Truly absurd that anyone with half a brain could think this photograph was worthy of a prize.
$135 for a camera strap?! Give me a break!
This is the silliest "roundup" ever, guys. You're comparing big honking cameras that weigh from 1.5 to almost 2 lbs. with pocket cameras weighing less than 8 oz. What's the point?
naththo: That's a shame about scandal. Similar behaviour happened to Olympus. You got a harsh lesson to learn, don't do it again! Leave the money alone where it belongs to.
Big companies will continue to falsify their earnings reports as long as investors are driven by rampant greed to expect more and more unrealistic financial performance. Greed is a cancer that is eating the us all alive.
Try as I might, I cannot understand the attraction of a $3300 fixed-lens camera. It is a beautiful piece of equipment, no doubt. But fixed lens? No thanks! I understand that this camera is aimed at the Leica set, but Leicas are not fixed-lens cameras.
Being a "modern photographer" evidently means producing cheesy crap. Some of these images remind me of the covers of cheap paperback novels. No thanks!
Science doesn't imitate art any more than art imitates nature. The scientist and the artist both aim to reveal aspects of our experience that we might not otherwise be aware of.
lemonadedrinker: Are these all the people who walk around with their heads bowed down in supplication to their electronic Lord and Master and who walk into bus stops and trip off pavement edges ? 400 million, well now, the Darwin effect is really taking hold.
It's an essential part of the evolutionary backslide known as "the dumbing down of America". And it's a perfect match for Facebook. All those people who waste their precious time talking about nothing can now waste even more time posting bad photos of nothing.
lemonadedrinker: What is all the nonsense with the name across the image? Who cares who took them; they're beautiful pictures ruined with the distraction of the name thing at the bottom-saying to all of us Look at me,I'm as important as the whale.Eugene Smith never put his name on a picture. Nor did Edward Steichen. Nor any other genius of the arcane art of photography.
They're called a watermarks—duh??? and Art Wolfe is probably the ten millionth professional photographer to use them to protect his work from unauthorized use. The fact that some well-known photographers never used them is totally irrelevant. Some people never lock their doors either.
.34X magnification may not be true "macro", but it's very impressive for this type of lens. This lens comes as close to being a truly "all in one" design as any I've ever seen—and it's reasonably priced in the bargain. Well done, Tamron!
The only thing I have to say about film is, "Thank Heaven I don't have to use it anymore!!!"
This article is baloney. Virtually all cameras—even expensive DSLR's—can be used in auto-everything mode to take pictures all day long without knowing anything at all about photography. When you look at how consumers use conventional point-and-shoot cameras, it is obvious that today's smartphone cameras are more than good enough for most of them.
Neil189: Sheesh, more elitist comments from unhappy people taking the liberty to complain about whatever issue they feel they are entitled to complain about. Who cares what you think of the royal family. Everyone here complaining should stick to their whiny little attitudes you know where and comment of the subject at hand. They are uncomfortable with their children being photographed, period. Would you be any different with your children regardless of your circumstance? Get over yourself and save your comments for some other bitch forum, like what I imagine your dinner table would be like.
Have you always been such an offensive twit? Sheesh!
It's a legitimate style, but most of these images look way over-processed to me—closer to photo illustration than photography.
backayonder: $9.95 AUD a month for Lightroom and Photoshop less than two mugs of flat white.Seems a bargain to me. My shelf is littered with worthless copies of Lightroom 1 to 5 and CS versions too.
I don't know anything about the Windows side, but you don't have to upgrade OS X until you need to upgrade your Mac. The moment you buy a new computer, your old Adobe software will probably stop working.
skytripper: Why in heaven's name would anyone with half a brain want to look at photos of this monster? Truly creepy!
Actually, I wouldn't sully my eyeballs by looking at photos of Dick "the Prick" Chaney. Nor would I waste my time speaking for the likes of you. But if you're defending Chaney, well... what does that make you?
camera4me: A..hole Adobe won't get a penny from me.
Not true. As mentioned in an earlier post, you can use CS6 only as long as your computer and operating system support it. Sticking with older hardware (plus older OS) is not a sustainable strategy in the long run.
GaryJP: More and more people will have less and less compunction about going the piracy route.
This is true. It's hard to argue with the "if you screw me, I'll screw you back" response. Adobe CS6 is actually very easy to hack as long as your computer will run it; but hacking Adobe CC may not be so easy.
cgarrard: Creative Cloud = Gives me butterflies and visions of happy unicorns sharing smiles on a green utopian hillside. Then I wake up.
Then you wake up and discover that your $10/mo. subscription just went up to $29.95/mo.