fotoph: why take shots of a moving band at 1/13 and 1/10th of a second?
Some people have no clue about being creative. Guess it's one of those facts of life we have to live with.
OBI656: High Dynamic Range imaging is a super technique which will be most likely very welcome by photographers such as Ansel Adams, Jan Sudek etc., ...However, what we we are witnessing in nowadays in photography department of High Dynamic Range imaging is a avalanche of taste-less photography. These images are taken by picture-snappers who are proclaiming them selfs as an artists hiding their luck of skills and talent behind HDR technique. The Internet is over polluted by these guys and all of them are instructors. They teach and milk for money ocean of worshippers who are devoted learning same rubbish skills as their masters .... Hilarious? Maybe ... I see it very sad. The casualty is real photography and art as such in name of business ...
Of course maybe we have to wait for a wile for another Jan Sudek or Ansel Adams but please put on side political correctness and call art as art and rubbish by their names. You may do good to your self and photography as such as we'll.
I doubt Ansel Adams will welcome HDR. He died in 1984.
PhotoRotterdam: I have read this piece twice and thought about why it p*ssed me off as it does.
Then it hit me. It is a snub in a circle of snobs and we, as the general photographers crowd normally not even considered worthy talking to, are being dragged into this.
Landscape photography is reduced here to extreme, exotic and/or remote, preferably be all three.The examples given prove it.
The photograph taken at 6000 meter height in Bolivia after a a grueling 6 day hike tells us absolutely nothing about that landscape. It could have been taken in the Alps, where tourists on toe slippers are hopping around because they have taken the cable car up the mountain. You really have to opposite that against your 'mundane' trip to Iceland.
Maybe the writer did not intend to be a snob, but he is. This is the kind of fight you pick with other photographers at some hikers spot in any of the locations depicted here after too much bottles of the wines, not on DPReview.
You know, Ansel Adams and Edward Weston made it impossible to be original when shooting landscapes. They achieved such levels that all landscape photographs made after them look like mere imitations. Hence the need to go further and seek for extreme images if one is not to be accused of lack of originality. At least that's what I got from reading the article.However, you do have a point. I'd add that some locations are more than beautiful views. Some photographers went to the Andes and saw more than landscapes. They saw life. Human life. Take a look at this: http://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=CMS3&VF=MAGO31_10_VForm&ERID=24KL534M5N
Mister Joseph: 1. Beautiful photo of something ugly2. Ugly photo of something beautiful3. Beautiful photo of something beautiful4. Ugly photo of something ugly
But of course, our concern is things like "Low CA in high contrast situations" lol
"Technique is important only insofar as you must master it in order to communicate what you see... In any case, people think far too much about techniques and not enough about seeing."
— Henri Cartier-Bresson
That and the formulae for calculating equivalent aperture.
I cannot but applaud Mr. Marom's quest for originality. Yes, everything he says in this article is true: in a type of photography in which it's so difficult to be original it's necessary to go great lengths to find a unique point of view, or a scene nobody photographed before.If there's one kind of photography prone to clichés and formulae, that's landscapes. We all know how it's done: vertical orientation, wide-angle perspective, a rock in the foreground, dramatic skies, HDR. Even though my photographic interests are as far away from landscapes as conceivable, I appreciate Mr. Marom's awareness of the need for originality.
Picture No. 8 was taken at Livraria Lello, a famous bookstore in Porto, Portugal - which happens to be the town where I was born and still live.I've been a keen enthusiast of this style ever since I became familiar with German photographer Karl-Hugo Schmölz's body of work. (Google it: you won't be wasting your time.) Some of the pictures shown here are simply brilliant. It's all too easy to get everything wrong with these subjects, making them too rigid and downright cold, but these pictures avoid such pitfalls: they're quite dynamic and communicative. Congrats, Luís! :)
RichyjV: Quite a lot of WB/colour shifting of those tones, lots of blue in the shadows of some of them. Looks like the photographer trying to set the emotion rather than just documenting what the scene looked like. In this case I'd prefer it were not done, we shouldn't need to be told by the photographer how to feel about these shots.
No, this has nothing to do with scanning or setting a mode. It's the effect of the film's colour balance. Use a daylight-balanced film in dim light, and shadows will have a blue hue to them; conversely, if you shoot a shadow-balanced film in daylight, colours will be too saturated.
It appears regular users won't get unlimited storage anymore. And they'll get ads. Which is a cunning way of getting people into subscribing Pro accounts. Oh well.On the other hand, subscribers who had Pro accounts before Flickr gave unlimited storage were basically paying to get the same as those who had free accounts, which was not right. As the old saying goes, two wrongs don't make a right.The benefits of being a Pro user are now: 1) unlimited storage; 2) highly fastidious stats (irrelevant); 3) free shipping on Flickr photo merchandising (US only: can't be bothered); 4) ad-free viewing (which is good: ads can be annoying); 5) 20% discount on Adobe CC (meh!); and 6) the subscription fee will remain unchanged for two years (I assume it will double after that period). Better start thinking about a website; chances are it'll be less expensive...
briantrying: Sensors are made in Chelmsford, England by E2V limited.Brian
Who cares, they're CCD sensors. That's so 2005.
Daniel4: How does Capture One compare to DxO, in general and the noise reduction in particular?
Right. "Prime", not "premium". Sorry for the typo.
Pretty much equivalent, but DxO tends to give the images a HDR-esque look, whereas Capture One is more "neutral". Noise reduction is fractionally better in Capture One, but more recent versions of DxO have a "premium" NR that might be worth investigating.In terms of value for money, though, DxO wins.
I trialled Capture One two years ago and, although I didn't feel the need to substitute it for the DxO 8 I was using back then, I found it to be very good, albeit a bit more expensive than it ought to be. I'd even go as far as to say it's the best Raw converter I've tried - even if by a relatively narrow margin. If its price were in the thereabouts of €150, I'd have bought it - especially for its colour balance capabilities.About black and white conversion: I use Photoshop CS6 too, as for some reason DxO won't even open scans of black and white negatives - let alone process them. I found no fiddling with dedicated slide bars, either on C1 or DxO (or Lightroom, which I also sampled), can replicate the effect of converting to black and white in CS6: Image--> Mode --> Grayscale. It's all there is to do for a perfect black and white conversion. Then it's just a matter of fine tuning brightness, contrast, shadows and highlights to taste.
Photato: Almost certain the GX8 uses the Sony IMX269 sensor.
So Mamiya Leaf, Nikon, Panasonic, and Olympus are all wrong. They should wait until someone comes up with something better than Sony has to offer. Am I following you?Unfortunately the market doesn't work that way and, at the pace things evolve, the notion of 'best' becomes relative. Sony is the best now. It will eventually no longer be so at some point in time, but that isn't really foreseeable, is it?
You should care. Sony's at the top of the game right now. This could mean Olympus will no longer have the edge in terms of image quality.
With Sony's sheet in sight, I'd say it's correct to assume this sensor is from Sony.
ManuelVilardeMacedo: Why do people think they need such an unusable maximum aperture? I have an f/1.4 lens and seldom use it wide open: colours fade, contrasts disapeear and sharpness is compromised. What's the use, then?This lens is clearly aimed for people with more money than sense.
fedway: I see your point, but it's not like you can only make artistic photographs using blurry subjects. Sharpness doesn't have to do with just numbers.I like sharpness: what I want to express in at least part of my pictures relies heavily on sharpness. It's all very well saying sharpness isn't the ultimate goal in photography (it isn't, of course), but one thing is deliberately making an out of focus picture for the sake of artistic intention, another thing is getting "unsharp" images because the equipment is flawed. Androole: please don't scorn film. If you scan reversal film or medium format negatives, you could be in for a big surprise. And, as a bonus, you can post-process them in Lightroom!
fmian: [sarcasm]I was really hoping for an ultrawide angle lens to take photos of bricks walls at f/0.95 in the dark hand held. Ideally I want the brick faces in focus but the bonding cement in between the bricks out of focus. This is a real requirement I have and is part of the essence of photography for me. I also need the lens to quickly be able to focus on black cats in case they jump in front of the brick walls at night. This lens is simply not sharp or autofocusy enough for my needs.Thanks for nothing Voigtlander, I'll take my pocket money elsewhere.[/sarcasm]
Iarek, you've been replying to almost every comment on this article - and always in a rather derogatory way. What do expect people to think about you?Don't try to play the victim. I've given myself the trouble to read some of your replies and found your attitude to be provocative and derogatory, albeit with a tone that you must think it's sarcastic. Commenting "ad hominem" in order to provoke negative reactions from other commenters has a name - trolling.How's it going to be from now on? Will you keep trolling or evolve to a more positive attitude?
Why do people think they need such an unusable maximum aperture? I have an f/1.4 lens and seldom use it wide open: colours fade, contrasts disapeear and sharpness is compromised. What's the use, then?This lens is clearly aimed for people with more money than sense.
Tsk, tsk... photographing black cats jumping in front of brick walls is so cliché. Photographing grizzly bears running in the Black Forest at night: now that's original, and a technical challenge to boot. If it weren't for the lack of autofocus, I'd buy this lens in a heartbeat. Of course it wouldn't retain that much detail wide open: the bears' furs could appear a bit softer than desirable, with less than perfect discrimination of the hairs, but life is made of tradeoffs. You can't have it all.