macjonny1: I went out on my back patio, laid on the ground, and took a photo of my kid's bigwheel. Put a bleach bypass filter effect using ColoEfex pro, and looks just like this. Even took it in front of my neighbor's rancher for effect. Granted the bigwheel is plastic but looks the same to me!
Too bad you didn't do it 30 years ago. Easy to make fun of it now, but he was using color in a way no one else was. Maybe instead of poking fun, why don't you do something unique and innovative in photography? Then, maybe you could actually sell a print.
Thinking out loud: Any given object is worth what someone is prepared to pay for it. In the elite world of investment art very rich collectors are more interested in the capital appreciation of their purchases than the "art for art's sake" excuse. Personally I think the Emperor is totally naked - this is snap shot of a kid's toy. The sky is blown out, the composition is clumsy, get a grip on reality. Of all the billions of images out there what makes this one so special? Please educate me, I just do not see anything worth what these collectors, with money to burn, are willing to spend. Are we all buying into the hype, like a bunch of sheep, because the "Art" elites have made a proclamation that it should be so?
This is an interesting read...
Oh, yes. I'm such a sheep for appreciating (and understanding) one of the most important photographers in the modern era. I guess all those museums and collectors are fools, and you are the smart one who simply "isn't impressed" after you googled his images. Nice. Go take some photos of cats or sunsets or something.
It's really sort of sad that you've never even heard or been exposed to his work before. For someone who presumably consider photography a serious hobby, your are very ignorant. Sad.
Educate yourself. Try "Google." The image is representative of a movement in photography. Eggleston is incredibly important, and considered a pioneer in color photography. Like most fine art photography, there's more to the image than just the "image" per se. Do a little research.
Jeff Seltzer: A couple of thoughts...
1. In this age of modern digital printing, the notion of "limited editions" is just a marketing scheme. Limited editions used to make sense, but now with digital files, print #100 looks just the same as #1. Creating limited editions huts the artist more than the collector.
2. For all of you slamming the "Tricycle" image...go learn more about what makes an image fine art vs. decorative. Read-up on Eggleston and learn more about why his photography matters. He really started a photographic movement, and the above image is symbolic of that movement. It's an incredibly important image, if not a beautiful or technically complex image. But, do yourselves a favor, and look at his body of work.
Leandros, I don't disagree. My point is that, originally, a long time ago, the notion of limited editions made a little more sense because the first print made was often the highest quality, then subsequent prints would loose a slight amount of quality each time until the plate wore out. Because of the variation in quality, lower-numbered prints in an edition were favored as superior. But, now, with modern digital files and printing, the first print and the 1000th print looks exactly the same. So the *only* reason to create a "limited edition" print is for the party dress metaphor as you describe, i.e., it's all marketing, and had nothing to do with the actual print.
A couple of thoughts...
matty_boy: I had one and sold it after a frustrating 4 months of ownership. The images are nice but they do have a tampered with feeling to them and some lens setting produce unusual blurring and aberrations towards the edge of the frame.. the 18mm lens is particularly bad at this. for me though the biggest issue is ready usability. The dials for shutter and aperture and the way you change to aperture or shutter priority are great but choosing focus points is a painful and involved process, the eye has to be seated perfectly to get a good view of the frame, many times it looks blurred and as you cant trust the AF this is not a good thing. its slow to use and useless for action or even general motion shooting. I tried to get some pictures of the kids when it snowed and they are all blurred af just isnt up to it, although the recent firmware improved it a little. all in all the images are good but not great, its clunky to use but does have some really nice touches..usability is a killer though
Hmmm...worked just fine for me with kids and snow.
Is this software or hardware driven? Could this appear in a firmware update of the X-Pro1?
xtoph: The leica m monochrom deserves consideration. It is easily the most innovative camera released in the last year.
Agree, totally innovative. I hope over the next few years they continue to innovate and perhaps explore ways to add color.
Wait! I thought "the best camera is the one you have with you!" This is such a dumb "poll" that it really puts into question the value and credibility of DPreview. Are you weighting results by ownership? How are you defining "best?" What do we conclude about the winner? Totally silly.
Looks like a bunch of uninstresting snapshots in bright sunshine. Seems like almost any camera could make these images.
keepreal: X-Prosumer1 at best, Fuji must be kidding
Just a little below I said that the X-Pro1 is full of idiosyncrasies and flaws, both viewfinders are somewhat substandard. What a travesty for such a princely sum.
Furthermore, I want lenses that do not distort so that I can develop RAW images in any software I choose. Currently I use Oloneo PhotoEngine whose tone mapping is superb even for single frames and Photomatix Pro which can merge handheld bracketed shots into a single image without ghosting. When I need to employ the latter, I output the merged but otherwise unprocessed result as a radiance .hdr file and input that to PhotoEngine for tonemapping. I insist on being able to do that sort of thing with any camera, any lens but I cannot.
To allow distortion and rely upon software correction is appalling, especially in so-called Pro equipment. Thank goodness I still have my three full frame Nikon lenses from my film days with the D300 and can avoid all the modern rubbish glass.
What a crack-up! "Both viewfinders are somewhat substandard." Can you please tell me the "standard" when it comes to hybrid viewfinders?
Jeff Seltzer: My 5DII is giving me a really worried look, "Please don't eBay me..."
Too funny! I remember when I bought my 5DII and it was called a "new tech" wonder, especially the "gimmicky" video functionality. Remember that?! Wow, times have changed. Anyway, I have both cameras. The 5DII has literally not come out of the bag for several months. Believe me, I wish it wasn't true - I'm looking at 10k in camera and lenses that need to be used. But, so far, no need. That will probably change, but like I said, 5DII is nervous...
My 5DII is giving me a really worried look, "Please don't eBay me..."
Can someone explain how focus will work? Will there be focus indication?
Pretty nice sample images. A couple of them would be nice in color....oh, wait. Oh, well. At least the camera doesn't cost too much. Oh, wait...
Well, there's two ways to make money: (1) sell a lot at a lower price; or (2) sell just a few at a higher price. I guess we know which business model they are using.
A case of "a solution looking for a problem" or "the answer to a question no one asked."
Emacs23: Looks like we have a new sort of fanboyism. It's partially like leica one: fuji rocks, fuji the best, etc. But unlike leica these beliefs aren't confirmed with anything: neither their optics is the best (just good and boring as hell, definitely inferior compared to leicas), nor their cameras are the best :)))
Hmmm...seems like CNET thinks it's a great camera