Gu-raphics. Not Ji-raphics. He's messing with us.
FrankMendonca: I'm a full time professional who has used Photoshop for over 20 years...still have the complete set of like-new printed manuals for version 2.5. I've faithfully upgraded with every single new release. I tried to like Lightroom...for a few months. Hated it. I DO NOT appreciate Adobe's newest arrogant, greedy, money-grabbing scheme. I own my home...I don't rent it. I own my vehicles...I don't rent them. I own my computers...I don't rent them. I own every single piece of software on my computers...I don't "rent" any of it. As long as I can still use my version of CS6 as is, Adobe will never get another penny from me. The answers from Adobe in your above interview are what one would expect from any politician skilled at "photoshopping" the truth and lying to his constituents. Mr. Hendrickson should be ashamed of himself.
I'm a young pup, only since 3.0 here. Completely agree.
Matt: I like to own what I pay for. Period
Yes, but it's a perpetual license. Not temporary.
In other words "Adobe realises that photographers are annoying a**h*les and we have to pretend to bend over backwards to make them happy. We'd like to be rid of them really, and one day we'll work out a way we can get their money and have our way too."
joseluismx: The iPhone5 looks great. I'm a Galaxy S3 owner and I'm biased towards Android, but the landscape photo looks so much better from the iPhone than the rest. Every detail is better. The S4 has a weird defect, it seems. If you look at the left part of the horizontal thing from the crane, it looks almost blurred out. The iPhone renders it perfectly. Even the mountains in the background look great in the iPhone. The S4 seems to use too much NR even at base ISO, so the details are gone.
In the Portraits (sunlight) and flash photos, the iPhone seems to be overexposed.
If I wanted a camera-phone, I'd go with the iPhone. For everything else, I'd go with Samsung's features.
Does the iPhone have controls for flash strength? If yes, that could just be turned down so it's not so overpowering.
Alphoid: Good first pass at a review. Things that are clear missing: * Proper specification table. At the very least, this should include sensor size, min/max ISO, modes available (PASM), and RAW support. * Action shot. The core reason to use a telephone and not a camera is because it is with you. Do I get blur? * Comparison at identical and reasonable sizes (e.g. 4 real megapixels -- the resolution of a 27-30" monitor so the most you'll practically use, or even lower). Sinc scale all images to 2-4MP, and allow us to view with that as an option. * Low-light shot where you're limited by handshake. * Low-light shot where the 250x188 crop is effected by low-light (as you'd post on the web). * Some semblance of a test of the optical image stabilization. Without IS included in the test, the Samsung clearly wins. With IS, HTC might win.
In an ideal case, I could also view the images double-blind. You scale to ~3MP. I rank by quality. I find out which came from where later.
Sounds good, go for it.
bobbarber: The Nikon A is too expensive, and not sharp in the corners. The GR seems to have solved both of those problems, awaiting further review.
The images look very nice.
Could the Nikon just have a lens problem with the particular camera? The top left seems corner seems to below par compared to the rest of the corners, with the Nikon bottom right looking better to me than Ricoh. Could the Nikon lens be decentered?
bobbarber: @Richard Butler,
Could someone test if a softening filter eliminates moire? It could be a general test with something like the D7100 or K-5 IIS, not aimed at the Nikon A or Ricoh GR (do they even have filter threads?).
I'm convinced there is little moire in most real life situations, but would like to know if carrying a filter in my pocket would help the rest of the time. I don't have an aa-less camera or I'd check myself.
Jeepers bob, it was only 4 hours ago, give the world a chance to help you. :-)
Does everyone else read the review with Richard's accent?
"a lot of people think I’m up to something nefarious" - because you are.
meanwhile: I think his lights ruin what could otherwise be more interesting photos. 1D Mark IV has some pretty good low light capabilities, just bump the ISO and go natural.
Maybe even put a different image next to the camera and document people's different emotional responses.
I think his lights ruin what could otherwise be more interesting photos. 1D Mark IV has some pretty good low light capabilities, just bump the ISO and go natural.
wetracy: Nothing like a pedestrian "street photography" piece to provide a good spike to the traffic line.
"pedestrian "street photography" ", nice pun.
backayonder: He should go far
meanwhile: As a photograph of a tricycle, yes, perhaps the car on the right could go.
As an artwork though? No, it serves a distinct purpose. It redirects the eye back into the frame after you have followed the curve of the trike handle, and stops your gaze and attention "falling out" of the scene. It solidifies the layer between foreground and background and gives the road depth and scale. It adds population to the scene, creates a neighbourhood, rather than just a singular family. The colour of the car helps to balance the colour of the bike. The shadows under the car help to balance the shrubs and dark in the windows on the left, and anchor the frame.
The photograph is not just about the tricycle. I don't think it's at the level of twaddle of that Smithsonian article ("bestows on that tricycle the majesty—and ineffability—of an archangel’s throne" ... err, OK), but it's far from meaningless.
system, we get that you miss the point. Do you have to keep repeating yourself?
Well spotted agentul! You get the Pedant of the Year award. Toys, cars, houses, roads, etc are all signs that people likely live there. Yes, you are right that it is possible that this is actually a recreation of an actual street in an atomic test site. The inclusion of cars, houses and toys in said recreation suggests that the fake town would also likely have fake people. They just aren't in frame, ergo, suggested.
As a photograph of a tricycle, yes, perhaps the car on the right could go.
SRT201: Brilliant! Positively Brilliant! It must have taken a minute of more to compose and shoot!
It looks like he was kidding around and went for a giant tricycle effect.
I'm sure there are those who spend hours analyzing how the photo presents a deep and insightful commentary on Western society. :-)
You got all that from the first paragraph that basically just names the image and sets the scene? You must have a sensitive soul.
Can you show us one of yours that has more resonance? None of the 16 in your gallery evoke anything for me, despite you having a D800 and a bunch of expensive lenses. It's not art if it doesn't make anyone feel anything.
Revenant: Like Chuck Lantz wrote below, "limited edition" means that that particular edition consists of a determined number of copies. It doesn't say anything about the number of copies in other editions of the same work. As long as the medium or presentation is different, it's a new edition.For example, many novels are published both in limited, numbered or lettered, editions, and unlimited mass-market editions. And it's quite common for artists to make limited print runs on large format fine art paper, and then sell cheaper prints of the same image as an unlimited edition.