b craw: Well executed, thus charming vignettes of domesticity. Some are perhaps overly-familiar motifs - pensive child through window, something out of natural context (dog) in a photo bag, etc. - but I doubt that these endeavor to be cutting edge in terms of concept or visual outcome. They are nice, and I suspect, compelling to a large portion of the viewers here.
These photographs are certainly not in the same league of Sally Mann's work. But her work transcended familial photography to become serious art. As you say, these don't endeavor to be cutting edge and yes some are indeed clichés, yet the kind of imaginative fun shown is unfortunately not common with most folks using cameras.
Black Box: Oh, for crying out loud! Buy her a bowl of rocky road ice-cream and put on Ray Charles' "Crying time". But spare us another "unusual approach to children photography".
So, cliché photography is your preference? Well, now we know.
Imagination as a tool. Well.
Simple tips for beginners, nothing wrong there. It's also a commercial for some Canon stuff, nothing wrong there either.
And how many times have I read in DPR forums that an eraser can be used to clean lens contacts? Apparently the guys posting that suggestion are spreading misinformation, albeit innocently. Now I know to be more careful with lens contacts. Great!
InTheMist: Such poison, jealous spiteful words.
The article makes it really clear that Luke's "work has garnered a lot of attention in the past couple of years." I'm sorry that yours hasn't. Nor has mine.
Let young Luke enjoy his 15 minutes of fame.
Luke, if the critics work is better than yours, take it to heart! If not, disregard it and drive on. Have thick skin. Be prepared to promote yourself, second only advancing your skill in your chosen art form.
@bigdaddave:"...properly talented students.." According to whom? You?! Well then it's time you started your own photo blog to show the world whats what. Do let us know when that happens.
As Dirk67 (who has seen an actual print) has said these photographs are undoubtedly much more effective in print form. Still, to me even on my monitor these are wonderful, thoughtful and indeed disturbing, precisely what good photography can do.
Thank you DPR for what must be an exhaustive effort in seeing beyond the conformist vision.
andy816896: Great idea. I wonder if the IR might have been used to show up vegetation better? It's science, not art after all...
After trying manual focus on my NEX-6, my frustrations were the same.
mandophoto: Considering the size and weight of the 16-50 2-2.8 version, it should be popular with Americans.
@ Cane: Tough guy?? Well, brother Cane, may I humbly suggest you go back to school.
OK, the post above belongs in the lens news story. My mistake.
Considering the size and weight of the 16-50 2-2.8 version, it should be popular with Americans.
lensberg: Does this RAW converter fully support the D5300... Because for some reason the D7100 RAW files look considerably cleaner than the D5300 images at all settings in low light... and they're supposed to be using the exact same sensor... with Nikon's latest & greatest Expeed 4 in the D5300...
You are correct. Furthermore, the D5300 raw files are smaller than those from the D7100, suggesting different processing systems and/or sensors.
Unfortunately, by naming those photographs "the year's best" takes them out of context. In my opinion the second and last images are the best, but knowing the circumstances in which those images were made is imperative to understanding the photographs' importance.
Hugo First: fascinating cultural artifacts, both for who the snaps depict, but also as reminders of the US south during the '60s.
Absolutely. A Rolling Stones member and an African American porter in uniform, and both going about doing their thing in the same picture. A cultural moment from a not too distant past.
jkrumm: It's unfortunate, but this happens. Could happen to Amazon or anyone who stores CC card info. I just got word from my CC company that they are issuing me a new card due to this problem. Bit of a pain to fix all the recurring payments.
Yes, particularly now considering how many companies are getting on the music cloud wagon. There must be a bunch of illegal effort going on to break into that bank.
Why are people surprised by the cost of this lens? I mean compared to the Leica perfect 50mm f2 ($7,350.00,) and the Zeiss perfect 55mm f1.4 ($4,000.00,) this perfect Nikon 58 is a bargain.
As for the bulbous design, lets thank auto focus.
Good enough for 99% of the human race. Considering the quality of imagery available now from smartphones, it will be interesting to see what camera manufacturers do. A prediction: fast lenses and big sensors. Back to the past.
In my walks along river beds I occasionally find remnants of clothing which have at times seemed plaintive and beautiful. However, my attempts at making empathic photographs from those findings have so far not been successful. Thanks DPreview, did not know of Ms. Albus. She has done some beautiful work.
whawha: Very interesting pictures. Not being cats, ducks, flowers or rainbows they wont meet much interest around here, but its excellent photojournalism.
Laughed out loud, couldn't help it. You are right. Still, DPR is trying.
Hugo600si: 50 is an easier lens design, 24's have always been more expensive. And part of the price of the 24 is for the brand on the lens, don't enjoy it any less due to that, at the time it was the only decent lens available.Have to get me a 50 now though, it has been raved about since launch, but now its a must have (denies stating earlier that the DXO mark results can be a complete mess with the 35/1.4G junk scoring high...)
Well, OK, this is just a guess and don't take it the wrong way, but we can assume you don't like Zeiss, right?