Good example to discuss about the morality of the street photography and cheap digital film effects. Interesting, indeed.
Awful color. Beginners and lower class people usually prefer more saturated color, but this is too much. LOL.
This would be a mainstream design, but it looks ugly and cheap to me...
Olympus should make this kind of modern designed body.
masterofdeception: I try to avoid Dpreview, for the simple reason that the people here seem to know (or care) very little about photography, but seem to enjoy positing on the next great thing in terms of technology. This thread is a perfect example of why I feel this way. I posted a long time ago about why I loved the Jpegs from my X-Pro 1, and nothing has changed for me. I don't claim anything special for my pictures, but you lot can keep on bickering about your pixels in your RAW files and it won't matter a damn to me. You're still all wondering why your camera didn't make you a great photographer, and why the latest C1, LR, Silkypix, DXO, ACR .22.214.171.124 update didn't make any difference to your terrible (soft/over sharpened/ "slightly milky") pictures of your cat? Well, I guess you'll never get the point!
You are right about the people here don't know a lot about the photography, but you must understand that people is still searching better method because the digital camera technology is still immature.
You guys just don't know that Pentagon is one of the largest client of Canon.
panpen: $500k for a print? Not to mention the bike is off centre too.
You might not understand the contemporary art photography method. This is not a staged photography, and all the imperfections seen here is either his intention or accident.
Sobel himself actually has devalued Eggleston's work suing him. Now, people has become a bit skeptical buying his prints...
I just confirmed that 28mm is not for me. Thank you for the samples.
mick232: Bottom-line: don't spend $250000 for a print of a photograph and you don't have to worry about it losing its value.
Those dye transfer prints should be more valuable than $250,000 now and he is not loosing any money.
Roland Karlsson: This is not a matter of Copyright. Its a matter of fraud, or not. Making more copies of a limited edition. The photographer claimed that the new prints were another series as he used a new technology. Personally I have no idea, and I think I agree with those that claim that the photographer is taking a risk by possible alienating himself from his potential customers. I also think it is kind of cheap to do it. Being a famous photographer, I think he can take a new image and print it.
Every photographer should clearly define the meaning of "limited edition" before they sell their photography to avoid the future trouble.
Mr. Eggleston should have printed extra inkjet prints for who currently own his original edition, and the owners can buy one of these for small fee.
DenWil: This looks like the cover of a romance novel or video game to me.
Because it's too perfect to be real.
I'm wondering if this marketing has really raised Pentax camera sales.
Now we all know the best way to dump those old digital cameras in our closet.
daddyo: I notice that the guy in these images is a 25 Yr. old, Gold's Gym fitness instructor.I, unfortunately am a 66 yr. old with a frog body -- ditto on the mirrorless camera system.
Plastek: Yawn... yet another NEX? Which one is this within last 24 months? 3rd? 5th? 10th?
We'll see 40 different type of NEX on Ebay in 2020.