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!
Samsung is good at two things: 1) stealing, and 2) throwing lots of darts hoping one of them sticks. This company can't think its way out of a cardboard box. I will never buy anything they make. Con artists.
How on earth is this vegan with whipped cream on top?
While I am tired of seeing all of these faux "retro" photos all over the place, why is it wrong to give more people the freedom to shoot and stylize their photos? It is the end result that counts, not necessarily the tools used to create it. Someone can create an artistic, critically acclaimed photo using an iPhone and Instagram as much as the person using $10,000 in photographic gear. This article just sounds like sour grapes from someone who would rather keep "photography" confined to those with deep pockets. Shame.
WilliamJ: I'd like to tell something about the "unpatriotic" critic. First, do photographers from around the world have to be "american patriotic" and produce "patriotic pictures only" as if they worked for the Pravda ?Second, where is gone the freedom of speech ? Do expression have to be "according to" the wishes of "flattering images" supposed to be a universal expectation ?
Come on, this is the Olympics! Make an effort...
Tapper123: I think some of these images are actually pretty interesting.
In fact, I would say as a body of photos, they are not boring to look at. Not your typical slick portrait shots. I kinda like that.
Yes, many of them are technically awful. But sometimes technically good photos can be boring. Maybe it's my artistic side overpowering the logical side.
What on earth is interesting about the above Trey Hardee photo? To me, the facial expression and resulting photo appear to be saying "I'm Trey Hardee, I'm nothing special". It would appear to me that this particular photographer's intention was to make fun of the athletes. If he was going for a certain style, he certainly did not make the right choices in order to make his point of view clear.