0MitchAG: I hope infrared doesn't become the 'new HDR'. Nice photos anyhow!
I'm so glad I'm not alone in finding most people abuse of HDR to the point they make it a caricature.
Ben Ramsey: Yeah, but can it fit in your jeans pocket? ;)
No way, you'd be taken for a perv!
"Popular" wasn't quite the kind of word I'd have expected to appear on a Leica-related news... C'mon, just because six people asked for it, that doesn't make it "popular demand"!
I'm sorry, but street photography mandates black and white film (preferably Tri-X), a Leica M3 and a 35mm lens. And you can only photograph people when their backs are turned. This man is no street photographer, he's a fraud!(Just kidding, of course.)
ManuelVilardeMacedo: It would be nice if people stopped touting every pseudo-innovation in photographic equipment as "the future of photography".
HowaboutRAW: exactly. Hence the "pseudo-"!
It would be nice if people stopped touting every pseudo-innovation in photographic equipment as "the future of photography".
rfsIII: Oh for heaven's sake. We already went through this with Neal Krawetz, who claimed the World Press Photo prizewinner was fake but turned out not to be. Collectors and art historians spend millions of dollars every year to try to determine if paintings are fake, and they can't agree. Why do we think a cheap or free app would be able to do what PhDs and forensic experts cannot?
DaveE1: They say on their site that it is to detect changes to images submitted for competition... "Leave no doubt that your incredible shot was captured in-camera."
Good luck with trying to win any serious photo contest with an image that hasn't gone through some cropping, enhancement or other post processing. :)
Yes, I gave up being a purist a long time ago. Admitting images can be perfect right out of the camera is a delusion.They weren't in the days of film and they most certainly aren't now.
vroger1: I cannot understand why 35mm (focal length) has become the new "normal" for street photography. I have had tremendous trouble in adapting. 50mm has always been my normal because I shot that way for most of my life. There is an indication in the article that the author agrees. (PS samples-IQ good but not great). VRR
vroger1: neither do I. Henri Cartier-Bresson used to shoot with a normal, 50mm lens. Just when someone decided 35mm was the thing for street photography I don't know; all I know is that you have to get too close to people when using 35mm. Which can be awkward at times.
The images look slightly bleached and lacking contrast. From my personal exprience, converters tend to do this. It's a great idea on paper, but the results aren't that good.
This is completely stupid. But, if people get paid to create stupid algorythms, who am I to get in the way? Oh well...
GodSpeaks: This 'might' have been interesting back in the days of film (ie: last Century), but today?
Brendon, the grain depends largely on the film you use. I get grain-free images with Kodak T-Max 100, Ilford Pan F Plus 50 and all colour films south of ASA 160, though it baffles me to find that Agfa APX 100 and Ilford FP4 Plus 125 are quite grainy (though they have the 'right' kind of grain).Bob Barber, you're right: there's no substitute for vinyl when it comes to sound quality. CD never quite made it, SACD and DVD-Audio were flops - and don't get me started with MP3! Nothing can beat a pristine vinyl record in terms of transparency, speed and dynamics. No wonder vinyl sales are increasing every year, while CD sales keep declining.
Brendon: not really like tinkering with old bikes. There are areas where digital still has to catch up with film, chiefly dynamic range. Digital is almost there, for sure, but it still has some way to go.Also, when you use a film camera you have to master exposure in a way you feel you're not obliged to when you use a digital camera. The fact that you're never 100% sure of what the outcome will be - you have no display to show you the image - makes you improve your skills. Plus the equipment is cheaper and readily available: you can buy a Hasselblad 500 C/M for €500, whereas you'll have to mortgage your house to buy a medium format digital camera.The most important, however, is the thrill you get out of shooting film. Digital can be nice, of course, but there's too much predictability and it's just too 'safe'.
The pictures on Flickr vary between very good and awful, the latter looking rather bleached. Better buy a second-hand medium format film camera at this price.
JapanAntoine: Going through that kind of pain, I'd rather buy a 6x6, like the Fuji ones (http://fujifilm.jp/personal/filmandcamera/filmcamera/mediumformat/index.html)Or any good Medium format film camera that you can find second-hand by the hundreds!
Yes, you can buy a mint Yashica Mat for less than the cost of the Wanderlust.
qwertyasdf: LOCA very apparent in F1.4_12IMG_6056I miss the days when I just started photography, I didn't care about sharpness, don't know what's vignette, CA, let alone LOCA!Now it's the first thing I see!
That's because they're living la vida LOCA...
Fri13: If you want great control for depth of field, high resolution (you are working with prints over 100x60cm), then you do not want to waste money to any full frame cameras but get this giant. You don't lose in size or weight but you gain more than any DSLR can offer.
If you don't want to this, then m4/3 is best format to use. If you company m4/3 camera with this, you have best setup.
Bozilla, you have no idea of what you're talking about.
snegron2: Ironic how this digital icon image was created with analog film.
That's because medium format transparencies are better than digital and second only to large format film. Yes, all you children of the digital revolution: it was possible to achieve superlative image quality before they turned everything into bytes and pixels. Believe it or not.
AbrasiveReducer: I thought this was a group photo of all the people who never had problems with Windows.
It is ^_^
Lenscraft: Every time I read comments on DPReview, I'm struck by how negative and angry that they seem. This doesn't only apply to the Canon vs. Nikon vs. Sony etc comments. As a response to this rather lovely scenic, I'm reading things like this:
"Always seemed blurry to me"
"Horrible image. To avoid as background at all costs."
"Proof, if it were needed, that even a good photographer can produce an utterly uninspiring image that looks fake."
Why are folks so negative? It's a pretty picture. Not my personal style, but that doesn't mean that I tear it down. Remember, there is a human being, a photographer like you, behind that image.
"A photographer like you"? They wish!Don't even get me started imagining what these guys would propose to Microsoft...