$3,000.00!? Well I guessed $5,000.00, but still too much for me. Especially when it's more a peice of jewelry than anything else.
cgarrard: If I didn't shoot it, I'm not using it, period. No way I'd use someone elses work to call my own art- no matter how you spin it. These are new images, there's an infringement on the craft that being a curator has been in the past- it seems to be a modern curse to trample on anything good of the past.
New business venture (probably already available),you can rent time on a telescope for astrophotography via the interwebs, why not the reverse?
Is a satellite considered 'someone' these days?
CameraLabTester: "Image by..."
Those images were lifted from satellite photos!
"Manipulated, Altered, Masticated and Spit Images by..." is a better by line.
It's called appropriation, a trend in art for... oh... say... ever
Meanwhile children world wide are starving to death....
Hmmmmmm.... No artists here.....
Ermac: But the pictures are bad. I don't even give them 'novellty' credit. LAME!
I checked out your website, I like your landscapes the best. But that's just a lame poster's opinion so they must suck to cool people.
But the pictures are bad. I don't even give them 'novellty' credit. LAME!
Elaka Farmor: Oh no, it´s unlegal.Oh no, it´s disrespectfulOh no, they breaking one of the lovely laws in EgyptOh now,the pyramid suddenly is in danger to be destroyed of climbers, lol!Oh no, many Egos want to complain Oh Yes, they took photos that nobody else will do and spread them to the humanity.
Actually think the pictures suck. Just because they're something no else will do doesn't make them good. They are just snapshots of some people sitting on the art of an ancient culture. The photos are not art in themselves. At least not to me.
Ermac: 1. Kind of a jerk move2. probably been done3. Wonder is there's a mummy's curse that covers this?4. Can't these guys still get in trouble?
yep what tipped you off? the mummy's curse sarcasm or the question of still getting in trouble?
1. Kind of a jerk move2. probably been done3. Wonder is there's a mummy's curse that covers this?4. Can't these guys still get in trouble?
800 bucks??? c'mon bottom of the line DSLRs with APS-C sensors should be $199.99-299.99 by now... dang money grubbin' greedy camera makers!
Especially since Canon's own CEO said Full Frame was the future and basially these small sensor jobbies are a waste of money...
Cy Cheze: OK, so what would the anti-Time critics pick a the 10 best news photos of the year? Very likely, the images would be other views of disaster, mayhem, rescues, or mourning. When your neighbor is berieved, do you pick a shot of a touchdown pass as "the most memoriable image of 2012"? Or should that image be a sonogram of an expected Royal heir? Images of flags, steeples, and mother? A dwarves' cottage and Bambi by a silver stream?
Good things happened in 2012, surely, but do they allow for imaginative photographic depiction? Will any rank as "important events" after 10 years?
Heavens, think of the temerity if Time ventured to pick a "Camera of the Year"? Oh, the carnage that would ensue!
Umm the name of the magazine is Time as in these current times. But I agree somewhat, all this shows us is that nothing has changed since humans figured out fire - we like to kill each other and make even more suffer. I do prefer to see them in a row rather than one image of a dead person next to an ad picturing little white kids enjoying their peanut butter.
coudet: Typical - 80% of the pictures show human suffering.
Priaptor (who must have removed his original comment), gsum and ozturert. Would you be happy if Time only covered images of rich American's excess? You all seem to be pretty sheltered in your gated communitie's cul-du-sac.
deleted_081301: not many there i consider that interesting ....... top ten "Photojournalist " photos maybee but TOP TEN photos not really ........
Oh yes, let's see more photographs of empty boats on a placid lake in the morning and B&W images of old poor people or half nude women....
The only thing I don't like is the price.... I know the size is a factor but when $500 buys a decent DSLR and lens with a larger sensor in a fairly compact body, who's going to go for this?
Call me when this costs $200.
How about "More useless junk that does nothing for the world but contribute to the growing E-Waste problem"?
well it's official... digital killed photography.