tigrebleu

I totally agree. People are so quick to condemn the photojournalist, and yet I'd guess most of them never faced such a situation and would probably have done just the same.

Intervening, really? If so, what about the possible consequences? Maybe that man would've hurt her or worse. Maybe this could just have made a bad situation go worse, with that man's anger being sent through the roof because of the photojournalist's intervention.

Second, photojournalists aren't suppose to intervene in such situations, for then they become actors to the story, which can lead to too much subjectivity, instead of just being reporters.

A friend of mine used to work as a cameraman for a local network. After a few years witnessing local events, his urge to play a role in such events lead him to quit his job and go back to college to become a cop. He's since very happy to serve his community as a cop instead of reporting about its events.

So let that photojournalist do her job, and the cops do theirs.

While the "Easy ISO" option is a nice feature, it's of a limited use in manual metering mode. There's also the (slight) risk of accidentally changing the ISO without immediately noticing in aperture- or shutter speed-priority mode.

Having some properly placed hard button would be much nicer. I'd move the metering button at the back of the camera and put in the ISO button instead. But then, it's my personal preference, and anyone could argue they prefer another place, with good reason. We all have different needs. Being a stage performance shooter, AF and metering mode aren't as important as ISO to me. But to a sports or landscape photographer, that's another matter.

In the future, maybe we'll see 100% assignable buttons, with individual LED display so that you can put your ISO button wherever you like, and yet it will still read "ISO", and not "Fn" or the like.

Actually, while the buffer is limited by the camera's internal memory, it can be improved a bit through a firmware, as often, not all that memory is used by the buffer. How much depends on how much "remaining" memory there is and/or how much of the used memory can be "reassigned" to the buffer, so to say.

Pentax has already done it once with its K-5 (if I remember correctly), increasing its buffer size by a very good margin. But that doesn't mean it's possible with the D7100, since it might already be at its limits on that aspect.

Still, that's proof that adding more pixels is not always a positive point. Sure, it's great for larger prints, and the noise at higher ISO will be less noticeable on most prints and PC viewing, thanks to the additional pixels making the noise look "finer". But it fills up memory cards and hard drives more rapidly, and, most important, it fills up the buffer more rapidly as well.

Yes, Nikon should've made the D7100 with a much bigger buffer. :(

Indeed, Québec has different laws regarding games, contests, etc. For these reasons, most contests held in the whole country or in the U.S. / Canada prefer to void the contest in Québec than to adapt it entirely to abide to the different laws, as it is much, much easier. Quite unfortunate for us, les Québécois. :(

Had both a K10D and a K-7 (which is similar to the K-5, except for the sensor and IQ). The K-7 has MUCH better ergonomics over the K10D, is smaller and has better AF (although still not great).

The biggest differences between the K-30 and K-5 II is the body built and the improved AF. If you shoot sports/action and/or need a very sturdy camera, go for the K-5 II. If you don't, save some money by going to for the K-30, and buy lenses with the extra cash.

Good point.

But then, recovering details in shadows and in highlights in post-processing (using some fill light adjustment, for instance) can easily result in a look similar to that of HDR. According to PJ rules, that could be considered as "cheating" (as could be the use of a graduated ND filter) , and as such, would be inappropriate, as it is still a manipulation of the original image to transform this image into one different from the original. The only difference with HDR is that HDR is more effective and that more than one photo was used to produce the final image. Time manipulation, as you said. And yet, the intent was the same: to produce a more realistic looking image.

I think that's what the debate should be about: intent. The truthfulness of the intent is the key, IMHO, not the means used to reach thos truthfulness. Because in the very end, it's about if PJ is showing reality or fiction.

As long as it's mentioned HDR is being used, HDR can be appropriate PJ use, IMHO.

Good point!

I sometimes do HDR imaging for clients when faced with harsh illumination and when fill flash can't be used (when I need to photograph a building on an overcast day, for instance).

But when I show other photographers the final results, none was ever able to tell HDR was involved, because the way I had done the tone mapping was meant to reflect reality, and as such, the HDR process was used in a subtle way that was hardly noticeable to even the expert eye.

Most HDR we see on the web today is meant to be dramatic and breath taking, not realistic. These images look like the art work fantasy artists, not like reality. Like or don't like, it's a matter of taste.

When HDR stops being realistic enough to be "proper" for photojournalism use is where it starts to be "creative". If the photojournalists of this world can agree on the difference, then HDR could have a chance of becoming an acceptable technique used to better reflect the reality of a scene that's being photographed.

The fear is that a Pandora box will be opened if HDR processing is allowed in photojournalism. I believe this fear is not justified.

HDR is not retouching as in using Photoshop to remove visually intrusive power lines from a landscape photograph or to remove skin imperfections on a person's face.

As long as the of HDR is use to best reproduce what the photographer saw in REALITY when he or she pressed the shutter release, I don't see any reason to ban HDR from good photojournalism practices. It would be like saying the use of a certain film developper "was cheating" because it provided better details in the shadows or in the highlights.

We're far from the awful examples of very bad (both in the technical and ethical sense) photo retouching that are often seen in a UK newspaper I won't dare to name for this piece of crap is so unethical it's not worth being used as anything but bathroom tissue (those among you who read PhotoshopDisasters will know which newspapers I'm talking about).

And also, that photographer will not get all of these wedding assignements, no matter how good he or she is. Because some of these to-be-married people will ask their uncle John, their friend Linda to do the pictures for free or very cheap, or they will hire the photographer that made the photos at the bride's sister wedding.

And most brides want their photos to be unique. A wedding photographer doing 60 weddings a year usually ends up producing the exact same photos from one wedding to another. And yet the brides have no issues spending 2K or 3K on a wedding dress and another 2K on a reception and 5-course dinner in the chic ballroom of a beautiful hotel, but they refuse to spend a similar amount on a photographer that can bring back home magnificient memories of this important event.

If a bride finds wedding photographers prices too high, she can always convince a freshly out-of-school photography student or an amateur to work for much less. With the risks it involves.

Charging less doesn't means the photographer will automatically get more weddings.

In the wedding market, not a lot of photographers are doing more than 30 per year. Why? Simply because people usually marry on weekends (which means only 104 wedding days per year available to a single photographer) and between April and September (unless you live in Florida or another sub-tropical place where it's warm all year long), which is about 6-7 months a year, for a total of 48-56 weekends days. I don't know a lot of people who would marry on mondays or in the middle of winter, as brides want this day to be special, which usuallly includes being sunny and warm.

And a photographer shooting a wedding on a Friday is unlikely to shoot another wedding on saturday, because many brides expects the photos to be delivered on sunday or monday at worse. So we're now down to 24-28 weddings a year for a given photographer.

Agreed Wayne B. Using such equipement can be intimidating to the people being photographed. People's photography is hard work in terms of getting up close and personal to your subject, but the results can be outstanding if one photographer's got good people skills!

My apologies for my sarcastic reply, Jim. It was inappropriate and I shouldn't have posted this.

And while I don't agree on focusing only on stills, as video is now part of DSLRs as much as still image, I do agree with your "$1,000" comment: at such price, a DSLR should include basic weather seals, metal body and good sensor.

Darn, the Pentax K200D used to be available for less than $600, and although it wasn't full metal (chassis only, plastic outer shell), it had full weather seals.

Fixed and inalterable? Unchanged since Flood? Sorry, but I'm not into myths... I'm into science. Measurable data only.

That said, I don't think the 5DIII will be mirrorless yet, and especially not with EVF. IMHO, EVF is not ready to replace OVF in advanced and pro DSLR. Not yet. Most likely, I think we'll see some hybrid OVF with EVF data overlay in the future.

Ditto.

I agree 100%. Some people don't seem to understand that a camera maker has to satisfy different kinds of customers. Putting efforts in DSLR video performance will not result in DSLR still performance being left behind. Just consider it a bonus that you can take advantage of or not ...

There is a huge DSLR video market for grabs, and right now, the only photo business that really understands that is Canon (although Canon is not just a photo business anymore). Nikon is making efforts (D7000) but is still missing on a few things.

Sony is second best but is desperately trying to save its video department from Canon's vDSLR success by keeping video and still separated (NEX VG-10). Pana is doing the same mistake.

Only Canon seems to understand it can develop both its video DSLR and its vidcam business at the same time, for both serve either similar or different purposes depending on the users' needs.

I don't have money to afford both a DSLR and C300. A video DSLR is the answer for me.

Note to Canon... I care about video as much as I do about stills, so keep up the good work. (Just make sure that upcoming DSLR hasn't a crippled AF system, like with the 5DII.)

Today, DSLR manufacturers can't ignore video users. I don't know many pro photographers who don't shoot video too. And good video cameras with large sensors and the resulting DOF control are way more expensive than DSLRs doing all that almost as well as vidcams (just think of Red cameras, for instance).

In three ot four pro DSLR generations from now, all DSLRs will become still/video hybrids, equally versatile in both areas. Because the price of desiging, developping and marketing two DSLR cameras, one for stills and one for video, is now higher than doing the same for one DSLR capable of both still and video capture.

It's called evolution. Those who can't adapt may just disappear. In terms of DSLR video, Nikon and Pentax have a lot of work ahead of them to keep up with Canon (and even with Pana and Sony).

Good to see the London Police is actually doing a great job and that the London policemen are well aware of the laws regarding photography in public places. London policemen are in a class apart, IMHO.

The security guards were also quite polite, although some did call the police, something that wasn't needed in any of these situations, I believe. Even subtely threatening to call the police, like some of them did, was uncalled for. Overall, I think they handled these situations pretty well, without resorting to violence or agressive behavior. Good job.

As some posters commented, the whole thing could have been quite different if the photographers had been alone or if they had an Arabic accent and Middle Eastern features: unfortunately, racial profiling is still being used by security guards and police forces all around the world.

Still, things seem to be improving for photographers practicing their passion in public places.

Very good work: this video is a very useful tool!