December 28, 2011 2:00 PM EST

The romantic notion is that photojournalists bear unique witness to the events of the world as they unfold around them. In reality, due to circumstance, comfort and organizational requirements, photographers often find themselves in the company of fellow photojournalists, working side by side, when covering the news.

Camaraderie builds between photographers, particularly those working in the war zone. They travel together, discuss their work and often become close friends. They have a mutual respect and share a common bond: their experience of the discomforts and dangers that such work entails.

Photojournalists have always worked in close proximity on foreign assignments and most notably when covering conflict in which they face the dangers this work brings. Robert Capa, Gerda Taro and Chim (David Seymour) famously did so when making their photographs of the Spanish Civil War, including the Mexican Suitcase negatives. In fact, a number of these photographs—that had actually been shot by Taro—were for decades wrongly attributed to Capa.

In 1971, Larry Burrows was killed alongside fellow photojournalists Henri Huet, Kent Potter and Keisaburo Shimamoto—while photographing the Vietnam war—when their helicopter was shot down over Laos.

Cook is taking the book seriously enough that he was moved to give CNBC a statement dismissing it as "nonsense." (Apple bristling at an unflattering book, incidentally, isn't new or un-Jobslike. In 2005, it reacted to John Wiley & Sons' plans to publish a stinging biography of Steve Jobs by pulling all of the publisher's tomes from its stores, thereby giving the bio a priceless jolt of free publicity. This time around, it doesn't seem to be conducting a similar boycott: You can buy Haunted Empire itself from Apple's own iBooks store.) Of course, there's no scenario in which Apple would shower praise on a sharply critical book about it. But when Cook says that Haunted Empire "fails to capture Apple, Steve, or anyone else in the company," he happens to right. In an author's note, Kane says that Haunted Empire is based on five years' worth of reporting on Apple (including her time at The Wall Street Journal) and more than 200 interviews. To be sure, there are moments when the breadth and depth of her research pay off richly. Some tidbits are new -- at least to me -- such as the details of Steve Jobs' unhappiness with New York Times columnist Joe Nocera over the latter's commentary on Jobs' health. The best, most vividly-reported extended sections are the chapters on Apple's Taiwanese contract manufacturer, Foxconn; maybe Kane should have written a book entirely on that topic. But the closer that she gets to the book's conceptual nub -- that Tim Cook's Apple has created one disaster after another for itself -- the shallower the story gets. That's not entirely Kane's fault: Any writer trying to tell Apple's inside story is automatically hobbled by the fact that Apple grants few on-the-record interviews, and usually not in situations which require it to deal with unhappy subjects head-on. Still, there are plenty of instances in which I was hoping for more insight on an Apple mishap -- such as its brief, inexplicable decision to entrust the Apple Stores to John Browett, the CEO of a famously cheesy chain of British electronics stores -- and didn't get much that hadn't already been widely covered elsewhere. Kane doesn't dismiss all evidence of Apple post-Jobs successes: There's mention of popular products and successful quarters. But she doesn't find space to acknowledge the biggest triumphs. When Apple's market capitalization passed Exxon's in August 2011, she gives it a paragraph but doesn't explain that this victory made Apple not just more valuable than Exxon, but the most valuable company in the world, period. Nor did I find mention of the fact that Apple has continued to collect the vast majority of the smartphone industry's profits even as its market share has shrunk -- a data point which would tend to suggest that Apple has outfoxed the competition rather than being trounced by it. Again and again, Kane paints a picture in which there's no such thing as news which doesn't indicate that Apple is in trouble. In Haunted Empire, as Macworld's Jason Snell points out, it's alarming when the cheap iPhone 4s holds its own in sales against the pricier iPhone 5 -- and when consumers opt to buy the top-of-the-line iPhone 5s rather than the lower-cost iPhone 5c. As for Tim Cook, when he shows little emotion in meetings and puts the screws to his employees and suppliers, it's not a good sign. When team members have enough time to take vacations and he thoughtfully avoids intruding upon them...well, that, too, is a bad sign. During an account of Jobs's 2010 WWDC keynote, during which his demo of the iPhone 4 went awry and he asked attendees to get off the Wi-Fi network, Kane asserts that "(m)ost of the audience thought he was joking, even though Jobs' tone was serious." Why she believes she's qualified to judge the majority opinion, I'm not sure. (For the record, I was in the crowd that day, and didn't think for a nanosecond that Jobs was just kidding around.) That Kane devotes considerable space to a Steve Jobs demo running off the rails wrong points to a basic problem with her thesis. In the Jobs era, things went wrong constantly. Products disappointed. Customers got unhappy. The stock market responded to Apple keynotes by selling Apple stock. All the stuff which happens today to Cook's Apple happened to Jobs's Apple. And while it's true that Jobs' communications skills and personal charisma sometimes helped to paper over problems, anyone who thinks that the company wasn't subject to constant criticism in those days is haunted by a romantic ideal of an Apple which never actually existed. (Kane trashes

This March, photographers Lynsey Addario and Tyler Hicks were two of four New York Times journalists kidnapped, beaten and held captive for six days by pro-Gaddafi forces while working in the Libyan city of Ajdabiya.

When photographers Tim Hetherington and Chris Hondros were tragically killed, and fellow photographer Guy Martin seriously injured—on April 20 this year— in Libya, they were working side by side covering the rebel fight for Mistrata.

Although both Hetherington and Martin made many distinctive photographs in Libya, there were occasions when they found themselves in the same place at the same time and drawn to taking the same picture. A few months earlier, both Hetherington and Martin had taken a similar, quite and solemn image as each other—of a dead rebel fighter. This image, as with many others shot in duplicate, is more akin to a forensic or still life study—like the aftermath of flooding or bullet holes in a wall.

In the war-zone, or amid protests and riots, there is often less time for contemplation. Images are captured in a fleeting moment—whether it’s a rocket being fired, a barking dog or a jet of pepper spray—and these photographs show that the photographers who took them were not alone.

In many cases today, photographers working in such close proximity are doing so to satisfy the insatiable appetite of the news cycle. Due to deadlines, images are filed almost immediately after they are shot. This, and the fact that photographers are often working for competing news agencies, makes it impossible for them to share their images or avoid duplication. When international journalists were put up at the five-star Rixos hotel in central Tripoli by Gaddafi’s government earlier this year, the situation resulted in guided tours that left little opportunity to make anything but similar images to each other.

From the Libyan war to the Bangkok floods, LightBox shares a small selection of photographs by some of the most accomplished photojournalists working today. Colleagues who, on occasion, over the past 12 months have found themselves in the same place, at the same time, shooting in stereo.

Contact us at letters@time.com.

EDIT POST