Well, it's obvious some of the comments posted here are not only made by people who are not working music photographers, but not working photographers at all. The return a photographer gets of a given use of a photo is usually a fraction of what the record label saves with their unlimited use provisions. If you know the industry, you know that labels do all they can to screw their own artists out of money. The greed factor trickles down hill and is often disguised as Intellectual Property Rights.
I've dealt first hand with musicians who loudly protest the idea of of not receiving fair compensation for performances or distribution of recordings then tell me with a smile that they want to use my photos "for credit". I smile back and point out that I am every bit the professional they are. Sometimes we then agree on a usage fee. Other times they resort to using crappy smartphone photos taken by people who are thrilled to get their names on the artist's website.
Many times an artist would like to use my photos, but his/her contract requires approval by his/her label's publicity department. Dealing with those people, who are the ones who come up with the crappy photo contracts, is like undergoing dental work without anesthesia, unless you are already on their approved list.
So please, if you aren't an actual music photographer, consider that your comments don't have much weight in this discussion.
starwolfy: Amazing...but my 27 inch monitor is not large enough to display my 10mp Leica M8 files at 100% And I don't even talk about reviewing a picture in vertical mode...which is ridiculously small even on 27 inches. Don't you think this resolution war is a bit overdone ?
Amazing...apparently unaware of all the ways photos are displayed aside from personal use monitors, some of which require the highest resolution possible. ;-)
A magnetic closure in close proximity to where someone might store memory cards? Hmmmm.
Confused the on/off indicator with the mode select indicator. Really? They're on opposite sides of the dial and look entirely different.
Then making it sound like the articulating screen is a bit of a bother.
It's almost like the reviewer had to come up with some little niggles just to avoid being accused of being some sort of fanboy. ;-)
Not everyone wants an EVF. In fact, I know people who "cut their photography teeth" on P&S or phones who don't like using an EVF. Some of them have bought DSLRs, based on recommendations by "experts", and complain about how difficult they are to use with LV. (they don't like using the OVF) Sure, that's them being impractical, but the "experts" never stopped to think that someone who spent 5 years taking photos with a phone and/or a P&S might find it unnatural to hold a camera at eye level.
Some of them have also bought various bridge cameras and MILCs, and even when the model they have has an EVF, they use the LCD, as they are used to taking photos that way.
This is why the reviewer refers to the difficulty of balancing a camera like this between the "stepping up from a phone" crowd and more experienced users.
FB already has the controversial terms in their policy for IP content. Their IP policy says: "You grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This is almost the exact same verbiage that got Instagram into trouble with users.
I love the sense of contrast between the ornately hand painted egg and the cheap candy wrappers.
Correction to the info: the bounce flash was on-camera in TTL mode.
Nice photo,good work on the composite which, I must say, goes way beyond the "Basic PP" rule. ;-)
Why mention a camera like this as a replacement for a FF dslr, much less any dslr? Why do some people not seem to get it that not every mirrorless camera is supposed to be a dslr replacement? To me it's an amusing (and sometimes annoying) aspect of the dslr/mirrorless "debate" that people keep saying "mirrorless can't do what my dslr can do..."
There are those of us who appreciate the "old school", 35mm rangefinder approach to photography. I would suggest people don't look a the X-Pro1 as a replacement for a dslr any more than people looked at the Leica M4 as a 35mm slr replacement during the film era.
The same goes for zooms. I'm sure they will come, but it's obvious Fuji is not trying to beat the competition "mano a mano" but rather is using the success of the X100 as a indicator of the niche they are wanting to fill.
You 2 must be the only people who missed this:
You must have missed this:
I'm bemused by the continual posts all over this site "Make ____ Olympus product more like __________ brand. Heck, just go ahead and buy the other brand, folks. If you don't understand that Olympus is wanting to blaze its own path in the m4/3 market, then you should indeed switch brands. It will save you the frustration of constantly griping when Olympus does something their own way instead of copying others.
BTW, news flash on build in EVF-right now, more people have "grown up" using cameras with no EVF than have used one, so the marketing numbers are against those who say "we want an EVF". That we is an ever decreasing market segment, like it or not.
As I host, I was disappointed by the low number of entries. Also, so many were simply shots of transvestites, which is not really directly related to RHPS. However, if I had disqualified all the photos which I felt didn't really match the theme, there would have been only about 3 or 4 photos left. So I reinstated them.
I think this indicates a few things. First, not a lot of people persuing the challenge section were aware of or understand the subculture surrounding RHPS and related events. (Maybe I should have told people to rent a copy of the movie "Fame" so they could see what goes on at an RHPS showing LOL). Second, I get the feeling some entrants may have done a minimal of research, or even just asked a friend what the movie was about, and figured that since the lead character is a transvestite, pics of transvestites were suitable. I'll allow for that...
But on a deeper level I think it reflects that people will often impose a very personal interpretation of a theme or rule. Sometimes I find this personal interpretion to be a surprise in a good way. The photographer saw an angle on the theme I wasn't considering. Other times though, it really is a matter of a photographer simply entering a photo in the hopes of getting votes, likely knowing full well it doesn't really match the theme or rules.
For this challenge, I was expecting a lot more photos of lucious red lips, women (and men) in boustiers, body builders in Speedos and "Cosplay" style photos in general. Yes, I guess the RHPS fans were on vacation...
You definitely got the theme! Maybe add a squirtgun? ;-)
This challenge involves a difficult subject. It's not meant to be one where people can say "Hey kids, look at these nice shots". Having been treated for depression myself, I find this photo portrays a very real aspect of the illness.
I can go back and find many photos in other challenges that are far more disturbing. One I well remember is of a 30 something prostitute, taken on her birthday-she looks 60 something because drugs and her lifestyle have had a terrible effect on her physically.
Photography is meant to capture and display a given person's perspective of the world. --Some people operate cameras. Others use them to create images. There is a difference.
Really as nice as this photo is to an extent, it's pretty obvious that the consensus of low votes is more indicative of it's quality than the huge spike of 5 star ratings.
Looks like someone had a lot of friends. LOL
The lighting is excellent. But what really pulls it all together is the dancer looking to her right, adn the expression on her face.