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.
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.
Camediadude: This is more like it. Please get back to your roots, dpreview, by sharing more great photo stories like this.
facedodge: This photo looks fake to me. The lighting on the guy to the left is coming from his right side even though he's inches from the wall. Doesn't make sense. The lighting on the children is not consistent with the crowd.
It looks tone mapped, which I thought was taboo for photojournalism since it would be overprocessing.
facedodge , if the dead kids were YOUR loved ones, would you be analysing the fake lighting on their faces?
I don't care for your callousness, it is even a bit sexy, as long as you are not a hypocrite.
If anything at all, this single photograph must provide some insight for those who have always wondered why the Israeli Palestinian conflict has been dragging on for decades.
just look at the comments. We observe a virtual equivalent of a genuine punch-up here. By people who are neigher here nor there, all on the account of a photo.
If we cannot have peace with a photograph, how can we expect a father to have peace carrying his dead child or an Israeli who must live under constant threat of rockets and attacks?
pinibz: Children are also dying in UK, US, NATO bombings in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq. Of course there is death in many other conflicts around the world. Thousands of Syrian children died this year by their own people. From some reason you never see images winning contests from these conflicts. I wonder if that has anything to do with the residence of most judges or some hidden agenda...
Steve D Yue, are you some advanced robot at the MIT?
There is a Vietnamese saying that sometimes you just have to eat what is put in front of you and by that they don't mean a plate of mee goreng.
No one seems to see the dead kids. Totally psycho. And really a bit funny.
That is what the judges really wanted. Two dead kids so masterfully photographed that has 180 posters on a photography site examining it without hardly anyone commenting on the dead kids and their families and school friends. And the first prize goes to...
I will be kind to the occasion and call it some juvenile, primitive and convoluted self defence that manifests as hatred against the victims for being the only visible agents of ugliness.
RealPancho: Musicians view their instruments as more than mere tools. B. B. King, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Eric Clapton, and many others named their guitars, cherishing them above their status as inanimate objects. It's only natural that photographers, making art as they do, would experience some emotional feelings about their cameras.
I no longer use it, but I will always have a special place in my heart for my 1975 OM-1.
''It's only natural that photographers, making art as they do, would experience emotional feelings about their cameras.''
I think 99.9% of photographers would not see art if one slowly crawled up their nose. Being a photographer does not make anyone an artist.
Also how do you explain men who experience some emotional feelings about thier BBQ machines?
A camera is made of three components:
Its physical attributes ie wt, form, size, ergonomics etcIts photo-electronic attributes ie lens, sensor, processing etcAnd its cultrual attributes ie as an accessory, its popularity, its iconic appeal
These three all interact and influence what pictures are taken using the camera. Each one factor can be adequate justification for many to purchase the camera and they all interact with each other.
Further, strength in each category of attributes can be seen as justification for insufficiencies in other categories.
But after all, the brain that is wired to the finger that presses the shutter remains the most important part of a camera.
There is a lot inside a name and our perception depends very much on what we choose to call something.
Think of this 'thing' as a monocular with a sensor and everything else added around its zoom capability and suddenly you feel more relaxed.
Think of it as a digital camera with a nutty zoom and it immediately becomes bin material.
Every single time I walked into a Jessops store I had a disappointing experience.
Dinosaurs like Jessops should have died years ago. They ripped people off for decades with over priced items and poor service. Now it is their time to vanish.
First it was Jap this Jap that - copycat brainless tech thieves the Japanese. Look at it now, all that nonsense has turned into high respect for the Japanese electronic and technical mastery. Now everyone wants to make sure that theirs is Japanese.
For all the zombies who missed the first show of prejudice and stupidity that ran for nearly four decades, you can start a brand new show, booting Korean technology and feeling better about yourselves ( and your revered Japanese brands ).
The more things change, the more they stay the same.