kodachromeguy: Great review, nice product. But when using the compare tool, I was surprised to see how well the inexpensive and simple Olympus PL-1 holds up with both RAW and JPEG. In fact, the JPEGS may look better.
Great review? Why? you agree with the outcome? It may be the best so-called entry level but it is pretty sad that it's noise performance and lackluster dynamic range has not improved.
jdrx2012: Canon has re-purposed their 18mp sensor so many times it is getting worse! Also, gotta say, I continue to hate on the 1.6 multiplier. Canon models, below the 5D series and 7D, stinks, plain and simple.
"The 7D hardly stinks." Try reading what I wrote. By the way, it is a sufficient difference to make a difference to those who are more discerning. Obviously, you couldn't be counted among that group. I ain't your buddy and you ain't too smart.
And do you prefer the massive difference of Nikon's 1.5x crop? Yeah, that is a huge deal buddy
Canon has re-purposed their 18mp sensor so many times it is getting worse! Also, gotta say, I continue to hate on the 1.6 multiplier. Canon models, below the 5D series and 7D, stinks, plain and simple.
I like composites. It isn't looking realistic though due to some of the shadows and lighting on the hair. Pretty good effort overall.
After consuming many of the messages here I can take comfort in the fact that the detractors of Instagram and all things that are claimed to "debase real photography" comprise only a small segment of the imaging taking forum participants who weighed in on the matter.
Kudos to Dan Wagner who posed a pretty good case for continuance of old school photography. If you haven't seen his work you should go to link he provides, good stuff. Dan is a real photographer for sure; others are evolving their craft, or lack thereof, by adding layers of effects on their image captures.
jwil6902: 35mm killed 120. Digital killed 35. Mobile will kill the P&S/basic DSLR. Get used to it, it's called progress and we are powerless against it's relentless march into the future.
Maybe you are Goofy? But, really, are you the grammar police, paralegal or lawyer?
And, if you do the cow manure study you end up with a sh*ty image.
Dan Wagner: I'm a practitioner of real photography. At least that's what I call it. I eschew gimmicks, fancy lighting, Kubota, Fong, and of course Instagramization. I shoot with film and process it myself. I want to be more involved. I want craft. Otherwise where's the heart? As an analogy, cooking with a microwave is one way to prepare a meal, but it's not as satisfying for the cook or the eater as traditional methods. The sense of self-accomplishment is vastly weaker. When it comes to photography or cooking, I put my photos where my mouth is. My work is at danwagnerphotography.com and it's real. This IS photography.
By larrytusaz (4 hours ago)
"See, I agree with Dan Wagner completely. To add my bits, when jdrx2012 asked about "laying judgment on them," gee whiz, what good is anything in life without SOME sense of standards? "
Yo, Larry, address me directly instead of being a bandwagoner by hopping aboard the Dan bus. By the way, judge all you want, at least back it up like Dan does.
It is fine that you and those who share your opinion do what you do, kind of like being the Bob Costas of the photo world, you know, purists of the game that resist change. No harm in that. Maybe that is true photography when compared to those who dabble or immerse themselves in applying new tech and techniques as part of digital artistry. I like the former but prefer the latter.-even as some want to take a big dump on it.
Okay, Dan, you put yourself out there and I respect that. I looked at your photography and it is good, in fact, some shots are excellent. Cool for you and your approach that satisfies your sense of accomplishment. Why not allow others to pursue photography on their own terms without laying your judgement on them? You come off an self proclaimed elitist and sole arbiter of what is 'real' photography. You aren't Ansel Adams and you are largely unknown, just like millions of other people. What have you done to impact photography of the world? Looks like you have set about to replicate the shooting style of many who have come before you. Is that what makes it real...because you have done a good job at imitating the better known photographers?
Maurizio Mancioli: If photography is viewed as art, the way you "get there" doesn't matter. It is the power of the work itself that will. Its capacity of "taking you places", of instigating you. With the growing amount of available tools (Photoshop, Instagram), so grew possible "shortcuts" to reach interesting results is there. But in the wrong hands, all these possibilities will only be a tiring excess of effects.
true, but, even without these tools there are plenty of boring photos out there, and have been since the beginning. Deciding who has "...the wrong hands" is totally off base, particuarly when we are talking about artistic freedom. You don't have to like something; that doesn't dimish its value.
Juck: A Camera + Lightroom = The WhoAn Iphone & Instagram = Kate Perry and Auto-tune (utter crap)
By iMac, therefore iAm (8 hours ago)
Pete Townsend = completely exonerated of child porn charges------------------------------------------------------------------Says Who? (the sound of loud applause)
BadScience,"btwjdrx2012 Let's not call these images porn. It is abuse, it is rape." No need to debate what is defined as pornography here in the US vs other places. I think we are on the same team here. Either way, it was reprehensible conduct that wasn't lessend by a plea deal to avoid possible incarceration.
Wilsing: Debasing is a rather strong word.
I have used 'Instagram' and other apps that have such filters.
I am however not kidding myself that there is anything creative about changing something with a few clicks.
Its a fad, it will pass.
I am sure there are users out there who can produce creative work regardless of methods or technics. I am thinking David Hockney and Polaroids.
A fad often evolves into another. Instagram wasn't spontaneously generated.
36hike: "Debasing", "the antithesis of creativity"? Get a grip. Snapshots were never considered more than snapshots during the five decades in which I've shot images.
If anything is debasing the power of professional and/or fine arts photography, it is the sheer glut of it. The medium lacks the power it once had, because it is so redundant and omni-present.
True, it is totally disgusting that so many people have access to the technology and tools of "professional and/or fine art photography". It is a damn shame, isn't it? How DARE THEY! Let's get the government to send the Army in to put a stop to it! Conversely, the antithesis of creativity are people who harbor such mindsets. The good news is they are part of a minority.
Lastly, some throw around 'snapshots' as though any image that was/is less than profound should be labled so willy nilly. The only person that could rightfully label an image capture as a snapshot is the person who took it.
Aputra: Look at the bright side, it can't make photo like a 50mm f1.4 can.
Taking pics using instagram, post it and getting 10 likes for it doesn't make u a good photographer. Instagram doesn't turn someone into a professional photographer.
So that's what's going on here; fear of the Instagramers being more liked than those who don't use it? Moreover, concern that the equipment that non-Instagramers use could be rendered useless by Instagramers? I have sometimes settled for a lower class of camera/lens simply for the fact that I needn't a tack sharp image to work with when my endgoal involved applying various processing techniques/filters to it. This could be the divide; photographers vs digital artists.
jeangenie: This debate is uneccessary. It only happens because people think Instagram is a creative tool. It is not. You see more-or-less the same filters used every time, because 'old' is in right now - fashion, music, everything. The only reason that the above photo could even be an Instagram photo is because the same people that use Instagram would wear those glasses and buy old-looking furniture.
We need to accept that since pretty much everyone owns a camera these days, that photography will be affected by the same fads as everything else.
The use of filters cannot kill photography. If it could, photography would have died several years ago, when all the DeviantArt kids filtered the heck out of their photos - and that was way more garish.
Debate won't be halted by proclaimations that it is unnecessary. Nor or declarations asserting Instagram isn't a creative tool change the fact that it is, maybe not for you, but you are in the minority. Your opinion doesn't make you somehow better in any way as a 'photographer', it just shows that you are different.
PeterK70: I completely agree with these guys at The Guardian. I don’t remember if I would ever like a photo that is demolished by this type of applications.
maybe such strong feelings come from a place that doesn't recognize that many prefer to interpret what they see.
Pete townsend = child porn collector, bad comparison. And, Kate Perry = smokin' hot.
pocketpygmy: i think the real point being made isn't that the instagram effects are necessarily irritating, but that, unlike film or photoshop, they are thrown around too often, too easily. film and photoshop both involve much more conscious choice, whether it's the actual firing of the shutter (we can take virtually unlimited photos and delete at will with digital cameras) or choosing which images exactly to alter (i.e. not every single one of them, and each the same way) and how exactly those images are altered. the rant against instagram here is essentially the same one against social media (and not really about photography): too much information all the time, which, in my view, de-values our overall experience of sharing with others (whether virtually or actually).