 |
Alec
Lives in
New York City , NY, United States
Works as a
Photographer / imaging artist
Has a website at
http://karasevstudio.com/
Joined on
Oct 24, 2000
About me:
View
|
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
Vlad Didenko: It is interesting that Judge took a formal, not social angle of the issue. Formally, yes, the photographer is right and the collector is wrong. However, in the photography world is munch more contract-minded, than the world of art. I have not seen any art dealer to go into a contractual detail - nor contracts are signed - at the time of a limited print purchase. It just does not happen as a norm. So yes, the limited print (or otherwise copy) market operates on a loose and informal expectation. And the judge clearly de-prioritised that.
The implicit public contract of an artist when selling a limited edition is not that of the number of copies. It is impossible to evaluate in a modern world (see comment). The artist's implication is that "I will not do things to devalue what I am selling". That's what in the words "limited print". And by producing a larger modern and more desired copy and asserting his right to keep doing so the author makes every collector question that integrity.
Well put, Vlad. Had Eggleston communicated the intent to make further (larger) prints of the same image in the future, his prior "limited" edition would not be so "limited", and as such would probably be valued less at the time.
What this ruling did was communicate, on ALL photographers' behalf, the possible intent to make further copies of their self-proclaimed limited editions, which (enacted or not) inevitably puts price pressure on what they are trying to sell today. As if up and coming photographers need more price pressure.
This ruling, in my book, is unfair and damaging in that, while it can be argued either way, it sides with the 0.01% elite at everyone else's expense.
hugh crawford: What use is 4K at 25fps ? Just curious.
As far as I know there is no display standard for 4K 25fps and 4K is a ciniema production standard for movie theaters
It's not like they have a 4K at 30fps option either.
@ J Birn, I think Hugh means what's the point of 25fps specifically - there's a standard for 4K at 24fps but to me it seems he questions the added value of 25fps. There's a legacy affinity in Europe for 25fps being half of 50Hz (their local refresh rate), but their tech has long been capable of displaying 24fps correctly,
Astrozoid: DPReview says that " it decreases the focal length and increases the aperture."
This is incorrect and physically impossible.
The focal length is decreased which makes the focal ratio faster.
The aperture stays exactly the same.
These types of telecompressors have been around for years in astronomy with telescopes.
They were never made for camera lenses before because the physical distance between the lens and sensor has to be less with a telecompressor and you couldn't do this with a normal camera lens.
The reduced register distance on the mirrorless cameras now make use of a telecompressor possible with normal DSLR lenses.
The telecompressor may make the focal length shorter and the focal ratio faster, but I don't know about improving the optical performance. With a telescope the telecompressor usually has to be designed to match the specific optical design of the scope or lens for best performance. I doubt it's going to work great on fast lenses.
Jerry
http://www.astropix.com
In terms of improving the optical performance, their point is they project the lens's full frame imaging circle onto the smaller APS-C one.
So of course the glass in the telecompressor itself reduces the optical signal quality from input to output, but supposedly it is more than compensated for by the greater optical signal on the input side. In crude terms.
Kind of like projecting a large negative onto a wallet print vs. contact-printing a small 1:1 section of it. In some cases the reduced print, even having gone through an optical path, would be sharper than contact print due to the reduction.
mpgxsvcd: Why don't they just make these "Fast" lenses native in the new formats? Panasonic has a 42.5mm F1.2 with IS coming out sometime. They should start making more lenses and not making expensive components that make old lenses somewhat better.
"They" need to see the return on their investment. How much of your own investment money and job standing would you bet that a native 59mm f/0.9 lens on a Sony NEX will sell in great numbers?
These lenses were already made for pro DSLRs i.e. nobody needs to take those risks again, and the adapter makes them available. They will NOT be made specifically for NEX and its enthusiast following.
An open, extensible OS on a camera is a gimmick, and a crappy one at that. Real photographers don't need it.
Video on a camera is a gimmick, and a crappy one at that. Real photographers don't need it.
LiveView on a camera is a gimmick, and a crappy one at that. Real photographers don't need it.
Built-in flash on a pro camera is a gimmick, and a crappy one at that. Real photographers don't need it.
Digital capture on a camera is a gimmick, and a crappy one at that. Real photographers don't need it.
Autofocus on a camera is a gimmick, and a crappy one at that. Real photographers don't need it.
Autoexposure is a gimmick, and a crappy one at that. Real photographers don't need it.
Color film is a gimmick, and a crappy one at that. Real photographers don't need it.
Roll film/compact cam is a gimmick, and a crappy one at that. Real photographers don't need it.
Factory-coated dry glass plates (vs. wet plates) are a gimmick, and a crappy one at that. Real photographers don't need it.
I'd love to have seen clean (uncompressed, 14-16 bit color) HDMI output enabled on NEX-7 to facilitate video recording on my Atomos Ninja II.
I have been a Minolta / SONY user for a long time, now operate a pair of A900s, but had to get a Nikon D800 and 3 lenses just for the video.
GeorgeZ: Given that most PCs are still overwhelmed when they need to edit Full HD and that no TV and very few computer screens can display more than Full HD one has to wonder if 4K is what the industry should be pushing right now.
Considering how long it took for TV stations to go HD (it's expensive!) I guess it'll take at least another 10 years before any major station goes 4K.
Google 4K TV - they're out now. Projectors also. Expensive, yes, but this isn't about what consumer 4K display devices cost at this moment - this is about enabling creation of content of lasting technological relevance. Content creation has to lead display technology.
W5JCK: The camera doesn't matter as much as the lens. In the case of a thin iPhone the lens will always be little more than a toy. I don't care how much you love Apple or Android, the camera phones are not good enough to even rate a mention on this website, much less an article.
I normally shoot Sony A900 with premium lenses; however I find that my iPhone 4GS's camera is adequate for a lot of personal daytime uses. Certainly only a few years ago there were point and shoot digital cameras that did not provide the end result as good as the current iPhone camera. It is important to keep the lens clean - the smaller the sensor the more important that is, but I don't find that especially difficult.
Bearsdenoboe: Love those soft Sony lenses!
Yeah Zeiss especially
This is an outstanding camera to own and never take pictures with because it takes up much less space than other cameras in this price range to own and never take pictures with.
Who wants to open a debate about the merits and demerits of killing off the iISO flash shoe?
mpgxsvcd: Everyone will claim that Sony will dominate the market after today. Then others will claim that Nikon will dominate after tomorrow. Then others will claim Panasonic and Olympus(m4/3s) will dominate after Monday.
The truth is that this next week will absolutely change the camera market forever. However, all 4 of those companies will probably keep similar market shares to what they had before. The difference will be that the consumers now have 4 very complete solutions from these different companies. Each option has it strengths and weaknesses but all of them can produce wonderful pictures and videos in capable hands.
Great point. More poignantly none of them will provide compelling pictures or videos in incapable hands or if kept idle.
kodachromeguy: Very nice. I wish someone would make a shift lens specifically for micro 4/3 format in about 14 or 15 mm focal length (= 28 or 30 mm in 35mm equivalent). I think there would be a good size market for it.
Not sure why architecture professionals would choose to work in micro format and why amateurs would choose an expensive optical adjustment over doing it digitally, so who would buy it?
These remind me of Minolta 700si's Creative Expansion cards. To these days I have my 700si and a special little wallet to hold the cards. Just like SONY apps these cards added pretty unique features not otherwise easily found on any camera. But the cards were poorly received by the public.
I feel SONY would do better if it made a NEX that runs or fully emulates Android so the apps can use Android camera API. This is NOT about Android itself at all - this is about gaining access to a whole ecosystem of app developers and tools that would give SONY camera apps the instant momentum that it could never hope to match on its own with a proprietary system.
what does this case actually accomplish, other than a de-facto "I am not in it for the actual photography" statement ?
ryansholl: Of all the news to place on the homepage of Digital Photography Review, what is chosen is about a photo taken on film.
I remember only a few years ago, at the dawn of digital photography, how the pundits carrying the first DSLRs were talking about "film equivalence" of 2...6 megapixel cameras.
How ironic is it that we have the film image chosen to show off the amazing sharpness of the retina display.
jon404: Next -- robot cameras with 'decisive moment' AI software!
Why not? Your point 'n shoot will already take a picture when it 'sees' a cat or dog... and can process a pile of snaps to come up with the 'best portrait.'
Brave new world! Sort of.
Already is happening - case in point Sony IPT-DS1 Party-shot
You can see some vids of it in action such as
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfbzQB-yGhs&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZXgFhPWacU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4t9RNQvbEmU&feature=related
I think they discontinued it but the writing is on the wall. The type of photography where a photographer just takes a bunch of grab shots and then picks 5-10% best ones that "came out nice" can be replaced by a robot. It will be kind of like AE and AF - yes "we" can do better with manual control of them but not all of us all the time. If you pull together a fashion shoot and drive the artistic direction, that's one thing. If you just grab shots, you may find yourself replaced by a gizmo, which with each generation gets better and eventually becomes good enough for most viewers in most situations.
Dvlee: I've done alot of aerial photography from a helicopter and I've used a remote controled model helicopter. Actually going up in the helipcopter is way more fun than using the RC platform.
Making great pictures is only part of the reason I got into photography...the other is that the act of taking photographs is so much fun.
The willingness and ability to be in he right place at the right time is one of the reasons we are hired as photographers. But now they are going to hire a technician to mount the camera and the photographer does not even have to be on the scene to take the shot...he could be locked away in a mobile vehicle far away from the location like the TV crews.
That takes all the fun out of it.
It is up to the consumer to want / demand more art. In any commercial medium, art for art's sake won't live indefinitely if the buyer does not care.
bikinchris: I am in Vegas right now and I got to look at the Celine Dion book they sell at the concerts venue. The shots in that book for $30 mostly suck. They can't be using the best photographers. Maybe no on ehwo is real good wants to work and give away rights?
Exactly right. If enough Celine Dion fans will look at the book and say "the photos are garbage - I am not buying it", such voting with dollars (demand-side) is what would make her look into better photography and what it takes to get it. Unlike any photographer pact or boycott attempt (supply side).
DenWil: With the potential that junk images would detract from and diminish the band's brand not to mention impacting their own revenue streams, it makes since to control the supply and general output. The photographers are trading access and a credential for the images. Anyone with a deep portfolio and regularly being hired will likely take a pass- unless they just want to shoot the gig.
I''d bet if a brand name shooter such as a Leibovitz or a Weber was shooting for Vanity Fair, Rolling Stone, or Interview they will not be signing similar agreements.
Case in point: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-annieleibovitz-pg,0,5912583.photogallery
Leibovitz magazine covers are original creative concepts of her design, with deliberate posing and many other elements going in before the shutter ever clicks. That is very different from clicking the shutter at the show the band has created.
This whole thing is a matter of an equilibrium between supply and demand of skill. If fans/customers/band itself do not readily see or care about the quality difference (technical and artistic) that a working pro vs. a willing amateur can deliver, by definition that difference's market value is $0.
Album or magazine covers where the photographer comes up with a creative concept and executes it (mood, props, lighting, environment, logistics, directing the talent, everything) that is one thing - I could see the bands/celebs/agencies ponying up real coin for that. But if you shoot a show THEY created in its entirety, next to a bunch of other people doing the same thing, they look at you like you're trying to sell them sand while standing in the middle of a desert.
It's not cool that they try to grab the rights. On the other hand if you find yourself in a role only slightly more creatively proactive than Sony IPT-DS1, it is fair to say most of the creativity belongs to the band.