I really want that face recognition feature of the D800. I hope Canon integrates something similar.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Yeah, it looks like someone at Canon has a sense of humor or are just out of touch with the economic times. Nowadays customers expect more for less, not less for more.My thoughts exactly. I won't buy the lens unless there is a worthwhile value-add beyond what I already have. A lot of people, including me, already have the 24-70 and/or 24-105.
Count me in for 24-70mm f2.8 IS - if not, I'll stay with my 24-105Yep, me too. I want that extra stop, but I don't want to give up IS.
I think that the 7D would be more that good enough for many years to come. You dont have to use the extra features of the 7D from the outset - but it gives room for you to grow into without having to change cameras.I agree with this. I bought a 60D as a first DSLR after giving away my old Nikon SLR (film) ~20 years ago. I have started outgrowing my 60D primarily due to the auto-focus performance (the 7D AF is great), and I really want better low light performance (which is the realm of the 5D). That said, it is a good camera and it takes great shots.
If a photo is actually a combination of several photos, but the photographer implies that it is a single, unaltered image, do you consider this unethical?I was thinking about this some more. The one area where I think ethics really kicks in is with photo journalism, i.e., documenting an event and then altering the shots. This recently happened with photos of the funeral procession in North Korea where the government cleaned up some photos so that they looked more orderly.
With all this talk about truth...I wonder how you guys feel about photographers using photoshop, particularly of actress's/model's faces in magazines that has been "altered". Isn't it pretty much the same concept?This is a grey area for me. If the company using the photo is alleging that the person is not altered, that is a clear "crossing the line" statement.
Do you feel genuinely upset and angry when a photographer portrays a photo as something it’s not? If so, why does this get you so worked up?I don't get worked up. I don't consider it an "ethical" issue. It is disingenuous. The photographer is misleading whomever is reviewing his/her work. In the case with Lik, he is presenting some of his photographs as being single shots when they appear to be composites. The flowery prose explaining his excitement in setting up for "the shot" only compounds the misleading nature of the photograph presented. Further, he used another photographer's work in promoting his own work, which is unfathomable. I don't get worked up over it, but I certainly do not respect the man, and I will not give him further consideration, no matter how talented he may be.
If a photo is actually a combination of several photos, but the photographer implies that it is a single, unaltered image, do you consider this unethical?
Many B&W digital specialists will actually increase saturation to the point of oversaturation before the conversion, to deepen the tones.I do this too. I don't have B&W specialty programs (e.g., Nik SilverEfx). I tried doing this in both Photoshop and Adobe RAW and found Adobe RAW to be much easier to use. For some reason, Photoshop is extraordinarily laggy.