Nope, not winding up........ IMO, the first one is not something that would need to be snapped in just a few seconds as would be the case with many journalistic shots.... in my experience people around a graveside don't go rushing around; therefore the photographer must have had at least a minute (a long time in photography when you work in fractions of a second) to get his brain into gear and take this shot. In that case, I would have expected a better set up shot with more impact...... look at those photo's that guy took inside the tower on 9/11 - he was in a desperate situation surrounded by panic, yet even he had time to get decent, framed shots that imo beat this hands down. Just because it's journalistic doesn't mean it shouldn't be able to stand up on it's own, does it? I can show you a crap picture that I have, which has a really moving story behind it.... does that make it a good picture? no, even to me it's still crap as far as pictures go, yet it explains the situation brilliantly. Sorry, but I think people react to a photo just because of the situation it's in. I have no doubt whatsoever that if you go to these places with 25 disposable cameras, give them to locals and ask them to use the films up in a day - well, you'll get some absolutely award winning shots out of them, just because of what they show, not because of skill. (",)