skanter: Shi#%ty title, shi##ty book.
Wow, I didn't know we had so many master photo editors on this comment thread...
StanRogers: No choice *but* to volunteer, I guess. Some of the "restorations" in the site's portfolio are disasters unto themselves, and people deserve better. "Free" and "volunteer" are not excuses for shoddy work.
The third example given here, for instance, has managed to turn a delighted little girl into a somewhat tipsy middle-aged woman by faithfully turning damage into "facial features". Ringlets on the right would make me think that ringlets would be appropriate on the left as well (but maybe that's just me) and the slightest bit of research would have revealed that her middy blouse was probably a pale blue — or, less likely, pink — and should be considerably darker. I'm no Ctein, but I can do better. And that means I have to.
Stan, which one of these is a more painful reminder of what one has lost: a photo that is burned and scratched beyond most of its recognition, or a retouch that someone made, out of the kindness of their heart, that may not come 100% of the way back to the (again, almost entirely lost) original photo, but at least restores 80-90% of it reasonably well?
And sometimes, thought IS all that counts. This project isn't just about materials, it's also about sending important intangible messages of people's willingness to set aside their own lives and help others in any way that they can.
Ian: I wonder how this differs from CineStyle?
My question as well, especially since Canon and Kodak worked together on CineStyle. I would love to see a 3-way comparison between this, CineStyle, and the typical Flat profile with lowered saturation and contrast.
I think this is a great idea. It's not about making the end result look like the picture on the right all the time. It's about getting the most, and cleanest, information from the scene to be able to work with. It's about having the flexibility to get great detail from both shadows and highlights where previous sensors would either clip or present lots of noise. In this way, it's a powerful direction to go in.
digitalanalog: Large companies' products are getting more and more 'shabby'. Canon, Nikon, Apple - you name it. Looks like they don't care at all - which is probably the truth. It's a shame.
How does Apple fall into this category? Apple products have arguably better build quality today than they ever have.
Manic Tuesday: There will be several mid to top level management suicides in japan this weekend. and for what? so that someone can obsess over some atomic level imperfections?
was it worth it? was it?
What are you even talking about?
camera fan not photographer: No specs in an entire 5-page camera review? No sensor size. No focal length. No aperture. Huh? Just because it's a phone doesn't mean the camera fundamentals are suddenly not important.
I would argue that it does. 99.99% of people using this phone to snap pics could not care less about sensor size or focal length or aperture (and BTW, aperture is 2.4). Why would they? How does that impact their snapshots? Only a really serious photographer would care, and what kind of serious photographer would be using a cell phone in such a way anyway? That isn't what it's designed for.
Dan1964: I like Eric Kim I subscribe to him on youtube
Actually DamenS, there was nothing explicit about your second to last comment. Maybe in your head it seemed explicit, but it wasn't.
Try not to be such a condescending jerk next time.
eliaskyo: As they say in the gaming world:
"Haters gonna hate."
Thank you for the read, DPR.
Roland, it isn't stupid to not like something, but it is stupid to act like you are forced to read every single thing DPReview posts and that your opinion of what is interesting and quality speaks for everyone else (not singling you out, speaking in general).
Is it unusual for photographers to make videos?
thubleau7: From looking at his sample photographs there is nothing he can teach me about street photography .the samples are just C**P.I just think DPR should spend more time on getting out reviews then endless no sensical articles on the front web page.most here dont care about this stuff we just want honest reviews and tests of equipment and then most if not all head straight to the forums to see whats happening.
total waste of web space.
DamenS, the merit or quality of a post is very often subjective. Just because it isn't to your taste doesn't mean that someone here won't find it useful or interesting. If you don't like it, then don't click on it, but you cannot decide for everyone what is interesting or useful and what is not.
What's so funny about it?
People around here act like they're forced to read every single thing that gets posted.
hc44: I'm gonna go against the grain here and say it's a compromise which didn't have to be made. You shouldn't have to re-invent the whole camera because of a sensor change. A sensor can be though of in abstract terms as a plug-able component with a fixed I/O interface. Resolution can be a variable which the rest of the camera can be made to work with as a variable. A hi-res raw image can be down scaled, sometimes you send the hi sometimes the low, you have the option. The engineers shot themselves in the foot when they began the project allowing for a fixed res sensor only, and did so knowing technology advances. In the 60s the Apollo project got a man on the moon in under a decade, imagine how fast pasted their project was, but now they can't change a camera sensor in the space of 8 years.
The people who have been designing this vehicle are among the smartest people in the country, without a doubt. I'm sure that if there was truly a better way to have gone about doing this, they would have done it. There is a lot of bureaucracy at NASA, there could have been factors completely unrelated to scientific feasibility.
I really like this style of photography, reminds me of an Instagram from ~35 years ago, in the sense that it gives you a rough idea of what everyday life looked like back then. I make that comparison to Instagram in the best possible way.
Yes, I realize that saying that these photos show what everyday life was like back then is a stretch, but as someone who wasn't around when these photos were taken, I find them interesting to look at.
T cameron: After looking at the photos first I deemed the article not worth reading.
You thought that was so important that you had to share it in the comments?
jedinstvo: "For those of you who may not know, he is one of the early color pioneers in photography in America." - what nonsense. I'm the same age as Shore and the pioneering stage was long over by the time either of us picked up a camera. I enjoy looking at Shore's work but I don't understand these people who put him up on a pedestal. There's thousands of photographers just as interesting. Me included.
So humble :)
Nice shots, really show off what this lens can do. Would love to have this kind of zoom available to me.
CameraLabTester: The Olympic actions are so predictable. Too easy.
The lens should have more challenge.
I didn't say anyone said the lens isn't good. I said that you're a jerk, and that's still accurate. All you have done on this comment page is come in and insult the photographer and the images. "Too easy." "Mediocre images". "The shots are good shots... to you." Nothing you have said is positive or at least constructive. The best you've done is suggest that this lens needs "a more higher challenge".