With regard to aesthetic merits, each to his own and one can't argue.As to success, that goes hand in hand with individual taste too.
However, the essence of this article seems to have been missed by all but one who commented.
The author talks of perserverance and illustrates that by mentioning the number of visits to a site. To me, this is not perserverance, but rather making use of the opportunity.
99.9% of all photographers will not have the luxury to make such trips, even if they had the desire. It may be too expensive or they have other calls on their time. It is simply not an option and the only way they get 'the shot' is by lucky chance of being there at the appropriate time in the first place.
Any time the subject comes up as to the most important thing in photography, I always say 'Opportunity' and this article demonstrates exactly that.
Give most the opportunity and even a basic camera and there would be bucketloads of quality shots. Most simply don't get the chance.
zonoskar: The strange thing is, in 2002 Canon released the 1Ds with an 11MPix full-frame sensor. So why choose a 2MPix sensor for the rover 2 years later?
Please, you need to take your own advice to heart.
To quote from the horses mouth, which is there in white and black above:
"There are three ways for Curiosity, to broadcast data back to Earth - but it's only the UHF transmitter that can be used for transmitting the amounts of data required for sending back images. 'The UHF antenna transmits to two spacecraft orbiting Mars, which relay the results back to Earth. That's where most of the data is coming from. It gives us on the order of 250 megabits per day, and that's got to be shared between a bunch of instruments, so there's not much bandwidth for the cameras.' Ravine explains."
Strange? Did you not read the article??The only strange thing is people finding it odd, when bandwidth for large pictures is bad enough here on Earth, let alone 100 million miles away...sheesh!
aired: Very likely another fake landing. Black and white photos again? Low res photos? !!!Average person will associate low resolution and grinny and de colored photos as more authentic and real than vivid high resolution photos!!!
Black and white photos and videos can mask the fake artificial lights. In pro photography world one that can shoot and edit color professionally can do black and white easily. But not the case for black and white only photographer.
The light source that look too close to the subject can be identified
That's right! They've sent a device to transmit fake images from Mars to support the fake mission...Even if one nation tried to fake it, you can bet your bottom dollar others would pont out the lack of a signal that should be there, much as the Russians would certainly have tracked the Apollo craft and screamed from the rooftops if it was a pretence.
The only thing I find strange is that many people wondered or criticised and NASA felt it necessary to explain why, when the reasons were obvious to the meanest intelligence.
It was a monumentally difficult task, sending such kit so far to such a hostile environment, the real wonder is that they can do it at all, let alone the spectacular success they have achieved.
That such a report creates a 'hoo-hah' speaks volumes for consumers, unfortunately.
The truth is there is a company which, amongst other things, makes cameras of various kinds. I'm certain it will continue to make many models. What name they choose to print on the front has absolutely no effect on the internals whatsoever.
That people seem to think otherwise says to me that too many are interested, not in the actual product and how well it does its job, but rather whether it has the right name on the front.
A sad indictment of our society :(
The element I find most curious is only alluded to now and then, rather than stated categorically: that Fotki pay someone for the hosting are actually only an intermediary.
From the outside, it would seem that they have allowed the financial situation between them and the server owners to reach breaking point before addressing the issue.
Whether the suddeness of the crisis is down to Fotki management or that of the hosting company doesn't appear to be clear.
However, it could be viewed as not entirely accurate to say that members' pictures were safe. It would depend on the nature of any contract between that company and Fotki as to whether they could just pull the plug and delete everything without reference to the Fotki members. Only Fotki might have any legal responsibility in that respect, but where there are no assets there is no recompense.
The long term management of 'un-culled' media storage will always become too vast to cope, so such problems are inevitable in 'the cloud'.
Where all these ideas fall down is forgetting the nature of our own human weaknesses.
It is fine having all this facility for data storage and manipulation (as that is all it is), but unless one has a very organised mind and have initially put in place suitable indexes that mean something, extracting any of the useful data becomes more complex and difficult.
I'm very logical, but often I have to search my own computer to find a particular file and that is potentially tiny in comparison.
Also, there is more and more concern over access by third parties. It will become ever more difficult to keep your privacy and make decisions over possible future risks (how many times do people regret releasing things into the web?)
Ultimately, the possibilities and nature of the cloud clash with the limitations and nature of us as humans, and such a clash may well bring more problems than solutions.
T3: I would so love to have that 45/1.8 in black. It would look so much better on the black body. Come on, Oly!
What mysterious shop is already selling this camera before it is officially available???
She is now the photographer to whose talent I most aspire and I will certainly be buying the book.
A fabulous eye and yet she wasn't looking for acknowledgement, but apparently pursued her own interests and enjoyment.
Unfortunately, we are unlikely ever to see her kind again.
If I was to attain even a tenth of her artistic skill, no-one would ever see my work as it would all be on transitory electronic storage and the likelihood of it being of any use when I die, let alone anyone having sufficient curiosity to investigate, is small indeed.
I don't know about other makes, but the main issue for me using third party lenses on a Sony is that the data for the lens in the microadjust system is not always correct.Consequently, adjusting for one can overwrite that for another lens, leaving focus errors.If Sony were to release all the background information and I could be sure of no conflicts, this would be of interest. As it is, Sony won't guarantee the body will support the lens properly and Tamron will almost certainy say their lens will work correctly, leaving the customer to discover the truth for himself!
To a large degree, all truth is about subjective perception.Photography is no different, but man will always discuss the nature of such truths, as it affects how we interact with our world, our life and our very existence.
Do my views not count anymore as I've been a full time pro for the last few years?
I was an amateur before and when I'm taking shots of my family and holidays I'm pretty sure no-one pays me...
I do think the desciption of the survey runs the risk of rendering it less than useful, although that wouldn't make it unique amongst surveys!
I'm in agreement with Itchhh, plus I find it enough of a chore uploading my files from CF cards to my own servers. To add the difficulties of your average broadband into the mix I won't be signing up for this anytime soon.
I do appreciate the appeal on some levels, but I see too many weak links in the chain.
aardvark7: As with all the other samples, they are very poor and would ordinarily end up 'on the cutting room floor'!
Even when trying to apply the single stated advantage, that of selecting focus point, it is so inaccurate and arbitrary, that the 'gain' is actually a negative. To see what I mean, just try getting the earring in focus on the first sample shot...
Even if this system succeeded to some degree, the thought of having to fool around afterwards with every shot, just to optimise focus, sends shivers down my spine! It's bad enough post processing 500 - 1000 wedding shots when I've pretty well nailed the focus and the exposure is already reasonably good. Add this into the mix and you are looking at nervous breakdown territory!!!
All that said, I'm with Joe on this: it's complete hooey!
So what, might I ask, is the point of the samples?They purport to show the results, but don't! Merely a feeble impression.We are told that the majority of use (certainly initially) will be for Facebook et al., but this only demonstrates it is not even usable for that.The only conclusions then are that the device is even more useless than common sense suggests and far less likely to see the light of day than has been stated.
As with all the other samples, they are very poor and would ordinarily end up 'on the cutting room floor'!
Carefully selected shots which are both low resolution and seem to only have two distinct focus planes (rather than many) do nothing to suggest that this will have any use other than a curiosity for the foreseeable future.Also, as I have mentioned before, the nature of moving the decison about focus and depth of field to part of post-processing risks the artistic process.I'm far from convinced and this demonstration does nothing to cahnge that view.
straylightrun: This just looks so wrong:
Do you mean the bizarre tiny sensor, or the bl**dy great thumb print on it???? :)
Ultimately, most digital camera users are 'lazy' and want instant gratification.This will likely mean that results will only ever be used to show what has just been taken, on the camera LCD, or posted on-line for others to play with.Anything else and it turns every user into a RAW photographer, having to process all their pictures, and there is great resistance to that among the vast majority of users.Indeed, to add choosing point of focus and perhaps depth of field to any adjustments of exposure, white balance and cropping makes the task of post-processing far too long-winded or intimidating for all but the keenest and I think the novelty might soon fade.I'm certain it will have it's place, as with 3D cameras, but it won't be mainstream anytime soon.