straylightrun: Ouch. I feel so sorry that Mac users have to pay so much.
Newspapers and press agencies will happily pay for these for their employees. Though I'm not sure you're all that sorry :-)
Luke Kaven: Love in all its forms is a beautiful thing. The hate in this comment thread, full of dog whistles and innuendo, is the most malignant thing. That truly shows the power of the winning photograph.
Agree. The photo works. What's more, picking it as the winner has had an effect, even on this geek site, turning this comments section into a low-brow tabloid political rant fest. Which means this photojournalism is still important.
AlexDROP1984: The World is changing. Today photographers are merely illustrators to those stories that they describe in letters and not in photons/light. Do more story inside and through the picture and less away from it.IMHO none or the photos are fascinating, full-fledged and comprehensive. A few are memorable. And the first one is dull whatever the description it contains.Overall this pitiful story is all about the contest as well as modern journalism serves to politicians and not to photojournalists.N.B. there are countries where gays are violated in more harsher ways and even to be executed. Are jury members aware of gays and other minorities violations in Saudi Arabia for example? Or it has got an indulgence, doesn't it? Wet of oil... Gay issue becomes a valuable good and/or a weapon. It has little to none to problems of real people.
I'm not really sure what your rant is about. Are you proclaiming for all the world your view that the persecution of homosexuals is not a concern for "real people"? And what, in your view, defines a real person? And if I'm right, how come you find the comments section of Digital Photography Review a suitable medium for this particular discussion?
Zdman: Why is nobody else bugged by m43 camera's mostly having a 4:3 ratio as well? The specification is for an image circle so it could also be 3:2 like the others but all current models are 4:3. I would pick m43 if it was 3:2 but as it is I find it hard to compose. In all the comments by lovers and haters I've read (and that must be over a thousand by now) why have I not seen one comment on this?
It's a fair point, and people may have different reasons. Personally, I enjoy the squarer 4:3 ratio, and I like that it's the same ratio as my compact.I bet a lot of people just aren't worried about it. At the end of the day, I bet that for many people, it comes down to what they're used to. My favorite photo formats are actually square and the old 5*7-inch film format. But 4:3 works great for me.
BobORama: I want to know HOW they cut them in half. I've done this on a small scale for metallurgical specimen preparation. Same thing just bigger?
With an axe. Really fast.
PenGun: Makes no sense to me. The Fuji X cameras will just murder it in almost every way and cost less.
Murder is a very strong word. Let's just say this piece of equipment is not for you and move on.
Fair enough, if you want the viewfinder, this is an upgrade. I've used the P7700 for half a year now, and my favorite feature is the so-called Quick Control dial; I use it all the time to set sensitivity and custom picture modes. I'm sure trading in the dial for the VF was a hard decision for Nikon to make. For me, this new iteration isn't as desirable a compact camera.
"Whereas Olympus was trying to keep the clean front surface to evoke the simplicity of the film OM cameras, the E-M1 is clearly working to appeal to more advanced enthusiasts."I take your point, certainly, but am happy to have "advanced" to preferring it clean. To me it felt liberating going from the E-30, which has a button-to-real-estate quotient quite like the E-M1, to the sleeker layout on the E-M5. Everything can be set up in presets anyway, if you know what situations you're heading into. The E-M1 just seems different, not better, and it's not for me (any longer). Just my two cents.
Red Swan: Doing re-art of an art is an art by itself IMHO. And I like her work too. :)
I agree. Her images can be considered separate works. It has a long tradition :)
mzillch: Most of these original artists are long dead and never made any public statements regarding their stand on having their works adulterated. Luckily, one B&W artist, legendary film maker John Huston, DID survive into this ridiculous era of colorization and said he chose B&W over color quite intentionally:
"the aesthetic conception which earned John HUSTON his great fame is based on the interplay of black andwhite, which enabled him to create an atmosphere according to which he directed the actor and selectedthe backdrops; moreover, he expressed himself clearly about his film entitled “The Maltese Falcon” whenstating, “I wanted to shoot it in black and white like a sculptor chooses to work in clay, to pour his workin bronze, to sculpt in marble”.... “ASPHALT JUNGLE” was shot in black and white, following a deliberate aesthetic choice,according to a process which its authors considered best suited to the character of the work."
His heirs sued the colorizers, Turner Brdcst, AND WON.
Fair enough opinion. I think legally, these alterations will be considered separate works – no permission required.Personally, I'm enjoying the experiment. I don't think there's any pretence of improving the originals here. They are their own thing. And it's non-destructive; the originals will live on. I shoot almost entirely in B/W myself, for the record.
Andy Warhol "adulterated" other artists' art, and Jimi Hendrix turned out a glorious, but almost unrecognizable version of "Blue Suede Shoes." Dullaway is not Warhol or Hendrix, but (and because) she's doing her thing.My book of Dorothea Lange photos, for instance, looks exactly the same to me after viewing these photos. Dullaway's work play's on the originals, obviously, but lives alongside them. Her versions won't survive as long as the originals, and I imagine Dullaway is fine with that.
JerseyJohn: Ansel Adams wept
Ansel Adams shot roll after roll of Kodachrome as well as black and white. Kodak kept giving it to him, and he loved trying i out. He even shot ad photos for them.
The craftsmanship is very good here, and I find many of the images quite lovely. Some of them even have a vintage Kodachrome vibe to them.These will not do anything to diminish the power of the originals, or in any way replace them in the public consciousness, such that it is. I'm quite sure the artist is aware of that. It's just a cool exercise, and everyone is free to look or ignore. I think some of the original artists would have enjoyed these, too.
fad: Choice theory does not meet the test of reasonableness. People are not clamoring for dpr to do fewer reviews, nor for Canon to make fewer cameras, nor for there to be fewer manufacturers or formats. I could probably take similar street shots with any camera every made (up to a point), but like many others I await the ILC FF mirrorless camera with interest.
My son took me to a store on a block I grew up on that had hundreds of craft beers. We had a very pleasant time, and the people who spent 20 minutes deciding what to buy did not look unhappy, but fulfilled. Our whole economy is based on the individual being free to choose, and to choose responsibly based on self-knowledge.
Of course we're not clamoring for fewer tests. Reading DPR gives us an excuse to stay inside and avoid the hard stuff :)Interesting point about the beers, though consumables like that aren't necessarily classed the same way in decision theory, because people don't feel "bound" to them. You've had your beers, they were nice, but you can come back later and try a few more. No biggie. It's the way certain things (like cameras) seem to own us that can degrade quality of life. In a perfect consumer society, you would be able to choose among hundreds of cheap cameras one night after the other. Of course, by then we won't need cameras in any recognizable sense of the concept.
fad: Virginia Postrel put it well:
Ultimately, the debate about choice is not about markets but about character. Liberty and responsibility really do go together; it’s not just a platitude. The more freedom we have to control our lives, the more responsibility we have for how they turn out. In a world of constraints, learning to be happy with what you’re given is a virtue. In a world of choices, virtue comes from learning to make commitments without regrets. And commitment, in turn, requires self-confidence and self-knowledge.
“We are free to be the authors of our lives,” says Schwartz, “but we don’t know exactly what kind of lives we want to ‘write.’” Maturity lies in deciding just that.
A very interesting post. I know Postrel is considered a classical liberal, but when she expresses her thoughts on choice, she sounds like an existentialist talking about the big questions. I think part of Kim's point is that agonizing about what should be little things, like which camera to buy, as if if were one of Life's Big Questions makes us miserable. How can it not? So I finally buy that new camera. What have I achieved? Nothing. Now starts the difficult part.
StayClassy: So in other words, it's better to buy a device that you can't return that isn't the most technically able device, than to spend the time to find the most technically able device, and only let your creative ability be the ceiling? Oh, and God forbid that you enter a situation where your camera isn't able to perform (dark environment, combination of fast moving subjects and inadequate lighting, slow AF, etc.), I should just blame myself, instead of accepting that if I chose to be a "maximizer", I'd have equipment that was capable of getting the shot, and that missing it would be my fault?
These photos are lackluster in my eyes, but that's my opinion. Give me an RX100 and I'll mop the floor with this guy.
Pretty much all cameras current enthusiast-oriented today meet the criteria you just listed. So go and invest in an RX100 if that's what you like and you won't have to bother with camera reviews for a few years. You'll be free to photograph :)
Pangloss: I think the key shortcoming here is the very simple fact that one can take exactly the same pictures with the kit zoom at exactly the same focal length and aperture, adding vignetting and distortion effects in postprocessing if one wishes. So the question is, why spend any money on a body cap lens if one already has a kit zoom that can take exactly the same (or better) picture? As I see it, it is both a waste of money *and* more importantly a waste of shooting opportunities.
…and now PEN FLAT. PEN go in pocket. PEN still take picture. Man happy.
Rupert Bottomsworth: It's great to see DPR spending their time reviewing the really important stuff.
I'm a HUGE fan of making the most out of what you have at hand. Gets your creative juices flowing :) I've wanted this lens since it came out, and thanks to this review, I have more to act on. So thanks!
whitebird: Um, "carefully selected materials"? White polycarbonate?
FYI: Just joking around
Just joking around maybe. But seriously, someone had to think of it first… Carefully selected doesn't mean it has to be exotic or expensive… just carefully selected. And they thought of it. And the wallets flew open.