gravelhopper: To the people who are bothered by photos depicting human suffering:
You are asking to be spared with that kind of pictures.
I suggest an alternative approach: you contribute to a world where we have less suffering, especially the kind that humans inflict on humans. Every individual contributes in some direct or indirect way to the human condition, thus has the power and the possibilities to influence how that condition develops.
To those who claim that only an insignificant number of people experience some kind of suffering: do your research and get a better feeling for our reality. Denying facts doesn't make them nonexistent.Cheers.
@ mcshan: you see those who have made it a habit to refelct on what impact their choices will have to be on high horse? Sorry to see that my comment makes you feel bad about yourself.
There are several comments that voice valid criticism: e.g. that journalism featuring catastrophes and suffering too often has become a mere business model, generating income and recognition for journalist and media, in consequence attracting more journalists, inflating coverage of the same subject, ultimately deadening our response to important issues.
One aspect that should make us think: the exploitative attitude driving such journalism is similar to the attitude that ultimately contributes to inflicting injustice and suffering on the depicted victims.
To the people who are bothered by photos depicting human suffering:
Interested in first real world AF impressions? Check this out: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57414948Cheers
Kostasm: thumbs up for pixel peeping but please hire a nikon guy for goddamn color
You guys are cracking me up :-))
turvyT: My real star is my 3 year old daughter, so I'm going to get this camera to astrotrace her around the skies. (She'll probably love that intriguing articulated screen too).
Very beautyfully said, we know what you mean :-)
Why is almost everybody referring to manual M and A lenses when the talk is about legacy Pentax glas? There are quite a lot highly regarded fullframe autofocus F and FA lenses available. Take a look at Pentaxforums. Cheers
gravelhopper: Jorge, you have been on the K1-related threads for days, throwing bait all directions at the Pentax folks - and they go for it! Jorge, you must have a ball!
Don't cry ... We are all just having some fun, right?
"Not possible to discuss anything with the blind Pentax people" ... Why then are you spending so much time with us?
Jorge, you have been on the K1-related threads for days, throwing bait all directions at the Pentax folks - and they go for it! Jorge, you must have a ball!
ThePhilips: Ah, the marvel of German engineering.
When I only came to the Germany, it was one of the first things which confused me (professionally) a lot: they over-engineer lots of things.
Not because it is really needed, but mostly because (1st) they can engineer that well and (2nd) they can't anything else.
This lens looks a lot like an example of this phenomenon.
Can you expand on your statement "(2nd) they can't anything else."?
KevinSB: Whoever wrote this is a very misinformed soul.....
Your analogies are idiotic at best.....Did you look at the prices of Canon, Nikon, Sony FF cameras at launch ? No that is apparent, a used 5dm3 is priced above a new K-1... Once you’ve bought a couple of lenses to go with your new K-1, that fairly reasonably $1800 has turned into a much, much bigger investment.'...What would a D800 or 5Dm3 with lenses cost ? (Quote)I can’t wait to try them out on the K-1. Unfortunately, while putting old glass on high-resolution cameras is a lot of fun, it does tend to show up the defects in that glass pretty glaringly. SHOW US AN IMAGE !!!!!
Sorry but this article is useless and void of any real information.....
Try making your point without getting rude. It is possible. And even better, it will make your point acceptable to the audience.
Langusta: Is it only me or those portraits do look like a zombie parade?
I concur. See my post below. Though people perceive these images quite differently. This should be respected and not be reason for mutual bashing.
Disclaimer: I like freckles and do not see them as blemishes. To me the perfection of the typical magazine cover girl is no measure for actual human beauty.
Mr. Liedtke sums up his intention as "I wanted to try to create something beautiful out of something that many people see as blemishes".
Here are the photographs' (technical) features I can identify:
headshot (opposed to upper body / complete body)black backgroundmonochromatic cold-brownish coloring(part of) face and freckles in focus, rest of head, body disappearing in blur and blacknessaccentuation of freckles and, where subject's eyes support it, very bright / piercing eyes faces mostly expressing acute self-awareness and vulnerability (my perception of those facial expressions, yours may differ)
My personal perception of these pictures: with these techniques combined Mr. Liedtke reduces the displayed women to their freckles and attaches a rather negative sensation. Reference this with Mr. Liedtke's stated intention.
PhotoKhan: I feel ambivalent about this freckles project.
The end result, photographically-wise is certainly beautiful and it only endorses Fritz as a talented photographer.
However, I hope the pictured girls know what they're getting into. This is important because of the psychological impact freckles have on women who have them, on account of what Fritz, himself, so aptly laid out.
Photography is treacherous to people with any kind of facial blemishes, freckles or scars.
Because it compresses the dynamic range of "normal observation", it accentuates those features by contrast.
Whereas we can talk with a person with a significant mole on their face and be unaware of it for minutes in a row, if we see the very same face of this person in a photograph, because of the said dynamic range compression and the conversion from 3D into 2D, if the mole has not be addressed, it will immediately become the main focus our visual scanning of the image.
My reading of Khan's post is that "Freckles can be perceived as an imperfection / negative by the subject. When freckles are accentuated in a photographic presentation that perception and its psychological impact on the subject can become worse". I do not read that Khan rates freckles as something bad, rather that a possible negative self-perception can be amplified. If this is what Khan means I can follow his argumentation.
I believe that DSLR AF inaccuracy will be the main reason for extinction of cameras that do AF with a sensor other than the main picture sensor - so mostly DSLRs with mirrors.
Gleaning from my own experience and what I see mentioned in many posts AF inaccuracy is common among most DSLRs. I also believe that many posters who complain about cameras and lenses "not to be sharp" are not aware that they are actually dealing with front- or back-focusing AF.
I learned the hard way and spent a lot of money until it dawned unto me what I was really dealing with.
(post continued below ...)
With today's resolution and optical performance smallest focus deviations become apparent when we examine our pictures on the screen. The bad message is that reasons for that are complex, i.e. AF accuracy depends on camera-lens-combination, color temperature, brightness, aperture, distance to object, focal length, and - worst of all - your camera's mood on a given day (my own experience). Even if camera makers implemented an elaborate function to compensate for ff/bf, there are too many variables changing with every shooting situation, rendering such function mostly ineffective.
What an outlook: we spend hundreds of dollars on a new lens - basically to have entered a lottery where we need to run time consuming tests (over days!) to find out if we got lucky or not. The days of my DSLR are counted.
Interesting to see that dpr does not mention the K3's AF capability in low light. For every in-door available light photographer this is as cruicial as low noise at high ISO. When reviewing the K5 II this was mentioned: "As for light levels, I was able to compare the K-5 II with the Nikon D7100, and found I was able to focus with the K-5 II in lower light than with the Nikon. In exceptionally low light (a large blacked-out room lit with a single tungsten bulb) there was a clear point where the Nikon's AF system (rated down to -2EV) just gave up, never delivering a focus confirmation beep, and the K-5 II (rated down to -3EV) kept on making accurate decisions." Also something I do not understand: for both the K5 ii and the K3 the whole "performance" section is missing while it is being part of other reviews. Anyway, I hope the K5 ii low light capabilities are a base feature in all Pentax bodies now.