Rage Joe: To be true, this doesn't seem like much. Not even for that time. Just being honest here. Poor job. But I guess the competition wasn't so hard back then.
"stiff and unnatural"
Yeah, like those useless Greek guys - and didn't they produce some terrible, clumsy, stuff? Horst was very into classical art, which even with your vast knowledge of art history you would never be able to appreciate for its beauty of line and form.
Dheorl: Would have been interested to see it done to a proper model, just to show how "imperfect" they actually are.
Have a look at this:
AbrasiveReducer: That's the great thing about technology. It always provides a solution, even when there's no problem.
It's called art. You probably haven't heard of it.
brycesteiner: Portrait and wedding pictures back with the 5 and 8 MP cameras sold very well and were good quality. More detail does not make shots better, just bigger file sizes and unflattering details! The ceiling for more megapixels has already been hit. Now we just need better megapixels.
Making an photo Renoir style is no longer interesting, at least not in artistic terms - the pictorialists exhausted that ground in the early 20th century. Not to say you can't use the same techniques today, as several well known photographers have proved into the 1970s - maybe a revival is due? But for a lot of people that type of photography is no longer "new" and therefore, in these days on instant gratification, no longer "interesting". We must have the new, but who these days is really "new"?
wwelti: Awesome! FINALLY we have stitching artifacts in portraits! :-)
Yea like that's all you care about. Ever looked at a Degas or a Velasquez?
Ayoh: The point being?
Look at the exhibition. The point is that he is showing the absolute, fine, details of the human face without the emotion. It's derived from the Dusseldorf School of Photography with a nod to Richard Avedon's In The American West - so it's not a new artistic breakthrough and therefore not really particularly interesting apart from the technology involved and the degree of detail that is achieved via a relatively simple (Canon 5D MkII) camera. Nonetheless, the results are impressive. I like it.
I agree that more detail doesn't make shots better - though it can, depending on what the photographer is trying to portray. Some people do need more or better megapixels, but that doesn't necessarily lead to better photographs, just more detailed ones. What we really need is better photographers but those days are now behind us - some photographers will use megapixels to get their point across, other will use more subtle means, but basically I think everything has been done before, so photography can now only go over old ground. I suppose the photographer who uses 1 zillion mp will be the winner, until someone else beats him. But what's the point? You might as well leave it to a robot.
Wow actually amazing so I'm surprised the usual DPR pixel peepers aren't all over this. Surely this is your holy grail! I like it myself - gives me a sense of what Avedon would have done if he was a robot ...
rhlpetrus: I held an X-Pro today in a store. What an ugly and chunky piece of hardware, can't understand the excessive laudatory remarks around these forums.
You're in the Fuji forum. The X-Pro is a great camera. I love it. I've loved other cameras, mostly Canon, but also Minolta and Pentax. What can't you understand?
Wow amazing photos like nothing I've seen before I must invest all my money in this new amazing camera system!
masterofdeception: Believe it or not a large majority of the British people (including myself) support the Royal Family. Queen Liz does a fantastic job and ok there are some hanger- ons but aren't there in any country? Berlusconi and Hollande anyone?
You people who don't like the Royal Family should just go back to the good old USA or Australia or Russia or wherever (North Korea?) and enjoy yourselves with your perfect lives free of any tyranny. Leave us true Brits alone!
OK then so i shouldn't pay any tax at all? Because if i had a choice, I would prefer to pay it to our Queen than to you. You only care about yourself and your own family, which is a sad indictment of where our country has gone in recent years. The Queen dedicated her life to this country and no one can say she hasn't lived up to that promise made 60 years ago. What have you done for your country then, enlighten me?
JEROME NOLAS: No more babies please....royal or with lots of power, that stuff is good for tabloids. Anyway what am I suppose to think about the nation that goes wild because of one "royal baby..."
What's your problem with it? We're enjoying ourselves. Are you having a good time?
mckracken88: this baby is super important, as are royals.who cares about syria or egypt or iraq?
I suggest Wye goes to North Korea, where he'll be truly happy!
Believe it or not a large majority of the British people (including myself) support the Royal Family. Queen Liz does a fantastic job and ok there are some hanger- ons but aren't there in any country? Berlusconi and Hollande anyone?
justinwonnacott: How can you figure out the right diopter lens BEFORE mail ordering one?
You should talk to your optician. He or she will know.
Keep those updates coming. Why would I want to splurge a lot of money on an X-pro2? PDAF maybe, but it won't make me a better photographer, just more a slave to my camera and it's quirks, then I'll be waiting for the X-Pro3 to sort those out. I'd rather master my camera as it is. I'll keep my X-Pro1 thank you and concentrate on my own faults rather than than the faults of the tool I use!
masterofdeception: I try to avoid Dpreview, for the simple reason that the people here seem to know (or care) very little about photography, but seem to enjoy positing on the next great thing in terms of technology. This thread is a perfect example of why I feel this way. I posted a long time ago about why I loved the Jpegs from my X-Pro 1, and nothing has changed for me. I don't claim anything special for my pictures, but you lot can keep on bickering about your pixels in your RAW files and it won't matter a damn to me. You're still all wondering why your camera didn't make you a great photographer, and why the latest C1, LR, Silkypix, DXO, ACR .184.108.40.206 update didn't make any difference to your terrible (soft/over sharpened/ "slightly milky") pictures of your cat? Well, I guess you'll never get the point!
Ansel Adams was a genius. Walker Evans was too and didn't make much of him. Guess which camp I'm in. The fact is, unless you're up to Ansel Adams' standards, all this pixel peeping is a load of nonsense.
I try to avoid Dpreview, for the simple reason that the people here seem to know (or care) very little about photography, but seem to enjoy positing on the next great thing in terms of technology. This thread is a perfect example of why I feel this way. I posted a long time ago about why I loved the Jpegs from my X-Pro 1, and nothing has changed for me. I don't claim anything special for my pictures, but you lot can keep on bickering about your pixels in your RAW files and it won't matter a damn to me. You're still all wondering why your camera didn't make you a great photographer, and why the latest C1, LR, Silkypix, DXO, ACR .220.127.116.11 update didn't make any difference to your terrible (soft/over sharpened/ "slightly milky") pictures of your cat? Well, I guess you'll never get the point!
Big Tom: "Landscape tips for smartphones" - but only talks to iPhone shooters recommending iPhone apps...can we headline the articles a little more accurately so us Android users don't waste too much time? Thanks!
Not against smartphone photography: it demonstrates, up to a point, that the true power of photography belongs to the photographer not the camera itself. But if photographers are worried by this re-advent of "you press the button and we do the rest", they need look no further than the f/64 group's reaction to the pictorialist style. The detail achievable by a good camera, coupled with the intention of the photographer, properly expressed through an art object that is A PHOTOGRAPH rather than an imitation of painting, will put the latest fad into perspective before long. I don't find any of the photographs in the article at all "stunning" I'm afraid. They're all passe, done before a million times, and bore me to death.
UK buyers, stand by to be ripped off...