SRT3lkt: I think he is more talented than some of us.
That is hardly a compliment.
seanpon: Frankly, I prefer good photography to mediocre Photoshop work. I believe that this young photographer would be better served honing his photography skills. He probably has talent but his composite images are just cliches to me.
what is so cliche about a phone in the forest? Sure it would have looked better if the phone was off the hook and hanging on a tree branch with a zebra trying to dial his girlfriend's number in a hurry and as a result having his right hoof stuck in number 5 and a lion visible in the background ( with a Zeiss bokeh ). But give this kid a break, he is only seventeen.
Spectro: Common style/genre among a lot of teen/ early 20s photographers, not sure what it is called. I think they all went to the same school. These younger photographer style gets a lot of view on flickr because they do these shots of self portrait photoshop art. I am a little jealous of this style. Most of my friends are older and can't pull off the youthful innocent look. Most of these young photographers have the entry level camera with kits lens, but do a great job in creativity and photoshop. We sit here talking about having the best camera sensor and lenses. Digital photography or not, they are quite creative. The famous Miss Aniela started off like this (self portrait) and now she is a international photographer. Sara Kiesling is another of this genre.
Yes I agree, I am jealous too. Miss Aniela is a complete genius though. So is Sara Kiesling. I even emailed Miss Aniela and suggested she teams up with Sara but she did not respond. It could have been a turning point in the history of visual arts if they joined forces.
QuarterToDoom: Great imagination and all that but this is more artwork/graphic design than photography. Yes I would say then same thing is some used film to make the same style of images. It turns into art created from photos and not photography.
Please photographically define the definition of your photography and your photographic definition before you photograph your definition.
I think this kid is a genius bigger than Dali. This is surrealism at its best. My son is working on it too and I do my best to encourage him. Last week he did this really clever photo of a Mediterranean young lady jumping rope inside his grand father's left ear
There is something chemical behind everything right ? DSM-5 would give it a name and link it to a serotonin over-under-activity. Down-regulation or up-regulation of some neurotransmitter receptor sites. This lens, that camera, this much more opioid.
100 years from now none of us will be here and no one will care what direction your brain pushed you, let alone the piece of gadget that you tried so hard to acquire.
You are only paying for your own entertainment.
What is Q?
I have only seen one Q and that was in Star Trek.
What the hell, if you cannot make your photos pretty,
Pentax is here to make your camera pretty.
And for most people who buy this camera, that is a pretty good start.
Tape5: Plastic counter-culture with a dollop of commercial cheese.
1. Capable of being shaped or formed: plastic material such as clay. See Synonyms at malleable.
2. Relating to or dealing with shaping or modeling: the plastic art of sculpture.
3. Having the qualities of sculpture; well-formed: "the astonishing plastic beauty of the chorus girls" (Frank Harris).
4. Giving form or shape to a substance: the plastic forces that create and wear down a mountain range.
5. Easily influenced; impressionable.
Now read the fifth definition of the word plastic again.
Plastic counter-culture with a dollop of commercial cheese.
The colour says :
''You are a nerd and you better be proud of it.''
It also motivates people to try and guess the colour of your underwear.
So any subject matter in the world ( preferably a controversial one ) that is in any imaginable way related to a photo or some photos or someone's photos, is fit to be reviewed as a photographic issue?
I suggest an article featuring fast cars and speed cameras.
Totally crazy. I would drop the Zeiss and keep the Carl.
This is certainly a pocketable camera in that after buying it you will have plenty of room for it inside your pocket.
What is the point of being pocketable when Sony wants to charge as much as one pays for some studio heavyweights?
Sure photographers want their pocket cameras to take top shots, but I suspect those who are prepared to pay 3000 for a camera, don't care much if their camera fits into their pocket.
It is a piece of Sony jewelry.
stupidisanart: People should just enjoy the fact these cameras exist. Yes they are priced beyond any reasonable person wallet and not the most practical solution for almost every photographer but enjoy that sony made this.
Most of the things I enjoy in life I don't own. I will consider adding this to the list.
I think most parents simply insult their children buying them pathetic DSLRs or worse still P&S of any variety.
I got my 5 months old son a Phaseone IQ2 180. I gaffer-taped it to his milk bottle and simply leave it in his pram next to him. Let me tell you, some of his shots are gallery ready.
Would put Henri to shame.
Controlling focus after taking a picture is like eating everything on the table first and vomiting what you don't like later.
ARB1: OK, is the little case cutout for the Leica logo just a bit much or it just me?
The cutout and the red dot, one can put up with.The problem is the camera that is attached to it.
German Porsche GT3 - geniusGerman music or German sausages- No thank youGerman vario zoom compact- You must be kidding
Tape5: I knew something was soon to break when 'Photoshop' turned into a verb in 1990s and five year olds started talking about Photoshoping family photos while mums tidied up. When any dirtside crappy magazine that taught newcomers Photoshop tricks made more money than the software it was based on.
The public think that they are entitled to free Photoshop like it is air or mother's milk.
Adobe needs to move forward a fair bit faster to compete and it looks like they have decided to deal with professionals who are happy to pay for the added value. Those who deal with fees, charges, outgoings and taxation bills. Those who make money from their photography or creative work.
If that is not you, Adobe is dumping you.
MarcLee, many tens of thousands of production teams and companies around the world - will / will have to- pay for their CC products. If you don't/cannot pay, you can walk.
It is their business they are trying to run in an impossibly difficult market, it is not yours.