km25: What about the sickle? I saw an interview of the Russian who rased the flag. The thing I remember the most was, why did the American and English troop have nice clean uniforms, cartons of cigarets. And the Americans had rolls of money. Did we not also win the war? The peole of Russia leared how they were being taken.
No-one "won" that particular war, just some people lost less.
Horshack: He's not my cup of tea and I can see why others would have a strong negative reaction to him but I do think he's helpful to a large segment of the photo tweener community, ie those moving up from a Smartphone/P&S to their first DSL. He's a bit heavy-handed on the branding and marketing but he does offer a lot of free material on his youtube channel. On balance I'd say he's a net positive for beginning DSLR users.
I've been shooting 60 years longer than you and I'm still a beginner. It's not a badge of honour to have peaked after only 6 years using a camera and trust me in 20 years, if you read this again you will laugh at yourself. If you go out tomorrow and shoot the finest photograph you have ever made, in 10 years time, you will be so embarrassed by it you will refuse to show it.
This is the way it goes, it's the same for everyone. We all go through it and we all think that after a mere 6 years that we can learn no more and that we are no longer a beginner.
We are always wrong.
jacketgiang: This guy reminds me Ken Rockwell, but it seems like Ken Rockwell knows a lot more about photography than this guy.
Ken Rockwell has articles on his site that he has been paid to write, Jared does not take money for his work from the people he is writing about. Either approach works, but Jared asks you to pay for it yourself, Ken subsidises his through his articles. When Jared gives you an opinion, you can trust that opinion is genuine, Ken, you always have to remember that the opinion may be bought and paid for. Ken gives you the article for free because he is selling your time to the people who pay him, Jared asks you to pay for the work he has produced.
Different business models and different folk will have different reasons for wanting one over the other.
2007, then you're at that uncomfortable phase where you don't realise that you very much are still a beginner.
MGJA: So we can all agree that Time's list of "best" picture basically amounts to "pictures most likely to move our rag off the stand". Sad, but we're kinda used to it by now.
What is interesting with many of these snaps is that they are just that - snaps. Ok, some have obviously worked the subjects, light and settings, staging. But a fair few could just as well be snapped with any decent mobile phone. Which goes to show that technical quality means ever less to the news industry, while being there is everything. Expect more campaign for people to send in their mobile snaps and fewer staff photographers in the future.
Sure, but if you're documenting a riot or a war, the snapshot has integrity, the set up in a studio is dishonest journalism.
You can't deny that a key skill of many disciplines of photography is in being in the right place at the right time. Snapshot or no, that photographer was there, with a camera.
Deardorff: Something new? How about an 8x10 digital back that can make B&W negatives for contact printing in a real darkroom?
Enought with the whiz bang toys for fools and lawyers with more money than brains
@Wally - some people really like brown fingers! (I'm one of them)
EDIT: That could so easily be taken the wrong way, I'll leave it just as it is and hope it gives some people a laugh!
CameraLabTester: Mr. Kimio Maki.
You totally forgot to do ONE thing every 6 months.
Run a Worldwide photo contest for pictures using ANY camera and award at least 100 of your latest RX or RY or RZ thingamajeegs to random lucky winners around the World.
You get more interest, goodwill and awareness.
That is quite cheaper than to pay companies to run your articles on their blogs and their websites, where creatures from all over the World get to throw darts at you from the comfort of their food infested keyboards.
So, can we take this as confirmation that Camera Labs are paid industry shills and have no journalistic integrity?
sirok: Sony's moving forward while others are still stuck in the last century with their flapping mirrors. Its a digital future ..The Mirror is gone and the mechanical shutter will go next. Just a matter of time before the processing power is available, affordable.This tech is already used on small compacts.(electronic shutter). And why are these posters jealous that Zeiss has aligned themselves with Sony. Cause Zeiss can see the future too.
Somewhat conversely, a digital viewfinder has improved my photography - please bear with me here!
I agree that are worse and will not outperform optical in the near future - especially if you look at the quality of a rangefinders for example, but a digital viewfinder on my NEX is so bad, it gets my face out of the camera. Sure I focus and frame but I hold the camera to my face for only a second before moving my face away and looking at the scene with my eyes. It has helped my photography immensely by getting me to look at what I am photographing, helped develop my focusing skills - I now use a follow focus that you would usually find on a video camera because I can be so much more precise and accurate with it, I use tripods and monopods way more more to aid with framing.
I would still prefer a good rangefinder and non electronic HUD inside on my NEX though.
Petrogel: Very nice photos !!!!
Do you care about this little girl any less now that you know she is genetically Roma? Do you care if she was stolen or adopted with consent of her birth parents? Do you care about the "poor Roma parents...".
We all know the answer, you do not care about her - and even though she is 6 years old, you are prejudiced against her. You actually changed your opinion of her based solely on her ethnic origins. Doesn't that make you feel low, dirty, scum? It would me, if I was like you. You can't roll out your crime statistics against a 6 year old because she is innocent, barely a child. You can't get weird about skin colour because she has the nazi ideal, blonde hair and blue eyes. She is the ultimate proof of your racism and I hope she grows up to change and educate the world as a result of your hatred towards her and her culture. I hope she grows up to read this, I hope she marries into your family and holds a mirror to your disgusting toilet of a brain so you can see that you are scum.
for all to see now the depth of your racism against Roma.
By the way, why did you write this: "And now these poor Swedish parents..."
These imaginary Swedish parents, because of course the girl was Bulgarian Roma.. Oh yes, thats right - blonde hair and blue eyes are never found in Roma populations are they - don't start getting obsessed with colour again please, you've embarrassed yourself enough to the whole world. She was genetically Roma, so your racism and the racism of people like you have caused uproar in Scandinavia for nothing.
SO let me ask you one more time - do you think the hatred that mongers like you have stirred up against this family, like the ethnic cleansing people like you inflicted on the Roma people 60 years ago is responsible for the disrespect they treat you and your property with? Can you blame them for hating you back? And now for the final question - these are all rhetorical of course....
It really doesn't matter why you are racist, you are racist. You are peculiarly obsessed with skin colour, you have taken the fact that I mentioned the famous skin colour laws present in America and South Africa and applied it to everything. You have a strange obsession with pigmentation. You have admitted to having prejudices against Roma (which makes you racist), you have gone into excruciating detail as to why you have them but all the reasons in the world don't stop you being a racist. Some people hate aborigine native Americans because they say that they get too many concessions and afforded more rights than a settler related American. For further proof that you are racist, there is anothr group exactly as likely to have been involved in crime as Roma, men, yet you do not hold prejudice against them. This is because you are not sexist, at least not against men - who knows how you treat women. That you are racist is a fact and denying it is just you lying to yourself, it is clear
In fact, I don't doubt you would be interested in working out why there are so many men in prison, and I suspect you wouldn't be happy with the explanation "Men are just culturally criminals". So why treat Romani's in this way? Just maybe, you're beginning to realise how unfair racism is, judging people on the actions of another is never fair, no matter how you look at it. By all means, if a Romani family is proven to be a criminal family, make your judgements on that but don't judge people who you know only their ethnic origin based on your prejudices, no matter how justified they are. In civilised society, we consider someone innocent until proven guilty, no if's or buts. If you wish to consider yourself a civilised man, you can't judge a gypsy a criminal just because they are a gypsy. That's racist.
Oh, this must be my lucky day! I've just stumbled across a translation of the prison population of Finland. Now it doesn't detail race which is a shame because I sense that your stats are made up, but it does document gender. The current, up to the minute prison population of Finland is 20 times more males than females. 20 times, the exact number you were talking about above. So, if you not a racist, surely you apply the same standards to gender, right? So, we need to rewrite everything you wrote about Romani's about men - based on your justification of your views, that because there is a 20 times greater likelihood of a Romani ending up in prison, they should be discriminated against. Because if you don't apply those same standards, you are being racist. Which we all know you are, because you are a man and you wouldn't stand for discrimination against yourself based on crimes other people who just so happen to share your gender committed.
"Unfortunately, the casual relationship is exactly the opposite in reality. Romani people are generally hated in Europe BECAUSE they commit a lot of crime "
This is you making up facts again, and neatly sidestepping the point that you hate Romani's whether they commit a crime or not. You hate them based on the fact that they are a Romani. Not based on what crimes they have committed. That is why you are a racist. You could have a Finnish murderer living next door to you one one side and a law abiding Romani man living the other side and you would want to get rid of the Romani man. Why, because you assume the Finnish man is unlikely to have been involved in crime and you assume based on race that the Romani man is involved in crime. So again, you sir, are a racist. Your opinions are vile and you are the problem. If your figures about the number of Europeans is accurate, though you do make facts up, then Europe needs to adjust it's education system because it is failing.
What I actually said, and allow me to quote myself here:
"I posed the question, which is different to stating a fact, that maybe populations who have a high prison incidence are not in fact inherently criminals, but perhaps the treatment of their race over hundreds of years is responsible for their current attitudes to the law. This has been the subject of many studies, mostly black Americans that all conclude that people who are marginalised over many generations are more likely to turn to crime. Which makes more sense than the opposing point of view which is that gypsies are genetic predisposed to crime."
Which I raised as a discussion point, a discussion you are obviously so uncomfortable with you are wriggling and writhing because it questions your arrogant beliefs. And you are arrogant, because one post after telling you my ethnicity, you decided to "educate" me on my background, which was completely untrue. I'm calling it now, you're a racist too, and with that, I am done. srly
Tribe, singular. One tribe of less than 100 people crossed from Africa and every single last one of us who populated the rest of the world is related to them. So where do you draw the line at where a race is created, because you seem to think that hundreds of generations on a different continent living a different lifestyle speaking a different language does not make a new race, yet you seemed pretty certain that Pakistani's are ethnically different to Indians, despite only being separated by politics. Were east Germans a different race to west Germans? No. Are European Romani gypsies a different race to Indians, yes.
And what is your deal with skin colour, this is not the first time you've brought it up in a completely meaningless way. You do understand that your Caucasian skin is a random mutation, your ancestors were black, right?
Oh, and please don't misquote me, I didn't say they needed to commit crime because of hardship, that's your make believe of what I said.
Wel, then there is no racism because if you go far enough back, we're all related to the 100 strong tribe which left Africa. This is why I called you stupid.
You are arguing linguistics in an attempt to distract from the fact that you dislike someone as a result of their identity. You discriminate against someone who identifies as a gypsy, because they identify as a gypsy. Justify it all you like, you are still treating some people unfairly as a result of their birth and that makes you the problem.
To the fine webmasters at DPReview. May I please request a block button for the comments. There has been some foul disgusting racist views expressed below and I would really rather never have to read anything these people will ever write again. I'm sure they would love to block me and my opinion that people shouldn't be discriminated against, it would seem that everyone would win.
Rominis are a distinct cultural group completely separate to Indians, come on - you just told me that Pakistani's were separate to Indians because the English drew a line on a map! Now you insist they are the same despite living on dofferent continents for many generations leading completely different lifestyles and speaking different languages.
I believe I wrote the opposite regarding skin colour, go read what I read again, when I first referred to it I was talking about the infamous segregation laws for "blacks". Reread what I wrote. Now I really am gone