Taking a risk that I may upset just about everybody here (including the article's writer and dpreview itself) I must comment that there are many on here who don't appear to have a clue on what they are talking about. And, dare I suggest that the article's writer has not made things as clear as he should either. What really surprises me is that I would have expected most of the site's readers to be more aware than what they have shown here. Some posters appear to be complicating rather simple truths in order to make themselves appear to be more knowledgeable than they are. The article's writer does not at least do this and gets most of it right and has just left out some stuff that would have clarified things.
Marty4650: Whenever I use the Amazon customer reviews, I completely ignore the 5 star and the 1 star reviews, and read only the 2, 3, and 4 star reviews. My thinking is the fanboys will give it 5 stars, so there is no point even reading those reviews, and 1 star reviews are mostly people upset because the UPS truck arrived when they weren't home, had a warranty problem, or simply didn't read the product description and ordered the wrong product.
You usually find the most informative reviews in the middle of the rankings.
Marty, I guess you will never read a lot of my reviews then. I only tend to write reviews when the product is very poor and has been reviewed far too favorably and I want to set the record straight. My reviews are honest and based on real use rather than someone who has just opened the box and is excited and wants to tell people.
CMurdock: The last monitor I bought had a terrible image, and my bad review (the only one on CDW for that monitor) has probably cost the company a dozen sales now.
Sometimes enraged consumers will go to one review site after another to express their unhappiness. I've done that.
But CollBaxter that review may be the only worthwhile one there. Time after time I've seen reviews for very poor products that have rated it highly. More often or not its books in Amazon. Five stars predominating with only a couple of bad ones for what is really rubbish. What happens is that people buy something, then write a review after having the product for a very short time and as they are excited to have got the product rate it much higher than it deserves.
johnsong: It is not available as an individual license at this time
Thanks for link Mark B. Actually, it was hard.. Adobe so intent on pushing the dam Cloud it kept on going to the pricing for it.
domina: That's a good thing for photography and videography, it means now everyone will be able to sell to them on the strength of their current images rather than be employed by them permanently because of personal connections or past reputation. However, it's sad for the photographers as employees. Perhaps the newspaper should offer them free support to set up their freelance businesses.
Agree with you Jack. Domina's post is the stupidest thing I've read for ages. Wonder if he writes for Yahoo News.
Whoops! An error: the 4 example images are the same.
solarsky: The reduced version of this article might read (in 2012!):Nikon D800(E) shooting RAW+ good lens+ tripod+ filters+ suitable RAW developer software+ Kolor Autopano Giga (possibly also + Photomatix Pro)+ computer= Finished at much lower cost, at similar quality as the "complex approach", in much shorter time with much less of a fuss. Done.
No, this setup won't work. You can not replicate the effect of a tilt lens to increase the DOF in software; you can only replicate a reduction.
A 'How long is a piece of string' question. Canon users will vote for the 5D MkIII; Nikon users will vote for the D800. Others may vote for the OM-D or Fuji. As I have an D800 I would vote for it if I was bothered; but I'm aware that the Canon 5D Mk III is a great camera too. And the Sony SLT-A99, OM-D, Fuji X-Pro are not far behind.
JDThomas: “Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk.” – Edward Weston
“The so-called rules of photographic composition are, in my opinion, invalid, irrelevant and immaterial” – Ansel Adams
In my first book I mentioned these two quotes, right afterward I pointed out this: Find me an Ansel Adams or Edward Weston image that DOESN'T follow at least ONE rule of composition. You can't. The reason why these photographers art is considered great is simply because they followed these rules intuitively.
Edward Weston didn't need to consult the rules of composition, his brain and eye naturally saw that way. Not all photographers are lucky enough to have that talent. Most of us have to think about it and work at composing compelling images. More often than not when you THINK you're breaking a rule take a closer look and you'll probably see that you have followed one of the rules of composition perfectly.
Adams was not a great photographer (gasp, groan) as anyone who has studied photography will tell you. His skill base and fame were due to the extraordinary quality of his prints and the methods he used to achieve this. I've been lucky to have seen an exhibition of his prints and they are outstanding; something you can not appreciate from books which do not do justice to the originals.
So, for me, Adams comments are not set in stone.
wansai: Who is to say the eyes can't be a certain location. Picasso would certainly have words with anyone demanding such.
Are they a good starting point for beginners? Sure they are- if you're just learning & your viewer is equally as uninitiated. But these basics have poisoned the well even among experienced creatives. People become strict adherents to these limitations & work blindly by these artificial bounds.
I reframe in photoshop and more often than not, I find placing them in the 3rds rule makes them really flat & cookie cutter. I'll shift it around until it feels & looks right to me. I have a background in fine arts and design so dumping rules comes easy because my idea comes first. For others, it cripples their mind even if their skill is there. It's rules like these that make it diificult for creatives to understand something like Asymmetry.
Ultimately, It's your story, not someone elses' and not some artificial guide!
The 'rules' are not some artifical guide. If you think that then you don't understand them. Picasso knew the rules, and also knew how to break them; which is the purpose of the article. Some of the rules are based on mathematical formula while others have just evolved from observations by artists over centuries.
There are many out there that instinctively follow the rules, while others learn them subconsciously during their career. If you are trained, then you learn the rules formally; and probably follow them subconsciously as well.
Me, it's taken 30 years of looking at 1000s of pictures, taking 1000s of pictures and being critiqued to get to the stage where I instinctively apply them or break them at will.
What I learned is that there is another rule: don't follow the rules; make the rules. So, for all those who have commented negatively on this very good article then I suggest that you learn the rules...
And about time too. But I have to question whether DXO are the best possible choice; they don't really go into enough depth.
Petrogel: This review thing is getting ridiculous !!!!!! in short while you'll be reviewing photo cameras belts !!!!!
So you guys are really thinking of reviewing camera belts. Oh come on!. You know dam well we want lens reviews, yet you waste precious time and space putting up this kind of stuff which we don't want. This site continues to get worse and is now starting to become an irrelevance.
I had a quick look at the terms and conditions here:https://d1ncmqs035wa42.cloudfront.net/other/1340157276-1281.pdf
It's a 17-page document but I was unable to find where Intel writes that it had rights to use competition submissions. Chapter 21 - release does not concern image rights, and Chapter 17- contest prize - does not mean that the photographer is signing off his rights to his photography.
I did not read every single paragraph, but can you point me towards the right paragraph?
You must be blind. IT'S IN CAPITAL LETTERS
Another rights grab. Disgraceful. and shame on dpreview for putting this up.
Why is dpreview even putting this rip off on the site?
CameraLabTester: Perhaps DPR could do some tests on:FabricsRoof TilesInsects (eyes of a housefly)Fencing patternsFlyscreensBarcodesHatch drawingsCurrency bill macros...The local neighborhood view just don't cut it...
Very good idea; so why didn't they think of doing this. After all, this was always in contention so they should have made an effort
This would have been a better tutorial if a diagram had been included. I've always struggled with 3 point lighting for video. Mind you, so have channel 5 looking at some of their studio footage. So for me, this article didn't quite go far enough. Hopefully the author will follow it up with more information.
Maverick_: How disappointing. We normally associate this site with higher caliber work, even if the topic is single light source. These images are not interesting at all. I think having access to a studio, with a nice backdrop that you'd want to get more creative with your lighting. Budget has nothing to do with it, it's using your imagination, you are not shooting products for eBay. TERRIBLE.
I think you are outnumbered here Maverick. This mini tutorial does the intended job: it teaches the basics of using a single light. It is not comprehensive; it's not intended to be. The images are good enough to illustrate the points made.
And as strata83 mentions the examples in one of the best books on lighting ever written uses quite boring and flat images.
jquagga: I found the article helpful. Now I need a beauty dish to play with!
Beauty dishes are over rated.. They are best for close up work, head and shoulders with the dish placed close up, which is what they were designed for. They are much less suitable for full body shots.You can get just as good results or better using a simple brolly (dirt cheap) or softbox. I suggest the article is not about the equipment, but about the lighting techniques demonstrated. Overall, a good introduction for the beginner; it demonstrates what can be achieved with a simple setup. Now adding a large reflector to this which could be a simple piece of white card would add a whole range of additional lghting.