Not so good for: "Snapshooters who would be drawn to the camera because of the high resolution and price tag." - the likely market, alas.
peevee1: War photography is more useful than landscape photography will ever be. And yes, it DOES help to stop the freaking politicians' adventures.
Respectfully, I'll take McCullin's view on this over yours.
Man, some dingbats rolled up for this comments section. Some excellent and beautifully representative work from Ireland. Who wants another picture of Half Dome or that damn barn in front of the Tetons? Inclement weather if far more interesting too.
An article on photography? Good luck with that....
I'm standing on it!
Kid Plutonium: I don't have the courage to call this series either good or bad but can say these photographs leave me without connection to, or curiosity about the subjects and the world in which they live. In fact I'm left rather disappointed — though this has everything to do with my own expectations.
That said, respect to McKell for hanging around with these people so long and seeing his project through.
A side comment aimed at those attacking posters who criticise or express their dislike of this series — relax, I say: can you imagine living in a world in which everyone liked what you like just as much as you do? That would be a kind of hell.
It's about retaining an objectivity about art - and the critics here suggest seem to be unskilled hacks.
NancyP: These appear to be New Age Travellers. In the USA, the New Age / old hippie opt-outs tend to be settled, and come together for festivals, generally involving consumption of a large amount of weed.
where can I sign up?
dark goob: Cool subject. Crappy photos. I mean, really, these aren't that good. Why is DPReview putting this up here? Did the photographer pay you?
Yes Shengji, there's a pattern develpoing. Hate the photos, can't take a decent one - kind of like photographic constipation.
linux99: There is an utterly sickening level of racism splashed on the set of comments below to these pictures.
If all the pictures do is make people think on that they have served a real purpose.
I've travelled in Romania. The views polluting this thread are widely held in central and eastern Europe and at least some of those espousing them here are of that ilk. I worked with a Hungarian PhD student once who was no different - nice person, objectionable opinions.
stevens37y: They are mostly not real (etnic) gypsies only the lifestyle.
What are you looking for - a gold star for correct interpretation of the word 'new'?
Alesad: First of all, sorry for my English, this is not my first language, hope my point is understendable anyway.
Hope you guys are joking. This work is wonderful!
The author didn't want to show misery and pain (although “It’s a hard life,” he says). People in the pics are no traditional gypsies, but a tribe that CHOOSE to live this way.It's more about lifestyle than about etnical heritage.In fact he refers to they subjects as "Dickensian punks, who travel the English countryside in horse-drawn caravans".
Quoting the author " a group of rag-tag teenage rebels who had abandoned the city for the country, living out of double-decker buses. "
Hey, of course it's not the same stuff as other works involving the gypsy people. (They are not)There is even a pic of the supermodel Kate Moss in there, dressed like one of them. So enjoy this wonderful work, think about this romantic and fashinating lifestyle, and why not: enjoy even the aesthetics of this wonderful world.
Gusda, we heard you before - move on now laddie.
racketman: nothing remarkable here, we have way better documentary photographs in the National Archives where I work.
What kind of stupid comment is this? and 'way better' - for pity's sake man.
G3User: It's too bad the person who took these (notice he's not worthy of calling him a photographer) had to resort to using instacrap like color filters to make his images appear interesting. I would expect that from my teenage daughter with her H.S. photos on instagram but not someone who calls himself a photographer. If these were not over-processed as they are, they may not be too bad.
There's a pattern here - those who are critical of the photography are ALL very poor photographers. The racists I won't stoop to comment on - woops!
ker der: i used to be pentax guy not anymore they go palm & bb way to lalaland. by by pentax it was nice use u. Total crap after all that time no full frame & they wanna compete they cnt stay relevant anymore. prediction next year they dead. Full frame was only able to keep them afloat.
ignore the eejit - his ID is as mature as his comments.
Opinionator: BBC left out their disgraceful edited shots of Ramalah which the BBC described as wanton destruction of civilian property and lives by the IAF when in fact the entire scene was staged. It wasn't enough for Hezbollah to hide behind their children they had to lie to the world and the BBC used it as fact.
we get it - you don't like the BBC.
Compelling stuff - still, you'd want to be selling (or printing large) the results to justify the price, attractive as it is in comparison.
ogl: K-5II doesn't look as flagship...Even processor is old. It seems to me one more camera will be announced on the first day of Photokina.
ogl, have you got typing tourette's man?
ogl: All announcements look like mockery - 90% of Pentaxian don't need such products.Rebadged Tamron 18-270 - with bad SDM and weak optically.High expensive 645 DFA90 for MF users and marginal DA560 for USD7000.Pentax Q with the same tiny sensor and new dark zoom + adapter.K-5II is old camera with old processor and sensor with minor tweaks.
You don't know whether to laugh or cry...
Timo, ogl - I have a K5 and find it an excellent machine for my purposes which I believe is reflected in this site's review. But then my K7 was no slouch either - images from both can be seen here:http://brettmeiklephoto.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Hills-of-Torridon/19904334_crBGhV
Like others have said, if it's the best in class why mess with it?
bobsphotos: Who the hell are the Stone Roses? Are they just another garage band some girlies like? I'm 66.
Your sources? not the Telegraph, Guardian, NME, MSN or Daily Mirror, all of whom gave then 4* reviews.You're right with the era though!
DotCom Editor: I h ave no idea who or what the Stone Roses is, are, or were; nor do I have any idea why anyone would want a photo of it or them. Boycotting something that is a has-been (or a never-was) seems to me to be moot. Pick a better and more high-profile battle, British Journal of Photography. You are an otherwise excellent and important publication.
Another myopic 'murican worldview, dotcom. Of course, you got all kindsa music down there - country AND western!