BTM_Pix

The really sinister bit, of course, is that even if you wrote the story then to get it out there you've got to play along with the very same game.
At the end of the day, its fast becoming true that the only difference between the two organisations pictured here is that the Stasi didn't have break out areas and football tables to make it all look fluffy and innocent.
 

The problem with the 'real' (old) media is that instead of standing their ground and weathering the storm against 'new' media and actually upping their standards, they shit themselves and joined in.
You only have to look at the websites of traditional newspapers in the UK to see whats happened as they are culling more of their content from social media and trying to sensationalise it.
You regularly now see what 20 years ago would have been a disagreement between two anonymous people in a small town elevated to national 'news' because its so easy, cheap - and natural - for the new crop of journalists at these publications to source these stories and amplify them.
We now have a situation where there is a generation that hasn't grown up with any real depth or quality to the media that they are exposed to.
If 'real' media is now just a randomly compiled, delayed and watered down version of 'new' media then why the hell would anyone pay for it anyway when you can get the other stuff for free?
The future of online might actually be semi-offline for many of us as we seek higher quality of everything from journals, to music, to films but we will have to pay for it directly and properly.
If we want people who are providing the content to be serious then we have to be too and accept that we'll have to pay for it.
I think it is actually doable and the burnout that a large number of people are feeling about the internet could make the timing of it not far off.
The great thing about the internet can be that there is no filter between creators and consumers but sometimes we need to accept that that filter sometimes wasn't a bad thing.
These days, everyone wants to celebrate that the big corporate monsters of print, broadcast, music and film have been bypassed but to my mind they've now been replaced by corporates that are far, far more sinister.

The disaster artists at DPReview have a new headline article for us today.

And the main takeaway from the repost is this:
As for capturing the photo itself, we asked Hofman if he would like to share anything with our audience of photographers directly. This is what he had to say:
"The thing I would really like to tell photographers is to a) Listen to your gut and b) Don't worry so much about gear."
*Shrugs*
So yes, this is DPReview telling us after 1000's of in-depth reviews to not worry so much about gear after all.
Not that this message runs counter to their overall purpose as journalists and camera reviewers, nooooooo
Not that by placing this clickbait front and centre on the home page distracts from their core business of reviews and puts off 90% of their existing readership, of course not!

Once the novelty of q-tip holding seahorses, microscopic close-ups of peacock feathers and tips on shooting macro photos of boiling water* wears off, maybe we will get to why we browsed to the site, maybe a review or 2...
After all it is called Digital Photography Review, as is about cameras.
So I did a small sample of one day in September, yesterday in fact, it was a real vintage day for content at DPReview with 12 articles going out and only 2 of them were reviews. So now we can conclude that DPReview is approximately 10% reviews and 90% seahorse pictures, with the readership currently 90% looking for reviews and 10% for seahorse pictures.
What I assume DPReview wants to achieve is to switch that readership to 90% looking for seahorse pictures because who the fuck doesn't like seahorse pictures?
Suddenly DPReview is going to explode into the mainstream with more clicks than they can handle... Just look at the CUUUUUTE little seahorse!!!
* actual articles on DPR
Yes even the BBC and they are publicly funded!
They have a special place reserved on their main news home page for clickbait, it's the 4th square across under the main headline of the day.
The seahorse picture is right up there with a journalist reporting from a war zone.
It's what people want.
Yes they love a good controversy generated out of nothing. PewDiePie on YouTube owes 70% of his popularity to the Wall Street Journal.
And we see the results in their voting and consumption behaviour!
I really hope this happens. I hope people get so burned out by trivial, repetitive junk content that there comes a golden age of the internet where the amount of content drops massively and the quality of each piece skyrockets.
It would do us all a lot of good to go on a digital diet.
This is an interesting point, because the corporate influence is so much more personal and subversive now. They are able to influence which friends we interact with, which ones we see the updates from and which ones we don't, the machines are acting as a filter rather than us.
I think by and large machine algorithms are even influencing which articles get written and which don't, despite their original purpose to filter for quality.

The problem with the 'real' (old) media is that instead of standing their ground and weathering the storm against 'new' media and actually upping their standards, they shit themselves and joined in.
You only have to look at the websites of traditional newspapers in the UK to see whats happened as they are culling more of their content from social media and trying to sensationalise it.
You regularly now see what 20 years ago would have been a disagreement between two anonymous people in a small town elevated to national 'news' because its so easy, cheap - and natural - for the new crop of journalists at these publications to source these stories and amplify them.
We now have a situation where there is a generation that hasn't grown up with any real depth or quality to the media that they are exposed to.
If 'real' media is now just a randomly compiled, delayed and watered down version of 'new' media then why the hell would anyone pay for it anyway when you can get the other stuff for free?
The future of online might actually be semi-offline for many of us as we seek higher quality of everything from journals, to music, to films but we will have to pay for it directly and properly.
If we want people who are providing the content to be serious then we have to be too and accept that we'll have to pay for it.
I think it is actually doable and the burnout that a large number of people are feeling about the internet could make the timing of it not far off.
The great thing about the internet can be that there is no filter between creators and consumers but sometimes we need to accept that that filter sometimes wasn't a bad thing.
These days, everyone wants to celebrate that the big corporate monsters of print, broadcast, music and film have been bypassed but to my mind they've now been replaced by corporates that are far, far more sinister.

The problem with the 'real' (old) media is that instead of standing their ground and weathering the storm against 'new' media and actually upping their standards, they shit themselves and joined in.
You only have to look at the websites of traditional newspapers in the UK to see whats happened as they are culling more of their content from social media and trying to sensationalise it.
You regularly now see what 20 years ago would have been a disagreement between two anonymous people in a small town elevated to national 'news' because its so easy, cheap - and natural - for the new crop of journalists at these publications to source these stories and amplify them.
We now have a situation where there is a generation that hasn't grown up with any real depth or quality to the media that they are exposed to.
If 'real' media is now just a randomly compiled, delayed and watered down version of 'new' media then why the hell would anyone pay for it anyway when you can get the other stuff for free?
The future of online might actually be semi-offline for many of us as we seek higher quality of everything from journals, to music, to films but we will have to pay for it directly and properly.
If we want people who are providing the content to be serious then we have to be too and accept that we'll have to pay for it.
I think it is actually doable and the burnout that a large number of people are feeling about the internet could make the timing of it not far off.
The great thing about the internet can be that there is no filter between creators and consumers but sometimes we need to accept that that filter sometimes wasn't a bad thing.
These days, everyone wants to celebrate that the big corporate monsters of print, broadcast, music and film have been bypassed but to my mind they've now been replaced by corporates that are far, far more sinister.

Only on stills but I just did a quick shot for you using the Tiffen Digital Diffusion FX 2
Frame and crop without filter on left side and same with filter on right.
 

Only on stills but I just did a quick shot for you using the Tiffen Digital Diffusion FX 2
Frame and crop without filter on left side and same with filter on right.
 

Only on stills but I just did a quick shot for you using the Tiffen Digital Diffusion FX 2
Frame and crop without filter on left side and same with filter on right.
 

Sorry, I just meant as a way of appraising all of the filter effects and combinations before having to buy the physical versions  
Found the link to the software in the shop if anyone is interested in buying it online (they must have taken them off display)
https://www.cameraworld.co.uk/tiffen-dfx-v3.html

Obviously, I am no expert on his work since I first heard of him an hour ago and only looked at a couple dozen of his photos, but there is an interesting beauty to that series. It's definitely visceral but from the few photos I did see, there is a faded memory angle to it but also perhaps a distaste for rural America. Of course, I just like dem pitures.

The extent of my cultured critique of his work at that show was that I wouldn't trust him if I saw him at shop buying a shovel, plastic bags and some lime thats for sure !
I think I remember reading somewhere that he now uses a Phase One system.

Did some experiments yesterday using the DP3M and a Tiffen Ultra Contrast 3 to see if it smoothed things out a bit.
 
 

Contact sheet of some more from yesterday.
 

Crewdson's 'Cathedral Of The Pines' exhibition is currently on at The Photographer's Gallery in London and is worth a visit if you're in the area.
I think @mercer would enjoy this one in particular as I'm sure its a look he'd be into making if he just had the scores of crew and lights that Crewdson uses !

The GH5 ETC mode is certainly a thing of non-grumpinesss with that lens isn't it?

I like Goto's modded Df but if all his criticisms of his own camera are valid then why the hell wasn't he voicing them during development, saying 'the metallic feeling needs to be better' and so on. Nikon seem to do everything by committee. A Steve Jobs-type manager would have taken more control. That's what they need on the product side.
The comments about pros not using Sony, Olympus, Fujifilm are laughable as well all well know! I am sure Mr Goto knows as well, not sure why he feels it's ok to lie about it!
"I have considered many options. Mirrorless cameras can be made thinner body but without the mirror shutter sound and vibration are gone, although they can be simulated electronically. How to integrate these technologies and ideas is one thing, how to execute and to build products is another."
Well get on with it then... or should I say, Goto it.
Vibration simulated electronically? No thanks
What are they waiting for? We need that Nikon mirrorless range. I think they should build a real competitor to their DSLRs with their prosumer mirrorless camera and not try and do a Df with some Leica-mimicing piece of fashion fluff.

And I think @Andrew Reid response was just a pun on Ebrahim as in its a female so would be Ebra-her rather than Ebra-him 

Tiffen used to do a piece of editing software/plug in that simulated all of their filters but its now discontinued.
I used to have a demo version of it and the annoying thing is that I saw it being sold off quite cheap (£50) at a camera store in London a few months ago and thought I'd pick a copy up but they didn't have any left.
Might be worth a scour on eBay for it as its sounds like exactly what you could do with to try different combos
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/845319-REG/Tiffen_DFXPCSV3_DFX_V3_PLUG_IN_FOR_PHOTO_SHOP_LIGTROOM_APERTURE.html

Okay to play the devil's advocate here... the boob enlargement ad is a European ad, correct? And isn't that "cheeky" humor popular in advertisements?

We've moved on a bit since Benny Hill you know!
The comparative aspect of it (body rather than camera) is particularly off in any era to be fair.
Mind you, the promotion from their Italian distributor for the D700 where Dad wants a dSLR and you get a free vacuum cleaner for Mum could've been straight out of the 70s
 

Nikon does have a bit of a track record of trying to deal with the concept of there only being photographers rather than male and female photographers unfortunately.
Ranging from the well meaning to the full on face palm WTF moments.
The first Nikon that I owned (which was 36 years ago now by the way ) was the EM.
The EM - and the accompanying E series lenses which I still use a couple of today - was actually designed by Nikon as a system for female photographers who, Nikon reasoned, had been put off switching to SLRs because of the cost, the size and the complexity of something like the F2 compared to the compact cameras they were using.
It backfired and the EM wasn't a great success as men were offended by it being dumbed down in terms of features and build quality and women were offended by it being dumbed down full stop.
Ironically, during the lead up to the announcement of the D850 (still being called the D820 at that point), it seems the same thinking is still at play nearly 40 years later with the President of Nikon talking about making a dSLR that 'women would find easier to use'.
https://www.nikonrumors.co/new-nikon-mirrorless-camera-confirmed-again-in-an-interview-with-nikon-president/
Whether this is a deliberately sexist culture or just some cringe Alan Partridge/David Brent style attempts to do the right thing I don't know.
They do have some form for some inexcusable ads that make it hard to make a case for the defence though.


 
As for this last one, if thats how they illustrate 3mp then Lord alone knows what they'd do to represent the 47mp D850.
 
And if we are to believe Nikon's response about them not being available then this shows that not only are there plenty of them but that they are also too busy actually being out there and doing it to take time out to have their egos stroked at PR events 
 

I bet you were leading the booing as well you grumpy old man.
 
 
Too soon?
 

No harm done, the thread was quite an interesting one in the end, enjoyed the footage!

I am pleased to announce that a year after the original, there is a major update to EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras.
In addition to the new Pro Color, I am launching EOSHD Pro LOG as well. This takes all the advantages of Pro Color into an easy to grade C-LOG-like profile for your Sony camera. Pro LOG also comes with 25 EOSHD Film LUTs for an instant cinematic grade in post.
Read the full article

Hasselblad X1D for £3500 anyone!?
https://uk.webuy.com/product.php?sku=SDIGHASX1D50CBODA#.WbsaJ63My7Y

Similar sounding problem here that was caused by a 3rd party battery