tko: Did the photographer have permission from Desmond to take the photo? Or where Desmond's rights signed away as some type of a blanket college agreement?
Because if Desmond didn't sign a model release of some type, how can Masck have ownership? You can't take a photo of just anyone and use it for gain. Or if you can, it seems like a silly law, because the photographer would have nothing w/o the subject and the pose.
He didn't need Desmond's permission. Model releases deal with privacy laws. Copyright is a different law altogether, and grants the author (photographer) full ownership of the image he took.
Well, it IS New York Post. They're like the tabloid version of NY Times. No moral ground, just sensationalist headlines. They'll print anything to sell a few extra copies.
Great review, perhaps we'll get one for the D4/1Dx sometime in the next decade too?
It looks like an army of ants bringing home a larger prey :-) Great video, thanks for the link.--http://www.michaelkormos.com
At our portrait studio in NYC, we play slide shows (with music :-) for our clients, proof their photos, arrange wall art, and take credit card payments. All with the iPad (and Apple TV). I can't imagine any other tablet so easy to use, reliable, and perfectly integrated with other Apple devices. What role does it play? Huge.
Beautiful camera. Full frame 24mp for just $2k? Only two years ago, you'd have to shell out $8k for the D3x. This will sell like pancakes.
Tried to purchase a copy. Can't advance to the Payment page on their website. Previous page keeps asking me to create a password as part of the process. Put in 4 different passwords but keeps asking me to use a different one. I'm not even registered with them.
It's amazing to see how much detail you recover with sharpening in those f/22 sample RAWs. The brick pattern and all. I thought f/22 at 36mp would produce only mush. I guess I was wrong. This is fantastic news for landscape work!
People in this market segment do not care about IQ. Entry level SLRs sell mostly on price and specs. And D3200 will sell like pancakes.
Adam Filipowicz: within two years 4k tvs and monitors will be available for public consumption. at prices that high end 1080p tvs are today
Im sorry Adam, but 4K is mostly for professional use, post production, and theatrical showing. 4K won't be marketable anytime soon due to infrastructure, which, for the most part, does not yet support 1080. Most digital TV and HD cable/fiber optic broadcasts are done in 720, as 1080 requires an enormous amount of bandwidth. Frankly, 1080 TV sets only make sense at sizes 42" and more. So marketing 4K sets has a way to go, not to mention there isn't a replacement media for blu-ray that can manage the file sizes 4K yields. All of the holographic discs that were in development to replace blu-ray have since fallen though. Besides, a human being with 20/20 vision cannot tell the difference between 720 and 1080 resolution on a 50 inch TV placed 10 feet away. 4K is and always will be strictly for theatrical use, unless the folks ate Samsung and LG invent a marketing plan to fool us all :-)
This Canon camera is entirely geared for professional video productions, not end-consumer use.
I'm sorry to be a downer, really, I am. But these two are awful. The faux bokeh in the dog photo just screams "shopped". If you really wanted to do it right, the dog should've been selected with lasso, selection fine-tuned, foreground+background done on separate layers, and maybe after 20 minutes of PS work you'd get a real-looking bokeh. Nevermind difficult depths of field with multiple objects.
There have been bokeh plug-ins around, so I certainly welcome Adobe including this neat little feature in PS. I just think it's very limited with respect to the kinds of photos where it can be effectively utilized.
The flower picture is a better example, but even there the blur bleeds off on the sides of the bottom flower. It's meticulous work, no doubt.
Ok, I admit, I pixel-peeped. Am I the only one who thinks 5D III has absolutely no advantage over 5D II when shooting RAW at high ISO? In fact, in some images, 5D III has noticeably more noise.
I think we're reaching a point where technology is limited by the laws of physics?
Great, I remember with the D3/D300 release, it took them a few months to release raw compatibility. Good to see they're ahead of the curve this time.
Great read guys, thanks for the article, which certainly goes beyond the usual preview. While it may be too early to say this, I think Nikon's PR was a bit optimistic in stating D4s noise is a stop above th D3s. From what I've seen, they're evenly matched for the most part. Still, with a 16mp sensor, to keep noise at bay like they have is great. Love the backlit buttons!
As an Apple Aperture user, I'm glad to see many of these new features, such as book design, maps and geotagging, video support, and soft proofing have been present in Aperture 3 since 2010 when it was released. It's refreshing to see that Adobe finally caught up. :-)
i admit, I am jealous. As an avid user of Nikon's CLS system, this is the first time I wish something similar had been implemented across Nikon's speedlight models. Infrared triggering is fine for indoor use, but fails miserably everywhere else. +1 for Canon for taking a leap forward.
Great stuff. Gives 5D II users the AF they've always dreamed of, an extra stop of light in the ISO range, and a host of other features. Perfect upgrade.
Considering none of these photographers have used neither one of these cameras, let alone field tested them, this interview just seems a bit... premature and speculative.
HDR makes a scene look fake, and begs the viewer to question its authenticity. What John Omvik seems to conveniently forget is that while the cameras in use today are not capable of recording the full dynamic range, the display methods (whether in print or on the screen) are equally incapable of reproducing it. So in effect, while an HDR photo may contain the full dynamic range (as seen by the human eye), this image cannot be accurately displayed because neither newspaper nor magazine print can reproduce such a broad dynamic range, and neither can LCD screens. Photo reportage, whose authenticity is questioned by the viewer, has in effect failed to deliver that raw emotion which it aims for. However, this debate is best had amongst photographers, and not marketers of HDR software.
It's really odd to see this on dpreview which is a website centered on reviews of photographic equipment.