InTheMist: Wow, how do you make a LIVE wildlife course? When I shoot wildlife, it's 90% stalking around searching for subjects. And three DAYS!?
"it's 90% stalking around searching for subjects"
The reason they can do that workshop is that your statement is wrong. 40% is planning and preparation, probably 30-40% is post processing and image management, and maybe 10% is stalking around searching for subjects. As opposed to other types of photography, where maybe planning is only 30-40%, and actual shooting time only 1-2%.
If you don't spend a high percentage on planning, training, and preparation, your stalking time will be unproductive.
dbaechli: Nooooo Android ,-( Yet ,-)
Now I have to download and try it on my iPad and walk around blockheadstile..
I have high hopes, though, that it will be a huge success and come to other OSs soon. Well, maybe not to Windows Phone....
What Instagram has said in other published articles is that they intend to do an Android version, but "soon" has a big dependency: First Android must provide the necessary low-level API access to gyroscope and camera data, which apparently Android can't do now. If that's true, understand that no matter how hard Instagram works on an Android version, the date of "soon" can move no closer until Android adds what iOS already has.
luben solev: Lars, does the app have to speed up the motion?
You mention speeding it up up to 12 times. But what if you want to keep the motion at 1x speed, but just smooth it out. Could it do that, or is the speeding up essential to the smoothing process?
I'm asking as if the app does not have to speed up the footage, this could end the need for steadycam use. Then one could keep the audio that goes with the video.
I'd check it myself, but I'm an Android man, so no access to the app as yet.
I have the app. The slowest playback speed is 1x, or real time. I shook it around a bit during capture and it clearly tries to compensate even at 1x.
Just another Canon shooter: Light polution causes serious problems! Really?
The sad thought that people don't believe in light pollution problems and are joking about them here reminded me of something I read recently. There's a big scenic rock on the Oregon Coast that's a tourist attraction for the town of Cannon Beacn. When the highway went in, the town was concerned people wouldn't stop anymore so they installed bright lights on the huge rock so people could see it from the highway at night. What could go wrong, right? Well, turns out the rock is a major nesting habitat for migrating seabirds. The bright lights completely confused and alarmed the birds because they couldn't find their nests. Big deal, right?
The confused birds, who couldn't find their way back to their nests in all the glare, fled to the seacoast. Which is where the town is. The people woke up next morning to a town absolutely buried in bird crap. And it kept happening, every day, until the town took down the lights.
Light pollution does cause serious problems. The issue is not new.
From Wikipedia, "Medical research on the effects of excessive light on the human body suggests that a variety of adverse health effects may be caused by light pollution or excessive light exposure...may include: increased headache incidence, worker fatigue, medically defined stress, decrease in sexual function and increase in anxiety...
"Light pollution poses a serious threat in particular to nocturnal wildlife, having negative impacts on plant and animal physiology. It can confuse animal navigation, alter competitive interactions, change predator-prey relations…deleterious impacts on animals and ecosystems because of perturbation of polarized light or artificial polarisation of light (even during the day, because direction of natural polarization of sun light and its reflexion is a source of information for a lot of animals)…Lights on tall structures can disorient migrating birds…" (who are known to use the stars)
StevenMajor: Sounds like BS to me. A weak attempt to generate interest in the space program. Nobody cares about the space program (nor should they) because we are consumed (and should be) with the crap here on Earth. I refer to the lack of healthy foods, pollution of air and water, global warming, wars, government corruption, public beheadings...you know, the every day stuff. Your thinking the answers to our problems are in outer space? Wake up.
A staggering amount of useful data has been gathered by our orbiting satellites which has shed new light on what you said was "the lack of healthy foods, pollution of air and water, global warming, wars...." Much of this "big picture" data about climate, weather patterns, deforestation, agriculture, atmospheric quality, water use, etc is not easily observable on Earth, but is obvious to see when you get up far enough into space.
Whether you realize it or not, you are arguing that we should not be using one of the most powerful tools for solving the very problems you were so concerned about.
zettlers: Any camera out there actually worth buying?
If you are a good photographer, the answer is that most of the cameras reviewed are worth buying.
For those who are perhaps more concerned about specs and theory than the art of photography, then maybe not a lot of these are worth buying because they won't rate highly enough on a chart.
PeterPaul: There's no doubt the D810 is a good camera but I agree withTom G. You could get the same results with a point & shoot. Dpreview is obviously lacking for a real test of an over $3k camera but then again the target audience is guys that own pro gear and shoot birds on a bird feeder or endless test shots.
I'm looking at photograph #7 taken at 1/800 sec at ISO 12,800 with autofocus that tracked a subject traveling 60kph in light that low.
Which point-and-shoot were you saying could have taken that picture?
Leandros S: What's a first-person video? Or, for that matter, a second-person or third-person video?
I don't know about you Leandros, but the concepts of first person, second person, and third person were all taught to us in elementary school language class.
What's so great about this article is that he goes into detail about what he faced for each shot. That puts his decisions into context and makes it easier -- a lot easier -- to dismiss those who comment that he "should have just ___". Now we know that he couldn't have, because he was in a very restricted position, or had very low light, or could not get any closer, or the subjects were moving too quickly...
Too many commenters, especially on DPReview, judge others' decisions without taking into account that the writer's photography conditions are substantially different than theirs.
xpanded: Sigma DP1 MerrillSigma DP2 MerrillSigma DP3 MerrillSigma SD1 MerrillSigma DP2 Quattro
Now that is strange. Why have they omitted them?!
There is probably some legitimate issue that keeps those cameras from being slam dunks. While some of those cameras are on Adobe's list, some of them are not supported by either Apple or Adobe. That should tell you something.
joeybob: Did Ian shoot that with a D800 or a 5DMKIII ?
Huh? What? - Film?
What the heck is that?!?
Film has dynamic range, but not where it counts. Digital has the dynamic range advantage in the shadows and low light. ISO 6400 film was never good enough for wide usage, but now everybody has that setting on their digital camera and it looks fine.
W5JCK: I guess the GoPro is good at what it does, and what it was designed to do. But how many people really need to strap a camera to their body and take action shots and video? And how many TV shows need to attach a camera to a vehicle for action shots and videos? The GoPro is for a niche market that really isn't that large. The guys at Mythbusters probably represent a large part of the GoPro market. You and I, average Joe or Jane Public, not so much. We don't need or want a limited, one trick pony of a camera.
I do not own a GoPro and have not come up with a need for one, so on the surface I should agree with you...
But, to call the GoPro a "one-trick pony" is to judge it too soon. While its obvious use is as a body action cam, with a little more thoughtfulness the GoPro can do a lot of jobs you wouldn't want to subject your expensive, fragile DSLR to. It can be easily mounted on drones, it is great for time lapses, it is great for alternate points of view, it is great for all kinds of remote trigger uses like wildlife monitoring or scientific observation out in the elements, and more.
The more I have thought about the GoPro the more uses I can think of. I don't think lack of financial performance is a reason to judge GoPro negatively. There are all kinds of camera companies making very good traditional equipment who have also gone away in recent years, they failed financially, but not because they were niche players.
phototransformations: Anyone know a direct download link to ACR 8.6? My Photoshop machine is not connected to the Internet. Thanks!
I don't remember seeing it in all the previous releases. They may have started doing it as a result of all the "Where can I get an installer?" posts every time. :)
It was on the official Lightroom/Camera Raw blog that I visit whenever there is an update. I got the link from the bottom of this blog post:http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2014/07/camera-raw-8-6-and-dng-converter-8-6-now-available.html
Sonyshine: Fascinating - its amazing to think this aircraft and Concorde are products of the sixties - love that analogue cockpit!
1969 was also the year that men landed on the moon. It was a time when not even the sky was a limit. (Later on, we would find that there were limits after all, due to Vietnam war debt, concerns about noise and pollution, and the OPEC oil embargo.)
jaykumarr: I am not able to see this live video.. will it be of great quality when i try after payment?
When you buy one of their classes, it is available as an HD stream or a download of video files. The HD stream will look good if you have a good connection, but if your Internet connection is not good for streaming, you can download the files themselves and play them locally or on other devices.
I thought the class was pretty good but not sure if it was worth the $49 (I watched for free). The second half was mostly student critique and then replays of old Art Wolfe TV episodes.
The first half was a pretty good and rather inspirational tour of Art's bodies of work and way of seeing. But if you are looking for a serious nature workshop with step by step photo geek technicalities, this is not it.
There sure are a lot of posts making fun of this as if we were talking in 1900 about the ridiculous disadvantages of automobiles compared to horses.
If you abstract this out and move it 10 years into the future, when drones are significantly cheaper, quieter, and safer, with much longer battery life, why wouldn't you use this? You gleefully use automatically synced multiple flash systems, letting a computer coordinate the flash exposures. It is a major point the Nikonists used to flog to try and prove they were better than Canon, before Canon improved their automation. Why not automate the lighting positions too? Who wouldn't want to plan a shooting day where you program the setups your lights will automatically move into for each shot?
There's nothing wrong with the concept itself. If someone created this as automated motorized wheeled light stands where you could program their heights and positions over time with an app, half the people on the thread would buy that right away.
marc petzold: At first, it sounds nice, but after thinking a second about it...i'd say, the use into a studio is limited...the model could be distracted by the flying drone....the noise...then there we have the limited flight time (usually 8 to 15 mins), then there is the limited weight the drone could lift, and depending how powerful the flashlight/strobe is...well, it sounds yet as a toy project, but is research at the world-famous MIT...so perhaps in a couple years it might become reality...
The noise? In some studios any drone noise would be drowned out by the huge fans used to blow the model's hair around.