The same focusing problem exists on any high pixel count camera. The new Hasselblads models have a feature which allows for automatic correction when you focus on one point (say the eyes) and then reframe for the shot. At these high pixel counts/high resolutions/large frame, coupled with wide open apertures which give a small DOF, it will make a difference. It always has; even with film. Back then I always closed down 1 click to allow for focus error. And I suggest the fix remains the same as it always did. Also note that some cameras/lens combination are not necessarily that accurate. Sigma has suggested that where the camera does not have focus correction that the lens is matched to the camera. They offer a free service to do this.
CameraLabTester: "photography related"?
Isn't Photoshop mostly about photography and then some?
It used to be years ago. Now mostly not. As Ken Rockwell said you really only need version 5.5 for photography ( although I disagree; I think version 6 which has current colour management system is the one to go for).
ryansholl: I don't believe it. A sequence could tell more of a story than a single shot?
Just wait til he discovers there's something called "video" now!
I don't know why you are rejecting this idea. It isn't new. Photographers have been using sequenced images for years. Think in terms of 'Slices of Life'. Freelance photographer, Lious Peek, did a very good sequence of a girl and boy together shot in Paris I think, back in the late 1960s. The effect is different to a movie; the story is told differently. And with the still sequence the deliberate gaps can be used to create tension,and work on ones own imagination to fill in the gaps.
Mostly Lurking: The author might do well to look up the definitions of 'Macro Photography' and 'Close-up Photography. Some of the so-called 'macros' he's included in his article are decidedly close-ups, and perhaps more of them are as well. Macros require that the size of the subject image be equal to or larger than it is in real life; i.e. a size ratio between 1::1 and 10::1. Close-up photography is where the subject is between 10 times larger than the captured image to the same size; i.e. 10::1 and 1::1. in Micro-photography, the captured image is more than 10 times large than the subject. Everything else is simply 'plain' or normal photography. With that in mind, it's really a stretch for lens manufacturers to term their macro lenses as such; they're really just close-up lenses (1::1).
And you sir should look up the credentials of the author before posting this kind of criticism. If you had done so you would have seen that that Erez Marom knows his subject inside out.
This is good advice for everyone. I just nearly made a similar mistake when criticising a review of a book on Amazon recently. The poster had criticised the photographs in the book; which were quite good. I assummed the poster was a beginner and wrote a criticism accordingly. However, before posting I checked. The poster's work was really good and was actually better than the pictures he was criticising. I still wrote a (modified ) comment criitcsing his post which I still felt was too harsh though.
If you had reworded your ciriticism and just pointed out that there is a difference without reference to the author's expertise then I suggest your comments would have been received more kindly. It's always best to engage brain before mouth :)
Great book, even if you shoot Nikon, like me. And if you shoot Canon, It's a must.
Rob Rossington: It's people like him who are destroying traditional photojournalism. by Diversifying he's basically saying its not worth saving.
We need to try and save still imagery, it works so well on things like the Ipad etc.
So if he can't find work in photogjounalism, you expect him to starve then, what for is art? Get intot the real world my firend.
JosephScha: I think we all need to remember that every company that made buggy whips, phaetons (look it up), etc are defunct. They didn't all have horrible management, a dramatic change in technology made their product totally obsolete.I think Kodak should be regarded in that way: they made their money selling consumable supplies - film and photo paper. They also made slide projectors (Kodak carousel) and mass produced film cameras. Then the technology changed - sales of film and photo paper collapsed. No film, no slides; so no slide projectors. All film camera sales, even disposable cameras, tanked. I'm glad part of Kodak will survive. It's easy to call management stupid, but managing a company whose moneymaking products have almost all completely faded away during the last decade must be nearly impossible.
But Kodak were digitial inovators. They knew what was coming, they helped invent digital technology. The were already making changes to the company structure to bring about the changover at the start. It was other factors that caused the current problems, poor management decisions, failure to capitalize on their technological lead, poor design, poor marketing and in the wrong markets, and basically the 'Big Blue (IBM) Syndrome'
(unknown member): If I want a video camera, I'll buy one!! I want a stills camera....without expensive technology I will never use.
All new camera models are likely to include video; it's relatively cheap to include. And video cameras take stills too. So I guess you will never, ever, buy a new camera again.
Actually, I used to feel like this; I rejected the D90 when it came out for the very same reason, but enventually bought one. But I did find it useful for video/audio notes, and particularly for recording location information.
john: color management are only good for publishing, like matching a pantone color, they produce flat boring color in photography, because color in real life are nt that vivid and saturated
I suggest you take up a different hobby; photography isn't for you.