Najinsky

Is the artist allowed to like or not like his images too? If so he must be free to choose which images he takes forward with him, and which to abandon. It's the artists call.

The respect for this image seems to come from it's subsequent role in photographic history. Long after the artist decided to compose, shoot, process and print. And long after he decided if it went to his keepers pile.

I like to think of my comments as relating to the artist at the human level. The self criticism of ones own work and achievements.

That image wouldn't have made my keepers list. It's a simple and honest and human comment.

The fact that it's attracted a harsh critical response by todays art snobs, who as always have the gift of hindsight, though rarely foresight, only leads me to wonder if one day historians will consider it an iconic post that changed the boundaries of commenting as we know it.

What's interesting, is the edited version shown at the smithsonian site linked to below.

It has the car bumper at the photo's right edge cropped out.

It's interesting to contemplate how this happened.

For example was this done by the editor at the smithsonian site, who thought to himself, that bumper to the right of this iconic image looks a bit messy and should really be cropped out.

Or maybe the artist himself struggled with the artistic interpretation of the bumper and his decision to leave it in the frame.

Or perhaps this is a change he made when producing the new print, to counteract the possibly of a lawsuit by showing the images are not the same.

Riveting stuff, no?

For those to tired to hunt for the link I'll copy it here:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/William-Egglestons-Big-Wheels.html?c=y&page=1

Yes Mam, right away. No wait, I have to watch this paint dry.

Perhaps you can recommend a book that explains why everyone needs to like the same thing?

LOL. That one wouldn't have even made my keeper list, let alone my portfolio. I'm going to have to check my archives to see what hidden treasures I missed.

Sometimes I think I 'get' the concept of art, but then the ethanol wears off and I'm just left with a headache.

-Najinsky

Indeed. Looks like this playground lost its monitor. Cool, we can play with matches and use potty mouth words like poo poo. Tee Hee.

Download the Raw ISO 200 JPEGs. The Martini bottle, below the cap is the royal crest, between "By Appointment To Her Majesty The Queen" and "Suppliers of Martini Vermouth"

OM-D is notably beating the X100s (and X-Pro 1) here. To really see what's happening you need to zoom in many times perhaps 10X so you can see what's really happening. There are too many differences to list, but the most obvious are:

The actual text is well defined versus soft.
The lions face, mane and crown is distinct versus mush.
The shield rendering is distinct versus mush.
The small lion on top has a distinct tail versus mush.
The White on Red letting is much better.

Anyone with eyes will see these stark differences if they choose to..

Corner softness (at F8?) is playing a part (the image is distorted and soft here), but it is the random mush that gets rendered when the contrast drops that is proving to be a signature for this sensor. Nowhere close to the hyped FF quality, and being bested by μ4/3 here.

Why did this go on the connect site. Is computer software no longer part of the main DPR site?

@ Kananga, what development? Development seems to have been frozen. Not even support for Retina Macs (it works, but it uses a scaled display mode rather than native Retina).

And while I'm pleased by the announcement of their intention to evolve the product, I just hope it means adding new filters and features, not just transitioning it to a cloud based subscription service.

@Phil: re: "Seems a bit pointless to process RAW files from a camera...an Android device".

Everything is pointless until there is a point. It's within the definition.

iOS has built in support for raw files in that they are recognised media types. This means they are recognised as and can be used as images. It uses the embedded JPEG for display, but for most cameras these are good quality and at least it makes the files directly usable.

There are then the third party apps that can actually process the raws to develop the image.

When combined, this provides a lot of flexibility for photographers who shoot raw.

Import the shoot and they are instantly usable as images. But if you screwed up the capture and need to rescue the shadows/highlights/WB, you can fix those by developing the raw.

It is a little less useful on Android because raws are not recognised media types and therefore require additional processes to extract the previews and try to keep them associated with the raws.

Just to clarify, you mean no way to get raw from the built in camera. Obviously there are several iOS raw converter apps that work with raw files loaded onto the device from a camera. I assume Android has too by now.

@prairiewinters

A quicker way on the Mac is just to hit the "Reader" blue button at the end of the URL.

If you want to read it offline, just add it to your reading list (the reading glasses icon on bookmarks bar).

While most of us here on DPR perhaps don't have the same requirements as Sports pros and PJs, there are lots of great soundbites that probably ring true with our own experience.

For me, the Canon feeling like an extension of the hand was the subject of my very first post here on DPR in 2007. Where after months of research in choosing a Nikon D200, I actually bought the Canon 20D after holding and shooting with it.

Another is 'workflow is everything' which brings to mind the recent heated debates about Fuji's X-Trans issues with the popular workflow products.

Perhaps the real value in this excellent article is to help remind us that people have different requirements and preferences, and that criticism of a camera is as much an invitation for constructive discussion as it is for the loyal wolf-packs to gather looking for blood.

Dat's-a because we respect-a da family.

LOL @ EdB3

Ironic you mention people not having any idea what they are talking about (you were referring to me). The clue is in the article:

"The idea behind X-Trans is that its pattern repeats less often than the Bayer pattern, rendering redundant the low-pass filter that usually protects against moiré."

Lets do that last bit one more time.

"rendering redundant the low-pass filter that usually protects against moiré."

Got that yet? The X-Trans CFA is directly related to the removal of the AA, and was done to protect against moiré.

Now, you see that old lady in the test shots above, that yellow banding isn't part of the scene. Do you know what it's called? That's right moiré. Clever sausage.

So has X-Trans succeeded in suppressing moiré?

And has it caused a headache for raw developers?

So which one of us is clueless? The answer is neither, the clues are right there in the article for all to see. But only one of us wants to ignore them and then accuse others of being ignorant.

Was I supposed to know what a Magnum photographer is?

I had a chocolate truffle Magnum ice cream today, and I once bought a Magnum of champagne for a party (it's possible I also ate a magnum ice cream at the party, but I don't specifically recall).

I did watch a TV series staring Tom Selleck, and enjoyed the Dirty Harry series of Clint Eastwood films, but none of those seem relevant to this; perhaps the Tom Selleck character at a push, 20 years later with too much winter feasting under the belt (and over), a bit like Captain Kirk and TJ Hooker.

PS: I know now it's an agency, but that's only because this article made me feel small for not already knowing what it was, so I went and did some private investigating.

Isn't this site supposed to have an editor who looks for things like 'Magnum' and replace it with 'the Photo Agency Magnum'? Note please don't do that now, as my comment would then say 'I had a chocolate truffle the Photo Agency Magnum' which wouldn't really make any sense.

By essentially blurring the image, a bit like an AA filter?

The X100 images were as good as any other Bayer 12MP image, and better than most. X-Trans hasn't worked yet, but at least it's no longer an Achilles heel so people can get on with enjoying their camera and fine lenses. And who knows, one day they may also get the promised benefits of colour and detail.

I love a lot of what Fuji does for photography, but have become completely bored by their over hyped, under-performing sensor 'innovations' that cause developers headaches, while the worlds best cameras still seem to get by just fine with Bayer.

I got a chance to play with the RX1 and to be honest after 5 minutes I was done. Focus was too slow indoors. I had my OM-D and was also trialing a 6D, and the indoor focus speed of those two really brought home how lagging the RX1 AF was. Add to that the lack of focus peeking during full view cmposition and I knew very quickly I wasn't going to be happy with that knd of performance on a premium product.

I don't mind the price, but I just would find it itritating to be constantly reminded they hadnt pulled out all the stops for their flagship product.

After my brief hands on I took a trip to the cybershot forum here, and sure enough there were a number of negative comments regarding focussing. For sure, some would have been user error, but some would also have been camera performance.

Hopefully, some firmware updates and perhaps a few tweaks to the build (not uncommon in high value low volume productions) will tempt me to look again in a few months.

How strange, I've been using Aperture with a retina Mac for months now. Not only is it fully supported, the images look absolutely stunning thanks to the high density, allowing 4 times the detail to be seen over regular screens.

It's getting harder and harder to distinguish those being paid to badmouth Apple (see "I earn a fortune from home" type adverts) from those who just didn't bother learning about the things they like to talk about.

Adequate seems a little deliberately understated. Most reports are placing it in the Very Good category, rather than Exceptional. Not really the same thing as Adequate.

The point of Very Good lenses is they can help you make Very Good photos. Combined with the fast and very quiet AF, and you perhaps can find 3 meaningful points for the lens.

Try clicking the download original link, this opens the original in a new window, then save that file: On your Mac, right (control) click the image and choose "save image to downloads". On iOS, Tap and hold the image, and a pop-up window lets you save it to the camera roll.

Once saved you can open it in your preferred viewing software.

Your iPhone is definitely retina, your Mac/iPad may or may not be, you don't say. Very little of the web properly supports high res content so when view in a browser on retina, you end up seeing re-sacaled images (which with larger images are already scaled for display). Open it in an App with Retina support and it will look significantly better.