If this is the quality of photos produced by these photographers, they deserve to get fired.
Reporters who tolerate this are desperate. If I were a reporter and was told that now I have to capture video and photos in the field, I would flip them the bird and walk out. All of their reporters should do the same. But I guess they lack the brass to actually make a stand.
Asus doesn't get the tablet market. It's not about specs, it's about the experience. Asus and companies like them are applying outmoded PC thinking to tablets. Best of luck to them.
Huh, I love how Samsung keeps releasing products that nobody wants.
While it sucks for those who have been laid off, I don't understand why this is a bad thing. News consumers want immediacy, they don't want art or composition or high level of detail. Leave the art and composition to National Geographic. For news, immediacy is king and in that vein, so are smart phone photos and videos.
Technology moves on and sometimes it renders certain jobs less secure. I'm sure that moving to freelancers has cut costs tremendously for Sun Times. Why would you keep 28 people on staff, paying salaries and benefits, when you can dramatically cut costs by only paying for the photos and videos that you really need?
What a fluff piece, DPR? You ask a question, get a non-answer, and don't press the guy for an answer? When you ask how do they justify the price increase, they say they cut the price in half. Obviously you have different information than they do - why didn't you explore that further? Why do you just ask a question and accept a less than satisfying answer?
This is a completely ridiculous article that doesn't put anyone's mind at east. Photographers prefer Lightroom to CC? FAQs ask why do you need Photoshop? Are you kidding me? So DPR's solution is to give Adobe PR another avenue to spout off while the FAQs push people towards Lightroom and talks them out of wanting Photoshop. Sounds like an agenda to me.
Absolutely the dumbest product idea ever. Many of us spend thousands of dollars to AVOID wearing glasses and Google thinks we are going to want to wear these idiotic things that make us look like sheep?
Huge product fail.
Anyone who thinks this is art probably also thinks the same thing about Joe Klamar's portraits last year of Olympic athletes. Total garbage.
plevyadophy: I wholeheartedly disagree with the judge.
Put both prints up on a wall in a gallery and then ask non-lawyers, non-photographers, and non-art experts, what the fundamental differences are between the two prints and I would wager that they would say that one is bigger than the other and that's it (and they may notice that they look slightly different in finish, in the same way that gloss prints look different to that of matt prints).
And if you then told them that one was a LIMITED EDITION print but yet the second one was printed afterwards, i.e. after the Limited Editions had supposedly been completed, I also wager that they would then say that the first print can't then be a Limited Edition.
I welcome the judge's rulling as a photographer but in my "objective individual" mode I regard the decision as wrong; had I bought this artist's work I would feel cheated and wouldn't buy anything of his again.
Contd below ......
So when a photographer releases his work, he is never supposed to ever reproduce that work again because of what collectors expect? It's different with a sculpture - one piece and that's it. The same holds true for a painting. But to "own" a photograph means to own the original slide or negative. I don't see how a collector buying a photographer's work precludes the photographer from ever reproducing that work in the future.
StephaneB: Hilarious to see comments here from people who obviously have no idea of what Eggleston brought to photography.
Seeing just a picture of a tricycle here is like saying the Grand Canyon is just another valley. And a bad one at that, there isn't even a bridge.
StephaneB, are you looking at the same photos that I am? If so, I don't see anything more than snapshots that could have been made by a 12 year-old with a basic understanding of photography. If anything, Eggleston's success is nothing more than being in the right place at the right time without needing to possess any real talent. None of the photos I saw in the above links show anything remotely artistic - even the compositions are uninteresting. There is nothing here, nothing. I applaud Eggleston for making good money on work that has no real artistic or compositional value. These images really suck.
SRT201: Brilliant! Positively Brilliant! It must have taken a minute of more to compose and shoot!
It looks like he was kidding around and went for a giant tricycle effect.
I'm sure there are those who spend hours analyzing how the photo presents a deep and insightful commentary on Western society. :-)
This just goes to show that you don't need to have any talent as a photographer to "make it" in the business. People love to read meaning into meaningless photos. What a racket!
Templer: WOW! Quite shocked and saddened at the percentage of posters that are actually slamming Eggleston's work. This is a "Photography" site after-all. You would assume (I know, bad word) that maybe those that are serious about the craft of...ah hemm....Photography.... would maybe know something about the history? Eggleston is after all credited as being one of the founding fathers of contemporary color....wait for it....PHOTOGRAPHY. His body of work is extensive, consistent and highly regarded by anybody that knows anything about..PHOTOGRAPHY. He was probably photographing tricycles before most of you naysayers could ride one. His prints cost big money because he was doing his thing, his way when nobody else was. If I had the money like Sobel I would love to own an original. Some here would probablytake the money and go on a Walmart shopping spree. Better yet grab a D800 and some ND filters and go shoot a waterfall in the forest...and make sure it's centered.
The only way to own an "original" is to physically possess the negative or slide. Today, you'd have to own the electronic file and ensure no other electronic copies exist. Good luck with that.
OMG... Eggleston uses his child's tricycle as a focus target to test his Nikon F3's focusing performance. I'm rushing out right now to take a picture of bird poop. Undoubtedly that will be worth a half million dollars as a statement about our current political climate.
I'll be rich and I'll be retiring before any of you guys! haha
It sounds to me like the photographer needs to pay some bills and thought this was a good way to do so. If the copyright violations go back to the 1990s, I would ask two questions: 1) why did you wait so long; and 2) did you obtain a model release?
The "before" picture looked much better than the "after" version. The lighting is totally wrong in the "after" version. Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should.
Can't wait for all of the "pro" users to start using this as their main video camera and then complain they aren't getting the results they want. Not unlike all of those "pro" DSLR shooters who complain that video isn't as good as dedicated video cameras. Really? You don't say... LOL
Wow, look at his package!