Not having looked at your links: It's the photographer, not the camera.
This seems to be a common trend for a lot of people. Why did you choose not the look at the links since there's barely any other content in this thread? And the OP's link is all photos, so it's not like we're asking you to summarize a 42-page whitepaper on lense development since WWI.
Because I was taking a big, smelly dump during worktime. Happy?
This seems to be a common trend for a lot of people. Why did you choose not the look at the links since there's barely any other content in this thread? And the OP's link is all photos, so it's not like we're asking you to summarize a 42-page whitepaper on lense development since WWI.
What about the Samsung Galaxy SII Epic 4G Touch *breath*?![]()
Which came first? the Samsung or the Apple.😉
Actually, there are people who would say that Adam came before either. 😱
Adam never took any pictures 😀
Uncalled for...The man was not talking about equipment. Stop nerding out.
And neither was I. I was pointing out the issue with not reading the OP's link, but still feeling the need to respond with a tired cliche. It's like two people spouting monologues in the same room.
As for the photos themselves, the first shot with the guy in the shadows has something interesting going on, but that's about it. Feel like the photographer could've done more since he's using such a non-imposing device.
I agree with you that street is about the larger context, people interacting with the environment, but I feel there also needs to be an extra element going on (e.g. compositionally, juxtaposition of content, something surreal/emotional). Aside from the first photo with the silhouetted character, I don't see much of "that" going on.
Lemme know if anything of that was unclear--need to get ready to leave soon.