todo pana: why live...? why don't you link it to youtube so that we can watch what we want when we want? this just takes over the bandwidth and slows everything down. unnecessarily forceful.
We are broadcasting live now, but the show will be archived for anyone wanting to watch in the future, so its the best of both worlds. Same amount of bandwidth live or on youtube once you press play.
Timmbits: A bit ironic that SONY has such poor videoconferencing equipment for the video link (for Marc who couldn't be there).
This is actually the result of us using Skype to conference in our guests, nothing they can do to improve the quality.
TLD: For goodness sake lift your heads up and talk to the camera!!!
It's hard when you have so much gear in front of you! ;)
tom1234567: Hi all Your doing a great job, as I live in the U.K. what's the best time to tune in liveand watch from the beginning.Will you be recording the live view so we can catch up on what we missCheersTom G
Hi Tom, we're about to start the 3rd segment in 15 minutes, 1:15 PST, which will run for 90 minutes roughly. We will then begin a re-broadcast of the entire show immediately after.
BrianSA: This was pretty awful. I stood about half a minute of the rubbish presentation. The video is disjointed, stopping after about 5 seconds and waiting for the download to catch up. This happened every 5 seconds, so made it almost impossible to watch. Pausing it, unlike professionally run video sites, did not allow the whole video to down load in order that I could watch it seamlessly.
Completely pointless. Even the little I was able to see seemed to be aimed at 9 year olds.
Brian, we're sorry the streaming wasn't working too well for you. That's one of the pain points of streaming video, it is difficult for us to control the quality for all our viewers. Thanks for giving it a shot and for the feedback.
Timmbits: I'm just curious as to why you guys blatantly refuse to talk about Samsung. Your owners Amazon sell the line. They have some nice value models in MILC. For example, the NX20 competes with the other MILC, offers better resolution than most models (just not Sony nex7), and they have some very nice lenses! I'm just totally in love with the new 45mm f1.8They have their faults, of course. But in terms of bang for the buck... last year I paid $400 for an NX20 (body). Compare that with the $800-$1500 for other MILC cameras with as much controls, tilt screen, viewfinder (and most often 16mp instead of 20mp).
PS: mind you, in all fairness, I get it, that you can't cover every camera. but you did include samples from every manufacturer except that one.
We definitely are not avoiding Samsung, we've even invited them today to be a part of our panel discussion so stay tuned in! I think the reality is that there is a crowded and competitive market and not every camera gets the spotlight.
JohnEwing: Good luck indeed.
But folk who visit DP Review are generally quite knowledgeable about photography, so do we really need to have all that elementary stuff in "Product roundups..." explained? I watched for two minutes then went elsewhere.
We'll be working our way up through the classes and experience levels, but we do have to speak to the products and technology in a manner that doesn't assume too much about the viewer's familiarity with the gear. Either way, thanks for the feedback John!
Corkcampbell: Does anyone know when this will be rebroadcast? I am in Seoul and won't be able to see it at 2:00 AM, although will give a try. Creative Live usually rebroadcasts directly after the live event same day, but I would also miss that. Will it be broadcast a third or more times?
I checked Creative's website but couldn't find the info.
Thanks for any help; really looking forward to this and also really support the idea.
We are going to begin a re-broadcast immediately after the first broadcast finishes. It may run long or short, but we're aiming for 3:00 PM PST.
Jogger: Why is DPR recycling the comment thread from the other round-ups.. its a bit confusing to have different "news" items with the same comment thread.
Same thing with recycling threads when reviews finally arrive and you think "oh, there are 1500 comments since the review was released 10 min ago".
We agree with you, this comment structure is not ideal, and a technical roadblock we're going to address. THanks for the feedback!
DotCom Editor: I'm excited to learn from this piece that I need neither camera nor lenses in my camera bag. It really lightens the load.
I think you are confused. The first slide of the slideshow contains the editorial text you have stated should exist in the slideshow.
Jeff Peterman: Why isn't there an easy to click on link that takes us to the original site? (Or if there is, where is it?)
As for the lake being a "lake of blood" - if so, what about the green lake? I'm pretty certain that the water color is simply from minerals in the water, not "animal products".
Hi Jeff, we post the source link at the bottom of the each news story where applicable. In this case, look above for "Via: Edible Geography, Source: Mishka Henner".
Alpha Jack: Not sure why all of the hate. Tablets are potential tools for photography and many photographers are very interested if not already invested. Connect or regular site, there is interest on this site.
Hey guys, we know some of you would prefer not to see us expand into these other topic areas on the homepage. We're exploring ways to enhance the display/filter/view options to let the user have even more control over what they see. We hope to have some options on the way this year for you.
zaurus: Links to both the source and to a page with more detailed info would have been useful.
the link is after the second paragraph:
tkbslc: Doesn't this picture know that you can't get subject isolation with m4/3?
My head is standard sized, I assure you. :)
phantom5691: "it produced images in a visual style that people weren’t used to seeing"
Yeah, no one has EVER seen those hipstagram type filters before. lol
The point is that when his images were coming out in Time, NYT, and New Yorker, they were hitting mass audiences that dont pay attention to the latest movements in photography technology, so yes, most of the eyeballs seeing his Libya or Afghanistan images had not seen Hipstamatic images in 2010-2012.
johnmacp: You can praise or criticize all you like but the fact is that pretty much all the posts below me are arguing over the tools- iPhone, Android, filters, blah blah blah - says it all.
There are virtually no comments on the actual images presented making them simply uninformative window-dressing.
Whats the story behind them? Where are these people standing on a hill? What are these guys praying with a AK47 doing there, and what did they do next? What are they fighting for? Who are they fighting against? Do they have names?
THATS all that matters to me. And is that not what all this new-age connected PJ'sm is supposed to be about ? Telling stories?
I see precious little real communication going on here. SO if using the iPhone is supposed to aid communication of important issues and raise awareness it's failing miserably at least in this context - and I would argue that this is precisely the sort of place that communication should be happening.
Or am I missing something?
Hey John, some context might help you. These photos originally ran in a major publication with accompanying text by a writer. The story was told and the photos were used to illustrate. Could have they been taken on other gear? Perhaps, but I think Ben chose the iphone in certain circumstances due to close quarters, timing, and so on. But, the point, is that the device was a means to get the shots, which were used in storytelling.
Photog74: This reminds me of a story from about 10 years ago when Magnum photographer Alex Majoli would use three Olympus C-5050 compact cameras to document the Iraq war. There have always been, and will likely always be, photographers who use smaller devices instead of the generally bulky SLRs preferred by the majority of their colleagues. This is nothing new, actually.
I actually bought that camera because of that story. :)
Bluebird47: It's a pity that this website gave up all interest in serving serious photographers and instead became a silly "me too blog" on the current fad of mainstream mobile "photography" with phones. Yes, we got it. Influential people use phones, but not because of its technological superiority (in conflict situations, a real camera is certainly superior in terms of shooting speed, low light performance etc.), but as a cheap marketing ploy to pander to the masses, same as you. How about an "why i DON'T use an iphone" article? Now that would show some serious balls! Just sayin.
In the meantime, if you are still confused about Ben Lowy, why he uses an iphone (at times), what kind of work he does for Reportage by Getty (a serious professional photography agency apparently) and want to learn more, I suggest you check out this other site that like Dpreview may have no real interest in professional photography, The New York Times: http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/02/ben-lowy-virtually-unfiltered/
Bluebird47, we are all ears if you have any meaningful commentary on the content of this article or site, but leading with "this website gave up all interest in serving serious photographers" shows a serious lack of understanding of the facts. We have not changed any of the existing Dpreview content, we've just added more, via a new site that is separate from the main site.
As for this particular piece, not once in the post above is the fact that Ben Lowy uses an iPhone presented as novel due to the technological capabilities of the device, yet that is your only real comment, that influential people don't use mobile phones for photography because of their technology (a lot of irony to this statement).
Regardless, we'd love to have you pen a piece on why you dont use an iphone. If it's interesting and actually provides our readers with valuable information, we'll publish it (probably to Dpreview though). I mean that. Drop me a PM with your angle.
Karroly: What I expect from a photojournalist is to report the facts and only the facts, avoiding any kind of distortion if possible.When a photojournalist tries to put some aesthetic in his/her pictures to catch attention or to translate his/her own feelings into his/her pictures, he/she - intentionally or not - MANIPULATES us, the viewers...
For the record, photojournalists are distorting the facts every day by choosing what to shoot. They are making a choice "this is the way to tell this story" (thus choosing what story should be told, and how). The composition, editing, and everything thereafter is just added layers. There are limitations to journalism in every form, including photography. Not trying to negate your point, but I think its worth considering the larger perspective of how this whole system actually works.