[JohnR]

Is it just me, or is there a regrettable moment here. I thought we would be over it by now, but I recently can't help feeling otherwise. I'm talking about the cheaping out of photographs of loved ones (children in particular). Surely, a $1k for a half-decent camera/lens to capture photographs that will never ever be repeated is a small investment?

[Kenneth Patchen]

 

Is it just me, or is there a regrettable moment here. I thought we would be over it by now, but I recently can't help feeling otherwise. I'm talking about the cheaping out of photographs of loved ones (children in particular). Surely, a $1k for a half-decent camera/lens to capture photographs that will never ever be repeated is a small investment?

  

(I haven't had my coffee yet.)

[JohnR]

It's hard to respond to that response... try using words after coffee. But... have you never received a photograph of a niece or nephew (for example) and thought gosh, if only there were a way to make these photos... more eligible for the status of being treasured? No.. maybe...?

[thunderbrick]

Translation?   Why are phone/point and shoot pix so crappy?

[FullRangeMan]

Is it just me, or is there a regrettable moment here. I thought we would be over it by now, but I recently can't help feeling otherwise. I'm talking about the cheaping out of photographs of loved ones (children in particular). Surely, a $1k for a half-decent camera/lens to capture photographs that will never ever be repeated is a small investment?

You would go automatic or semi w/Fuji and less than $1K.

[JohnR]

Translation?   Why are phone/point and shoot pix so crappy?

I guess I was taking that as a given... and wondering why that is?

I suppose it's not all that different from when we were kids, I did see some 2 1/4 by 2 1/4 contact prints of my childhood a while back. Parents are not (for the most part) photographers... and maybe they shouldn't be?

[zybar]

It's hard to respond to that response... try using words after coffee. But... have you never received a photograph of a niece or nephew (for example) and thought gosh, if only there were a way to make these photos... more eligible for the status of being treasured? No.. maybe...?

John,

Great topic!

Since I always have my phone with me, it is easy to take pics with it vs. "lugging out" the DSLR.  I miss less photo opportunities by leveraging my cell phone (Galaxy Note 4).

That said, any planned picture of importance I still use my Nikon D7000.

This is the approach my entire family takes.

George

[JohnR]

I think that's a great approach.

Having thought a bit more about the reason I started this thread... It wasn't that long ago where almost any camera would be enough to get good photographs, let's say 20-30 years. Now, we have all this technology at our disposal, but what I see is worse photographs. in some cases, I think these could be called missed opportunities.

[thunderbrick]

Agreed, John R.  I think it has to do with "Oooh!  I'll post this picture (of my dog, mirror, lunch, nostrils, etc.) right now so everyone can see it!

Seconds later it's forgotten because a gazillion new images have appeared.

Pro photographers have it brutal because many people have grown to expect images for free.  99% of what's out there is a commodity with no perceived value.

No perceived value is the key, and it shows in everything.

[JohnR]

But the value here is, to put a word on it, "sentimental." It bothers me that other people (close to me) don't see it.

[zybar]

I think that's a great approach.

Having thought a bit more about the reason I started this thread... It wasn't that long ago where almost any camera would be enough to get good photographs, let's say 20-30 years. Now, we have all this technology at our disposal, but what I see is worse photographs. in some cases, I think these could be called missed opportunities.

I think the quality of the phones is actually pretty good...What is terrible is the photography skills of the users.

In the past, most people who spent money on a camera learned to take decent to great pictures.  Now everybody is a photographer and they simply don't know how to take pictures.

George

[newzooreview]

It seems as if the concerns with cheap/phone photography were not clear to some folks reading the thread. To me the problems are multiple.

1. Phone cameras have wide angle lenses not optimal for portraits. Phones usually have a 28mm equivalent focal length while an 80 to 105 mm lens is typically more flattering for portraits. Even a 50mm equivalent would give a more natural angle of view and realistic perspective.

2. Cheap/phone cameras have small apertures, which means that you can't effectively isolate the subject from background (or foreground). This restricts how you can compose the shot (giving a feel of intimacy; reducing visual clutter in the background). You are pretty much limited to journalistic style documentary photos (although journalists have good equipment and also use shallow depth of field).

3. Cheap/phone cameras have poor low light picture quality. Compared to what you can do with a larger sensor (I mean physical sensor size not megapixels) and a lens with larger aperture, the cheap/phone cameras will produce noisy images in low light scenes typical of a lot time we spend with family.

4. Cheap/phone cameras do not offer raw file output. Adjustments to the image (white balance, for example) further degrade jpeg quality while with raw files there's no degradation.

5. Cheap/phone cameras have slow and inaccurate autofocus. Slow autofocus makes it much harder to capture a fleeting moment. Locking and tracking focus on a fast moving subject (toddler, dog, and so on) is not possible with cheap/phone cameras.

6. Cheap/phone cameras don't accommodate cropping as well. The resolution of the phone/cheap camera lens is usually just sufficient to look ok on screen, but when you need to use just a portion of the image, things get ugly quickly. With a better lens and sensor (even if the megapixel count is similar) you can crop with a greater chance of having a usable image.

7. Cheap/phone cameras don't accommodate off-camera flash. With a minimum of experimentation, anyone can learn to use off-camera flash to significantly improve results under common lighting conditions. Available light is great, but having the option to use an off-camera flash really enhances the possibilities. Explore a few YouTube videos on off-camera flash to see how simple and effective it can be (but be wary of the ones who seem to be shilling for a certain brand).

8. Cheap/phone cameras encourage ignorance about photography. Point and shoot is convenient, but with just a little knowledge people could be much more successful.

I don't think it's an either/or proposition. The phone is always with you and works well in some situations. Just like the convenience of MP3 files, there's a place for it. But not having used a real camera is like never having heard a good audio system--it's just sad.

A used Nikon D7000 and 50 f/1.8D lens from e-bay is an amazing starter kit. The older D lenses have fewer elements and render colors, micro-contrast, and perceived depth beautifully.

[Kenneth Patchen]

It's hard to respond to that response... try using words after coffee. But... have you never received a photograph of a niece or nephew (for example) and thought gosh, if only there were a way to make these photos... more eligible for the status of being treasured? No.. maybe...?

Glub ... glub ... glub. Three coffees later.

"Sorry old man, still don't quite get your banter."

Are you commenting on the quality of phone photographs compared to film era photographs? Or are you commenting on the need to preserve what is now too quickly regarded as the digital disposable? I've seen plenty of crapy film photographs, plenty of good ones too. I've seen excellent phone photographs posted here on AC and elsewhere. And for the less than perfect digital there's photoshop. And preservation is as simple - or difficult - as preserving our digital music. Since most people (not me ) always carry their phone with them, phone pictures for some are meant to serve only as visual tweets and quality and content, by their very nature, are meant to be ephemeral. Or are you lamenting the fact that most people no longer plan on taking 'real' photographs and are too quick to resort to the convenience of phone photography? Are you talking more about nostalgia than sentimentality?

Maybe after some more coffee ...

[FullRangeMan]

It seems as if the concerns with cheap/phone photography were not clear to some folks reading the thread. To me the problems are multiple.

1. Phone cameras have wide angle lenses not optimal for portraits. Phones usually have a 28mm equivalent focal length while an 80 to 105 mm lens is typically more flattering for portraits. Even a 50mm equivalent would give a more natural angle of view and realistic perspective.

2. Cheap/phone cameras have small apertures, which means that you can't effectively isolate the subject from background (or foreground). This restricts how you can compose the shot (giving a feel of intimacy; reducing visual clutter in the background). You are pretty much limited to journalistic style documentary photos (although journalists have good equipment and also use shallow depth of field).

3. Cheap/phone cameras have poor low light picture quality. Compared to what you can do with a larger sensor (I mean physical sensor size not megapixels) and a lens with larger aperture, the cheap/phone cameras will produce noisy images in low light scenes typical of a lot time we spend with family.

4. Cheap/phone cameras do not offer raw file output. Adjustments to the image (white balance, for example) further degrade jpeg quality while with raw files there's no degradation.

5. Cheap/phone cameras have slow and inaccurate autofocus. Slow autofocus makes it much harder to capture a fleeting moment. Locking and tracking focus on a fast moving subject (toddler, dog, and so on) is not possible with cheap/phone cameras.

6. Cheap/phone cameras don't accommodate cropping as well. The resolution of the phone/cheap camera lens is usually just sufficient to look ok on screen, but when you need to use just a portion of the image, things get ugly quickly. With a better lens and sensor (even if the megapixel count is similar) you can crop with a greater chance of having a usable image.

7. Cheap/phone cameras don't accommodate off-camera flash. With a minimum of experimentation, anyone can learn to use off-camera flash to significantly improve results under common lighting conditions. Available light is great, but having the option to use an off-camera flash really enhances the possibilities. Explore a few YouTube videos on off-camera flash to see how simple and effective it can be (but be wary of the ones who seem to be shilling for a certain brand).

8. Cheap/phone cameras encourage ignorance about photography. Point and shoot is convenient, but with just a little knowledge people could be much more successful.

I don't think it's an either/or proposition. The phone is always with you and works well in some situations. Just like the convenience of MP3 files, there's a place for it. But not having used a real camera is like never having heard a good audio system--it's just sad.

A used Nikon D7000 and 50 f/1.8D lens from e-bay is an amazing starter kit. The older D lenses have fewer elements and render colors, micro-contrast, and perceived depth beautifully.

Thanks bro, superb post.
Very good info here, I will copy for reference.

[Guy 13]

It seems as if the concerns with cheap/phone photography were not clear to some folks reading the thread. To me the problems are multiple.

1. Phone cameras have wide angle lenses not optimal for portraits. Phones usually have a 28mm equivalent focal length while an 80 to 105 mm lens is typically more flattering for portraits. Even a 50mm equivalent would give a more natural angle of view and realistic perspective.

2. Cheap/phone cameras have small apertures, which means that you can't effectively isolate the subject from background (or foreground). This restricts how you can compose the shot (giving a feel of intimacy; reducing visual clutter in the background). You are pretty much limited to journalistic style documentary photos (although journalists have good equipment and also use shallow depth of field).

3. Cheap/phone cameras have poor low light picture quality. Compared to what you can do with a larger sensor (I mean physical sensor size not megapixels) and a lens with larger aperture, the cheap/phone cameras will produce noisy images in low light scenes typical of a lot time we spend with family.

4. Cheap/phone cameras do not offer raw file output. Adjustments to the image (white balance, for example) further degrade jpeg quality while with raw files there's no degradation.

5. Cheap/phone cameras have slow and inaccurate autofocus. Slow autofocus makes it much harder to capture a fleeting moment. Locking and tracking focus on a fast moving subject (toddler, dog, and so on) is not possible with cheap/phone cameras.

6. Cheap/phone cameras don't accommodate cropping as well. The resolution of the phone/cheap camera lens is usually just sufficient to look ok on screen, but when you need to use just a portion of the image, things get ugly quickly. With a better lens and sensor (even if the megapixel count is similar) you can crop with a greater chance of having a usable image.

7. Cheap/phone cameras don't accommodate off-camera flash. With a minimum of experimentation, anyone can learn to use off-camera flash to significantly improve results under common lighting conditions. Available light is great, but having the option to use an off-camera flash really enhances the possibilities. Explore a few YouTube videos on off-camera flash to see how simple and effective it can be (but be wary of the ones who seem to be shilling for a certain brand).

8. Cheap/phone cameras encourage ignorance about photography. Point and shoot is convenient, but with just a little knowledge people could be much more successful.

I don't think it's an either/or proposition. The phone is always with you and works well in some situations. Just like the convenience of MP3 files, there's a place for it. But not having used a real camera is like never having heard a good audio system--it's just sad.

A used Nikon D7000 and 50 f/1.8D lens from e-bay is an amazing starter kit. The older D lenses have fewer elements and render colors, micro-contrast, and perceived depth beautifully.

Hi newzooreview,
for a long time, I did not see any young people with a camera, even an el-cheapo point & shoot.
These days, all pictures are taken with phones, that's sad, very sad.
Yes, in some situation, the phone built in camera can be useful.
Many times, Vietnamese take pictures of robbery or something illegal with their phone, very convenient,
but if you go on vacation or at some special events (Wedding, new born, etc...)
those pictures cannot be enlarged or sometimes even printed...
Yes, I am from the old school.
I have a Nikon Coolpix S3300, Olympus Infinity (Film) Nikon D200, two (02) Mamiya 645E (Film)
I always carry my Olympus Infinity under the seat of my motorbike,
just in case.
In addition, film camera are now of no interest to the thieves.

Guy 13
on planet Vietnam.

[Peter J]

I bought my wife a capable Canon point & shoot. Queried as to why she doesn't use it. " I have a camera in my phone and iPad". In her mind all cameras are the same...it's a camera and it's easy and convenient. She also saves bad photos that I and most of y'all would pitch and are mostly unsaveable via software...specifically out-of-focus shots.

My Dad used to say "there are photographs and snapshots, they're not the same". The most rudimentary rules of the road concerning photography apparently have gone the way of the VHS tape."I have a camera (in my phone), I can take photos" seems the prevailing thinking.

For me, the most comical among the bad photos galleries is Craigslist. People are trying to sell their stuff and present it the best light...ha! "Hey, your photo's crappy because your phone won't macro focus even though you can get it real close..."

I think bad photos have always been around, just more plentiful and public now.

[brooklyn]

I recently sold my Nikon D90 and opted for a much smaller Sony A6000 mirrorless
camera for it’s more compact size. I’m still in the (learning to use it faze) but it works
great and takes fantastic pictures. I’ve already taken it with me on a couple of occasions
where the Nikon would have been left home..

[charmerci]

I bought my wife a capable Canon point & shoot. Queried as to why she doesn't use it. " I have a camera in my phone and iPad". In her mind all cameras are the same...it's a camera and it's easy and convenient. She also saves bad photos that I and most of y'all would pitch and are mostly unsaveable via software...specifically out-of-focus shots.

My Dad used to say "there are photographs and snapshots, they're not the same". The most rudimentary rules of the road concerning photography apparently have gone the way of the VHS tape."I have a camera (in my phone), I can take photos" seems the prevailing thinking.

For me, the most comical among the bad photos galleries is Craigslist. People are trying to sell their stuff and present it the best light...ha! "Hey, your photo's crappy because your phone won't macro focus even though you can get it real close..."

I think bad photos have always been around, just more plentiful and public now.

+1 especially that last statement. Anyone looking at your parents'/grandparents' photos will attest to that.

[FullRangeMan]

I bought my wife a capable Canon point & shoot. Queried as to why she doesn't use it. " I have a camera in my phone and iPad". In her mind all cameras are the same...it's a camera and it's easy and convenient. She also saves bad photos that I and most of y'all would pitch and are mostly unsaveable via software...specifically out-of-focus shots.

In her minds all men are the same

[lowtech]

I would submit that the average smartphone of today takes photos that are far superior to that of  anything that would be considered an "average consumer grade" camera two or three decades ago.  (Excluding SLR, of course.  Along with a few exceptions.).

Aside from zoom capabilities, my current smartphone takes photos on par with 6-year old Canon G12, which I think reflects well on the current state of camera phones.