The greatness of these images, and the achievement in her art, is that you can not only see the light but you can feel it brushing one's skin and sweeping past the head.
Biowizard: Sorry, but as a biologist who loves and does everything he can to support the dwindling natural environment in which we all have a deep and profound share, I find an album of photos of collected-and-killed bees about as appetising as those dreadful cases of pinned, dead (some now extinct) butterflies, moths and beetles collected by Victorian "explorers".
In many climes bees do not winter over, and the workers do not reproduce, so your comment is rather pompously hollow. With mammals and long-lived bivalves, ok. With bees the organism is the hive, not the individual, a concept which takes some thinking.
Alan Brown: Forget the images.. it's the comments that nearly made me spit coffee over my keyboard!
best laugh i have had for a while.. I liked the one response about the "cat out of sight in the next seat" :) :) :)
And "it's racist"
And don`t miss the one about the àir crew which `went on strike`after their paychecks were discontinued.
Markol: I really wonder what it is he could not do with a current 400$ DSLR and the right lens. For what do they need the crazy resolution? Ok, maybe billboards. But technically, a modern DSLR should do the job just fine- I think.
Current productions are being shot with the expectation that they will be in syndication for five to 10 years. Since 4k is coming at the retail level, there is a lot more resolution in the current productions than is warranted by present market conditions or consumer demand. Look at the Japanese nature programs in HD from the 1990's. They still measure up, and were the state of the art at the time.
This genre of image is to photography as the Pacer is to automobiles.
xarcex: Bold move! Good on you Sun-Times, good on you.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, a photo is just a photo and, of course, a bad workman blames his tools, so if you're a good photographer you can even use a disposable camera and you'll get good results. People should stop caring so much about insignificant labels, such as "mobile photography" and should start focusing on actual results. DSLRs will never beat neither versatility nor practicality of smartphones.
Times are changing. I'm just saying...
IMO xarcex was being laconic, and trolling for responses like the ones he got. But only IMO
Sure, at $50000 less a discount it costs Intel less than hiring real photogs with an investment in the business.