Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Presidential Portrait Goes Digital

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the oh-oh-obamania dept.

Graphics 295

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."

cancel ×

295 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Obama wearing a flag pin... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26465081)

Since Obama is wearing a US flag pin [change.gov] , does that make him a patriot? Or a jingoist?

Just trying to keep up, since I'm guessing a Republican wearing a flag pin would instantly be called a jingoist.

Or, perhaps, is it not the ridiculous black/white mindset of "all conservatives are evil and wrong and all liberals are enlightened intellectuals" that some make it out to be?

I'm going to go with the latter.

Public availability (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26465109)

I wonder if the file will be available to the public. Now the people can also have the portrait!

Re:Public availability (4, Informative)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465335)

One acronym will suffice as an answer to your question : RTFA.

Re:Public availability (-1, Offtopic)

Yasz312 (1450685) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465733)

You need more people. Camera sucks but jobstaxi rocks! http://www.jobstaxi.com/ [jobstaxi.com]

just got off the toilet (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26465887)

I shat out an Obama

Re:Public availability (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26465591)

Is the posted 1916 x 2608 version [change.gov] not sufficient?

Re:Obama wearing a flag pin... (0, Offtopic)

objekt (232270) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465435)

A Republican NOT wearing a flag pin is no big deal.
A Democrat NOT wearing a flag pin is a traitor.

Re:Obama wearing a flag pin... (2, Insightful)

LandDolphin (1202876) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465755)

Your side doing/not doing someinthg = bad

My side doing/not doing same thing = ignore

Re:Obama wearing a flag pin... (0, Offtopic)

eln (21727) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465481)

I don't know how you can even walk with such a big chip on your shoulder.

photoshop all the easier... (5, Funny)

happy_place (632005) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465085)

...and so the reign of photoshop begins...

Re:photoshop all the easier... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26465315)

you said it. nice moustache coming on this one

do we really need an article here on /. (0, Troll)

ionix5891 (1228718) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465087)

every time obama wipes his arse?

Re:do we really need an article here on /. (-1, Flamebait)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465127)

Everything about him is historic! He has darker skin than any other president, and look: he is being photographed with a digital camera! No presidential portrait has ever been digitally produced before! No presidential portrait has ever featured a person with his skin tone!

Re:do we really need an article here on /. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26465273)

He's shoped. I can tell by the pixels

Re:do we really need an article here on /. (5, Funny)

Sun.Jedi (1280674) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465719)

I don't even see the pixels anymore ... All I see is blond, brunette, redhead. Hey uh, you want a drink?

Re:do we really need an article here on /. (1, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465361)

They also say he can heal the sick and turn iPhones to Blackberries.

Re:do we really need an article here on /. (-1, Flamebait)

TTURabble (1164837) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465615)

That would be "turns Blackberries into iPhones," if you were going to stick with the whole Jesus "water to wine," thing.

Looks like someone failed the English part of the SAT.

Re:do we really need an article here on /. (2, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#26466005)

Only if you view iPhones as superior, which no decent person would.

This IS Slashkos after all (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26465137)

Whaddya expect?

Re:do we really need an article here on /. (-1, Offtopic)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465169)

every time obama wipes his arse?

I certainly would like to know, if Obama wipes his arse with digital paper.

Re:do we really need an article here on /. (3, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465325)

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 ;)

Re:do we really need an article here on /. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26465413)

It may not be stuff that matters, but it is DEFINITELY news for nerds.

Cult of Personality (1)

geoffrobinson (109879) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465451)

Whether or not Obama wants this occur, there is a full-fledged cult of personality developing around the guy.

He is the cult of, he is the cult of, he is the cult of...per-son-al-ity-y.

Re:do we really need an article here on /. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26465539)

You apparently haven't been reading some of the trolls lately. In most cases, EVERY article on slashdot is about him wiping his arse.

Re:do we really need an article here on /. (1)

drolli (522659) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465655)

only if his blackberry is involved in that...

Re:do we really need an article here on /. (4, Insightful)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465753)

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?

who cares? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26465097)

Who cares?

Looking to dabble into a bit of photography myself (-1, Offtopic)

tangent3 (449222) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465101)

Still a noob, but I've been doing a little research about DSLRs. Thinking of buying second hand, a Nikon D80 and a 18-105mm VR lens. Am I making a mistake?

Re:Looking to dabble into a bit of photography mys (4, Informative)

Max Romantschuk (132276) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465135)

http://www.dpreview.com/ [dpreview.com]

Re:Looking to dabble into a bit of photography mys (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465189)

What is it that you are attracted to about photography? What can't you do with a P&S or "prosumer" camera?

Re:Looking to dabble into a bit of photography mys (4, Insightful)

evanbd (210358) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465665)

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.

Re:Looking to dabble into a bit of photography mys (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465939)

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?

Nope. But then again, K1000s aren't especially pricey. Neither, for that matter, are those flimsy FM10s. But personally I'd rather get one with a little more heft and go with an FM3a or FE2.

But the goal is to take pictures, I hope. You don't need a bare-bones all-manual film rig. And you sure don't need a full-featured whiz-bang dSLR. You just need something that you're going to take with you and not regret. For me, that's this guy [dpreview.com] . No worry about memory cards, no worry about lens caps, it doesn't weigh a ton. I take it and use it and have fun with it.

I used to use an FM3a, but found that I was leaving it at home more often than not. It's a great camera, but it didn't help me reach my goals. Then again, the goal of some people is to fondle cameras, so who am I to judge?

Re:Looking to dabble into a bit of photography mys (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26465989)

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.

Leica and Canon make good rangefinder-style cameras - the Canon G10 is a particularly good implementation of the concept.

Re:Looking to dabble into a bit of photography mys (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26465679)

Depth. Of. Field.

Re:Looking to dabble into a bit of photography mys (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465363)

I'm no photographer but I paid a bit of attention to digital cameras over the past decade and I think I can safely say that by picking a popular model by either Nikon or Canon within your price range you can't go wrong.

Re:Looking to dabble into a bit of photography mys (3, Funny)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465379)

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.

Re:Looking to dabble into a bit of photography mys (1)

muridae (966931) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465885)

Go to a store, pick one up and hold it. Find where the buttons are, how the weight is distributed, and how the menu is laid out. You can base your choice on features that you don't know the difference between, yet, or you can pick the camera that you are going to be comfortable using.

The difference between the Nikon D80, a Canon Rebel XS, a Pentax K200D, and a Sony Alpha 300 are mostly what lenses you can get from third parties. Sigma and Tamron make a lot of lenses to mount on Canon and Nikon bodies, and are starting to stock more Sony and Pentax ones.

Re:Looking to dabble into a bit of photography mys (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465951)

Yeah, DP Review, or Thom Hogan [bythom.com] for a good set of reviews on Nikon stuff. Get a tripod (seriously). Go outside.

I seldom simply rant... (4, Insightful)

Max Romantschuk (132276) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465105)

...but this. Come on. I get this being newsworthy at Gizmodo etc. But Slashdot? Seriously... Cool, yes. Newsworthy? Not buying it. ;)

Re:I seldom simply rant... (1, Troll)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465263)

Especially not at a street price of ~$2500-3000. No thanks. This is nothing but a slashvertisement for the Canon EOS 5D Mark II.

Re:I seldom simply rant... (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465617)

This is nothing but a slashvertisement for the Canon EOS 5D Mark II.

Canon is wasting their money if they paid for such a slashvertisement. Far as I can tell, photographers are already salivating worse than Pavlov's dogs over that camera.

Re:I seldom simply rant... (3, Informative)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465351)

slow news day?

or VERY SLOW news day?

You decide.

There's an idle tag, but honestly, I think this is below the bar, even for idle.

Re:I seldom simply rant... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26465597)

slow news day or SLOWEST news day - you decide.

Re:I seldom simply rant... (0, Flamebait)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465409)

Are you kidding? The President-elect has just been shot* and you don't think it's newsworthy?

* As in "shot with a camera", "camera shot", etc**
** Yes, I'm aware most people get the joke. This is Slashdot though, half the readers will need it explaining to them.

Slow Down Cowboy!

Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.

It's been 1 minute since you last successfully posted a comment

Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator.

CmdrTaco is a big fat idiot.

Re:I seldom simply rant... (0, Troll)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465531)

Uh, welcome to Slashbama or is that Obamadot?

I keep forgetting, but I knew I had politics unchecked for a reason.

Re:I seldom simply rant... (4, Insightful)

cowscows (103644) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465663)

Despite what its tagline says, slashdot long ago ceased to be any sort of news site. It is a discussion site. You've been here long enough that you should know that.

This story certainly isn't breaking news, it's trivia at best, but human beings (especially nerds) are very good at talking about and arguing over trivia. Throw in politics, and the never ending debate of the merits of film vs. digital, and I think there's plenty to discuss.

Re:I seldom simply rant... (4, Insightful)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465701)

Cool, yes. Newsworthy? Not buying it.

I agree. It's hard to think of it in such terms, but a lot has changed in technology since Bush took office. Obama is not the first to be shot with a digital camera because he's so tech savvy (as the summary implies), but rather because in the last eight years, digital film has almost entirely replaced film photography.

To put this into perspective, when Bush took office only early adopters had digital cameras. I got my first one (VGA resolution, even!) about the time Bush was sworn in. High resolution cameras capable of replacing film were simply impractical and too expensive for even professional photography. Fast forward eight years and a 'friggin cell phone can take multi-megapixel photos. The professional gear is just as affordable, if not more so, than the analog stuff and can produce resolutions that are more than comparable to a good film. The advantages of the new technology (e.g. zero film cost, easy manipulation, digital transfer, quick reproduction, etc.) are too numerous to fully name. In result, there are very few photographers who still use film-based cameras.

Thus my point is simply this: This is a whole lot of non-news. ;-)

Cool? (1)

denzacar (181829) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465965)

Jeeeez...
In what kind of a backwater-hillbilly-hicktown do you live and work if "takin pichers de-je-telly" is considered cool?

Does your modem come with a cradle for your telephone handset?
Do you have to "crank-up" your telephone before going online?
Is the monitor you are reading this on black and white?

I mean... come on.
I can understand going old-tech as a part of "geek pride"-thing, but there ARE limits.

Interview with Mr. Souza on NPR (5, Interesting)

WmLGann (1143005) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465131)

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 [npr.org]

5:38 pm (3, Funny)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465139)

And here I always thought he looked his best at 5:39.

Re:5:38 pm (2, Funny)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465957)

The camera's firmware didn't include the leap second.

The secret of Obama's popularity. (1, Funny)

bistromath007 (1253428) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465145)

He's not the first black President.

He's the first hipster President.

Re:The secret of Obama's popularity. (3, Funny)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465267)

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 ;)

Re:The secret of Obama's popularity. (1)

kitofers (783669) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465317)

Try JFK?

Re:The secret of Obama's popularity. (2, Funny)

kellyb9 (954229) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465387)

He's not the first black President. He's the first hipster President.

Clearly you're forgetting the presidency of Rutherford B. Hayes.

Re:The secret of Obama's popularity. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26465417)

1) 50% Caucasian

2) 43.75% Arab, and

3) 6.25% African Negro

?????

Re:The secret of Obama's popularity. (1)

megamerican (1073936) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465483)

Everyone knows that Thomas Jefferson was the first black President. [google.com]

Something lost (1, Interesting)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465155)

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.

Re:Something lost (1)

Logical Zebra (1423045) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465271)

That's completely true. Sure, 16 megapixels is GREAT today, but I remember a time when the 1-megapixel camera I bought was considered overkill.

Re:Something lost (3, Interesting)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465411)

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.

Re:Something lost (1, Interesting)

DragonWyatt (62035) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465751)

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.

Re:Something lost (2, Funny)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465453)

That's completely true. Sure, 16 megapixels is GREAT today, but I remember a time when the 1-megapixel camera I bought was considered overkill.

Oh c'mon, doesn't everyone print out their pictures from Walmart on posterboard with their 16MP cameras?

Overkill? Bah. No way.

Re:Something lost (4, Informative)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465427)

"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.

Re:Something lost (3, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465463)

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).

Re:Something lost (4, Insightful)

evanbd (210358) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465767)

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.

Re:Something lost (1)

ThrowAwaySociety (1351793) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465689)

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.

Motion pictures are STILL shot on film, for the exact reasons you state. Nobody has ever shot anything except experimental or artistic films on VHS. Maybe a few scenes were shot on high-end video formats, but the tradeoffs were well understood even then. The filmmakers just decided the convenience or versatility was worth it.

These days, a few feature films are now shot directly and entirely in 1080p "HD", but they are still in the miniority.

True, broadcast TV has been recorded on videotape (originally, on huge AMPEX machines) forever, but this is material that was intended to be shown at NTSC quality anyway. If they'd shot it on cinema-quality film, you'd just see the rough edges on the sets, the crappy costumes, and the overdone makeup that were used because they looked okay on NTSC.

Re:Something lost (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465803)

8x10 what? millimeters? While there is something to be said for the artistic aspects of film photography, you really won't win any arguments saying that film (of any modern sort) captures more details than modern, high end digital cameras. Videography is probably the only field not completely run by digital technology, and with some of the new advances in high definition, high speed sensors the days of that are numbered too.

Sad (1)

buddhaunderthetree (318870) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465237)

No more negatives. I've recently gone back to film and hand processing. Yes it's a real pain but there is a distinctive film look that digital just doesn't create.

Re:Sad (1)

polar red (215081) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465277)

is there really a difference in the result ? analog AND digital pictures are of such a high quality that YOUR EYE is the weak link.

Re:Sad (2, Insightful)

Logical Zebra (1423045) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465343)

I'm sure somebody said that during the advent of the DVD.

And then Blu-Ray came out.

Re:Sad (2)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465497)

I'm sure somebody said that during the advent of the DVD.

Then that someone was quite uninformed, as the limits of human vision are quite well known and both DVD and BD are still far from reaching them.

Don't confuse marketing with science.

Re:Sad (1)

timster (32400) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465715)

That's not really a very meaningful point... even 10MP digital cameras have much more resolution than Blu-Ray, and most people like photos to be smaller than they like their TV to be.

If you do want to enlarge photos to ginormous sizes (and look at them close up) you cannot do that with 35mm film. At that scale you need a larger format.

Re:Sad (4, Funny)

pipatron (966506) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465395)

You know how it is, vinyl sounds better than CD, stone carvings have a warmer feeling than oil paintings etc.

Re:Sad (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465375)

No more negatives. I've recently gone back to film and hand processing. Yes it's a real pain but there is a distinctive film look that digital just doesn't create.

You just need the right algorithm.

There's no such thing as the impossible to digitalize color, or look, or feel. If a human being can distinguish digital from analog, there's a problem with the equipment or with the image treatment software.

Re:Sad (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465529)

There are other reasons to use film as opposed to digital. Time-lapse photography, for example. While it can be done with a digital, there is no way to do things such as slow the exposure time and so forth.

Re:Sad (1)

ribo-bailey (724061) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465807)

Uh, have you used a DSLR? Been able to change the exposure for years. In fact, even some P&S digitals have the feature now. Plenty of people do time-lapse with digitals.

Re:Sad (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465505)

And I would guess that a presidential photos should be on medium or large format film instead of a low res digital photo.

Come on, first black president and we shoot it with a crappy 5D? (yes it IS crappy compared to a decent medium format camera) Why not a nice large format or medium format to get insane detail. I'm hoping they at least used a nice L series portrait lens.

Digital has it's place for 98% of photography. but the important stuff, you gotta use the real cameras.

P.S. my cheapie used Medium format camera shoots photos that are at least 900X better than the best digital cameras made. the detail at 20X30 is breathtaking. I flipped out a "professional" a year ago with a shot I did on film. he swore I did special calibration and did multiple photos and stitched them together.. 6X the resolution of 35mm film give you incredible results.

Re:Sad (1)

vviljo (143799) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465891)

Why would you need more detail than 5D mark II and/or 35mm format lenses can give in a portrait?

Anyway: exif tags of the official photo only tells the focal length used, which was 105mm. So, perhaps even 24-105mm f/4L ? It was sold as a "kit lens" for the original 5D and the mark II.

TFA is wrong, btw, the camera used is 5D mark II, not the original 5D.

Also see http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml [luminous-landscape.com] for an interesting take on medium format superiority.

Obligatory (0, Troll)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465257)

That is change we can believe in!

(Disclaimer : not intended to be politically charged)

What are they going to do with the Dark Room? (1)

jameskojiro (705701) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465297)

In the white house? What will it be used for now? Maybe they will put a picture server in there for all the digital pics they will be taking of the Obama. At least when they photo shop the Halo around his head it will be a lot easier as they won't have to scan the picture in from the Negative, just upload the pic from the memory stick.

Re:What are they going to do with the Dark Room? (1)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465479)

In the white house? What will it be used for now? Maybe they will put a picture server in there for all the digital pics they will be taking of the Obama. At least when they photo shop the Halo around his head it will be a lot easier as they won't have to scan the picture in from the Negative, just upload the pic from the memory stick.

I'm certain that some intern will find some use for the Dark Room. Or should I say the "Light-Arrested Room", we certainly don't want to impose any racial slur here...

5D Mark II... Sweet! (4, Funny)

BlueBoxSW.com (745855) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465347)

The 5D Mark II is amazing.

Re:5D Mark II... Sweet! (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26465501)

Mod it funny if you want, but he's right. It's the first SLR still camera to take full high-quality 1080 24p video footage. Given the camera's incredible sensor and lens selection, it's a still camera that threatens to cannibalize Canon's entire prosumer video line - which is why they had to artifically hamper some features, like disallowing manual exposure in video mode.

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.

Re:5D Mark II... Sweet! (1)

rarel (697734) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465509)

Wait for the Mk III. They weaponized it and then threw some cool hot-rod red in there.

Re:5D Mark II... Sweet! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26465775)

Yeah, it's a lot less ostentatious now.

Re:5D Mark II... Sweet! (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465583)

5D Mark II

The picture was taken by the White House's new official MECHWARRIOR!, Pete Souza,

Had to correct it.

Re:5D Mark II... Sweet! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26465609)

The 5D Mark II is amazing.

+4 Funny?? Try +3 Blindingly obvious to those of us fortunate enough to have played with them.

but... (2, Interesting)

M-RES (653754) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465421)

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

This is news how? (2, Insightful)

kabocox (199019) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465429)

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?

Obama *was* kind of suspicious (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26465455)

...when the photographer wanted him to hold a number plate, and insisted on front and side views.

Virtual President (2, Funny)

handy_vandal (606174) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465493)

At least we've still got a physical human being for a President.

Next step, the Virtual President [wikipedia.org] . Sims expansion pack, anyone?

If you can't find a de-fluffer.... (0, Offtopic)

pancakegeels (673199) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465569)

use a loop of packing tape sticky side out...

Polaroid (1)

Ohio Calvinist (895750) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465607)

It makes sense to use a digital camera since 99.99% of the use of that picture is going to be put on .gov websites or sent to post offices so they can change the picture in the frame, or in publications that are probably made with something like InDesign. I'd imagine whatever advantages you got out of the film photo (which I was never a believer in until out wedding photos were done on an antique camera with the crank and everything out of a 50's period movie), would be lost in the scanning process.

If I was president I'd just have them take a picture with a polaroid. I can just see the huge ornate frame with a tiny polaroid taped in the center. All the other world leaders would either find it humorous and say "this guy is cool" or think I'm crazy enough not to mess with.

Slashdotter can comment on anything (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26465651)

I propose that we work on lamer and lamer stories until we find something that slashdotter have no opinion of or just can't be bothered to comment.

You used the metadata? (1)

east coast (590680) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465703)

Beware, that could be seen as a threat to national security.

There is no Office of the President Elect (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26465721)

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.

Please stop.. (0, Troll)

DerCed (155038) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465853)

Jesus, who the fuck cares? I do not live in the USA and I don't give a fucking shit! I'm not trolling, but this is just not news!

Obama got shot by a cannon? (1)

ariefwn (130137) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465863)

I'm shocked I tell ya!

5D != 5D Mark II (2, Informative)

Jethro (14165) | more than 5 years ago | (#26465881)

The article states that the "5D" camera used for the photo has 12.8mp and costs $2K. This is true for the 5D, but the 5D Mark II has ~21MP and costs considerably more than $2K. If it cost $2K I'd get one!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>