Slashdot Mirror
The Presidential Portrait Goes Digital
alphadogg writes "Barack Obama's election to US president has already brought a string of firsts, and on Wednesday there came another. The official presidential portrait was shot on a digital camera for the first time. The picture was taken by the White House's new official photographer, Pete Souza, and issued by The Office of the President Elect through its Web site. It was taken on Tuesday evening at 5:38 p.m. using a Canon EOS 5D Mark II, according to the metadata embedded in the image file."
...but this. Come on. I get this being newsworthy at Gizmodo etc. But Slashdot? Seriously... Cool, yes. Newsworthy? Not buying it. ;)
.: Max Romantschuk
every time obama wipes his arse?
Eh, I've been disillusioned with him ever since FISA but I'm still rooting for him in a way. I think most people are. I'll oppose him where I have to but our problems are too big to be rooting for the failure of our President. I think all the media coverage (/. included) has more to do with the hope that comes with any new administration. It'll take a few months for that to wear off and for us all to go back to being the cynical SOBs that we usually are ;)
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I'm sure somebody said that during the advent of the DVD.
And then Blu-Ray came out.
I have a bad feeling about this...
Um, I've been using digital pictures/cameras for near over a decade now. I think that it is more news that this hasn't already been done the last ten years rather than this one new guy is "the first" to use it.
What next? The first president to create his own daily you tube channel, blog, website/forum, on-line poll asking the public who he should pick for cabinet positions, or owning/using his own PDA/Cell phone?
Yes, digital has its disadvantages over film. But film also has its disadvantages over digital. Digital, for example, doesn't degrade like film stock. In the real world, film prints inevitably become worn and corroded over time (even if they're not played and are stored out of any UV light). The chemicals break down, the stock becomes brittle, the environment takes its toll. Digital prints, by contrast, remain forever pristine (as long as the data is preserved and backed up, which is trivially easy compared to making degraded film print copies).
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Careful with that line of reasoning. A lot of what a camera with better manual modes does is simply make you aware of what is happening. As you try to make your photos look better, awareness of things like aperture and focal length and shutter speed will help. I'm aware that for many people, goal-directed learning works better -- but for some, especially geeky types, just paying attention and observing the differences between (eg) comparably exposed shots with different aperture settings will be very helpful. It's not (so much) that there are things the SLR can do that the P&S can't; it's that you'll be more aware of what the camera is doing.
So, if he wants to take better pictures, and is willing to put effort in, a more manual camera is a good investment early on. Having to fight with the camera is a big turnoff. Of course, the more expensive camera isn't better if you don't use what it gives you. It's *part* of how you learn about photography, and it certainly won't teach you by itself.
Does anyone make a (reasonably priced...) digital equivalent of the old standard learning camera -- fully manual, no gobs of features, just shutter, aperture, focus, and an exposure meter? Probably SLR, though not required, and ideally with a fixed length lens in the basic package. It seems these days the designers observe they have a microprocessor available and pack everything in, and it's hard to find that older elegant simplicity.
Why does everyone keep calling Obama's position as the Office of the President Elect? He doesn't have any power yet or anything, he's just the president elect... yeesh.
do we really need an article here on /. every time obama wipes his arse?
The article... Or, at least the summary, since I didn't RTFA... Is more about the fact that the picture was taken with a digital camera for the first time ever.
This is slashdot. We get a story every time somebody releases a shiny new phone or installs linux on their toaster. We get stories about libraries digitizing their books. A digital picture being taken for the first time is at least as newsworthy as any of that.
We just had an "Ask Slashdot" about managing SD cards, with a few professional photographers chiming in about how they manage their huge collections... We've had dozens of stories over the years about preserving digital data over the years... Surely someone's curious how they're going to preserve this presidential portrait over the years, right? Regardless of whether you like Obama or not, he is the President Elect, he'll be going in the history books. We've got cave art and oil paintings that have withstood the test of time... How are they going to ensure that this photograph last at least as long as more traditional prints? How are they going to ensure that the digital file they open next year is the same one they just created? That it hasn't been altered or photoshopped or something?
"Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
Your side doing/not doing someinthg = bad
My side doing/not doing same thing = ignore
Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
I'm all in favor of digital, but the archival problem is far from trivial. Good quality prints on good paper can be expected to still be good quality prints in decades or even longer. Storing digital data for that long requires more than simply storing the print in a cool dark room with temperature and humidity controlled to reasonable levels. You have to be sure you can read the media, and also the file format. There are original photo prints well over 100 years old; books can be even older. Storing digital data that long in a usable form will take work.
Only if you view iPhones as superior, which no decent person would.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
That is easy... they print it. Seriously, the portrait will most likely be archive in its printed form, maybe even on film.
This is so boring, and I'm only wasting my time responding because I want to encourage people not to post stuff like this. Every President is historic. They all make it in the books. Most of you were applauding Bush after 9/11 and now most of you have changed. Some day, people will look back at Obama and yawn. There will be many more Presidents. Remember how excited many people were when the Republicans gain majorities in Congress? What came of that? You think Obama is our savour?
Please don't create a post when Obama is the first Pres to use a specially recycled toilet paper made from a process that doesn't create any global warming gases or pollute our rivers and streams. I'll have to look elsewhere for my tech news...
jsut athnoer menagiensls ltitle psrhae for you to dcoede. Why do we wtsae our tmie dnoig tihs?
One part of learning to take great photos is simply taking lots of photos; no argument that the simple lightweight point and shoot has its place there. But another part is learning what happens to the light, and how that impacts what the final product looks like. And for that, I don't want lots of automatic features hiding the details, and I especially don't want to have to think about things like menu options instead of how I want the camera to behave.
Those features aren't that important for the early learning. Learning about taking pictures involves getting an intuitive feel for what shutter speeds and apertures do, learning about framing, what makes a good background, what sort of lighting will look good in the final version, etc. These are not things that demand a top of the line image sensor or lens. They do, however, require you to be aware of what is going on inside your camera.
Eventually, yes, you'll want those things. And there's certainly some benefit to having them early on. But they aren't actually that important for the learning process.
Is anyone else sick of getting the links 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th hand?
Here's the direct one for those interested.
Question everything
Depth of field manipulation, high-ISO quality, RAW, better exposure latitude, better build quality, more precise manual focus, easier to manipulate manual controls, higher quality optics, prime lenses, battery grips (vertical shooting), wide-angle/fish-eye lenses (below 28mm equiv. focal length), long telephoto lenses (above 300mm focal length), dual memory card support, higher frames per second count (10+ on newer models) and interchangeable lenses.
Maybe I've missed a few things.
Good. Cheap. Fast. Pick Two.
(...)full high-quality 1080 24p video footage
Actually, it is 1080p, 24fps.
(...)it's a still camera that threatens to cannibalize Canon's entire prosumer video line
Yeah, every camera operator is extremely interested in a canon digital still camera which has a movie mode as an added bonus (to a excellent still camera). I've got news for you. Average camera operator isn't interested in canon digital still cameras, much less replacing his professional video camera with a still camera. And by average, I mean all of them.
(...)I work with video every day, and I have a hard time not using our 5D mkII over our $8000 Sony XDCAM on many shoots.
You are just trolling. I work as a photographer and I'm too considering using a video camera for some of my photo shoots.
Not.
Trolls are like broken clocks. They show the truth two times a day. The rest of the day they talk nonsense.
They talked up the George Bush firsts, too. They just have to do something when there is no real news.
"George W Bush is the first...":
"... little league player to become President."
"... who will not get lifelong secret service protection."
"... with an MBA."
"... sitting President to attend a foreign Olympics."
"... to have a criminal record."
"... born in Connecticut."
"... to have run a marathon."
"... to have been governor of Texas."
It goes on... that's just from the first page or two of Google. I seem to remember a lot of cable news talk about his religion back at the beginning of his term - though they had Florida to occupy most of their time.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Tiff works too. As long as whatever format you use for archival purposes isn't taking any information away. For any quality camera and any picture shot as "RAW", a JPEG is taking a hell of a lot of information away. Ditto with PNG. TIFF works fine, as does PSD (though TIFF is more standard).
Great point! You just made a good case against my suggestion archiving using the RAW. Will something be around to decode whatever "RAW" means for your camera in 20 years?
Once I get a camera that has RAW, without your comment, I'd probably archive with RAW. Now I'll TIFF those bitches instead. Thanks for the tip!