"History Repeating". I hope not, the original half-frame pen had half the size image, half the quality with grain twice the size!! I'm surprised Olympus alluded to any of them!!!
What's the point? 'The Petzval lens was developed in 1840 by Joseph Petzval.', a century later The Russians brought out the Jupiter 3, a Zeiss clone!!!!! Why bother to buy either>
1 and 3 are the same
Peter Mark Roget M.D (1779-1869) described his log.log slide rule in 1815, however the actual invention of the slide rule is open to debate.Logarithms were invented in 1614 by John Napier (1550-1617) and three years later Edmund Gunter (1581-1626) put these numbers, in a line, on the limb of his navigational instrument. Who chose to slide two of these scales together to make a slide rule is confusing. Some writers ascribe it to Edmund Wingate (1593-1656) others to Seth Partridge (1603-1686)!!!!!!
Ken, the Hong Kong made camera was first introduced in 1959, around which time I probably received it as a present from my parents, as an alternative to a bicycle, which proved to be too physically demanding. Like yourself, this kindled a life long interest and is the only camera I kept!
The first image in your Gallery is quite beautiful.
A great picture that reminds my of my visit to a cloisonne factory in China during my honeymoon, 35 years ago!!Peter Delhttp://www.dpreview.com/galleries/8804053911
Tom Goodman: Sorry, he isn't "redefining what it means to be a modern photographer". Indeed, he isn't redefining anything. These are technical tours de force and little more. What they define is the inability of artifice and method alone to make enduring work. They are forgettable images.
' They are forgettable images.'
Depends upon how good ones' memory is.
Is this old hat? See:
Many wonderful images (and on her website), thanks Allison.
5 points for the smile
Dr_Jon: Rather strangely I imagine if middle-aged men went to that much trouble to photograph a more random two year old child they would get in more trouble.
Also people talk of supply and demand, the public would like all sort of stuff, as the recent leaks of nude celebrity photographs showed. Does that mean you'd be fine with photographers hiding cameras in celeb's bathrooms?
I think it's not unreasonable to want a two year old to have a normal life, it's not like they don't show him to the press and public on reasonably frequent occasions.
Finally the Prime Minister runs the country, an elected head of state wouldn't have any power so what's the point, jobs for the politicians cronies probably.
I'm so glad you're an American.
Tom, he is not jut being opinionated, which is acceptable, but offensive as well.
JaimeA: Talking about photography: This image lacks class. The family is too orderly, predictable in a bourgeois setting, aligned in an unimaginative way, obviously following instructions [now face the camera! smile!]. The good queen looks diminished. Not a hint of excitement or artistry. Testino has made many memorable images. Not this one. Paging Horst, Beaton!
Thanks for that, I thought it a little strange.
Carver, your comments are offensive, the Moderator should ban you.
The photographer, Mario Testino, was probably chosen because he often produces somewhat bland images, which is what was required here. The picture was taken for use by magazine and newspapers such as Hello! and The Sun, not for portraiture aficionados.However, the cutting off of feet and shoulders should not have happened.Her Majesty always carries a handbag; on the two occasions when I met her, she had a handbag, even though it was not really necessary.
Peter Del: The Royal Family is a most wonderful institution that many are envious of.
All children are entitled to their childhood, in this case the action of the paparazzi is nothing short of child abuse.
My comment might indeed be simple, but it is, nevertheless, true.
Your grammar appears to be poor.I am sure you meant to write:What IS an overpaid gardener at Buckingham Palace?The answer of course is, a gardener.
The Royal Family is a most wonderful institution that many are envious of.