orpheo: The tendency of the outcome is hardly surprising, after all it is no news that high-density sensors demand the very best glass to show (some of) their potential. Yet the D800 shows a somewhat lower efficency than expected with many good lenses - only around 50%, where the D7000 reaches around 63%. The 5Dmk3 on the other hand scores better than expected compared to the mk2.
However with a little time and the inclusion of more of the newer lenses (Nikon, Tamron 24-70mm) one can probably choose lenses between 14 and 200mm in the range of 19 to 25 P-Mpix for the D800. Still not all that impressive when the 5Dmk3 ranges between 17 and 21 P-MPix (ignoring the extremly expensive glass).
Of course one can obtain much higher results with the D800E (or even the D800) under optimal cirumstances and in the center of the image. But for consistantly higher edge-to-edge detail there is still no way around Middle-Format. Would you call that a surprise?
Both is true, I guess. Cause once you reach "the last bit of resolution" from a poor lens. thats it - and you'll need a better lens to get a little more.
In my book efficency is also part of the equation, not only the (theoretically) achievable. Pixels may get cheaper fast and so does the computing-power to work with those huge amounts of data. But I just don't want* to buy a new computer every year or two just to get a tiny bit more detail-resolution out of my pictures. *(financial AND ecological reasons).
The tendency of the outcome is hardly surprising, after all it is no news that high-density sensors demand the very best glass to show (some of) their potential. Yet the D800 shows a somewhat lower efficency than expected with many good lenses - only around 50%, where the D7000 reaches around 63%. The 5Dmk3 on the other hand scores better than expected compared to the mk2.
This beautiful portrait sticks out. I see a young woman, seemingly not very happy - perhaps she has been crying only minutes ago. She looks like she's seen a lot for her age, yet can handle it. But also her gaze touches my heart and makes me want to do my best, to avoid ever hurting her.Now technically this may be "just a lucky snapshot", which lacks a certain "professional flair" and is not rated very high here. But it is cropped nicely, has lots of "soul" and fits the theme very well.
Interesting and promising picture. But I'm afraid 'The Andy G' below is right again...
AC1: I'd have thought it was pretty damn obvious to most normal people that the title suggests it should be an adult female human being who has attention-grabbing or above-average looks as measured by the average man-in-the-street.
'Beauty in the eye of the beholder' is codswallop.
Any other interpretation is deliberately being obtuse and making complications out of something that should be simple.
There you go. Define 'adult' - 18 years+? 'Attention-grabbing looks' - or rather 'eyes'? The 'average man-in-the-street' - where, India, Japan, US or NZ? I think, I know what you mean though. Let's see...Winner: looks like 15 years, beautiful eyes but no stunning gaze. (And: good pic but composition not really perfect.) Runner up: Aha, there we go (at least, we caucasions?). Third: a child - should've been DQ'd.You already don't agree? Maybe that's because I'm not average... ;o)
That is a real-life woman looking at you and one could drown in those eyes. Then there is that little smile, almost a little mocking... Once I managed to look at the whole of the picture, the chin seemed to be chopped off a bit too hard, maybe.
I'd rather not, else I'd think, I'd probably gone to heaven already ;o)
How about cropping a bit tighter to make it look better in preview?Mainly kidding - though it does enfold its qualities much better in full view. There is lots of personality, often missing in doll-like studio pics. Do I see surprise, some protest and beeing flattered at the same time? And as for the eyes - oh well, do you you still dream about her? ;o)
I agree, should be a bit brighter. Perhaps the crop a little bit too daring? But other than that? Congratulations!
Oh yes, lots of magic here. Nice crop, nice everything - personally don't care much for the framing, though. With this theme it should have been among top five. At least.
Bluetrain048: Is it just me or is the test scene like a small child's nightmare?
Except for the little pie-thing on the right, but do you dare go get it? ;o) Improvised it may be, but that kind of test scene makes a lot of sense when it comes to high ISOs. It's much closer to the real situation where you need those - i.e. worst case conditions like street-scenes at night or stage with colored lights. The usual studio shots don't really have that quality.I think it would help a lot if DPR would ad that kind of test for high ISOs and would also regularly put some real world night shots into the samples (as with the 5D3).Hope you guys still read this after so long...
Thank you, jezsik, and you're right. But I didn't even think of that, when I chose to put in this one.
And thanks all for the favourable votes :)
You mean, if she'd let you "sneak her in", dear SMacDuff... ;o)
Absolutely agree with you, although it depends a little on the kind and amount of tatoos, the kind of clothing and the whole attitude.
But this picture is clearly my favourite!
Nice smile, nice picture. But nothing bad, nothing freaky or trouble at all.
The title says it, so why place it in this challenge?
Can't see a bad girl nor anything freaky here...
garyknrd: I moved to Asia after I retired. And I hate to say this but if you go into a computer shop here and want windows 7, CS5 or whatever is is 10 dollars. They hack everything. It must be costing the software giants billions of dollars. I had a glitch in my laptop the other day and wanted windows reloaded. When I got it back it had CS5, windows 7 and several other programs added just for bringing it in. 10 dollars. I asked the software guy what was up. He said and I quote.The Americans make the best software and we haven't paid for any yet.I kinda see where PS is coming from. But I think they need to fix there software where it is safe from hackers. Then it would be cheaper to all.
How do you mean? In the US Adobe Online Store PS costs $699 while in Germany it's €1010, equals $1292! Here in Switzerland, I can buy either an English-Version for $884 or a German-Version for $1163 at my favorit discount-shop! I guess someone re-translates every single menu-item with every new version of PS...
JayFromSA: The problem Adobe has is that if CS3 was the latest version, it would still be the gold standard. CS5 is way better than CS3 and more than enough for a long time to come IMHO. You can do your basic RAW conversion in any software program you wish, save it as a tiff and still pull it into ACR to benefit from all the tools inside it. Or you could convert a copy of your RAW file to DNG and then pull it (as a RAW file) into ACR. Point is, you actually don't need another ACR upgrade to recognize your new camera's RAW format.
Hey Adobe, we won't need CS6 or perhaps even 7 for a while still. Especially not inside an iCloud or any other iBig Boss or iEye-In-The-Sky type of system. Sorry. Forget it. Not now, not ever. Especially not for the amount of money you charge!
With Bridge, LR3 and Photoshop CS5 I have a quite seamless workflow, that also saves time, when handling lots of pictures. For that (along with the quality of the software) I was willing to pay a substantial amount of money. But i'm not willing to do that (even in "only" upgrade-prices) every 2 years or so and for that kind of money, I would expect a longer "servicespan" in updates for new cameras RAW format.But my nice little workflow will probably be obsolete until the Canon 5D MkIII comes out, which might be my next camera. By then I will probably be tired of the that upgrade-circus (incl. the whole bearing of Adobe) and start looking for workarounds like you sugest...
iGirl: I have CS5 - and can't see where I will need an upgrade from CS5 any time soon. It should last at least 5+ years, maybe even more. Maybe by then a real competitor will arise.
Also if Adobe has plans on starting up their "subscription" scheme to steal from users on a running fee basis per month (like a utility bill) - once the usefulness of my PAID copy of CS5 runs out - I will forever delete and block all things Adobe, and never look back.
For those who are not aware - They are currently trying to scam users with this never ending billing scheme on the new web design product called "Muse".
Yes, Photoshop CS5 would last me 5+ years as well. But Adobe has also developed the bad habbit of stopping updates for RAW-files of new cameras soon after the release of their newest CS-version. I can see it coming: updates to CS5 will already have been stopped until Canon 5D mk III or Nikon D800 come out. The idea, that my next camera would still be supported, was one of my main reasons to upgrade to CS5...
Gioradan: Many thanks for your positive comments. I do not carry a model release form with me.One of the obvious reasons is that I do not want people to know that they have been photographed. One other aspect is that most people I photograph do not read or write english and that will make the model release legally worthless.The two key issues for publishing this type of images are in the titling and use of the image.You can use images like this for news type publishing in digital, printed and broadcasted media. But anything promoting a commercial entity under ( say) the dart throwing monk is a no go zone. When it comes to titles, make sure that the title does not pass judgement that you cannot backup. Something like “The boatman preferred being photographed with brand X...” can put you in the deep end of a law suit, and will be a sure way to be dumped by that brand from any future engagements.I hope it helpsGiora
Which leads to your question. It is not an "official delict", so the persons in the pictures have to acclaim their rights or nothing at all will happen.
This is where my ethical question comes in. The people in your pictures will probably never realise that a picture of them was published somewhere. And possibly someone earned money and/or fame with it. Does that make it okay, to do it abroad, when at home it would be forbidden?
National Geographic Magazin and similar publications are available here too. In the context of a doc you could say there is a public interest to be informed about the people in other places, what they look like, what they wear etc.But I'm not sure what would happen, if one of the portraied persons would want their picture removed.
Hope this helps to clarify. I expected the laws in the US to be at least as strict but maybe not in New Zealand(?)