Some real nice and arty photos there, makes a change from the cheese DPR usually features! ;)
Some are quite over-processed and cheesy.........number 6 (skiers) is brilliant, totally different class
eyefuse: Lovely images! I really like her style.
Not to be cynical or anything but image #1 and #12 have the same OOF foreground, slightly differently placed. #1 also has cloned and mirrored leaves to the right. It takes a photoshopper to spot a photoshopper. ;)
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for PP! People just need to know that this kind of magnificent art doesn't come straight out of a camera.
Anyway, this is well crafted chocolate-box art, but i'd rather look at this kind of stuff:http://sobadsogood.com/2013/04/23/incredible-images-of-teenage-freight-train-hitchhikers-by-mike-brodie/
God-dammit, well spotted!.......indeed, that was my first reaction too, great images but HOURS of PS involved!
If you're nit-picky on image quality, don't shoot jpeg. If you can afford an A7 then you can afford a fast computer that makes processing RAW files a breeze.
Looks like more time was spent photoshpping then was actually spent taking the photos!.......i mean, they're good photos and all, but why so over-processed?
Looks pretty cool, not sure why people are bitchin' about it......sure, you won't fnd many serious filmmakers using one because of the low resolution, but i like the look of those shots from the demo vid, and i imagine it will be quite cheap.
can't wait to get my sweaty little hands on an A7R.......
Skilfully done but very cartoon-like and over-processed!
ottonis: Haha, reading a bit through the comment section, one can conclude that the new Sony A7/r must be the worst camera ever.The same people that have complained about the R1 being "not a serious camera" because lacking a VF, now complain about the A7/r's viewfinder.This is truly amazing.
On a serious note, the A7/r have addressed virtually all shortcomings of the previous NEX line (problems with WA lenses, slow AF, NEX menu, no sealing) and of the RX1 (slow AF, no integrated VF, no grip), and merged the best of both worlds (FF RX and NEX) into one small-ish, well-built, weather-proof and sturdy housing.
For the first time, NEX users who loved the NEX line because of the ability to attach all the nice legacy glass, can do so even better and on a FF body. The FE lenses are yet to come, but let's be honest here: The A7/r is primarily made for the enthusiasts with dozens of old great glass sitting in their closet, wating to be attached to a gorgeous, small FF camera.
Yeah, a full frame camera with 36mp with which you can use any lens by any manufacturer of any era - that really sucks!
serious serious cameras...put any lens on it you like with an adapter, if you don't mind manual focus, which many don't.
I won't be selling my A99 and 24-70 Zeiss as that's a different beast, but will be getting an A7R for more experimental stuff like free lensing and tilt shift.
The interesting thing about these cameras is you can put virtually any old (or new) FF lens on it from any manufacturer (all be it manual focus) via inexpensive, light-weight adapters.
and the point being? Are fashion photogs expected to switch to the Nokia? Or the layman is going do a quick bit of fashion photog while waiting at the bus stop? Not quite clear what the point is.
babalu: The camel thorn trees photo by Lanting is world-famous, and it's surely a one-in-a-million photograph . It would have also been equally hailed, were it a painting.
I don't know, looks completely photoshopped to me. Not that that reduces its value as a work of art, but to call it a one in a million shot is a bit naive, more a question of great craftmanship with the camera and computer by the artist.
Roland Karlsson: 1. Impressive - looks like some screen print art.
2. Eh? Not impressed. Simple Photoshop filtering.
3. Very impressive - how did he do that?
4. Very nice. I do not know if this is difficult or if you simply can buy that filter. Looks like an oil painting filter has been applied. Those doing work like this might know how hard it is.
You seem to be judging these images by the techniques used to create them, and / or how difficult they are to create. Try to just experience them for what they are without "inside knowledge" and by calling them "impressive" or not, that misses the point and reduces them to a merely technical exercise!.........IMHO
Great photographer, cheesy subject matter, horrible camera.....
PeterFree: Many have been critical of the criticism myself and others had leveled against these pictures. To put what I am saying into perspective I want to make the point of repeatability. Lets take Ansel Adams' Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico and any one of the 4 images used in this article here on DPR. Now, who can name a professional photographer in the world today, using any kind of equipment, new or old, who could effectively reproduce Ansel's classic image, of course as the scene looks today. Anyone? Ansel himself could only capture a single negative of it, so any takers? Consider that the exact date, time and place from where this classic picture was taken is know. Now lets look at the 4 Wolf pictures. Given the exact time, date and location from where they were taken, is there a top flight professional commercial photographer in the world today who could NOT recreate these 4 pictures, as these scenes looks today?
indeed he fails to get the point.......mr Wolf thought of it and did it. It's ludicrous to say after the fact "i could have done that if i'd thought of it, if i'd made the effort to actually go there and do it". I also think these picture exhibit a high level of skill and it ain't as easy as people think it is to make them...........JMHO of course.
I'm curious about the technique used to make these pictures.
Some of them seem so flat it makes me wonder if they were taken from multiple vantage points and later stitched together. Like all parts of the shot have the same perspective, with no lens distortion. I've been thining about trying something like this but can find nothing on the interwebs about it.
If this is how it's done, i like the unreal effect it creates.
I guess the other possibility is that the shots are taken from very far away with a zoom lens, and only the centre of the image is cropped and used.