vkphoto: Subtitle typo: "Fujifilm X100 Real-world Samples Gallery". Should be X100sPhotos look good.
More macro photos of nematodes, please.
Nikonworks: Why do most of the 'Real World' samples on this web site all seem to be subjects that do not require a photo release?
Most of the 'Real World' shots we DPReview readers take are not the 'Real World' photos displayed in this article.
Please take this as constructive in nature.Providing real 'Real World' photos would be very helpful to all of us here, both management and us readers.
More photos of horseshoe crabs, please.
Pat Cullinan Jr: When will the review be ready?
I'm forever popping off. Sorry, everybody.
When will the review be ready?
Jordan Norris: Dsnoir I think the negative commenters' point is, that on a photography site we don't need/want these kind of slice and dice techniques... I'm sure there's plenty of photoshop forums out there for that. I'm also sure the majority of photographers on this site would appreciate more articles on photographic technique, basic PP or physics behind photography and cameras and lenses.
What I was trying to say was that I thought the example was too simple. But now I'm thinking maybe I was being too snooty or too pat-centric. I let my sub to Photoshop User lapse because I thought the examples were too simple. I mean, one writer used some 75 layers and I'm saying it's too simple. Plus, the sub was too expensive anyway. Heh.
Y Hafting: Now while this is relatively powerful, and "cheating" (the image is no longer a photo but a compound image), the more typical situation for beginners would be to mask bad exposure by pulling out two different brightness settings from one raw file, and then combining to get a decent looking picture. Compared to using HDR or shadow-highlight tools, there is a good chance that using blending with a gradient layer mask will turn out much more natural.
Sorry, I must've expressed myself poorly. Dodging, burning and the like, however executed, is processing. Digital (or other) transmogrification that goes beyond this might be called forging, unless the customer or target vidience* is informed about it, in which case you wouldn't call it forging, but working over. Or not?
I have at times, without making it known, shamelessly worked over some of my photos in order to straighten out my nose. But no one cares anyway._____* For instances of this monster-word "vidience" going back to 1875, see www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=vidience&num=50.
The example is simplistic.
I'd like to see a piece on correcting a really nasty, intractable color problem.
backayonder: I think the picture would look better if you removed the weathered old house and replaced it with a Holiday Inn or maybe the Eiffel Tower.
The shanty doesn't even have nice aluminum door trim.
That's processing, not forging.
585 mm and no VF? Tondelayo no like.
Next camera they put out without a VF gets a kick in the nuts.
Does it take really fine pictures -- really fine? If not, then I'm for a NEX-7, and bother my wife and her everlasting breadknife.
$450 for an OVF? That's a peace crime. You can get a perhaps moderately slummocky third-party 28mm OVF for ca. $150. Only mebbe without bright lines.
attomole: So does this kill of any speculation that there will be a d400, I suppose so.Shame really the D300, D700 and D3, I think were a high point as a canonical line up at the top of the Nikon range. Good update though My head and heart says d600 though if i want to spend this much, the headline price is about that of some internet prices for the 600 now. or save some money and space and go for MFT or mirror-less APSC
yabokkie: good lenses, but it's very unefficient shooting APS-C with full-frame lenses, but it's more difficult to make same good lenses for APS-C DSLRs at the same quality and cost, that APS-C DSLRs deserve to die.
btw, 24.00MP DX translates to 56.56MP FX, that we know there should be no problem we go double D800, and maybe quad D800 resolutions.
>write your local representative
A propos of nothing, my representative is a record-setting bung.
Jimmy jang Boo: Can a 24 megapixel Bayer compete with a 46 megapixel Foveon X3?
If not, why would anyone buy an RX-1?
>why would anyone buy an RX-1?
Because I'm pig-rich or staring nuts. No, seriously, it's a fine tool, only a tad dear. I'll just have to limp along with my RX100.
mpgxsvcd: I don't need 1200mm in my telescope. Why would I need it for terrestrial work?
1200mm/50mm = 24 diameters magnification.
In the photographic world, this is huge.
tipple: maybe it's just my eyesight but, why do so many of the sample pics look out of focus?
Great post, Marike. Informative. Thank you.