24mm was a mistake. It will have discernible geometric distortion at this setting and 80% or more of PnS photos are taken at whatever the default value the camera powers up at. Sure, theoretically one could take the time and added effort to zoom in ever so slightly, to say 30mm or so [that precision is easy to accomplish consistently and nearly instantaneously, isn't it?] but for UFO shots [Unexpected Fleeting Opportunity] you'll be screwed having to do this every time.
There's no problem with having a 24mm setting, per se. The problem is that it is the default every time you turn the camera on. I lived with a 24 mm PnS for months and had to abandon it because it made UFO shots impossible.
The big difference to me is the phone's lack of tripod socket without resorting to some bulky kludge. My PnS has a Manfrotto under-carriage pop-out tripod permanently affixed to it, MP1-C01. They are wonderful for folks like me who hate carrying bulk. It even fits in the existing skin tight camera case I use!
graybalanced: I think of all those who fought in the forum flame wars about whether optical viewfinders are better than electronic viewfinders.
Robert Capa photographed a real war, and he didn't even need his viewfinder to become a more famous photographer than you.
He lied about the nature of this photograph so I suspect he very much DID use the viewfinder, hence the nearly identical composition in the flubbed, outtake shot I found earlier:
Exact same framing, same soldier location relative to the background, same premise, DIFFERENT SOLDIER [non-white shirt, gun gripped differently behind the trigger, not in front of it like on the famous shot (where it is also flying from his grip, instead of being retained once he's collapsed dead)]
"No, see, that was right where the guys were being shot and that's just another guy that got shot at that same spot that day after they pulled away the first body."
english_Wolf: Many photographs at the time many were posed, faked or edited. Just like today's.
Capa is a 'big' name and his work has been questioned long before anyone here was born. No one does question if he took it but questions where and when and quite frankly it makes no difference what you believe or do not believe, it is not important.
So you think fakery in photojournalism is not unethical, then, and is unimportant to question or discuss. Check.
mzillch: Staged:-split second timing which would be nearly impossible to duplicate even in a studio setting, by hand [no triggers], without the pressure of being under enemy gunfire and getting your camera hand blown off, in one take.
-the soldiers face, a major point of interest, falls EXACTLY at a "rule of thirds" intersection despite the camera being aimed with an awkward, over the head grip, with NO viewfinder use to compose such accuracy.
-no camera blur, subject blur, full frame focus, good exposure, no visible gunshot wound [not that there has to be, but seeing it would add to the credibility]
-"overhead shot"? Looks more like tripod height to me, but who knows
-no negatives nor contact sheets have ever been seen, showing for example the shots leading up to this one (the flubs)
- " O. D. Gallagher, of the London Daily Express, "was sure" that Capa posed it: "While sharing a room, Capa apparently taught Gallagher how to fake a good action shot too."
"Capt. Franks told me in conversation that the fact that the fingers are somewhat curled toward the palm clearly indicates that the manís muscles have gone limp and that he is already dead. Hardly anyone faking death would ever know that such a hand position was necessary in order to make the photograph realistic"
Except for everyone who just read the above sentence.
Capa: "When I yell BANG I want you to go limp and collapse to the ground as if shot dead, except keep your fingers stiff and extended because I haven't read that sentence and apparently it's rocket science to think that the fingers are curled in slightly when the hand is relaxed. Got it, soldier number two?"
More evidence it was staged:
Here's one of the flubbed pics. Exact same framing, same soldier position, same premise, DIFFERENT SOLDIER [non-white shirt, gun gripped differently behind trigger, not in front of it like on the famous shot]
replace DOT with a period
"And why is the fact that the London Daily Express alleges it, a good reason to think it's staged?!"
Because the author, Gallagher, once a roommate of Capa's, says he received instructions on how to fake, stage, action shots, FROM Capa himself. Google the text I quoted in that earlier post for the source, iconicphotos.worldpressDOTcom
Staged:-split second timing which would be nearly impossible to duplicate even in a studio setting, by hand [no triggers], without the pressure of being under enemy gunfire and getting your camera hand blown off, in one take.
Consumer: "If only my cellphone had the zoom range and low light capability of a larger sensor P'n'S"
Sony: "Here's a camera but it has no LCD, so you hold it in one hand and your LCD panel (phone) in the other, or use this kludge adaptor making the whole thing pretty much back to the same size you were just gripping about."
This will fail.
But without comment sections, how will we learn that 911 was an inside job, the moon landings were faked, that the president was born in Kenya, etc.?
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.
PlainOrFancy, so I take it you would have no problem with me taking your photographic works and manipulating them however I deem fit, without getting your permission to do so, and posting them here for all to see, right? Afterall, that's exactly what Dullaway has done.
Dullaway's colorization contributes absolutely zip to these original artists' great works, which she has adulterated WITHOUT permission, much like a graffiti "artist" tagging Michelangelo's David, "Because I think it looks cool and I have something to say", they'll contend.
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:
This sickens me and is an arrogant slap in the face to the original artists. It breaks the number one rule of art: YOU DON'T MESS WITH ANOTHER PERSON'S WORK!
Alfred Eisenstaedt and Dorothea Lange must be turning in their graves.
In 1995 we also had the Play corporation "Snappy" which was a dongle-like device which converted the output of a video camera into a still image, carried via parallel port cord. It was higher res than just freezing a video frame because it could take consecutive frames and interpolate a higher quality image. At least if the camera and subject remained motionless.
Flopping around on your chest, swaying and pivoting left and right constantly while walking, taking misdirected, odd angle photos that are only sharp in bright sunlight but in indoor conditions are most likely blurred? Pass.[and bypassing the necklace and using the pocket clip on the outside of a shirt will droop and shoot the ground, I bet]
These need to be smaller and mounted to glasses or a helmet;, any other mount will be problematic.
mzillch: Can anyone explain to me what advantage there would be, if any, in combining the images in the camera, as opposed to doing it in a computer in post? This is a gimmick!
No, what you need to explain is why the software to COMBINE the multiple exposures should reside IN the camera. The only logical explanation, besides the true one which is because it is a gimmick, is because the images we see in print and media have NEVER made it to a desktop computer for cropping/correction/adjustment etc. because it is "too time consuming; The photojournalist must have print ready photographs straight from the camera because the extra minutes needed before submitting for publication would be bad."
With only a few exceptions, every single image we see in major media distribution is NOT straight from the camera and has spent at least some time on a computer, be it for cropping, color correction, sharpening, levels, curves, etc and THAT's where composites of multiple exposures should be done, instead of through a rinky dink, little, uncalibrated, on camera LCD. You are conflating the multiple quick exposure capabilty of a camera with the location of the image combining
I feel sorry for people who are forced to look at images that a journalist "didn't have time" to analyze, compose, correct, etc on a high resolution, color calibrated monitor and used the rinky-dink, low res display on the back of their camera instead, only.I challenge you to link to evidence to support your claim the "pros" are doing this IN camera "a bunch". That's nonsense and you are gullibly eating this advertorial hook line and sinker and reading an anecdotal example as being representative of how multiple images are combined and used. What's next? In camera sharpening, also using a rinky dink lo res display? Sheesh.
Can anyone explain to me what advantage there would be, if any, in combining the images in the camera, as opposed to doing it in a computer in post? This is a gimmick!
STOP MAKING THE GUTS PERPENDICULAR TO THE OPTICAL PATH, JAPAN!
It's too bad designers have a locked mindset that the configuration necessary for the motion of film from one dispensing cylinder roll, flattened out for the exposure film plane, and then re-rolled onto a cylinder on the other side, is STILL maintained in this day and age, yet electronic cams no longer HAVE film so the design is simply nostalgic and a force of habit!
People want the most compact and pocketable forms possible, but insisting on the main body being perpendicular to the lens optics doesn't achieve this. EVIL cams should evolve to the shape and design consumer camcorders more typically employ, where the whole thing is held more like an American football or a trumpet, with the added benefit of not having to cock one's wrist 90 degrees if the cam is held up at head level.
EDIT TO ADD: We hold monoculars this way (or binoculars if using only one hand) so dont give me any "It's less stable your way" BS.