Johnsonj: 100 million kids with camera phones will always beat a staff of pros with the best gear.
Get one of those hats Matt Drudge wears and put a slip of paper in the band that says "Press".
I'm sure the photos will be great and the newspaper will postpone its demise for a few years. But here's something else you "unfortunate but necessary" folks might want to give a thought:
Of course this is much bigger than a bunch of unemployed photographers but you get the point, hopefully.
AZBlue: While it sucks for those who have been laid off, I don't understand why this is a bad thing. News consumers want immediacy, they don't want art or composition or high level of detail. Leave the art and composition to National Geographic. For news, immediacy is king and in that vein, so are smart phone photos and videos.
Technology moves on and sometimes it renders certain jobs less secure. I'm sure that moving to freelancers has cut costs tremendously for Sun Times. Why would you keep 28 people on staff, paying salaries and benefits, when you can dramatically cut costs by only paying for the photos and videos that you really need?
What a lovely way of saying technology renders certain jobs less secure. I'd put it this way; lots of people get fired and far, far fewer jobs are created than were lost.
Dear DPR, why not call Leica and ask Roger if this definitely isn't the camera? Free publicity is great but if this is a hoax, it won't do anybody any good.
I've owned a number of these small cameras (LX5, G11, S95, GR Digital, X10) and ultimately never been happy with the image quality unless I was at ISO 100. Now, if the Nikon is really so slow...for another $100 or so, you could get a G1X. The G1X is very slow, doesn't focus close, etc. But the image quality is frankly, in a different league.
migus: Useful, well written tutorial on an important tool (PS & LR5)... thank you, Jean!As a previous PS user, i'm still amazed how time consuming even the most basic operations are in Adobe products: This is not entirely the cost of precision, having more control knobs - but also a corporate Adobe signature! (Not that other monopoly holders, e.g. Autodesk, Oracle, SAP etc. are much different...)
One can achieve 80-90% of these excellent results in few seconds flat using, e.g. a humble free Picasa. It all depends where your good-enough threshold is :-). Mitch
There are things that Photoshop does really well but not without many steps. I was watching one of Julieanne's tutorials on creating a transparent watermark from a graphic in Photoshop and was astounded at the number of steps. Needless to say, couldn't get it to work but I'm sure that was the fault of my short attention span.
This grip looks fine but just out of curiosity, why would anyone pay $3000 for a 5D3 and then walk around with a camera strap that says "Canon 5D3"? Is this (a) free advertising for Canon, (b) so that other people can tell what camera you have, even in a crowd or (c) to remind you what camera is on your shoulder.
Alternative Energy Photography: I think some of the comments below warrant a reconsideration by the editors/authors here regarding "Adobe Only" articles.
Why would a photography site write an article solely about a single vendor's products? Are you trying to say that the product is the "ONLY WAY" to accomplish the desired result?
This should be a "technical article". How to do Gradients. Period. Sure, describe how to do it in Photoshop. Even if the Adobe instructions require more space, you should still include some details about how to do it with a couple of other popular products, or at least give the reader some clues by letting us know what other products Gradients can be done in.
This is a photography site. Not an Adobe site, right? So why do Adobe's products always show up prominently in "how to" headlines? DPR, please stop propping up Adobe and start serving your enthusiast audience: photographers and photography enthusiasts! Help us get off Adobe's gravy train; it is only serving Adobe.
The reason there are so many tutorials on Photoshop isn't just because a lot of people use Photoshop. It's also because doing most things in Photoshop requires so many steps that how-to lessons are appropriate. Photoshop what software people call "powerful" which means complex.
PhotoKhan: If it can offer any technical advantages without the "guess-what-color-when-and-how" surreal kaleidoscope amusingly offered by Sigma and hilariously ignored by SigmaFovFans, then, yes, let's see it!
Strip away the arrogance and this is like saying folks like Velvia but that's because they don't know how color is supposed to look.
Chrysippus: I was considering getting a Fuji X100S or a Nikon D7100 and when I saw the Coolpix A announcement for the first time I thought it was rubbish. However,when I compare the A with the XE-1, D7100, X100S and the Olympus OM-D using the dpreview tool, to my eyes there's no question that the Coolpix A is noticeably better than the others in terms of IQ (I only compared RAW at lowest ISO). I asked my 15-year old daughter to come and check as well without telling her anything and while scanning every inch of the test image she chose the Coolpix A every time. This morning I played with it in a local shop and although my heart was set on a X100S, I must say that the Coolpix A is now making me think twice. I think the IQ is amazing.
Both excellent choices with outstanding image quality. Forget DxO ratings, they are for fans and engineers. It's easy enough to take a few shots and see what looks best to you.
dp62: Set aside the price, an increasing group of people are not in favour of carrying around a bulky DSLR.
Instead they seek an outstanding compact camera, fitting in a big (coat) pocket, or a small 'belt bag', with preferrably an APS-C sensor. They may be the "once in a while photoshooters", but whilst doing so, they donot wish compromise on quality too much, accepting that compact cameras are simply incomparible to DSLRs.
I think there aren't too many compact camera's with an APS-C sensor.
Fujifilm x100s: 127x74x54mm (5x2.91x2.13"), 16.3 MP, 2.8" screen (460.000 dots), 35 mm, abt usd 1400
Leica X2: 124x69x52mm (4.88x2.72x2.05"), 16.2 MP, 2.7" screen (230.000 dots), 36 mm, abt. usd 1950
Nikon Coolpix A: 111x64x40mm (4.37x2.52x1.57"), 16.2 MP, 3" screen (921.000 dots), 28 mm, abt. usd 1100(famous D7000 sensor)
The Coolpix A is the smallest and have a 3"/921.000.In this specific segment, at this moment, I believe they offer competitive product.=
The Ricoh will force the price of the Nikon lower because the sort of enthusiast interested in one will be familiar with the other. But some people will have have to have Nikon so it may take a while.
Minolta4Life: $1,100.00...hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahah..........hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah. Hope I made my point.
It's a fancy point and shoot with a sharp, fixed focal length lens and a sensor big enough to take advantage of a really good lens. Whether this level of image quality, limited to 28mm-only is worth the price, even when it gets closer to the Ricoh, is another story.
I think Canon would be better served by getting their existing sensors up to the Sony level of quality (I am a Canon user so this is not a fan club thing). On the other hand, just because Sigma can't make a less noisy sensor doesn't mean that Canon can't. Even on my little DP1, if you keep the ISO low, the detail captured is amazing.
lenseye: This woman is an idiot with an ego the size of Florida! That's what you get when you put someone like that in charge of an organization that big! I'm surprised more stupidity doesn't flow out of her mouth! Her daycare comments fiasco is still talked about!
The only way you get to play at CEO level is by professionally kissing behinds! Obviously she excelled at that...
Almost all CEOs have incredibly impressive resumes. This proves is that you can be smart and make the same mistakes ordinary people do. The one area is which CEOs really do excel is in being in the right place at the right time. This is something they really have down.
Reg Natarajan: She's largely correct. Photojournalism today is far more about finding new uploads on Youtube than sending out some reporter with a ton of gear.
Personally, I love the new Flickr, and I think my favorite thing about it is the entertaining reaction of the obsessive weirdos who frequent this site.
It's frightening that people cannot grasp even the simplest joke. I was referring the "pro's" claim of superiority over "weirdos" but if it has to be explained, he may be on to something.
It's great being better than everyone else, isn't it?
HowaboutRAW: Ms Mayer:
Is just showing a common attitude of those who fell into extraordinary monies without really working for it, she thinks people work for free, and then are rewarded because of some other factor, like being one of the first 10 employees of Google.
It wasn't a "misstatement". It was a version of a made up reality where no one has to scratch out a living shooting pictures.
Never underestimate the value of being in the right place at the right time. This even applies to photography, but I was thinking of corporate giants like Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina.
BJToepper: Flickr took heat from some quarters for having an "outdated" interface by comparison to other sites. I tried a few of the other sites, like 500px and SmugMug, but always came back to Flickr for a few reasons:
1) The interface was so old -- and easy to use -- that nearly everyone understood it at a glance. By "everyone," I mean my parents and other technophobes, for whom change is more than inconvenient, a horror.
2) The primary viewing page for a photo was loaded with information: title, notes, geo-location, set/group membership, and basic exposure data. Most of this stuff is still there, sort of, but requires scrolling down to see it. The map, however, is missing, one of the more compelling features, as no other site had it so prominently displayed.
3) White. This seems to go against most other users, but I preferred the white background. It was friendlier, not so nakedly "artistic" or whatever.
I'm sure I'll get used to the new, but I feel like I've lost a friend.
It was so simple, I didn't really appreciate it until it was gone. Simplicity rocks.
JRFlorendo: Make sure everything is backed up in a cheap 2 terabyte HD before uploading(file structure in all), I have a feeling Yahoo is waiting for everyone to quickly use it up so in time Yahoo can dictate a higher annual rate, $100, $150, $200, $250......$500. Yahoo is hoping Flickr is your go to cloud service, why not(free 2T, $50 no advert.) and it'll be so time consuming to re-download your files that you'll just pay whatever annual fee they'll charge in the future. It is so much easier to click "delete Flickr account" than re-downloading your originals.
That's my motto about everything. "Don't expect those prices to go up, ever." It seems to be working with postage stamps.
Assuming your setup can handle unending streams of photos, I think it's unfortunate, but workable. I detect an underlying philosophy. Photos are plentiful and cheap/free so why not plaster the page with as many as possible. To me, this is like Lucille Ball on the assembly line at the candy factory but obviously, instant gratification is more popular than taking time to study individual photos.