That's great. Decent resolution, too. Now they just need a few interface goodies like most popular search terms, etc. posted by starman at 10:45 AM on November 18, 2008
what posted by DU at 10:47 AM on November 18, 2008
(Maybe the 1759 refers to the date one of the paintings was painted? But that seems disingenuous at the very least.) posted by DU at 10:49 AM on November 18, 2008
I might believe it was 1759 if Mozart was in the photo. Or maybe not. What years were Mozart alive? posted by wendell at 10:53 AM on November 18, 2008
It's probably some sort of mistake. The first set of photos on the homepage is from the 1860s, which makes more sense. posted by chunking express at 10:58 AM on November 18, 2008
Wow! Neat. Why does it seem to max out at 200 images? Bourke-White? 200 images. Poet? 200 images. posted by steef at 11:02 AM on November 18, 2008
But the text on the homepage says 1750s. posted by DU at 11:06 AM on November 18, 2008
From what I can tell many (all?) these images were already available on gettyimages.com archive. They have no watermark now, but that's the only difference. posted by fire&wings at 11:14 AM on November 18, 2008
Getty images isn't as commonly browsed as Google Images, I'd imagine. So these images are now available to a wider audience, and without watermarks. posted by filthy light thief at 11:31 AM on November 18, 2008
kinda lame. Searching for eg. Tokyo or Saigon returns the photos from 3 or 4 stories and that's it, apparently. Still, seeing a large-format picture does really leap out at you compared to what you see in a magazine, a la The Boston Globe's Big Picture feature. posted by troy at 11:53 AM on November 18, 2008
Subscribe
posted by starman at 10:45 AM on November 18, 2008