Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Presidential Portrait Goes Digital

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the oh-oh-obamania dept.

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."

10 of 295 comments (clear)

  1. Interview with Mr. Souza on NPR by WmLGann · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Just heard an interview with the photographer on NPR. It's semi-off-topic in that it doesn't have to do with the medium used for photographs but still an interesting piece I think. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99353598

  2. Something lost by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 1, Interesting

    In the early 70s the motion picture industry (including television) began to move away from film and towards video tape as the recording/storage medium. You can really see the difference in quality as the video tape lacked all the subtlety and clarity that film had. As time wore on, the limitations of video tape grew apparent because it was clear that the quality recorded onto the tape was already at a maximum. Whereas film could be re-mastered to higher quality, video was essentially stuck at the low-resolution, low-quality that it was recorded with.

    As we move towards digital photography, the limitations of the format are going to become apparent as the technology progresses to the point where today's 16MP shots simply don't have enough detail to compete with 8x10 sheets of Kodachrome.

    1. Re:Something lost by 4D6963 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Unless you get an eye upgrade or suddenly make it an habit to "browse" photographs with something akin to Google Maps, then no, 16 MP will always be enough. The human eye has at its best (a cone of vision of about 2 degrees of arc) a resolution of about 28 seconds of arc. Do the math to find out how much resolution you really need depending on the size of the photograph and its distance from your eyes.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    2. Re:Something lost by DragonWyatt · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It's enough for basic point and shoot needs (i.e. grandma who uses the $5 disposable and runs down to the 1-hour photo lab at Wal Mart). Beyond that- no.

      1. Film resolution is measured by granularity of the crystals used. In other words, MOLECULES. Digital resolution is measured in pixels. Molecules are more granular than pixels.

      2. Color saturation of prosumer image capture devices are about an order of magnitude worse than good film. This is why all the mucking about in photoshop, etc is required to artificially enhance digital photos and make them "pop." Even so, in many cases, no amount of postprocessing can correct this deficiency. Remember that rule #1 in photography is "good light."

      3. Longevity. What's the longevity of a pixel on digital media? I have lots of negatives and slides, over 100 years old, which still produce very nice prints.

      --
      Don't sweat the petty things. But do pet the sweaty things.
  3. but... by M-RES · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...what about the Geotagging? THAT's what we really want to know... WHERE was it taken? ;P

  4. Re:There is no Office of the President Elect by Neoprofin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    He does actually have some power, unlike us mere mortals he's allowed to order "off the menu" at the White House, a privilege reserved for past, present, and future presidents.

  5. Re:Public availability by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I want the .raw for manipulatory purposes.

    --
    "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
  6. Re:do we really need an article here on /. by GooberToo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just get an Android phone and be done with it.

  7. Re:photoshop all the easier... by jdoverholt · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The reign of Photoshop started years ago. It's no harder to manipulate a scanned negative or print than a digital original. Ken Rockwell is always touting how great his 175MP film scans look compared to anything digital has to offer, including the amazing 21MP shots from the EOS 5D mk II. His reviews wreak of flip-flopping bias both ways, but the numbers don't lie.

  8. Re:do we really need an article here on /. by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Should we ever be cheerleaders for the success of failure of any President?

    I dunno. It seemed to me like half of the country was rooting for the failure of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush from the moment each one of them took office. I suppose this probably had a lot to do with the fact that Clinton never won a majority of the popular vote (in 92 he only got 43%) and neither did Bush the first time around (plus the Florida mess).

    A friend of mine who is a staunch Republican said something to the affect of: "I wish it had gone the other way but I'm glad that the margin was as big as it was". For better or worse nobody can dispute that the majority of the American electorate and states wanted Obama as our next president.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.