angrywhtman: Putting aside the global economic depression/recession (yes we're in one), cameras have reached a point where many are not compelled to upgrade. Unless there is a significant change in technology, I don't see the need to upgrade.
I agree. Digital photo technology has matured to the point where the photographic needs of most owners are currently met with their existing camera. For that reason, the evolutionary improvements of newer models don't justify an upgrade as frequently as with earlier cameras. However, a form change (such as smaller mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras) can present a difference significant enough in the eyes of the consumer to justify a purchase, and I think that is part of the reason for the popularity of u4/3, Nikon1, etc. Otherwise, the market is pretty well saturated, I think -- not many new purchasers have never had a camera -- so not a surprise that volumes have decreased.
babalu: Re the dog behind the counter photo : a rarely lucky snapshotI'd say. The paw on the notebook, ready to note down yourorders, the ears pointed at attention, and the slight tilting of the head to one side are classic, and "humanize" this friendly dog to a high degree . A great caricature of your standard utility-shop clerk, if it were not so crowded with goods on display that distract the attention from the main subject. Maybe a slight crop would have been better ?
On the other hand, the clutter of all the hardware and paperwork makes the discovery of the dog within all this busy-ness a nice surprise.
TomJD: ".....with an unusual conceit at its core."
I guess I will have to read the book to decide if the core is really conceit or a misspelled concept. ;)
I had not considered another definition of conceit other than vain pride or hubris, but Tan68's reply encouraged me to recheck the definition. Other definitions of the word might indeed describe this book, so I stand corrected (although I still think "concept" is a better choice).
".....with an unusual conceit at its core."
Mark Roberts: Sure, you can do art with crayons too.... does that mean it's to be considered in the same category as oil painting?
Well...yes, it does. Similar arguments have been made about whether photography should be considered as art the way painting is. Or if so, whether digital prints (inkjet, thermal, etc.) could be considered in the same category as silver halide. The question about art isn't whether it was done in a certain way or with a certain media, but the object it creates and the impact this has on the observer. Not all art is successful, however.... perhaps that's the question that should be asked in evaluating Mr. Grey's work, rather than how he did it.