Great, this was big in the early 80s.
A few global blending layers of PS grain, noise etc. should wipe any detectable differences in noise profiles out if done properly. Obviously with some cost, but hardly for web usage.
Great news, very interesting camera. Can not wait to see results.
PS: Canon needs to outfit all future dSLR's with swivel screens.
Not impressed with any kind of software blur I have seen so far. Come on programmers, you can do better than that!
snackwells: Wow...the JPG loss of fine detail is frighteningly stark compared to the RAW conversions (see the forest/tree scenes). This is a strictly RAW only camera...at least coupled with the 24-105.
@sdyue "RAW is only useful if one struggles with exposures or ISO sensitivity selection by shooting the old TTL method and badly needs pp"
A remarkably uninformed statement. I´d recommend you pick up some literature on the subject or talk to a real photographer.
Good decision. I for one will never use Gravatar. On to upload an avatar.
R Valentino: Nice camera, pretty decent IQ for an APS, but I still don't get the point of these types of cameras.
Teeny, tiny camera, GREAT big lens means it's still going to be hanging from your neck. Once you mount a decent lens on the Nex7 for all practical purposes it's the same size as the A900.
Seriously does half a pound really make that much difference? Sony's own A77 is still a much better all around camera and not much bigger.
If it can't fit in a jacket or cargo pants/shorts pockets you might as well use a real camera :-)
Exactly. Thanks for underscoring this.
alienchow: Love all the "i hate retouching" and "In my county, women don't wear makeup" comments. Now that you can show your comment to your girlfriend, wife, significant other, friends, etc. so they can see what a sensitive, politically correct, western zen person you are, let's get back to reality.
If you want to be a professional portrait/beauty/fashion photographer, you will be doing this to some extent, or you won't be making money.
Please realize that by choosing what lighting, focal length, f-stop,background, etc you will be using, you have already retouched the person. Do you take portraits of someone when they roll out of bed in the morning? That is about as natural as they can get. Photoshop is just another tool. You either learn how to use it, or you are behind in the game.. Just learn some discretion, as mentioned in the article.
"...let's get back to reality." Funny stuff ;)
Made a living as a portrait photographer doing my "retouching" with lights, film selection, dark room work and optics alone. Yeah I know I am old (37), it was before Photoshop became widely adopted.
That said, I think you are confusing a lot of different things here. For some people a beauty shot does not include a plastic look. There is quite some distance between a face full of morning and acne to the polished ceramic look that has become the standard today, I would say. Surely it has become a necessity to achieve this, for editorial work today. Thankfully not all magazines find it pleasing to eradicate every last bit of personality from peoples skin.
I just find it funny that photographers do not feel the least bit responsible for perpetuating this impossible and unattainable look. And I do know that photography is essentially manipulation. What I don´t like is the current visual discourse and its effect on young people.
I like the way she looks with "blemishes".
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review