I hear a lot people talking about which photo is better, but totally missed the purpose of this blog: landscape is not depend on luck, but careful composition and some perseverance to re-shoot until it's perfect. Many shots we see are not done in one day, but several days of work and sometimes several years of continuous reshoots until the final output is perfect.
I personally think the final result is better, because the background and foreground are not clustered. Each artist has the freedom to their own interpretation of the scene, but technique wise (the objective portion of the photography), what the author did was correct. Personally I would make the composition tighter (subjective part).
Looks good to me!
Joe Cool: He should've just shot headshots as planned instead of instead of trying to force shots that he didn't have the equipment for.
I believe that's what he was doing.... The name is just for the work flow (so it's easier to identify the person).
Lots of "pros" are very unprepared for their jobs, so it's nothing new....
He was being honest, that's a positive.
I believe he messed up (just an opinion), but for an interesting effect. It is a great challenge to the conventional portrait photography and it's a very creative thing to do, just not for the right circumstance. I've seen worse mug shots taken for the Olympic team, btw, and those shots follow conventional portrait style. They're just UGLY. Worse, I wouldn't able to recognize the athlete based on his/her portrait (isn't that what those photos are suppose to do?). This shot on the other hand is very funny and shows exactly what Klamer's goal was: interesting and shows individuality. Verdict. portfolio-worthy photo, but unsuitable for the purpose.
MattBrisVegas: One more reason to think of switching to a m4/3 system EXCEPT why are m4/3 lenses so expensive? I can't help but compare this 75mm f/1.8 for $900 to the Nikon 85mm f/1.8 for $430 (both today's prices at B&H). The m4/3 lens is built to cover a smaller image circle, so it uses much less optical glass. So why is it about twice the price?
Several reasons. One is what Marvin Clapp said, telecentric design. Second is low volume, like T3 said. I'll add more.
Size: It's not easy to create smaller lenses with the same amount of performance.
Aperture: 7-blade circular aperture design is common in m4/3 lenses. That design is usually found only in high-end Canon and Nikon. 9-blade circular is standard on all 4/3 high grade and up lenses (there are exceptions). That's why Olympus lenses have far superior bokeh.
Design: 4/3 and m4/3 lenses are created ground up for the sensor size they're for. R&D cost is higher. Most cheap Nikon and Canon lenses are designed for 35mm FF format, so their R&D cost is already amortized.
Resolution: Don't know about m4/3, but 4/3 lenses have almost the twice the resolution of FF lenses, because it has smaller sensor, so it needs that much resolution to compensate for sharpness. That means the glass have to be higher quality. Lots of ED glasses are used.
Nice, a photo shows how it performs with a Panasonic camera. :-) WB is incorrect. Nose is out of focus.
I appreciate this photo to show high dynamic range situation at night, which is the nastiest of all lighting situations since we tend to overlook that problem. Aperture choice again is pretty bad. CA is expected, especially in the out of focus area. It's a matter of how bad it is, and how easily one can correct it with software. It looks like the person who shot this intentionally over-exposed the photo by 1 stop. Given this is ISO 6400 photo, the performance is admirable. I just don't agree with the DoF choice (the "Ice Cream" sign should be completely within DoF. Dog sign is fine to leave it OoF to show CA performance).
That issue is already shown in one of the Olympus's official sample. The fringe is a non-simple kind with double rings.... Appeared to be some sort of over-correcting with software (Olympus needs to refine their processing engine to handle this lens). Everything else is pretty good, given how badly exposed this photo is. DoF choice is just nasty.
Those are not fruits, btw. Those are flower buds of fuchsia.
For those mentioned about bad review photos, I tend to agree with you. I think the DoF choices are pretty bad for many of the portraits. DoF should be enough to cover both the nose and eyes, not wide open for every shot. As for overexposure on dog portrait. I think it's fine. We do need a few over exposed shots to show the lens's CA (or lack of). There should be more photos about bokeh and light spheres and light stars, we we get to know every character of the lens. Sharpness of this lens is a given (it's an Olympus HG), but bokeh quality, the second most important character of a lens, should also be shown before I would consider the lens.
Yes, they should go for a meeting and create a chart of goals need to accomplished. They need one photo for each possible real world scenario, each with a variation of using wide open and best aperture of the lens. With different lighting scenarios.
citizenlouie: Is the youngest sister in Downton Abbey Sybil or Edith? Because I really need to know your judging criteria. :o)
Thank you for treating my question seriously. ;-) It's charming to meet a fellow Downton Abbey fan on DPR. Yeah, I can't wait to see the rest of Season 2. Season 3 is announced. Yay!
I have a photo lost its Explore status on Flickr, so I guess I'll try my luck to redeem its honor.
It's just a Downton Abbey joke type of thing. But I agree, each is beautiful in their own way (though I find Edith scheming...). Sybil has some inner strength with her. Mary is very elegant, but she is kind of opposite of Sybil, because she appears to be strong, but she is actually more vulnerable than the other two. :-) I just finished Season 2 Disc 1, so don't spoil too much detail! :-D Yes, Anna is lovely, loyal, ambitious and faithful.
Let's see if I can find some photo that would exhibit inner beauty (this conversation actually is helpful). :-D
Is the youngest sister in Downton Abbey Sybil or Edith? Because I really need to know your judging criteria. :o)
citizenlouie: It does work for landscape orientation photos, but doesn't work too well for portrait orientation photos. Still, it's a nice upgrade. My photos are meant to be viewed super size, and I appreciate Flickr makes my photos look better now.
I just wish in the photostream view will be upgraded to "justified view."
Yes, they just did! That's so great. And they center-aligned the portrait photo also. It looks so much better. Thanks. :-)
It does work for landscape orientation photos, but doesn't work too well for portrait orientation photos. Still, it's a nice upgrade. My photos are meant to be viewed super size, and I appreciate Flickr makes my photos look better now.
Congrats! :-) Nice photo.
They Stole My Idea ! ! !
Though my original plan is to implement a B&W only camera, but I would allow people to extract the color version if they shot RAW.
Now I hope Kodak doesn't steal my idea of making film-specific camera.... Wait, Kodak doesn't make digital camera anymore.
Nice article. :-) Very insightful and very helpful to everyone. It's something everyone should at least think about when they take photos.
I think stopped caring my audience though. :-( They're a diverse group of people. If I satisfied everyone, I would stop having fun taking photos and might get too frustrated when someone doesn't like them, which is something to think about also: it is totally okay if someone doesn't like your photos....
Yes, 17mm remake.... 35mm equivalent focal length is a very useful, and it's a shame 17mm f/2.8 was so awful I returned the entire E-P2 kit. The speed issue is not as important as IQ to me.
25mm f/1.4 Leica is already an option, so if you need one that is the one to get. No need for another 24mm f/1.8 (inexpensive option for that focal length is Panasonic 20mm f/1.7).
citizenlouie: I wonder what's the point of using larger aperture to achieve DoF. Probably FF will eventually phase out....
I was being sarcastic. You can already do this with photoshop but you need to shoot two photos. One with the background completely out of focus and another with the foreground in sharp focus and merge two photos. It's a big hassle. For action shot like the dog, it probably is not that easy (but not undoable). This looks like an "automate" function. For macro, we can already do extended DoF by merge/stack several shots. Software solution for shallow DoF probably be inferior (actually all software solution is inferior than optical), but depends on what your needs and your threshold for quality, it can be helpful sometimes, if you don't mind compromise.
I wonder what's the point of using larger aperture to achieve DoF. Probably FF will eventually phase out....