leica f64: I find this pretty interesting since NPPA's own Code of Ethics, Line 6 states "Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images' content and context."Once the digital age bloomed in the hands of their members there was no turning back. They've known that for some time. Even Hasselblad fought this early on with their contests but then realized that the winners weren't always behind the lens.
I should add that they have to "submit" in film. If they shot in film and scanned it...
chkproductions: What are they going to do with the RAW files, process them to their own standards and compare them to the photographers? Then say the photographer was wrong and unethical. And who's to say their standards, whatever they are, are the absolutely correct in the world.
And what right do they have discussing photo ethics. Press photo ethics, sure, but not photo ethics.
As Prairie Pal said above, the contest sponsors decide the rules, so in this instance, yes, they DO get to decide. I just wonder where they draw the line.
This is really going to be hard to define. Where do you draw the line? Sure, outright changing someone's hair color or switching out logos on a shirt might be outright cheating, but what about making a model look thinner, like in fashion ads? Or removing tourists in a scenic photo to leave only the natural environment? There are so many ways that this can be handled incorrectly. I'm all for authenticity of an image, I just don't know how they will decide what's acceptable. I hope they make a list of rules available.
simpleshot: Strange. There is no mention of "full frame equivalent."
Might be a crop sensor.
How much for this camera?
dash2k8: Just as we avoid on-camera-flash if possible, the same applies to video. This is only a last resort, and $135 is too much for a last resort.
Obie lights for eye highlights are one thing. They are used really closeup and are softened. This thing ain't gonna do that ;) It's just going to render a deer-in-headlights look.
Just as we avoid on-camera-flash if possible, the same applies to video. This is only a last resort, and $135 is too much for a last resort.
Dellis12: Time-honored argument...I started in film, shot 2 1/4, 645 along with 35mm as a pro. Switched to digital, went from APS-C to full frame. Got rid of my 5DIIs and 6 L-series lenses several months ago in favor of an OMD-EM1, knowing full well the "limitations" of the sensor and DOF. The reason was simple. I shoot mostly street and pointing a 4-lb black box either freaked out my subjects or enraged them. It's a different era. I've shot some of my best images ever with the Oly. The kit w/4 lenses is about 10 lbs, not 40. And given that I print no larger than 13x19, no image loss whatsoever. Point is that tools are just that. You've got to find a set that either inspires you to better work or makes it easier. Preferably both. Unless you're a pro shooting billboards, all of it is fantastic.
@Yuvalm, so in the end it's not really about being satisfied with a certain level of image quality, but rather a compromise between IQ and weight/size, agreed? The Sony A7 series has shown us that you can get FF in a light-weight package. I think it's even more discrete than the OMD-EM1. Who knows, maybe something even lighter will appear in the future.
mailman88: If you're old enough to remember...the 10D and 20D were used by the professionals. Nobody mentioned Full Frame Now...when I shoot 6400ISO, print 13x19 and sell the print to a customer using my 7D....nobody mentions full frame. Everybody is happy.
So you went through all the trouble to clean it up in post? I applaud the effort! What software do you use? I find the Lightroom function too much like oil painting after a certain point. I admit I know very little about noise reduction outside of LR.
dash2k8: My first reaction was: photography is dead.
Then I thought: this is actually good, because this shows more ppl are taking pictures now then 50 years ago. Sure, many people don't know a thing about shutter/aperture/ISO, but when the general population becomes more involved with an activity, it brings all kinds of improvements.
Look at how running has taken off over the years. This has led to not only better shoes but better sportswear and accessories. So I think it's great more people are taking pictures. More products will be developed. Even though it's for the smartphone sector, the innovation will definitely carry on to larger formats because tech companies are always trying to make money. ;)
I completely agree with you on those points. MY point is, their money will push the market forward in various ways. New innovations will come about because of this and we stand to benefit, correct? I myself would never take serious pictures with smartphones, but I can never disagree with innovation.
I think you're fed up with the flood of low-quality photos all over social media. I absolutely share that feeling. But I choose to ignore it because I'm no one to judge. My parents only want simple photos to remember their vacation in Tahiti, that's their prerogative, even if their faces are completely black against the glorious sunset. ;)
I had the 10D when it first came out, and you're right, no one complained back then. But as the 5D and 1-series came out, there was no going back.
You could produce 13x19 at ISO6400 with the 7D? No one complains about the noise?
Not picking a fight here, but here's a hypothetical question for you: If there was an FF body at the same weight/size, thus making it unobtrusive for street photography, would there be any reason to stay with your current set?
dash2k8: Of course full-frame is the end-point we should all aspire to, otherwise we're not much for aspirations, are we? It's like saying we should only aspire for a cheap sedan because it has a lower maintenance cost than a luxury vehicle. Such a defeatist mentality is selling ourselves short. Had NASA thought this way, we would never have gotten on the moon. The higher we aim, the higher we will go.
Anyone who only ever aspires to an APS-C body is not going to go far in photo (which is fine, since for some ppl, photography is just for fun). However, it's one thing to not be able to afford an FF system, it's another to be complacent and say "this is good ENOUGH." When that word appears, you know corners are cut and goals reduced. We should all aspire to FF bodies and beyond.
To clarify, I have nothing against ppl who shoot for fun. But I do have a problem with the words "good enough."
I don't think the extremely shallow DOF is important at all. But the extra light that a FF sensor can bring in will make the difference in a dark situation. And of course that means better noise control. Surely noise is an important issue!
That's a terrible comparison. Do you honestly disagree that more public awareness is a bad thing? To take your example, more ppl eating fast foods has raised awareness on healthy eating. When ppl eat too much of it, they get sick and go to the doctors and guess what? They learn how to eat healthier! Nowadays there's more common knowledge regarding good and bad eating habits than 50 years ago. How's that a bad thing?
How does more people taking pictures become a bad thing? I agree that most ppl don't know what they're doing, but they ARE pushing the market forward with their dollars. Would you rather have very few ppl taking pictures and the major brands not innovating because it's not worth investing in R&D?
Simply put, what would YOUR solution be? Put all smartphone shooters in concentration camps until they're reformed?
@miike, I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or critical. :)
All I'm saying is, I think more people taking pictures (regardless of format) is a good thing to the overall photo scene.
My first reaction was: photography is dead.
I appreciate Nikon taking an active approach instead of the ostrich tactic (hide and pretend all is fine).
I wish I could keep/steal the Hasselblad's that I rent. It's an occasional luxury.
DavinaG: It is funny how many "photographers" focus so much time arguing the technology and so little time capturing the art. The great photographers in history had a fraction of the toolbox we have and still inspire us. The camera used and enjoyed is the best tool for the job.
The key words here being "the best tool for the job." Not the "good enough" tool for the job.
I totally agree it's more about the image than the gear, but without the gear, there's no image. Better gear gets better images faster.
Look at all the premier photographers in the field today. None of them are paying their bills with simplistic equipment. I'm sure they enjoy taking pictures... so long as their equipment don't hinder them but give them the freedom of expression.
rgump12: some of the comments here read like you guys are straight from 1959 middle america or something! "of course ff is the endpoint we should ALL aspire to, etc" ?! Are you serious?? The ignorance, to be saying what you happen to think the whole damn world should want because you Think so! The best part of it is that so many people who say things like this are the most dreary of image makers. After seeing Ray Metzker's half frame camera images of people on the beach, are you going to tell him that he Should aspire to some other type/size/whatever of camera?? Do you think that Kertesz blew it, because he really should have Moved Up to a Rolleiflex instead of one of those little film Leica cameras?? There are many people who might do well to move Up to a pinhole camera from their D800 to really get the kind of image they cannot with the FF Nikon. Is some company paying you to talk like that?? People who think like this Today are an embarrassment.
So it's wrong for me to think this way, but perfectly fine for you to think your way? It cuts both ways. How do you know you're not the ignorant one?
My entire premise is that we should all aspire for something better. You think Ray Metzker wouldn't have preferred a better camera? If he had a 1DX or D4s back in his day, would he have said "bah, me half frame is good enough"? Or Ansel Adams would have totally ignored the current high-end cameras with their superb DR in favor of his old cameras? Adams constantly fiddled with his developing solution because he was looking for "something better" and wasn't complacent.
At the end, I don't understand your anger at my comment. You can disagree, but to call names shows... ignorance. Look at all those exclamation marks and double question marks. They prove you cannot hold a level conversation.