SantaFeBill: "The announcement suggests Lightroom 6 will continue as a standalone application ... ."Why? CC requires certain operating systems. The fact that LR 6 will also has no relevance as to whether it will be stand-alone or cloud-based. You still need an OS on your computer to access cloud-based applications.
That's correct but about "cheaper" I don't know. I have been getting Lightroom and Photoshop for the last year at $10 a month and I'm pretty happy with that. I may change my tune if the pricing goes up. :)
Dejan80501: Off topic, but addressing an issue here: why soo many overly critical posters? These posts have ABSOLUTELY ZERO value to the above feature on dpreview. There rings the sound of jealousy because YOU may not been published or received attention as Jory Vander Galien. All work has value, and something can be taken away from the table. In JVG's set, some I like, some I don't because of my own personal style and taste or could be done better...but, there may be a story behind each set. The only tasteless portion of this feature are the valueless comments posted here...be a pro, and express critique not criticism.
The phrase "Be a Pro" is very true. I have never seen a photographer whose work I admire put down another photographer.
PhotoKhan: People complaining about how Flicker might be no longer relevant, how it even does not recognize some camera brands and all other "logic" limitations for this article scope are missing the point.
This has been written and is being propagated because it has reached a "minimally true gestation state" where it CAN be written.
Little details, like the fact that a smarthpone manufacturer is being ranked among camera's manufacturers just because its products also happen to make photos, in the same way that we could rank McDonald's ahead of any star-distinguished Michelin restaurant by sourcing any "food photography" channel is of little relevance for today's "journalism".
If an headline can contain the "expression Apple overtakes xxx" it WILL be written, no matter how irrelevant the base data might be, if the actual switching rank being an "obscure" second or how much logic-twisting has to be performed.
Hey...There are even some very serious and business like graphs included!
Most people would consider this interesting news...the fact that a phone has reached such a plane of popularity as a camera.
bmoag: At one time Kodak cameras took more images by far than all other camera brands combined. It did not matter that these were fixed focus box cameras. Consumers who did not know better were satisfied with the execrable quality of the images they produced. Phone based cameras are the box cameras of the 21st century, better than old film cameras but execrable in an absolute sense. What has changed is that the bottom end of the market is so much larger because it is essentially free to create limitless numbers of images compared to the cost of Kodacolor.
Your comment makes me want to fish my old Diana out of the box and run a few rolls of Tri-X through it. I haven't taken any execrable photos for ages and I miss the experience.
Mike FL: One thing is for sure, you pay less for "Made in China". Such as:
"Yongnuo clones Canon’s ‘nifty fifty’ down to every last detail at half the price (@$69)" per IR.
"the 'build quality seems to be on par with Canon’s 50mm 1.8 II; maybe a *tad bit better*, but not by much.'"
BTW:Actually, you can get it for not $69, but $40 with free shipping.
As an reference a "Leica Lens Coffee Cup Mug" is $45, and " Made in Germany. Never used, only removed from box for this photo". Per seller, Oh yes. " Made in Germany."
I've been using the Canon 50mm 1.8 professionally for 10 years and it has not let me down. This likely won't be believed but my lens is sharper than the 1.4 which I sold and sharper than my 24-105 and 24-70 f2.8 at 50mm. I don't use it in wet weather of course. :)
Just a Photographer: If this is what Sony produces for their A-series with e-mount then this whole system seems very unbalanced.
A small light weight camera with heavy and huge lenses. No wonder you will need IBIS to shoot with this system.
Everyone has different needs. A smaller lighter FF camera with terrific resolution is great to put on a gimbal. A big heavy lens would defeat the purpose.
Nordstjernen: I am reading a lot of "This is not for me, so the Sony guys have made a bad choise with these lenses". Those people will never buy any of the announced lenses anyway, probably no camera from this maker either. They just are here to act like product and sales specialists. Always knowing exactly what is wrong. Just boring.
In response to the argument that FF lenses have to be big, what about lenses for the Leica rangefinder or Canon's "pancake" lenses? I'm not suggestion the whole range has to be small but how about a few small options.
I would also like to see some lighter smaller lenses and they can be primes. As it is, if I bought a a7 series camera I would probably consider using a Canon 50mm 1.8 or one of their pancake wide angles and hope the adapter isn't too heavy.
wildbild: The usual amateur competition pictures. Nothing outstanding in my view.
Well I agree with you somewhat but it is a difficult stand to take without being a hypocrite and I'm not talking about you, but others that come to mind.
I have been looking at the rules and I cannot find any reference to photo manipulation being disallowed. Can we assume this is an "anything goes" contest?
Also Rule #4.1.3 says not to put any identifying information in the photos. Does that mean in the visual content or does it mean not to put anything in the metadata either?
Thanks for any replies!
You need to explain your narrow views on wildlife photography a bit more.
nawknai: For me, the standouts are:
4: Glacier5: Arty b&w staircase6: Deer7: Backlit monk (borderline...)11: Orangutan (or "monkey")
10: Planes. I love it, but I'm simple-minded.
#9 is mirrored in photoshop, and so I feel should be considered "digital art" rather than photography.
I find it interesting that these days we want to have an even narrower classification of photography than we did in the past.
Should Jerry Uelsmann's work not have been considered photography?
Rage Joe: I think this Lik-guy is like a pretty average 'tourist photographer' (though a little more boring with his choice of subjects) who then later put his images on steroids in Photoshop. Just like the low-end cameras do out of the box, with a very vibrant color profile to please the ones who think that more color is better color. No, I am not saying it. No. The very beginners, normally.
Just google this Lick's images, if you don't get sick of overly saturated images. Jesus is coming soon, so it seems, and so on, you get the picture.
Hey Rage Joe, you sound like an Ektachrome guy who refused to jump on the Velvia bandwagon.
photo_rb: This is a little off topic, but how many think that black and white photography is only valid when it is done with b/w film, or perhaps a monochrome sensor?
Honestly, I don't know. I'm just running on gut feeling and it may have been something I ate. Maybe I'm thinking back to the film days when this wasn't an option....well it was an option but either adding a generation or printing on panchromatic papers left a lot to be desired.Anyway I appreciate all the thoughtful responses.
Well I posed the question and I'm still thinking about the answer. Somehow I can't help feeling that if the photo we are talking about was taken in B/W and not taken in colour and converted to B/W it would be more 'honest'. But I'm willing to admit I might be wrong.
This is a little off topic, but how many think that black and white photography is only valid when it is done with b/w film, or perhaps a monochrome sensor?
He may not be the greatest photographer but he is very very good. I've been to his gallery in LV and the presentation is amazing. The lighting makes the photos come alive. No question this is a man who works extremely hard at his craft.
And with fame and money, it is a bit easier to come up with unique photos. I am sure he was able to rent the Antelope Canyon area for exclusive use for a period of time.
Whatever the motives or the methods, actual photographers should be giddy to see pricing at this level.
Felix E Klee: In a professional context, for example for fashion photography in a studio, what is the advantage of a medium format camera today?
Today's full frame sensors and optics provide more than enough resolution for even very large printed ads, and dynamic range there is plenty as well. Furthermore, in a studio environment, I expect lighting to be perfect and the pro photographer to frame close to the final result.
For landscape photography medium format is interesting, but that's not my question.
I think resolution (image quality) could well be one answer. Retouching ease might be another.
I guess twenty years ago you could ask "why shoot with an 8x10 camera when 4x5 delivers all the resolution you need." Or "why shoot with a 4x5 camera when medium format has all the resolution you need." ...and so on...