deeohuu: "Rare photos". What an odd phrase. What is rare about them? Think about it. Any definition that sort of works means that the vast majority of photos are "rare".
The article in question has already qualified it's use of the term "rare". And I would submit that it has been done to the satisfaction of the vast majority of readers. Here:
"Photos of the Rolling Stones are not hard to find, but the majority of images from the height of the band's career consist of on-stage performances and posed publicity shots. That's why a stack of photos uncovered at a Southern California estate sale have attracted a lot of attention recently. These candid images show the Stones as they have rarely been seen - relaxing and appearing to enjoy a day out of the limelight."
The sense in which they are using the term "rare" here is quite clear. You know, the vast majority of shots of the stones are in one context, but these few are in another.
Further, they are prints, not digital images that can and will be duplicated thousands of times due to the nature of the internet. Prints. Reasonably old prints too.
Time to move on I'd say.
groucher: "Nothing visually profound is being produced here, I would have to say" and yet the photographer is in one of the most photogenic countries in the world. It's almost impossible to produce a 'hackneyed' image in such a place. Surely the message of this article is that it might be an idea to dump the iphone and take a decent camera next time.
Exactly. The clear message here is that relying solely on a smartphone camera was a somewhat frustrating exercise, but that when the subject matter lent itself well to such limitations, the pictures were surprisingly decent. And really, we pretty much all know this already.
Too bulky to be a camera with 21x optical zoom? I don't think so. Too bulky to be a phone? Sure. But it's not a phone.
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review