Looks too much like a Where's Wally snapshot. They wouldn't all be caught in such active poses in a real snapshot of an orchestra.
If you turn the camera the other way you'll know who the father is.
Robert Beck's personal site
A digital photo? Every copy is the same!
Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?
hc44: "'a work owing its form to the forces of nature and lacking human authorship is not registrable.' "
A hypothetical contraption: A random number generator uses the current wind speed as a seed (random 'shuffle') and produces random numbers once per time interval (say 1 minute). The number is between 1 and 100; every time a 1 is generated a photo is taken.
Does the creator and initiator of this contraption have copyright ownership of the photos taken?
So, speaking theoretically among ourselves (judges do their own thing), is intent significant?
While this photographer did a lot of things which led to this photo being taken, it was never his intent for a photo to be taken in the manner that it was.
I read below the term 'solely' appears in the law. Nature hasn't set up the contraption. I reckon he does hold copyright.
"Materials produced solely by nature, by plants, or by animals are not copyrightable."
"'a work owing its form to the forces of nature and lacking human authorship is not registrable.' "
He didn't create the scene, he just recorded it.
Ulfric M Douglas: It comes in Brown!Win!
Still no plaid :-(
More sun? No. The combination of drunkenness (relaxant drug) and low IQ (lower stress levels) results in steadier hands. Sony just know their markets.
hc44: Must be a lot of good lens glass is rendered junk because the body it's attached to is soon outdated. Makes abstracted lens a good idea.
It's a general observation. People tend to buy new cameras and let their old ones gather dust. Good lenses though tend to be useful even on newer cameras, especially if compatible with the mount.
Is that wrong?
See the dictionary; I'm using the word in its usual meaning and nothing you've written invalidates my point.
Picky picky picky... what's with camera forums attracting the world's biggest toasters?
N13L5: what good does the slim camera do in my pocket if it has a soda can style lens that won't retract?
There are some high quality cameras with built-in, bright, retracting zooms.
For having a DSLR sized sensor in a Sony Nex camera I can understand the design compromise. For a 1" sensor, what's the point?
Camera body is pocketable by itself, detachable long zoom is pocketable by itself. Two pockets... (OK it's not perfect)
Must be a lot of good lens glass is rendered junk because the body it's attached to is soon outdated. Makes abstracted lens a good idea.
Not sure if already posted. There are areas where detail is mashed up into something quite different to the original.
See Queen of Spades top right, the hair fringe (compare with Sony Alpha7 R). Also the Jack of Hearts, the bird shape at the rear of the head. In both cases contiguous lines become a mess of squiggles.
EOS 6D is doing something similar, though not as bad.
domina: I'm a software engineer and into computer science and I never trust software, computers or programmers. Windows, Chrome and all your software crashes quite often, think about it. The last thing I want is bugs in my lens correction.
From a self described software engineer this is quite a naive comment. If you can't trust software in a camera I suppose you never indulge in air travel?
wus: Nice try, but need better ... 15 m depth rating isn't even enough for snorkelling. I wouldn't mind an interchangeable lens system based around the CX sensor as long as I can take it down to 60 m and have at least 1 true wideangle lens, like the old Nikonos V with the 15 mm UW Nikkor. Although a bigger sensor camera with a (true!) phase detect AF and a couple lenses including a true macro would of course be better. And of course a strobe (or, better, 2) are mandatory for serious underwater photography.
Just make sure you don't use the 15 m snorkel with this camera and you should be alright.
Was a bit worried about the less than rugged look - underwater equipment tends to get knocked around - then saw the protective rubber skin. I suppose not so bad.
But still, would you feel confident having the front glass exposed under water?
twadger: Like many photographers I come here for reviews, not nostalgia.
Digital Photograph Review, the clue's in the name.
You should ask for a refund.