garyknrd: What a bunch of nonsense.
Lack of comprehension is not the same as nonsense.
Dr_Jon: It would be nice if they (or someone) mentioned some details on the coatings for anti-reflection, which IMHO are perhaps the most important thing of all (others being in the "nice to have" category).
I think they did: "The water repellent coating reflects only 0.24 percent of visible light, thereby minimizing flare and ghosting."
CameraLabTester: Impressive output for a 9.5 year old imaging device.
Steve Wilson: The value of this image, and the camera, seem greatly diminished when you know it was a staged shot that occurred days after the actual event.
@hiro_pro: Rosenthal's photo was of the second flag-raising on Mt. Suribachi, but it definitely was NOT staged. Why a second flag was required, who provided it, and who actually raised it is a story filled with confusion and contradictions, according to the summary found in Wikipedia.
babalu: Re the dog behind the counter photo : a rarely lucky snapshotI'd say. The paw on the notebook, ready to note down yourorders, the ears pointed at attention, and the slight tilting of the head to one side are classic, and "humanize" this friendly dog to a high degree . A great caricature of your standard utility-shop clerk, if it were not so crowded with goods on display that distract the attention from the main subject. Maybe a slight crop would have been better ?
On the other hand, the clutter of all the hardware and paperwork makes the discovery of the dog within all this busy-ness a nice surprise.
TomJD: ".....with an unusual conceit at its core."
I guess I will have to read the book to decide if the core is really conceit or a misspelled concept. ;)
I had not considered another definition of conceit other than vain pride or hubris, but Tan68's reply encouraged me to recheck the definition. Other definitions of the word might indeed describe this book, so I stand corrected (although I still think "concept" is a better choice).
".....with an unusual conceit at its core."
Mark Roberts: Sure, you can do art with crayons too.... does that mean it's to be considered in the same category as oil painting?
Well...yes, it does. Similar arguments have been made about whether photography should be considered as art the way painting is. Or if so, whether digital prints (inkjet, thermal, etc.) could be considered in the same category as silver halide. The question about art isn't whether it was done in a certain way or with a certain media, but the object it creates and the impact this has on the observer. Not all art is successful, however.... perhaps that's the question that should be asked in evaluating Mr. Grey's work, rather than how he did it.