maxnimo: What's interesting is that this moon photo looks much worse overall than the moon photo I took 11 years ago with a 70-300 zoom on an ancient DSLR. Very interesting indeed.
I'm guessing it might have something to do with the ISO1600. Also, atmospheric conditions can certainly play a role in some aspects of moon image quality. When I bought my SX40 a few years ago I think the consensus was to expect it to have angular resolution somewhere in the vicinity of a basic DSLR with a 300mm lens. Certainly this conclusion from forum chatter proves absolutely nothing, but it does make me skeptical that a newer SX would significantly underperform an older DSLR when handled well. *shrug* Just some thoughts...
dccdp: I've looked at the pictures, and all I can say is they are actually interesting. More importantly, they are not cliches, which is after all refreshing in a world where templates are abused everywhere. Yes, maybe the lighting is off in some of them, but hey, it makes them stand out and make a point.
Unpatriotic? Wow! I don't know how Americans see themselves or think, but for me the idea of "unpatriotic", especially when talking about pictures, makes me think about my own country's sad and fairly recent history of being a Eastern European communist country. Before 1989, "unpatriotic" was the label communist propaganda put on every item that didn't strictly follow their awfully narrow view of the world. Come on, where are the American openness and diversity we all hear about?...
The openness is long since gone, along with most of our morals. At this point, unpatriotic is anything that doesn't agree with your views. It's really a pretty useless word at this point, just like our entire political process (not just the politicians, but the people too).
Good or bad, it's kind of nice to see something other than generic boring repetition. I didn't like all the shots, but some were fun and interesting.
PhotoKhan: I am not an American, so patriotism is completely out of my appraisal, as modest and personal as it is.
These are bad photos. Period.
...and now we know why. He told us so. He was unprepared, either by his own fault or by having been mislead by the organization.
If it was the first case, he's the one accountable. If it was the second scenario the photo editor is accountable for having validated these.
That a colleague of his calls "serendipity" to his unpreparedness, says a lot about the bad kind of corporativism amidst fellow workers we often see.
That creases and stains in the backdrop carried through the final release versions, in spite of being easily able to have been taken care of in PP, says a lot about how "special vision" and "pressing working conditions" are not the key issues in this whole affair.
Good or bad photos aside... I really don't understand how a photo that acknowledges that it was taken in a studio is somehow wrong. If they want 'professional' portraits to show to their grand kids, I'm sure many photographers would be happy to shoot them for free. As to PP, I thought that was 'evil' and 'immoral' because it is misleading! Well, I thought that is what we say to photojournalists at least.
If it were a group photo that would be difficult to pull off in the future, then maybe be angry about the wasted opportunity. But these individual shots could easily be redone at any time by any of thousands or more photographers around the world in a completely invented environment of flowing flags and flattering lighting with some PP to 'correct' any so-called imperfections.
altendky: Wow, no comment about how Sony is already using Linux in their DSLTs? Technically, their OS is open, it's just their software that's closed. I'm sure a slimmed down version of Android could be used to avoid the unneeded overhead. On the other hand, those 'useless' alarms are basically a tool for time lapse, yes?
Personally, I have little to no interest in processing my photos on my camera. I want openness for the features that you can get from the likes of CHDK and MagicLantern. You can always process your images elsewhere but CHDK allows you to capture images that you otherwise can't (or have to pay hundreds of dollars or more for extra external control hardware).
ProfHankD:"I'm also getting slightly nervous about how much stuff is tied to Google... "
Wow, someone that actually understands 'too big to fail'. For all my use of Google and it's products, I do avoid some of them so as to avoid becoming wholly dependent on them.
As to CHDK being 'ok'? That's awesome! I recently purchased an SX40. CHDK was the reason I didn't even look at the Panasonic (my last camera brand) or Sony alternatives and one of the reasons I didn't bother spending an extra $1k to get into a decent DSLR. Supposed to have a thunderstorm tonight so I'll have to try to setup the motion trigger. :]
Wow, no comment about how Sony is already using Linux in their DSLTs? Technically, their OS is open, it's just their software that's closed. I'm sure a slimmed down version of Android could be used to avoid the unneeded overhead. On the other hand, those 'useless' alarms are basically a tool for time lapse, yes?
Jocelyn Tremblay: In a photo-journalistic picture, I expect authenticity over subjective quality.
I think that to keep authenticity the algorithm of an effect have to be linear. Meaning, that the effect could be reversed by applying the inverse function. Hue, saturation and lightness, white balance matrix, contrast and balance, and some others. They should be apply globally and not locally.
HDR is non-linear. You cannot reverse with any kind of processing. It is a distortion of the capture.
And by a photo-journalistic, I mean a picture depicting an actual event. An archive picture of whatever headquarter of whatever corporation in the business section is not a photo-journalistic picture. Neither is a picture of whatever landscape in the travel section. They just have the same purpose of an illustration - they could have been an illustration I could not care less.
However, I expect an out of focus picture of the assassination of someone taken on the fly to be authentic and could have linear effect.
> I think that to keep authenticity the algorithm of an effect have to be linear.
While I think I respect the gist of what you are saying... I don't think it really pans out. Our eye/brain combination operate differently on live scenes vs. captured images displayed on paper and screens. I'm pretty sure our eye/brain operate nonlinearly over the scenes we see in person so it becomes a bit impractical to argue that mathematically linearity is a requirement for realistic image processing.
*shrug* Trying to make rules about exact actions in an attempt to maintain integrity will never work. If you can't develop a trust in a photographer or newspaper to be honest and inform you of mistakes they have made? No rule will magically make them trustworthy.