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."
...and so the reign of photoshop begins...
http://www.beanleafpress.com
...but this. Come on. I get this being newsworthy at Gizmodo etc. But Slashdot? Seriously... Cool, yes. Newsworthy? Not buying it. ;)
.: Max Romantschuk
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
http://www.dpreview.com/
.: Max Romantschuk
And here I always thought he looked his best at 5:39.
Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
He's also the first President with ears that large. At least we've finally broken the glass ceiling that kept Ross Perot out of the White House ;)
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
One acronym will suffice as an answer to your question : RTFA.
You just got troll'd!
The 5D Mark II is amazing.
Well, there's one obvious answer: ask Barack. According to the article, he has some experience of this kind of thing, having just had his portrait taken using a digital camera. I'm sure if you call him, he'll be more than happy to discuss his experiences of photography using modern photographic methods.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
You know how it is, vinyl sounds better than CD, stone carvings have a warmer feeling than oil paintings etc.
c++;
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!
"Whereas film could be re-mastered to higher quality"
Only to a point. The particles on the film that actually compose the picture are effectively pixels, and you can only attempt to remaster to some maximum quality before the limitation becomes apparent.
"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."
Except that digital photography can and does compete with film quality. The film photographers I know do not dispute that, they have moved on to claiming that there are things that can be done to photographs with film that cannot be done digitally; while they are correct, the techniques they describe are not common needed, and are not technologically impossible with a digital camera.
Digital formats will prevail in the end, simply because they are more versatile. It is easy to store digital photographs, easier to make copies, easier to print, and altogether less expensive and less polluting. This is not like film-vs.-tape, this is more like film-vs.-painting.
Palm trees and 8
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.
Is the posted 1916 x 2608 version not sufficient?
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.
I don't even see the pixels anymore ... All I see is blond, brunette, redhead. Hey uh, you want a drink?
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
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.
Not specifically, but any decent base model DSLR run in manual mode will do the same thing. You can pick up a Nikon D100 for next to nothing. I've had one since 2004, banged the crap out it, gave it to my stepdaughter, had her bang the crap out of it an it still works.
I'm partial to Nikons if for no other reason that the lower end machines have spot metering (Canon, what are you thinking?) and Mirror Lock Up functions.
But DSLRs are great ways to 'learn' photography. You can take thousands of pictures without additional cost. You can take a whole series of pictures changing the aperture of the lens to see what affect it has on exposure time and depth of field. Sure, you could have always done that with film, but it would have cost you - both in time and money.
And best of all, you can retire to your basement and spend hours with your computer fiddling with the pixels.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
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?
I want the .raw for manipulatory purposes.
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
A couple weeks ago, while browsing the downtown library, I had to take a piss. As I entered the john, Barack Obama stepped out of one of the booths...
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
This is Slashdot. Go be reasonable someplace else.
Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
How are they going to ensure that this photograph last at least as long as more traditional prints?
I probably assume too much, but I assume whomever is in charge of archives related to the President has a decent backup policy. The LoC is digitizing all of the FSA Project photos specifically because the negatives/prints are getting old and they want to be sure they are preserved.
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?
I am guessing with an OSK-E3, since he was shot with a Canon 5D (or at least that is whay they want us to think). I'm amazed the official photo was done with a consumer grade camera, I figured they'd use something a little more presidential.
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
Is anyone else sick of getting the links 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th hand?
Here's the direct one for those interested.
Question everything
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.
Hey, put a warning when you post things like that! I was lost in his dreamy eyes for a good 20 minutes.
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.
Actually the grains in film are much larger than individual molecules. Film grains, even in very good films, are around 2 microns in size. This is MUCH larger than the size of the individual molecules that make up the grain. Now the pixels in a good digital camera are around 6 microns, not that much larger than film grains. The big difference is that the digital sensors can detect multiple levels of light whereas a film grain is either exposed or not exposed. It actually takes a bunch of film grains (on the order of a couple of dozen) to accurately represent the levels of light that one digital sensor can represent. This means that digital cameras can actually have higher resolution than film.
The other thing to remember is that digital sensors can also map the intensity of light over time, all that film can do is measure the cumulative amount of light that it is exposed to. This means that with the right software a digital camera can use the minute vibrations of its mounting to produce an interpolated image with far higher resolution than a film image.
Color saturation of prosumer image capture devices are about an order of magnitude worse than good film.
Saturation is a difficulty with both film and digital photography but digital is more sensitive to it. With the proper use of lighting, filters, and decent software you can pretty much eliminate any problems in both film and digital photography. This is especially true of a controlled setting such as a presidential photograph. In that situation you control everything, it's not hard to produce a properly saturated image.
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.
The longevity of digital media is far better than that of film. At its worst you can just reproduce your digital image onto film and store it that way. At its best you can pay to have the digital information engraved on some sort of durable physical media, such as a metal disc. Although you may not notice it, film degrades quite a bit over time. It loses contrast and fine details and it gets brittle. The thing is that you don't have a reference to compare it against so you don't notice the degradation until it's too late. Digital information is protected by the fact that it's easy to make several perfect copies, protect them with checksums and other methods, and compare each against each other for degradation. Yes, eventually all information will degrade but it's much easier to keep a digital photograph pristine than it is to keep a film photograph pristine.
Sapere aude!
1) Get a tripod and use it, even if you dont think you need to! Even the cheapest POS camera can take okay stuff if you have a tripod.
2) For got your tripod? Use a rock, a stick, a mailbox. Use something besides your body to stabilize your camera.
3) *Learn The Rule of Thirds*!! Most. Important. Thing. Ever.
4) Visualize what the picture will look like before you take it. Move yourself and your camera until you like what will show up in the final result.
5) Move! Get that damn kid out of the way. Move until an annoying shadow is out of your shot. Look out for that wire that will show up in the middle of the mountain shot. This is #4 restated. Think about what you compose.
6) Dont use Photoshop. At least until you take good stuff without using it.
A good camera isn't important. Knowing how to compose a shot is the most important.