Leibowitz, for example, isn't good enough for you? It might not bother me so much if the work showcased of several of the men I'd never heard of were better. Again, it's hard to gauge with a few photographs at best.

I suppose I'd like to know why I should know these 50 photographers. About half are icons that are pretty much beyond dispute, but the rest? Should I know them because they were popular at one time somewhere? Because they are/were successful financially? I'd rather something more merit based, but perhaps that's what the author thinks he's done. Damn subjectivity.

[Marja · Rating 3 out of 5]

It was okay. Personally, I would have liked if there had been more photos per photographer. It's impossible to get an idea of the photographer's style if there's only 2-3 pictures or in some case only 1 picture per photographer but I think it's nice as a reference book. I got to know photographers I had never heard about and I found many interesting photographers that I will google to see more of their work. So I did learn quite a lot by reading this book which is always nice.

[Patricia · Rating 4 out of 5]

I greatly enjoy seeing the works of good photographers and have decided to check out books of good photographs on a regular basis. But which books? Enter this handy guide to expose (hah!) me to many interesting photographers. I especially loved the timeline feature.

[Nick · Rating 3 out of 5]

+ A light-weight introduction to some of the greatest photographers of the 19th and 20th century
+ There are some amazing photos in here
+ Solidly-bound and printed in Germany

- The text was either awkwardly-written, or awkwardly-translated from the original German
- There is too much awkward text and not nearly enough photographs
- There is a noticeable German bias, and I imagine the selection of photographers is debatable

*Note: There are a number of nude photos in the book

[Anna · Rating 5 out of 5]

I loved this book. I got this book when I was in college to read for fun and it was like 8 or 10 dollars at the time. Great price for a great book. If you're interested in photography/photographers, this book is worth the read. One of my art professors at the time saw this book in my hands and actually went to buy one for herself because she thought it looked great. Small book, but packed with lots of information and cool photographs. I think I also actually used some of the examples from this book when I taught photography as an after school program.

[S. Wright · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very entertaining, valuable and visually attractive introduction for anyone studying photography at GCSE or A level.
It introduces the reader to 50 important photographers, now in need of an update.
Is has a timeline along the pages which help students to understand exactly where and when when the photographer was working. Certainly it needs further research to consolidate information but terrific as a first resource for newcomers to photography.

[Jereme · Rating 2 out of 5]

Yes, these are definitely 50 photographers worth knowing and exploring. However, this book’s descriptions of each artist are superficial and the photos mostly subpar examples of their work.

[Quintin Smith · Rating 4 out of 5]

Could have had more images from each photographer. But really helped me get to know the right names in photography that I may like.

[Zefyr · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was kinda weird to read. I get that it's hard to say enough when trying to go over this many people in this little space, and I get that making the book larger would have risked the visual and physical safety of brevity, and I get that using thinner paper stock would have risked the visual quality of the photographs, but it seems like the only person trying to make the contents work with these limitations was Rainald Schwartz with the layout (which is gorgeous). The overviews of the photographers are often so brief as to be nearly useless, sometimes easily able to be pared down to a sentence or two to sit alongside their brief timeline. As the aforementioned limitations mean that most photographers only had two pages, choosing representative photos is no easy task, but when the few-paragraph overview of a particular photographer tells what they're known for and it's paired with precisely one photo that, while stunning, is from a completely unrelated part of that photographer's work, it makes the overview of that photographer actually pointless.

I mean, I got plenty out of the book as a starter (which is certainly all I was looking for), but mostly due to frustration and looking up the names in Google image search to figure out what the copy was talking about in conjunction with the photos. They could have done so much more if they'd accepted using at least some smaller images, pared down the copy (already brief but hardly content-filled), and had the photo researchers and writer actually talk to each other, which it looks like they didn't do. The whole thing comes off as assembled by a committee.

The historical-context timelines at the tops of the pages are a nice visual touch and are valuable content, but they're hard to read as timelines. Putting them next to the vertical photographers' history timelines (maybe having one left- and one right- justified) might have been more readable.

The photographers chosen are also almost entirely white and male, and unfortunately (due to the copy?) it's not always clear why You Should Know a particular photographer other than that they took nice photos and were white and male, which made me wonder if the ones who were not were only included because Holy Fuck, Are They Important And Known For It. Like, doing this without Lange or Keita would be as weird as doing this without Ray or Muybridge, but could they have swapped out one of the many white male photographers of Paris with Gordon Parks or something? I know it's not going to be even, but this seemed more like 40 Photographers We Like Plus 10 More You Should Know For Historical/Social/Token Reasons.

[Christopher · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book contains the works of
Diane Arbus ; Eugène Atget ; Richard Avedon ; Felice Beato ; Bernd Bechler ; Hilla Bechler ; Mathew Brady ; Brassaï ; René Burri ; Julia Margaret Cameron ; Robert Capa ; Henri Cartier-Bresson ; Edward Sheriff Curtis ; Bruce Davidson ; Robert Doisneau ; Walker Evans ; Andreas Feininger ; Lee Friedlander ; Nan Goldin ; Kaveh Golestan ; Ara Güler ; Andreas Gursky ; Robert Häusser ; Lewis W. Hine ; Seydou Keïta ; André Kertész ; William Klein ; Josef Koudelka ; Dorothea Lange ; Jacques-Henri Lartigue ; Robert Mapplethorpe ; Eadweard Muybridge ; Félix Nadar ; Helmut Newton ; Martin Parr ; Man Ray ; Albert Renger-Patzsch ; Alexander Rodchenko ; Willy Ronis ; Sebastião Salgado ; August Sander ; Malick Sidibé ; Edward Steichen ; Alfred Stieglitz ; Paul Strand ; Josef Sudek ; Hiroshi Sugimoto ; Wolfgang Tillmans
Edward Weston ; Garry Winogrand.

[Christopher E · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book contains the works of
Diane Arbus ; Eugène Atget ; Richard Avedon ; Felice Beato ; Bernd Bechler ; Hilla Bechler ; Mathew Brady ; Brassaï ; René Burri ; Julia Margaret Cameron ; Robert Capa ; Henri Cartier-Bresson ; Edward Sheriff Curtis ; Bruce Davidson ; Robert Doisneau ; Walker Evans ; Andreas Feininger ; Lee Friedlander ; Nan Goldin ; Kaveh Golestan ; Ara Güler ; Andreas Gursky ; Robert Häusser ; Lewis W. Hine ; Seydou Keïta ; André Kertész ; William Klein ; Josef Koudelka ; Dorothea Lange ; Jacques-Henri Lartigue ; Robert Mapplethorpe ; Eadweard Muybridge ; Félix Nadar ; Helmut Newton ; Martin Parr ; Man Ray ; Albert Renger-Patzsch ; Alexander Rodchenko ; Willy Ronis ; Sebastião Salgado ; August Sander ; Malick Sidibé ; Edward Steichen ; Alfred Stieglitz ; Paul Strand ; Josef Sudek ; Hiroshi Sugimoto ; Wolfgang Tillmans
Edward Weston ; Garry Winogrand.

[G-E · Rating 2 out of 5]

Le visuel et le contenu sont faibles. Seulement deux ou trois photos sont présentées par photographe et leur travail est résumé en seulement une page. Donne une bonne vue général des grands photographes, mais en restant en surface uniquement.

[Radu · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting selection, with some great photographers included (Atget, Brassai, Capa, Mapplethorpe, Newton, Salgado to name a few). Still I am surprised that Ansel Adams and his "Moon and Half Dome" are not included

[Elisha Neethling · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not bad but I would have liked more visuals, it all felt a little brief.

[Sigrun Hodne · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not necessarily a "dynamic introduction" as stated by the publisher, but a quick introduction, a first step for those who want to know more.

[Oleksandr · Rating 3 out of 5]

Nice book with beautiful design. It's a pleasure to own one.
As for me it had quite strange choice of photos for many famous authors, but it was still interesting to discover.

[Corey · Rating 4 out of 5]

An understanding on the pioneers of various photographic techniques. This short book gives a few works of the 50 photographers it contains, and a bit of their background.

[Wendelle]

A mixture of aesthetic/fashion photographers and political/war photographers are featured here.