Wye Photography: If you don't own the original it's not yours to copy.
It's not ethical to copy someone else's work and then use it for your own purposes.
What a load of thieves and people of low moral fibre we have here.
Bottom line is, photography is a profession. For a large part what sets pros apart from amateurs is quality, but it is definitely true that some who are not pros make better pictures than some who make their living from it. For other parts, its consistency, the willingness to be ready for a client whenever they call on to you, it's the willingness to devote your entire life to photography, it's entrepreneurship, it is many things.
Final thought. My mother bakes amazing breads. Does that mean the baker shouldn't make a living selling his?
@Miwok you are being extremely ignorant about photography. It's not about whether the people on this specific forum get paid for their photography or not. It's not about becoming richt and famous. It's not about giving your work away for free - it's a very generous thing of you to do.
What it is about is that there are thousands of honest and hard-working people who do photography for a living, whether you like it or not. Your observations about how photo reporters get their work is very insensitive and - dare I say it - not in the spirit of sammā-vācā. I'm a bit of a buddhist too, you know.
@Miwok Seriously, are you saying that only wedding photography is a profession?
D1N0: If you don't want your photo's "stolen" don't put them on the internet. Right click prevention scripts won't save you. Just get the URL from the source. The print screen button can not be scripted away anyway. Stupid greedy photographers who think they can sue anybody over simple instructions to avoid clumsy protection which doesn't even work in every browser are idiots. Put pictures online and get angry when people copy them. That is more moronic than even a baboon could ever be.
These comments from Miwok and D1NO are among the stupidest things I ever read on this topic. Seriously.
@Miwok your post is somewhat unintelligible but it seems you're saying that photography is either not a profession or if it is photos shouldn't showcase their work online. Please clarify.
Bottom line is, we (as a society or societies) seem to have forgotten that stuff costs money. Because we can get things for free, we somehow think its immoral to pay for it ("greedy photographers"). From there, it's a small step to make excuses for the thief instead of standing up for the author. It doesn't help that much of today's online content is managed by large corporations to which the moniker "greedy" might apply (music industry, film industry) but I wouldn't rank photographers among those...
Just a Photographer: Better ask yourself the question.How relevant are compact camera's nowadays?
This market is as good as dead and has been taken over by smart phones.
Yes even those compact camera's with zooms are badly sold. It must be able to take selfies not a horse at 90 yards away.
Owning several digital cameras (DSLR and EVIL), while increasingly shooting MF film for artistic purposes, I find I dislike carrying the digital cameras more and more, for their heft. A good, 'large' sensor compact is appealing to me more and more. Joe Cornish used to complement his Linhof Technika with a compact (maybe he still does). The Sony RX100 series are not much bigger than my trusty Gossen light meter, and for the work I do (mostly reflected light) they might even replace it at some point.
bstolk: So, what is the physical size of the sensor?
If it's the same one as in the Phase back (and it is), it's a 1.3 crop factor from 645.
RichRMA: Rather than these monsters, where is the collapsible medium format cameras of before, like the Fujis or Plaubels? Can you imagine a medium format camera smaller than a pro DSLR?
I've been dreaming of a digital follow-up to my Fuji GW690II for ages. Point is, however, all (current) MF lenses are designed with a flange distance large enough so that it allows for a mirrorbox. In other words, a whole new system. With a customer base as large as the current MF user group, it ain't gonna happen soon. We can still dream, though.
mpgxsvcd: Serious Question. How many of you shoot Medium Format or would switch to Medium Format if the right camera body was produced?
I shoot APS-C, FF, MF and LF. For the latter two I have film systems rather than digital, and the price is what's holding me back, esp. in the case of MF. For my commercial work, there's no need for anything beyond what my D800 gives me in terms of resolution, color, and dynamic range. For autonomous work, I'd definitey go for a medium format system if the price becomes reasonable. The fact that CMOS is here (and hence higher usable ISO) only makes it more interesting.
What is this, a camera or a camera plus back system?
That looks like one lens I'd like to own.... wonder what the price will be!
Is this an issue that affects all copies, or only some?
I hope they put it in LR!
Why do these article keep having their names altered? First the dog article became "creative canines", now this one went from 'fashion' to 'editorial'.
Excellent article, could serve as a blueprint for others. Really like how the article is built around a single shot, provides depth and insights.
I love these articles, but oftentimes when I get to the end I feel that they're not actually finished. I'm not complaining about quality, rather quantity. I know, I know, it's not a book and it's not even a payed service, but I would actually seriously consider to pay for more extensive articles.
jl_smith: The clicking can be heard in my camera even with smooth panning or slight tilting from one side to the other. It's definitely there and can be annoying if you're looking for it.
I tested the camera several times on video clips to make sure I wasn't just jerking the camera or rubbing a metal clip or something on the body, but nope it's there and it doesn't require jerking around in a lot of cases.
Even so, I'm not sending mine in - don't care about video that much.
I'd send it in anyway if I were you, if only for future resale value.