"...why not combine some epic fire-breathing..." Makes sense to me!
bobus: I can can see all that and more in Tijuana.
I'm happy that dpreview didn't try to whitewash Sochi. Our media in the US is determined to hide the truth from the people.
I can can see all that and more in Tijuana.
zycamaniac: Yeah, zap people in the street for your own gain and call it art.
I can see that there will soon be a newspaper headline talking about an obnoxious camera car guy getting shot, with car set aflame via Molotov Cocktail.
I don't understand how anyone can do things for his own gain!
Lee Jay: What a worthless loser.
Aside from the fact that this is immoral and produces lousy photography, what happens when he triggers a medical response in his victims? I can get opthalmic migraines from regular on camera flashes fired directly at me. Debilitating, but not dangerous. I avoid studio strobes like the plague. What if he triggers a seizure in someone?
Just a worthless loser!!!
Earthlight: ..."raises troubling questions about privacy"
Why? The pick-up and the light-blaster-on-the-pole are hardly stealthy. Licence plates and all. I'd rather worry about the ubiquitous cellphone videographer. :)
There is no expectation of privacy in public places, and clearly not all the subjects are offended. Although they do seem to be mostly grumpy old people.
robogobo: I'm learning how conservative and unimaginative most DPReview readers are. What a bunch of pedantic, judgemental boring old grumps!
It's really just a tiny minority of disgruntled pedantic, judgmental, boring, grumpy old men!
photoramone: Do you suppose that it's LEGAL, or Friendly, even?? I once took a picture of four ladies in a shopping mall, all were dressed in middle-eastern garb (Burkas) and you could see nothing more than their EYES. I was incredulous that they were very angry that I had taken this picture of them, out in public... My response to their complaint was, I'm very sorry, I won't do it again... But later, it occured to me that , How could they Prove, in a court of law, that it was the four of THEM??? BUT, I believe that, with-out getting their PERMISSION, I shouldn't have "done that Drive-bye" thing.. I'm just sayin!!!
"I was incredulous that they were very angry that I had taken this picture of them, out in public... "
That's a muslim thing.
I would like to see someone do this kind of shooting of people who are taking shopping carts out of the supermarket's parking lot. I bet you could get some very funny expressions.
I hope they do it again in spring, summer and/or fall. Not winter.
SiliconVoid: Amazing how many people do not understand what higher ISO sensitivities are 'really' for...
Sure, there are situations where you want/need to capture an image in low lighting such as this, and this is very acceptable noise performance (compare the same shot with the D800 then view at 1:1 pixel, you won't see better performance). However it is not the primary purpose of higher ISO...
The real reason for higher sensitivities is to maintain shutter speed for your subject. Situations where you could very well capture a properly exposed image at 1/60s at ISO100 but because of movement you need to bump the shutter up to subject freezing speeds. In those situations you will not have the visible low detail artifacts and noise, even at 1:1 pixel peeping, because there was enough light to begin with just not for the faster shutter speed desired..
It would be great if the masses would stop worrying about whether a camera can capture images, hand-held, at 1/125s shutter speeds, in the dark.. =/
"It would be great if the masses would stop worrying about whether a camera can capture images, hand-held, at 1/125s shutter speeds, in the dark.. =/"
Right! Because then the masses wouldn't be worrying so much!
AntonH: Personally, I don't like the photos but I learned something from it.
“I really had no idea that there would be a possibility for setting up a studio.”
“I was under the impression that I was going to be photographing athletes on a stage or during press conference where I would take their headshots for our archives,”
Bring a paper cutter to a gun fight. That's one of many photogs worst nightmare when we are not getting the essential information of the event. So who is responsible to find it out? Us, the photographer, unfortunately.
If in doubts, it won't hurt to haul the entire army of all your gears to the event. better be safe than sorry.
"Joe had come armed with two cameras and three lenses (17-35, 70-200 and 300), plus one flash and a 12-inch laptop."
Skipping a standard zoom is also a big no-no in my book. For any event, any gig.
The bottom line is, if I were in his shoe, I wold focus on what I can do best with what I have.
"Bring a paper cutter to a gun fight. That's one of many photogs worst nightmare when we are not getting the essential information of the event."
He brought a shotgun.
Chuck Lantz: His shots are truly unique and truly great, each and every one of them. They present the subjects as real people, who just happen to excel in their chosen sport.
Sometimes being forced by circumstances to work extra fast, under less than ideal conditions, brings out the best in all artists. When I taught art, I used an insanely fast "on the clock" life-drawing exercise, where the students had to sketch a model in progessively shorter time frames, with the final drawing done in under ten seconds.
This resulted in the students being forced to put themselves "in the zone" and drawing more automatically, rather than relying on tricks taught to them. It also resulted in some truly good art.
"Sometimes being forced by circumstances to work extra fast..."
He found time get a shotgun for the photo!
Why is this tagged with PENTAX when it says the camera is a Sony Cyber-shot?