Todd Ka: These are disgusting. and should be illegal. Goodby privacy.
You were fooled into thinking that you ever had "privacy" to begin with. The government (and military) and see into your home, listen to your conversations, track your movements, and monitor your business... the concept of "getting a warrant" is for people who don't know any better. Sheep. A warrant is about as realistic today as a restraining order... neither keep the really bad people, organizations, or governments from doing what they've been doing all along anyway.
rfsIII: Luckily, the technology for making sense of all those photos is at least years away, so the sheer volume of data is going to be its own protection for now. Think how hard it is to go through the 50,000 or 100,000 photos you have on your hard drive. Multiply that 100 times and then multiply THAT number by the billions of head-mounted cameras that will be in use soon. The Stasi and the CIA and the KGB and whatever other secret police will never be able to go through them all.
Actually a computer could find a particular face in a billion photos fairly quickly (relatively speaking). That technology has been around for at least a decade. It doesn't take much imagination to know how quickly such will be done a decade from now.
fstein: Interesting phenomenon - when surgeons document informed consent on video, patients have almost zero recall of what they were told
That's been happening in the field of Law since day one. Think of how many people have to be told what it was they really said as opposed to what people remember themselves as saying. Perhaps witnesses will be able to tell what they actually saw, instead of swearing to what they *think* they saw.
robogobo: No way am I going to tolerate someone in my presence with one of these obnoxious, intrusive apparat on their face. No way.
The choice isn't yours... past removing yourself from the presence of the other person wearing the thing-a-ma-bob on their face. Just like you can't do anything about a person with a cell phone or GoPro camera.
peevee1: D800E with Nikkor 85/1.4G and the new Sigma 1.4 DG HSM A (stopped down a little) are going to be as good or better as anything on 645D I suspect, even at base ISO (of course it kills Pentax at speed).
But then there are those DP1m, DP2m, DP3m.
Paying 10K for a body and then more for nice lenses is so last decade. ;)
The D88e comes close, and for most photographers will make better financial sense than buying a MF body + lenses and accessories- however, do not be fooled into thinking that the D800e is on par with a MF camera because it is not.
Close enough for most work, but there are many areas where the D800 doesn't even come close. Shooting a water skier from the back of a boat while you're plugged into a strobe or two... The D800 is restricted to 1/250 sync... a Mamiy/Phase set up with leaf shutter lens can give you over 1/1000 shutter speed while you're plugged into a 3200ws pack.
In a case like that (and that's just one example) the difference between the D800 (and the slow sync speed of the Pentax for that matter) and a MF body like the Hy6 or Phase/Mamiya will be night and day.
The difference will also show its colours when you start processing the file. The MF file can stand more "abuse" :)
That said- I'd opt for the D800 hands down over the Pentax... but not other MF systems.
Mr Fartleberry: What about their disco campaign? This is really old. Hasselbald went nuts when digital came out, they've still not recovered. Peddling red Ferrari cameras to arabs is still a bad sign.
(chuckle) The first time I saw their "Ferrari Edition" bodies, I thought it was a cheesy product. Even if offered at the same price point of the other models, I'd feel weird (actually embarrassed) toting around a camera that's loud red with Ferrari's prancing horse depicted on the side. Yuk. :)
I'd like to see Hasselblad breathe new life into the old 500 series which hasn't been updated since the 90's I was told. A refined mirror action, basic AF or at least in-camera metering would be a great start. I think Hasselblad should've made the 500 series into something like a "lite" version of the Hy6.
Offerings from Mamiya and Phase in my mind make Hasselblad (generally) a bad purchase decision today.
facedodge: The camera is about 10 degrees off level. (sure it was intentional... but still)
"But still" what? The shot creates a nice isosceles triangle (almost) at the top. Convention is great, but sheesh, I'm not the only one tired of seeing perfectly straight horizons, etc.. I find it refreshing to see a scene as my eyes might see it in the context of angles.
Stanchung mentions "blown highlights".... let me guess... the lens the photographer's using doesn't have perfect edge sharpness either right? Sure, layers could easily make the cloth perfectly exposed, etc., but good grief- all this "10 degrees off", "blown highlights" and other sanitization photography stuff has reached a unreasonable level of ridiculousness. ;)
Cy Cheze: People have been boiling lenses (lentils) for millenia.
Why no curiousity about how the lens got into the sea, or why the owner thought it worth $X to half-rescue an old lens perhaps worth less than $X? The story must be a bit soft-boiled.
I couldn't care less "how" it got into the sea. The owner probably figured that if it cost $500 to fix, that was still a lot cheaper than buying another fast wide angle premium lens... especially if the photographer used it primarily for paid work; in that case, it would be a no-brainer if the boiling trick worked, even only for 6 months.
The lens needing a new focus motor is practically a given since the focus motor in the 17-35 is notorious for squeaking-the-quitting.
spitfire31: Not to sound negative (some good ideas in the article, I think), but that heading profile photo, with a distracting strand of hair going right through the model's eye…
Personally, I'd have sent it straight into the Lightroom trash can for that reason.
I like the strand of hair over the eye as well- it makes the photograph have a more realistic look instead of the all-too-typical sanitized text-book stuff that often is counter reality.
Women have their hair blown, and strands of hair across their face, such hardly makes a photograph less attractive on that alone.
I didn't find the hair distractive. I found it refreshing, normal, and a relief that the photographer isn't chained down to technical convention that has reached the point of utter ridiculousness. :)
peterstuckings: Yes, agree with Lancet. Any wedding photog NOT doing this is behind the times...
Photographers have been using t/s lenses in glamour/fashion photography for years. A wedding photographer not doing this is hardly "behind the times"... especially since what you're looking at is fashion (bridal) photography as opposed to "wedding photography".
The shots look nice though! :)
iae aa eia: what is a professional? a professional photographer is a person who makes all his profits from photography. if the profits are not all from photography, then he is a semiprofessional. this is the true definition, and it has nothing to do with skills (though professionals are expected to show them).
what about equipment? well, when we say professional camera, we actually mean "professional targeted camera", because only the ones who earns all their money from photography can eventually, and eventually needs to, buy a better (more enduring, faster,...) camera.
That's absurd. You guys are killing me with this pro stuff. So what you're telling me is that if you make most of your living via photography this year, then you're a pro. But if you work the same hours in the studio as a photographer and make the exact amount of money as you did the previous year (or more), but an ebook that you wrote made $1 more than your photography, then all the sudden you're a "semi-pro" for that year?
That's just nuts, just like any insurance company knows. Try to tell an insurance company that you made $60,000 with your photography, but only $40,000 at your day job, so you want to get the non-professional rate to insure all your equipment and the insurance company will laugh in your face... justly so, because that definition is utter nonsense.
Your definition is not the definition of a "professional"; which, in fact, has absolutely nothing to do with how much you make. The number of skilled *professional* photographers having part-time jobs is common.
Deleted pending purge: No such thing like Pro cameras, there's only Pro photographers. And what makes them Pro (besides being obvious where their bread comes from) is sometimes the fact that they can do good photos with any camera. Otherwise, mercantilistic lore or not, there are only expensive, less expensive, not expensive, and cheap cameras. Technically, these will do what their specs say, if you either need or can afford to use them. But in the end, it will always be 10% equipment and 90% author - at any price level.
Saying there's no such thing as a "pro" camera body, "pro" lighting, etc.., is like saying there's no such thing as a "pro" drill, "pro" sewing machines, or "pro" scanners.
Most reasonable people know exactly what is meant between "pro" gear and the rest of the stuff.
There's a reason why a pro sewing machine costs much more than what you find sold in most stores. There's a reason why a "pro" drill costs a lot more than your $19.95 Black & Decker drill. There's a reason why an Alien Bee ring light costs $400 dollars and the Broncolor ring light $3,500... one *is* "pro" gear, the other isn't but pros use it.
Who uses the gear has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the gear is designed with the "pro" in mind. The difference in speed, build quality, quick buttons, etc., between a pro Nikon/Canon body and a 5D series is obvious; doesn't mean every pro *needs* or even *wants* that capability, but some do have the need/want.
Knowing the difference is elementary.
That's absolutely ridiculous. Insurance companies know it's ridiculous too. Tell your insurer that you make $87,000 per annum shooting aerial photography, but you make $112,000 per annum flying people back and forth to oil rigs and doing remote soil surveys as a pilot & soil/water engineer. They'll charge you a pro rate in a heartbeat because you *are* a pro making money with your photography.
You're not a "semi-pro" just because you didn't make more with your camera than you do on the day job.
What if Bill Gates loved to shoot and sell large format prints of movie stars in his home and made $400,000 per annum doing so... even though his financial holding yield more per annum?Semi pro still eh? ... but if he gave all his holdings away then he magically at that instant becomes a "pro"? That's just silly :)
vFunct: Far too many moronic non-professional photographers that think they are in the same league as professional photographers.
No, you're not as good as a professional photographer because you are using a consumer dSLR. Any editor can tell who is using high-end equipment and who isn't, in addition to be being able to spot artistic talent suitable for their media brand.
The editor defines who is pro. Not you.
The "editors" and "directors" aren't on the radar of most professional photographers. It is so common place for professional photographers to bend over backwards and take it up the rear for some "editor" or "director" and receiving crummy pay in return, that I think most of the young folks today looking to make it big in photography aren't even interested in breaking their backs dealing with publications when they can make more than that on their own.
I remember when everyone wanted to shoot for National Geo, Vogue, Playboy- now scores of photographers wanting to get paid don't even THINK of even considering busting their hump for those types of jobs.
Today many photographers are courting corporate accounts and Industrial shoots because they often (usually?) entail less work, less fuss, and better overall financial satisfaction for mid-level (most pros) photographers. It's all about who pays well, and generally speaking, it isn't work that has to do with some art director/editor.
Maxfield_photo: I own the Sekonic 758DR and the color checker passport, and they are both worth their weight in gold. I got to play with the 478 at a camera show, and it seems pretty cool, but I'm not used to touch screens, sort of a doubly steep learning curve for me. Gotta say though it would be really nice to have the manual light controls remotely right there in the meter.
If you find yourself wondering, "Do I really need a light meter?", well honestly, no, unless you work in a high volume production studio and need to meter ratios quickly and precisely 'need' is too strong a word. Will a light meter and a color checker improve your photography? Yes, immensely.
There are FAR more people who can get practical use from a light meter than just "high volume production studio" folks.
How does one use the in-camera meter to figure out the % of flash to ambient light and to keep such constant throughout a shoot when shooting family portraits, glamour or early morning nudes? ... especially when the sunlight is rapidly changing in the morning and evening?
I also use the 758DR (wonderful meter isn't it?) + colour card and being able to quickly dial in a camera setting that gives me, say, 30% flash to 70% ambient is one of my most liked features.
Shooting on location rapidly moving from place to place toting strobes and packs- it's VERY valuable to be able to instantly get an incident reading by having the client hold the meter, trigger the flash & you're done! No client wants to wait for a photographer to fiddle with lighting %ages.
Dedicated meters are useful across the photographic spectrum Pro or novice; they can make a huge difference! :)
Joe Ogiba: Michelle Obama's New Official Portrait taken with 5D MKIII w/EF24-70mm f/2.8L II USM at 63mm ,F4, 50iso, 1/80th sec :http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8532/8491445521_3fd1722dd7_o.jpg
I don't think most Americans give a care about something as nit pik as the size of Mrs. Obama's eyes. Most reasonable people aren't so tunnel visioned.
That's one problem with professional photography today- gotten so nit-pik that people can't see the big picture any longer... akin to an English teacher hell bent on her students being able to diagram a sentence correctly when most inhabitants of the planet engaged in business (to include professional publishing) couldn't care less about such.
Her eyes aren't perfect? As if most people give a hoot. Meanwhile that photographer (and many more like him generating non-perfect eyes in their portraits) are getting paid, and I gather the bulk of those who are super critical would starve if they had to survive on their own photography. ;)
Marek07: From a professional working environment, I have had this lens for over 5 months now, and is in constant use, I shoot Fashion and Portraiture and have to say it has become the workhorse in my kit even leaving my 50mm 1.2 to gather dust it's that good, of course there is always going to be distortion and vignetting with any zoom but the new 24-70 is the sharpest, fastest zoom I have used and has great bokeh.
I use it with the new 5d mk3 which now has lens correction, and shoot studio, location, front lit, backlit...
Initially I went into a camera store with a few flash cards and tried a variety of 24-70 lenses including the nikon d800e with it's 24-70 and the new canon easily came top.
As most professionals shooting to pay their mortgage already know, for most fashion, glamour, and portrait work, whether you shooting with a prime or premium zoom hardly matters.
While there are distinct advantages to both (Zooms come into their own during action portraiture when zooming with your sneakers isn't practical & primes come into their own WHEN that extra stop of light, light-for-focusing, or shutter speed makes a big difference which isn't often shooting general fashion, etc.)
It's only the bottom line that counts, and the bottom line is that most clients and professional photographers can't tell what you shot with after post processing is all said and done.
Many zooms best primes back in the mid 2000s, today in 2013 the prime vs. zoom fodder is just infantile. Generally, the days of there being a glaring difference to the point of a zoom being a detriment are long gone.
ManuelVilardeMacedo: An MF system or a brand new yacht: you choose.
An 80mp Phase with a bevy of lenses and premium bron color strobes doesn't equate to the cost of a cheap Cessna 162 (about $160k)... let alone a little e'lcheapo yacht starting around $400k. ;)
rrccad: odd .. i thought nikon claimed that flourite had no advantages .. and was inferior ..
"Nikon developed ED (Extra-low Dispersion) glass to enable the production of lenses that offer superior sharpness and color correction by minimizing chromatic aberration.Put simply, chromatic aberration is a type of image and color dispersion that occurs when light rays of varying wavelengths pass through optical glass. In the past, correcting this problem for telephoto lenses required special optical elements that offer anomalous dispersion characteristics - specifically calcium fluoride crystals. However, fluorite easily cracks and is sensitive to temperature changes that can adversely affect focusing by altering the lens' refractive index."
I hope they fixed that little problem they were having with flourite before putting it into a 18K supertelephoto :)
Writers aren't usually scientists, and quite often have no working knowledge about the subject they're writing about. Even today, you'll read and hear the media talk about how many "fighter jets" were deployed to an area, when "jets" don't fight at all. They merely propel an aircraft. They should use the term "fighter aircraft".
Sometimes they do say "jet fighters"... but who in their right mind thinks that a developed nation is deploying manned propeller aircraft to attack ground or air targets on the modern battle field?
"Flourite glass"... it won't be the last time you hear that. ;)
cgarrard: Hmm the new 800mm or a new car? One thing is for certain, the lens is not likely to depreciate in value like a new car will :).
... new or used, they are about as easy to get as a Honda.