Calvin Chann: Welcome to the internet where people are mostly anonymous and can do and say whatever they want with little chance of being caught out. Responsibility for ones words and actions goes out of the window.
OK, no problem ;)
I disagree on the anonymous thing. How will you generate business if you don't get your name out there? No disrespect, but the greats all made noise on the public forum to improve their profile.
I think in the end he will profit from the popularity. "You know that Fuji picture? I took it." If a client demands that he PROVE it, I wouldn't work with such a client.
Disbelievers will disbelieve, but it's not going to stop any of us from taking a great picture for fear of people not believing us. "Usain Bolt crossing the finish line to set world record... nah, I'll skip it. No one will believe it anyway..."
Mayank B: I love new photographic technology and have been upgrading my equipment periodically but would like to draw the line here, no drones for me and I don't dig photography with drones either. Am a birder or rather a bird lover (and a vegetarian if I may add), have seen House Crows being disturbed by a drone and would not like to intrude into the territory occupied by birds except perhaps with a zoom lens :-)
Drone "photography" is hard compared to drone "videography" because there is usually lag on the video signal (less than a second on good systems, but still) plus it's pretty hard for one person to shoot and fly at the same time. It's not like one can just leave the drone at a certain place and hope something amazing crosses it path, just as we don't stand in one place and hope a lion wanders into our frame. My applause to those who managed to get good photos.
I think the problem is that these have very limited usage. With only two are available, pretty soon people will notice that all your pictures are taken "at the same location."
The stadium shot is amazing. I would never dare fly my own six-prop up that high AT NIGHT. At the slightest malfunction, my drone might end up in the middle of the football field. Well done!
dash2k8: "Khaldei, who staged his photograph a couple of days after the event, is reported to have hoped that the image would have the same impact as Joe Rosenthal’s famous photograph ‘Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima’."
I'm sorry, but the Berlin picture is nothing close to the Iwo Jima picture. Iconic for sure, but the Iwo Jima picture is the standard of "raising banner over hostile territory" while many commoners have never even seen this Berlin picture.
@PedroMZ, yes, the Iwo Jima shot was staged. They even swapped soldiers to make it look better. I have no problem with a lively and educated discussion. If the Russian photo is more "iconic" for you, hey, cool for you. I just didn't appreciate the other guy getting condescending on me because I disagreed with his opinion.
@superyugin1, I stand corrected on the US population vs Europe population, though I refuse to concur that Japan was a sideshow. Yes, Germany was not a minor ripple in history, but Japan had the A-bomb. Two of them. Nothing Hitler did ever had that level of effect--the Cold War's arms race that built up huge inventories of devices of annihilation. Yes, Germany was also close to creating their own superweapon, but for the sake of our discussion, they didn't get it out in time so it doesn't count. The fact that Japan awakened US to its own weaknesses and brought it to its full military abilities was not a "sideshow." If we wanted to get picky, you could say that Germany lost its war due to bad weather (I realize it's being overly general).
I won't downgrade myself into a name-calling spitfest with you, I'll just clarify my position. I have indeed seen this Berlin pic bcos (shocking!) I studied photography (more shocking!). Your lacking reading comprehension skills aside, I remind you that I never said the Iwo Jima picture was more "popular" or "seen by more people." When people think of "raise banner over hostile territory," which picture do you think comes to mind first? Allow me to remind you that most AMERICANS who've seen the Iwo Jima picture will far outnumber most EUROPEANS, so even then the Iwo Jima pic is still more POPULAR by your definition.
Nice history lesson near the end, but I thought we were talking about photography? And of course Japan bombing Pearl and conquering most of Asia was a sideshow. Are all Canadians so richly educated?
"Khaldei, who staged his photograph a couple of days after the event, is reported to have hoped that the image would have the same impact as Joe Rosenthal’s famous photograph ‘Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima’."
The leghose trick would work great if it could be replaced with another material that wouldn't attract ridicule from my colleagues. I like the tablet lighting trick.
Why does a manufacturer have to apologize for failing to meet demand? I would assume they would spin it as "greatly exceeded sales expectations and we're hurrying to meet such unprecedented popularity."
vFunct: Lightroom is awful and simply not as good as Aperture. Lightroom focuses on garbage features like Lens Correction, when the features like metadata workflow is FAR more important to a professional photographer than any "lens correction" ever could be.
No client in the world has EVER cared about lens distortion & correction. They don't even NOTICE it. So why the hell does Lightroom even include that as a "feature"? They should be trying to get their metadata workflow to be as good as Aperture's.
Really, Lightroom is only for high-end amateurs and other prosumers. It really isn't a professional calibre photo tool like Aperture is.
Meanwhile, looking over the Photos demo from WWDC, it does look like it's more Aperture than iPhoto, so that is a sign of relief. Also, it looks like we'll be able to move the Aperture database over to Photos, so that probably means it has Aperture's feature set, maybe including stacks and so on... dunno... we'll see.
Let me guess, you also shoot only in JPG with a point-n-shoot system, since the customers don't care about any of that stuff?
The list of LR users includes many industry leaders, yet in one fell swoop you've dumped them into the "high-end amateurs and other prosumers" category. Gregory Heisler, is that you?
For that price we could just buy a Wacom, albeit a small one. With the Wacom you won't have to worry about scratching your screen while getting much better pressure feedback. I bought the Jot Touch two years ago and it's just not the same.
I agree that taking pics with a phone is spontaneous and reflexive in a way that a pro camera can't, but of all the pictures above, i believe all of them would have been more easily and better taken with better lenses.
G3User: This guy is a joke. Sliding levers in Photoshop does not make you a great photographer. It may make you a good artist. My teenage daughter can slide levers and apply instacrap filters also. It's too bad he has to resort to these gimmicks to make his photos interesting (there not by the way). They are all over processed. We don't even know what the camera captured. You could get these images from a cell phone and then Photoshop them to death which he has done here. What a waist of space on dpreview, they should only profile real photographers, not illustrators like this guy.
I doubt your teenage daughter can produce anything close to what Grimes did. And you spelled "waste" wrong.
Love or hate his work, Photoshop is a staple in today's photo industry. If you've never touched up a picture in PS, the pity is on you. Yes it's always better to get everything right on camera, but we all know from experience that is never truly possible. Some people use PS a little, some use it a lot. Who cares as long as the results are great?
I recall a 15-year-old girl from Europe who posted food pictures on 500px. She had a Canon 1100D and a kit lens (18-55? Forgot), but her pictures looked like things done in studio with expensive lenses and big lights. In the end, it's the results that count.
Photographers who complain about PS should make sure they're not using any artificial lighting, otherwise they'd be hypocrites for modifying the actual lighting conditions and/or color temperature. Use a big aperture? That's not natural, either. Who sees things with such limited DOF? This is an industry of art. Let each person create as he wishes.
Zvonimir Tosic: Everyone seems to ridicule Hassy about this and similar cameras. But in reality, all this tells more about Sony's own attitude towards their own IP and the level of respect, service and integrity for their own users. I.e., if Hassy is able to better Sony's user experience using same components, then what was Sony's goal in the first place?
Sony probably designed their product to suit the majority of potential customers. This Hassy is clearly aimed at a very particular and minor group of customers. Most of us don't need bullet-proof construction or a beautiful exterior to improve the user experience, wouldn't you agree?
It's the customers who actually pay for this stuff that are to blame. If nobody bought this sort of stuff, Hassy would stop making them. Apparently there is enough interest and market demand for them to create them, so more power to the manufacturer. No need to get ourselves overly worked up over this; just spend money on what really matters.
MichaelK81: As a portrait photographer, the quality of the bokeh was immediately apparent to me, moving-up from the 50mm f/1.4G. This lens has become an instant classic in my camera bag.
But is the bokeh worth the money? Just curious.