neo_nights: It's positively amazing that we do not have pictures of: People suffering nor old people from distant villages with their faces oversharpened and over constrasty to makes their wrinkles stand out.
I think that even clichè pictures like #9 are well done and nice to look at.
"What bothers me even more is the execution. You wanna take a picture of the Elder of the village? Fine. Does it have to be with a supermacro lens, oversharpened, over contrasty to show every wrinkle he has?"Ok, he's old, we could easily see that. Don't have to overdo it!""
I like this comment so much!!
However, I do feel the opposite regarding portraits of old villagers that show every wrinkle: I really dislike photos of people in poor, distant villages getting most of the accolades in portraiture. These villages, especially those people who are old have have the MOST wrinkles, have involuntarily been acting as photoshoot models for years now. They're not a zoo, but for photographers, them and their home are basically treated like one.
Shiranai: I like the photo with the girl and the cat. Yeah its improvised and the usual "I take a photo of my kids" stuff. However, I think it's not necessarily obligatory to take a lucky shot like the ape to make a standout picture.This pictures creates a certain feeling, which the ape shot lacks of.Worst pictures for me are:1 A balloon in a desert... wooow. Could be archiveable digitally in 2 minutes.4 Althought the picture is interesting, its just a landscape. Boring.6 Generic shot of a deer with digitally added mist and vignetting.9 Just mirrored architechture... whatever.
The balloon in the desert is beautiful though. Serene.
It's simple, and doesn't require lots of photographic skill or anything, but whatever.
#4 is "just a landscape", but it is beautiful, and landscape photography that isn't beautiful is worthless. A nature or landscape photo shouldn't need a gimmick or anything unusual to make it worth looking at. Sometimes, simple is good.
The only reason I don't LOVE #4 is because that bottom river (or whatever it is) draws the eyes towards nowhere. It's a distraction. The photographer either needs to find a better spot to shoot from and exclude it, or incorporate it better by including more of it.
The Squire: Would be great to have a file format with a size somewhere between JPEG and RAW, that holds enough data for a bit of post-processing.
I'd love a standardized compressed RAW format. 14bit, bayer data but with varying levels of loss-less to lossy data compression.
Yep, we definitely need more cameras to support DNG RAW.
This is the only area where Leica actually seems more forward-thinking than any other company.
nawknai: For me, the standouts are:
4: Glacier5: Arty b&w staircase6: Deer7: Backlit monk (borderline...)11: Orangutan (or "monkey")
10: Planes. I love it, but I'm simple-minded.
#9 is mirrored in photoshop, and so I feel should be considered "digital art" rather than photography.
I read somewhere else on DPReview, where multiple people found some obvious editing mistakes that the building itself is mirrored, including someone who lives close to this building.
For me, the standouts are:
RichRMA: The monkey shot and the deer shot and the valley shots stand out. There should be a moratorium on penguin shots, we've been inundated with them for 10 years now.
The penguin shot isn't great. You just need the shooting opportunity, and a long lens. The photo posted is an inevitable photo result when you have been given both, and shoot for 15-20 minutes. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but given how crowded that scene appears to be, I view such a shot as being simple to take, and not unique if given the opportunity.
I disagree with the air show. The photo itself is excellent because of the position and angle of the planes, which is part foresight, and part luck.
Prixnobeldefoot: the scene in #11 is quite unique.
However I feel that there are too many pictures of animals nowadays. Look at the selection, there's like more photos of animals than those with actual people.
Well I feel that there are too close-up of animal shots, too many landscapes, and too many macro shots of bugs.
Unfortunately, there aren't many other types of "nature and wildlife" photography that can win.
Does "Travel" = landscape?
My definition of "travel" photography isn't necessarily street, landscape, or cultural, even if such a photo were taken while on vacation.
It's weird. If you're a great landscape photographer, you'd be able to enter a photo into either category, it seems. I'd enter a landscape photo into the category in which I felt I had the best shot at winning (i.e. whichever you feel will have the lowest number of applicants).
Old Cameras: I'm sorry but I don't see digital photography qualifying as art. I love photography and I get great pleasure from the pictures I take just from my own personal satisfaction, but a digital photo of a famous place so drastically manipulated with a computer does not rise to the level of art. If fact I like very few of the pictures I've seen on this website. With the temptation to over process all things digital you simply take for granted that you can get a picture of anything simply by asking your phone...
I stopped looking at photography as art when I realized that you can download skies (yes, download photos of skies) and incorporate them in your photos --- and people can't even tell the difference. There are entire websites that will explain how, and people do it.
All of this cheapens photography as an art. To me, there's "photography", and there's "digital art". A lot of the photos you see on 500px, and sites like it, are simply digital art.
You get some pretty shallow DOF with this thing.
I have a Fuji X100, and it's nowhere near as good in that respect (not that it's necessary in this photo).
johnsmith404: 'high-end leather purse' made my day. What are you gonna review next time? High end high heels?
Are they camera accessories? No? Okay then.
Just a Photographer: This is a very feminine bag.I can't imagine using this bag being a man unless your being a sissy.
Also this bag is very vulnerable to being stolen as you can't keep it on you while taking photos.
As a man, you COULD use this man, but only if you cross-dress.
It's a woman's bag, Milhouse.
Michael J Davis: Frankly that looks worth stealing for the bag alone, regardless of any expensive gear inside! I prefer the worn and battered look.
Then wear it, use it, and eventually, it'll look worn and battered.
happypoppeye: That's no man-purse, that's a full out no questions about it women's purse.
I can't believe there's any confusion about this.
Look at those straps.
Zoron: Yummy but it's Samsung.....a bit brandcist here
I actually LOVED the Samsung mirrorless line before. Well, on paper at least. When Fujifilm just entered the market with the X100, which I pre-ordered, Samsung was offering well-priced cameras with a fair selection of prime lenses of decent (read: small) size. Sony NEX offered tiny cameras with terribly large lenses. Bleh.
Image quality? Not sure, but on paper, it all looked good. Shame about the JPEG quality reported in reviews and sample photos. ;)
Image quality is important, and if Samsung doesn't nail that, then who cares what sensor they're using?
Mike FL: Then and Now:
Then - FUJI overstated some of camera's ISO at least reported by Dpreview.
Now - FUJI says: "We’re not playing for numbers anymore.".
I still have no idea what you just said.
xrokx: Fuji should make a special limited run of fixed lens (about 35 mm) FF cameras. It doesnt matter if they are a little on the big side. It could be a collectors item; it wouldnt hurt their sales of aps-c if they price it high enough. Half the price of a LEICA maybe . As long as it is fast and sharp.
Why should it be limited edition?
That makes no sense.....unless you're a collector.
jorg14: Great camera that serves a niche market.
I have the OG X100, and I think your description is apt.
It's not the flagship, but it's the sharpest knife in a drawer filled with Swiss-Army knives.
I love having it, and yes, I know it's a luxury. Having said that, people buy a DSLR or MILC because it's the most practical, and then buy the X100S (or not, X100T) if they have money to spare. I did it the other way around. I bought the X100 first, and waiting 1.5 years before buying the X-Pro 1.
If you shoot predominantly with a 35 mm prime anyway, it seems far more sensible to buy the X100T first, even if it's less flexible.
But that's just me. Most people do go for something like the X-E2 first.