And now we see why this is running Windows. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23940171
fuego6: Get rid of that hand in the photo... any amateur would have cropped/healed it out... geesh.. really?
"any amateur would have cropped/healed it out"
These guys aren't amateurs, that's why it's still there.
Gotta be a typo.
Nemesis2001: With all respect ... I find mine better :D
Only one of yours has a focused background and blurred foreground, how are they similar?
whyamihere: As an artist of different mediums:
If you see no artistic value in these images, then you are not truly an artist.
If you consider yourself an artist but still feel they have no value, then I suggest broadening your narrow-minded definition of art to include just about anything and everything, including these photos.
If you have taken photos like these and deleted them, then they were simply not appealing to you. Artistic expression is an extension of emotion. Always has been, always will be. You can't hate on someone for finding an emotional quality that resonates with them in these photos.
If you see these photos and don't like them but are still willing to call them pieces of art, that is understandable. I see art all the time that I don't like or don't understand, but I never tell someone that it's not art.
Grumble all you like about how how someone may have achieved popularity with these photos. Popularity is usually not the goal of most artists. Expression is.
"but as it is now these look exactly like hundreds of bad vacation pictures that I have piled away in boxes or on my computer"
Can you please put together a set so we can see them?
Cal22: Nowadays nearly anything can be put into the 'Art'-Department, turning it into a subject of belief. And there's always a lot of believers out there who don't know that good art is really rare.
"And there's always a lot of believers out there who don't know that good art is really rare"
I see a lot of people saying these can be seen as art, I don't see as many saying they are necessarily good art.
icexe: I'm sorry, but this looks just like the stuff my daughter took while playing with my camera on our road trip when she was 8 years old.
Watching my daughter play with the camera was the interesting part, not the images themselves, which have no artistic or technical merit whatsoever, just like these images. I deleted most of them.
Let's just stop fooling ourselves and just call this what it is: A collection of blurry, boring images that anyone could take. There's no new artistic or technical ground being broken here.
My point is - even though you don't see any merit in these images, you don't like them, and you don't value them, they managed to be evocative, to create connections to things in your life, to relive fond memories of trips with your family, to evaluate the worth of the images created, to make you think about things you otherwise wouldn't have. This is one of the jobs of art, so even though you disagree that it is art on grounds of merit, your reaction to it betrays you.
And you likely wouldn't have thought of that today without seeing these images. Isn't reliving that memory of some worth?
"The resulting images walk a line between landscape photography and surrealist art"
I don't mind them, I'm certainly not spitting ignorant bile and hate like some below ... but I don't think these are surrealist is any way. Jeroen's mentioned below are better but they aren't surrealist either - http://jeroenselderslaghs.be (see Panning Project).
This one in particular reminds me of a Turner.
"I'm sorry, but this looks just like the stuff my daughter took while playing with my camera on our road trip when she was 8 years old."
So they evoked for you a memory of your 8 year old daughter and a connection between you, but they have no value?
The picture of the victorious racer in the boat is labelled ISO25,600, but EXIF says ISO100.
dojoklo: Your example video showing "the differences between the FlexiZone single-point phase-detect AF and Face-detect/Tracking autofocus" is a little weird at best, and misleading at worst. First, one really wouldn't consider Face Detect to be the "default" AF mode - it is simply one of the 4 modes that the user can choose from, and it just happens to be the first one listed. The user is expected to select the mode that best fits the scene, and so that being said...
Why do you keep trying to use Face Detect to focus on a scene clearly without a face, and then commenting how there is a lag? Yes, there is a lag as the camera ponders why the user left it set on the Face Detect mode when there are no faces to be found! And then the camera switches automatically to FlexiZone-Multi as designed. The lag can be easily avoided by setting the camera in the appropriate AF Mode before shooting, and thus could basically be considered user error.
The example is pro-reader, not anti-Canon.
meanwhile: Why is there no rugged XZ-1? Why is there no rugged S110? Why no rugged LX7, or GR or anything with decent image quality? I really don't understand this camera not existing. Surely there are enough photographers looking for something they can take somewhere there is water around, or their camera might get knocked, or the environment is otherwise not camera friendly but where they want to be able to get quality shots?
Is a quality lens inherently and inevitably breakable? And if yes, why doesn't someone just come out and SAY THAT?
Is it just because it would tick too many boxes, and last too long? Not enough built-in obsolescence?
"All the cameras you mentioned have lenses that extend from the body when powered on."
Yep, I realise that, it was more for an indication of IQ level than body style. I could have said X100 (as it's lens doesn't extend, well a tiny bit), but that's a class up. Or RX100 (who's lens extends, I know). Thinking enthusiast+ level sensor size (1/1.6, 1"), RAW, manual control, sensible size, quality lens, decent corner to corner, good colour, etc.
My question is more along the lines of - can you not do quality folding optics? Is it just not possible? No-one has as yet, so maybe it's just not doable?
Why is there no rugged XZ-1? Why is there no rugged S110? Why no rugged LX7, or GR or anything with decent image quality? I really don't understand this camera not existing. Surely there are enough photographers looking for something they can take somewhere there is water around, or their camera might get knocked, or the environment is otherwise not camera friendly but where they want to be able to get quality shots?
ogl: Smaller sensor compared to other interchangeable lens systems.DPREVIEW! It's P&S camera with interchangeable lenses. Please, compare with P&S cameras ONLY. I see that RAW result is very good for P&S camera.
You can change the compared cameras to any you like though, just choose another from the popups.
seanpon: Frankly, I prefer good photography to mediocre Photoshop work. I believe that this young photographer would be better served honing his photography skills. He probably has talent but his composite images are just cliches to me.
"Frankly, I prefer good photography to mediocre Photoshop work"
Agreed, but given this isn't mediocre, how does that statement apply here?
absentaneous: I am amazed people still fall for such tricks. when I was a teenager my favorite artist was dali. I thought his surreal art was pure genius. when I grew up I changed my mind. now I find his art childish, empty and boring.
It's nothing to do with what I think of you. You see not appreciating Dali as some kind of growth, but perhaps you have lost what you once had, rather than become more.
To quote someone about art "this is art, not math. there is no 2+2=4 formula. there is no doing it right or doing it wrong."
"now I find his art childish, empty and boring."
Perhaps that says more about you and less about Dali. You are now an empty and boring adult, and have lost the wonder of youth. It's sad when that happens.