AudioCircle
Community => Non-audio hobbies and interests => Eye-Fidelity => Topic started by: JohnR on 29 Aug 2016, 01:16 pm
-
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?
-
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?
:scratch: :scratch:
(I haven't had my coffee yet.)
-
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...?
-
Translation? Why are phone/point and shoot pix so crappy?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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 ...
-
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. :thumb:
Very good info here, I will copy for reference.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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..
-
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.
-
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 :duh:
-
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.
(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=149399)
-
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.
mediocrity goes hand in hand with innovation
-
I miss the tactile aspect of handling photographs. Picking up your photos wherever you had them developed, looking at each one, finding your favorites, grimacing at a poorly timed blink, all the while being careful not to get fingerprints on the gloss.
Looking at pictures digitally is just not the same..
-
Hey!
It is all about convenience and quantity over quality for most people these days :roll:
Seriously, there's nothing wrong with using phone's camera to take picture. I've got a few memorable pics from my iPhone 5s over the 2 years I've been using it. But the biggest factor is not the phone's camera or a $5000 DSLR with fast lens... it is the person behind the camera :wink:
Take care,
Buddy :thumb:
-
Iphone camera is the perfect tool to take pictures in a hurry, to do bad framing,
to have underexposed pictures and much, much more.
Convenient does not equal quality,
of course, the person behind the Iphone taking the picture
is part of the failure et success of the result.
Guy 13
on planet Vietnam.
-
I miss the tactile aspect of handling photographs. Picking up your photos wherever you had them developed, looking at each one, finding your favorites, grimacing at a poorly timed blink, all the while being careful not to get fingerprints on the gloss.
Looking at pictures digitally is just not the same..
Hey!
I agreed. Most people don't make prints anymore. I sometime find myself going through a few boxes of old photos or through my negative files and relive them again.
Talk about photograph prints. I sometime would go to flea markets here around NYC and I'd run into sellers with boxes of old photographs from years, decades or even century ago like tintype and daguerrotype. It is fun to to through them and see how people lived back than. Now we all store photos in HDDs... imagine 50 years from now you go to flea market and see all these HDDs, well I guess it won't be as fun as looking through photo prints wouldn't it?
OK, now it is time for me to admit that I also rarely make prints these days. But! I still shoot with films sometime and scan them though :wink:
Sorry for being a bit off topic on this. :D
Take care,
Buddy :thumb:
-
I miss the tactile aspect of handling photographs. Picking up your photos wherever you had them developed, looking at each one, finding your favorites, grimacing at a poorly timed blink, all the while being careful not to get fingerprints on the gloss.
Looking at pictures digitally is just not the same..
You can print if need at expense of ink and paper.
Books on kindles are much worse than photos, in this case paper books are superior readable.
-
You can print if need at expense of ink and paper.
Books on kindles are much worse than photos, in this case paper books are superior readable.
As long as we're getting off topic, I'll take my Kindle over hard copy every day of the week and twice on Sunday!!! :thumb:
Gene
-
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?
Most cheap digital cameras allow poor photographers to take better photos than ever before! The common problems of the film age (out of focus, over and under exposure) have been mainly eliminated. And, the instant feedback of being able to view what was just taken, allows for a retake. As a professional photographer for over 55 years, I believe the state of art has never been better. The ubiquitousness of the excellent cell phone camera is allowing everyone to capture great photos on the spur of the moment. Nonetheless, the vision of the photographer is still paramount. The best photos are made, not captured.
No regrets here!
-
Most cheap digital cameras allow poor photographers to take better photos than ever before! The common problems of the film age (out of focus, over and under exposure) have been mainly eliminated. And, the instant feedback of being able to view what was just taken, allows for a retake. As a professional photographer for over 55 years, I believe the state of art has never been better. The ubiquitousness of the excellent cell phone camera is allowing everyone to capture great photos on the spur of the moment. Nonetheless, the vision of the photographer is still paramount. The best photos are made, not captured.
No regrets here!
Well put!
-
mediocrity goes hand in hand with innovation
???? :scratch: :scratch:
Are you guys kidding me?
I used to take film shots. Photos stored in a box never to be looked at again instead shared with the world - I mean that literally! I was taking fewer and fewer photos because well, it's damn expensive to take a lot of photos. I take a photo and sometimes it was weeks before I saw whether it was a good photo or not.
Because of digital photography, I no longer worry about expense or where I'm going to keep boxes and boxes of some good but mostly mediocre photos that threw tons of chemicals into the environment. I started taking lots of photos again - giving myself instant feedback on whether the photo was good or not. My photography skills have improved and widened specifically because of that.
Also, I don't have to pay and wait for someone to crop and explain to them how I want the photo modified. I can do it instant how I want to as many times I want to. I can repeat it again and again instantly with minor changes if I want to.
Digital photography is incredible!
-
mediocrity goes hand in hand with innovation
Mediocrity has more to do with ubiquity than innovation.
-
Mediocrity has more to do with ubiquity than innovation.
Taken by my s-i-l, an amateur photographer,with an iPhone.
(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=149466)
(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=149465)
-
Mediocrity has more to do with ubiquity than innovation.
+1! :thumb:
-
Thanks to this thread, I can soon become a hero. My girlfriend loves to snap photos with her smart phone and I see that while nice, the photo's resolution isn't great. The content of the photos and lighting, etc. is fine. I'll get a real camera for her upcoming birthday. :D
I still break out an old Nikkormat (Japanese Nikon) 35mm when I get ambitious. It produces fine quality photos and is limited only by me.
-
I agree with your sentiment John. Photos that could be treasures are sometimes botched due to use of inferior camera/ lack of due diligence.
Sometimes it's the excitement of capturing the shot combined with ignorance about photography. Sometimes just the ignorance about photography.
We can probably blame Apple/Samsung for their advertising, and may as well blame the internet also, for making people think that with these fancy phones they are now photographers.
In a perfect world, owners of a mobile phone should take photography lessons for using their phone camera. And they should be taught to use a real camera when possible.
You may have to make the effort to get some good treasures for them.
-
Last year when I was in Montreal's subway (Metro)
I saw a dozen posters ( 24X48'') on each side of the corridor
with pictures taken by mobile phones built in camera.
Different subjects, mostly people, children, etc...
But with good resolution, colors and lighting.
I suspect that the raw pictures where Photoshopped
or had some kind of treatment.
Yes, they looked nice, of course, it's to convinced potential buyer to buy their products.
Marketing, of course.
Now, can everyone do the same ? No, but manufacturers don't care,
it'a bout dreaming and $$$$
Guy 13
on planet Vietnam.
-
Last year when I was in Montreal's subway (Metro)
I saw a dozen posters ( 24X48'') on each side of the corridor
with pictures taken by mobile phones built in camera.
Different subjects, mostly people, children, etc...
But with good resolution, colors and lighting.
I suspect that the raw pictures where Photoshopped
or had some kind of treatment.
Yes, they looked nice, of course, it's to convinced potential buyer to buy their products.
Marketing, of course.
Now, can everyone do the same ? No, but manufacturers don't care,
it'a bout dreaming and $$$$
Guy 13
on planet Vietnam.
Please look again at the photos in my previous post (#31). They are taken with an iPhone 5, by an amateur who happens to be my son in law, and not photoshopped. Their resolution is excellent, more than adequate for most people's needs. I could post many more. I think they clearly show that anyone can take excellent shots with these cameras. High quality cameras are now being built cheaply, and are included in many mainstream smartphones.
-
The advent of digital photography started a downward spiral for pro shooters in small to mid level markets (like mine) Sure, the guys at the top of the food chain are still doing well, but a lot of the work I used to get is being done by someone in PR or the in house graphic designer. And 99% is crap. But its "good enough".
There's a pic of a Toyota Tundra on a car lift on my website. It's not a 'wow' image, but the thing is.....it was shot in a dirty factory/warehouse where the lifts are made. But it looks like it was done in a studio. That takes real skills. (maybe not talent, but experience) Now the company just does the work themselves, and it's cars on lifts in a dirty warehouse. But it's free and they don't care.
So yeah......I think a lot of people don't care about image quality anymore. It's not related to cell phone pix so much (I've seen beautiful stuff shot on phones) as just a lowering of standards in general.
Ironically, in an age when we are inundated with images, it seems more important to me to get pictures that stand out. Not just be more visual clutter.
Of course digital did open up a whole new market for us, which is e-commerce. That's what I've been doing for the past two years to pay the bill.
A lot of the local photographers now shoot for Amazon, and the money is great. I work for a company called Industrial Color, based in NYC. E-commerce work is not very interesting from a photo standpoint, just products on a white background. But it pays, however I did enjoy shooting golf clubs. They are really tricky to light, as most are shiny and reflective.
-
Phone photography has been a boon for everyday applications. I love the convenience and the idea of taking all the snaps you want. And like "real" photography occasionally you'll get a good picture. OTOH now you see tons of (typically young) people suddenly taking hundreds of garbage pics and then waste time immediately viewing them, or endlessly take selfies. But that's just an abuse/overuse of technology (like we experience in audio all the time) and hopefully just another fad.
With the convenience comes the dumbing down, the tons of crap produced, the cheapening of the whole concept (kinda like the internet). I understand that. I also understand there's much more to photography than the gear. Great gear isn't needed to take some great photos, but it releases more limitations of what you can do. Composition, lighting, and a hundred other factors enter into what makes a great photo.
Photography used to be a hobby of mine, nothing super serious. But rarely did I have my camera bag (bodies, lenses, rolls of film, flash, tripod, etc.) with me because I felt like I was "missing the moment" (viewing life through a small screen and not experiencing it) when behind the lens. And I detest looking like a tourist (especially when I am one). So I grabbed my bag only when I planned for a scenic event or picturesque setting. Even at home rarely was everything ready to go when life's special moments appeared, baby being cute for instance. Note this was a hobby, not a job for me. So I ended up trading in my gear for an auto-focus, auto-exposure SLR with built-in flash when the kids came along and then down scaled again to a point-and-shoot (all film based) to gain more convenience. I don't even know if we still have that camera.
I suppose it's like audio. If you're serious about it you'll make the sacrifices (space, time, money) and it will cut into whatever else you could have been doing with your life (other hobbies, family, and/or altruistic pursuits). Fortunately for you drphoto its a job, not a non-paying hobby.
Rant on: One of the things missing on nearly all the Star Trek shows is photography or videography. Drives me nuts when every away team has to describe what they're seeing. They have warp drives, phasers, shields, and transporters but not real-time image transmission? Rant off.
-
A photography professor that I had in college said that the best camera in the world is the one that you have with you.
(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=139761)
taken with iphone 5s, no manipulation
-
How original. Love the one you're with? It has nothing to do with this thread.
-
You may have to make the effort to get some good treasures for them.
Thank you.
-
I guess I'm not sure how my thread could be seen as against digital photography. I did say 20-30 years as an example of when "almost any camera would be enough to get good photographs," but apparently autofocus wasn't invented then in some people's minds.
No offence to anyone, really, but I don't see the examples posted as proving anything but my point. Here it is again: "Surely, a $1k for a half-decent camera/lens to capture photographs that will never ever be repeated is a small investment?" And yes, as others have said, perhaps some learning is needed, so add to that some motivation and awareness to do so. Just saying, if you're in that situation, perhaps consider it? Thanks ;)
-
Apple Has Changed the Camera Industry
The iPhone 7 Plus features longer exposures, better aperture, and the ability to shoot digital negatives. For traditional-camera manufacturers, this is terrible news.
This article in the latest New Yorker on the iPhone 7's camera ends with the statement: "You can see why the camera companies are doomed." A fascinating read!
I believe it is the truth- smart phones can take superb photos and will continue to get better.
You may not be able to read it without being a subscriber, but here is the link:
http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/with-the-iphone-7-apple-changed-the-camera-industry-forever
-
This article in the latest New Yorker on the iPhone 7's camera ends with the statement: "You can see why the camera companies are doomed." A fascinating read!
It's two tiny lenses and how great can the lens be if you're cranking out millions of them? Better cameras will be around for a while - despite this iPhone 7.
-
It's two tiny lenses and how great can the lens be if you're cranking out millions of them? Better cameras will be around for a while - despite this iPhone 7.
Good enough. Costly optics and high rez files are a necessity if you are making 30x40" prints, not important if you are only rarely making a snapshot sized print. Even the current iPhones are more than capable of producing a very decent 8x10. How many large prints have you have made lately? And, I might point out, Apple has 'cranked out' over a billion iPhones to date, and the market seems to have decided they are very desirable!
As a professional photographer (now retired) in the advertising industry for over 50 years, I know a bit about what I speak. A view camera and 4x5" transparency film were my tools, as my images frequently did go big. I have several high end digital and film cameras, but find my iPhone sufficient for a lot of shots. As previously quoted (from a famous photographer), "The best camera is the one you have with you!"
For many years, I have been of the opinion that the camera is relatively unimportant, it is the vision and skill of the photographer that makes great photos. Years ago (1969), I 'snapped' a great photo with a plastic $5 Mickey Mouse head camera which I just happened to have in my hand as I walked down the street in SF and encountered a 10 year old with the same. We looked at each other with surprise, and simultaneously snapped a photo. I wish I had a copy of his photo! Undoubtedly, our lenses were pure shit, but the photo was a keeper. I will someday have to search through my negatives and find it. I can only wish it were as accessible as my iPhone shots. If so, I would have posted it.
-
"The best camera is the one you have with you!"
+1
-
I coud write a lot about camera, but I will make this post short and sweet.
It all started when I was 16 with a Kodak Instamatic 104
(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=150073)
Then, slowly going to larger negatives with Nikon SRT101,
then many different brands of medium format (Mamiya, Bronica
and then I went big with Cambo and Toyo 4X5'' negatives.
Today, my search for bigger is better is over,
however, I still own a 35mm pont and shoot, a Nikon D200
and two (Medium format) Mamiya 645E.
My phone does not have a built in camera.
I always carry under the seat of my motorcycle my Olympus Infinity 35mm camera
for emergency or document unpredictable events.
My Nikon Coolpix 3300 is for posting pictures on the Internet
and my Nikon D200 I use when I need more resolution
and my Mamiya 645E (Film only) is when I want to shoot (Mainly) Black & White
for creative or artistic work.
If I had to scale down my arsenal of cameras, humm mmm
might keep my Nikon Coolpix 16Mpix that fit in a shirt pocket.
A phone camera. humm mmm dont think so, I use the smallest and least
expensive phone I could get.
Guy 13
on planet Vietnam.
By the way, I've got nothing against people that take all their pictures
with their phones, it their choice, however, if they want to enlarge a nice
picture that they love. well they will get what they pay for.
-
Im certainly not knocking digital cameras. The modern pro level cameras kick the crap out of film. It's no contest. Not like the still ongoing debate of digital vs analog in sound playback.
I'm just saying once you lower the barrier to entry, the standards tend to decline. If you look at work from portrait studios from say 50 years ago, most of them were pretty great because you had to have professional photographers making the images.
On the other hand.....I think modern wedding photography has vastly improved with the advent of digital. Now you don't see the staged on camera flash crap of yesteryear. There are people shooting things that look like fashion magazine spreads. But as was pointed out, it's not so much the equipment, as the eye of the shooter. But digital allows one to shoot in very low light situations, preview setups, do post shoot enhancement etc.
For an example of the very best of this new style wedding work, check out Jerry Ghonis. Of course, he's at the top of the food chain. I think Jerry charges on the order of $10K to do a wedding. But a lot of people in down markets are doing things that are in the same vein.
-
Hi drphoto, that photographer Jerry Ghonis,
I went on his site and I admit: He's more than just good,
he's excellent, perfect pictures.
His pictures says more than just what you see.
No way you can do the same with a phone or even a bigger camera.
The guy behind the camera makes the difference and it's a BIG difference.
Thanks for the link.
Guy 13
on planet Vietnam.
-
Translation? Why are phone/point and shoot pix so crappy?
Easy. The crappy photos exist where the "photographer" has no photographic skill. This is the same situation as has existed since the original Kodak "Brownie" cameras of 100+ years ago.
A modern smartphone has far more imaging power than a $1000 dedicated still camera of 10 years ago. Yet every digital photo from 2006 and earlier is not "crap". How can this be? Some people know how to take a photograph. You can take an award-winning photo with a home-made pinhole camera, if you know photography.
The "crapy" cellphone photo is a result of the "crappy" photographer taking a snapshot. They're called "snapshots" for a reason, you know. There are also excellent ... museum quality, actually ... images taken with smartphone imaging arrays as well. We tend to call them digital images, but that's just marketing at work.
I still use my Nikon Coolpix 5000 and 5200 cameras (5 megapixel), which were top-line Nikon non-SLRs at the time and cost in the four figures when new about ten years ago. The 5200 has had an infrared imaging sensor modification installed. I also use my iPhone4 camera, and a Lunix digital camera. They all take outstanding images, if you know what you are doing.
The very first thing I bought with my first paycheck was a Nikon camera and lens. I've owned and used medium format film cameras and Mamiya Polaroid interchangeable lens cameras, excellent (and silent) rangefinder 35mm cameras, and 35mm Nikkor lenses like a 28mm f/2.0 and 80-200 f/2.8's. I've been a photography instructor for the City's Leisure Education department. I got out of film about five years ago once I decided the quality could be met with digital at prices I could afford.
I probably won't go back into (D)SLRs as the costs for lenses are in my opinion prohibitive ... I would want a setup that would cost into the five figures all said, and that just isn't in the cards. But certainly you don't need a DSLR to take excellent photos either, so I'm not heartbroken over it.
-
I bought my first real camera in 79" and I'm still buying photography gear because I love it, not because I need it. A phone camera is good in a pinch but will never replace buying into to a whole system, just the new flash system from Canon/Nikon is crazy good.
I was working on a electrical problem so before unhooking the wires I pull out my phone take a photo of the wire diagram, nice picture. Family comes over and ask me to take a couple portrait shots for them, I don't pull my phone out.
Just like audio, sound from ear buds plugged in a phone is good enough for the majority so is photo's.
-
Im certainly not knocking digital cameras. The modern pro level cameras kick the crap out of film. It's no contest. Not like the still ongoing debate of digital vs analog in sound playback.
......
Hey!
Yup, a decent full frame cameras these days are pretty impressive and at 24mp+ they are out resolution 35mm film, especially at higher ISO. I'm amazed that I can actually shoot at ISO 3200 (no I don't use high ISO all the time, only when needed) with my mirrorless and still get a nice result from it, I just can't do that with color film of which ISO 800 is the highest for color film available these days and pushing it will make it worst.
But! Somehow I still like to shoot with films today.... I do have 3 film cameras loaded with film right now, Rolleiflex 2.8C with Ilford Delta 3200, Minolta XD11 with Kodak Portra 160 and Kodak Brownie Model 2E with Kodak TMAX 100 of which I'll have to finish up those soon. :duh:
I bought my first real camera in 79" and I'm still buying photography gear because I love it, not because I need it. A phone camera is good in a pinch but will never replace buying into to a whole system, just the new flash system from Canon/Nikon is crazy good.
....
I know what you mean, I have the same problem. Actually just bought another vintage film camera two days ago... damn internet make it so easy to buy things now. :icon_lol:
Take care,
Buddy :thumb:
-
... Here it is again: "Surely, a $1k for a half-decent camera/lens to capture photographs that will never ever be repeated is a small investment?" And yes, as others have said, perhaps some learning is needed, so add to that some motivation and awareness to do so. Just saying, if you're in that situation, perhaps consider it? Thanks ;)
Hey!
Here's how I see it. Yes, you can get a nice DSLR, mirrorless with a zoom or even hi-end P&S for $1K these days. But if you give someone that nice $1k camera/lens combo to someone who only take crappy photos with their phone, without artistically feel for good pics and have no intent or interested in learning to use the camera or basic photography know how than you will still get crappy photos from them but they will be sharper and higher res with better camera.
Believe me, I've seen some horrible pictures from people with very very expensive camera/lens set and I also have seen from great pictures taken with inexpensive cameras and even from iPhones.
Take care,
Buddy :thumb:
-
Hey!
Yup, a decent full frame cameras these days are pretty impressive and at 24mp+ they are out resolution 35mm film, especially at higher ISO. I'm amazed that I can actually shoot at ISO 3200 (no I don't use high ISO all the time, only when needed) with my mirrorless and still get a nice result from it, I just can't do that with color film of which ISO 800 is the highest for color film available these days and pushing it will make it worst.
But! Somehow I still like to shoot with films today.... I do have 3 film cameras loaded with film right now, Rolleiflex 2.8C with Ilford Delta 3200, Minolta XD11 with Kodak Portra 160 and Kodak Brownie Model 2E with Kodak TMAX 100 of which I'll have to finish up those soon. :duh:
I know what you mean, I have the same problem. Actually just bought another vintage film camera two days ago... damn internet make it so easy to buy things now. :icon_lol:
Take care,
Buddy :thumb:
Hi SET Man,
talking about films,
I used in the past the Kodak T-Max 100 and the Kodak Vericolor VPS160
those two films where my favorite.
I also use Kodak VHC (Vericolor high contrast) film for flower, very high saturation
but I've only used a few rolls because soon after it was discountinued.
Guy 13
Sorry, back to normal scheduling.
-
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.
I would generally agree with most of the points, but there ARE phones that capture RAW files, namely LG G4/G5 which feature the same 16 MP and bright f/1.8 aperture camera/lens, which is the main reason I went with the LG G4 for my phone. I am generally quite happy with the photos it produces. Its manual mode with manual white balance, etc, come in very handy when other phone cams struggle. When there are issues due to extremely low ambient light, I can easily clean up the RAW/DNG files in post-processing.
Sure, I would love to magically have my Canon 5D III full frame camera with the EF85 f/1.2 lens pop up, only when I need it when I am out. But since carrying all that gear all the time when I am out for casual outing reduces the enjoyment, the BEST camera is the one you have on hand, so I sure am glad the better phone cams these days have come a long way.. :thumb:
-
deleted
-
But if you give someone that nice $1k camera/lens combo to someone who only take crappy photos with their phone, without artistically feel for good pics and have no intent or interested in learning to use the camera or basic photography know how than you will still get crappy photos from them but they will be sharper and higher res with better camera.
I suppose I was assuming that someone might care about the photos. (Otherwise, why take them?) In your example, at least there is a better chance that the photos could be fixed (depending on the problem) - I suppose that's part of what drove me to post in the first place, that once the phone has worked its "magic", that's it, you can't do anything about it.
-
Well, without a cheap phone camera I would have never have taken this cool photo on my way to work.
(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=150297)
-
I suppose I was assuming that someone might care about the photos. (Otherwise, why take them?) In your example, at least there is a better chance that the photos could be fixed (depending on the problem) - I suppose that's part of what drove me to post in the first place, that once the phone has worked its "magic", that's it, you can't do anything about it.
The in-camera "magic" performed on what would otherwise be a perfectly good photo is half the reason people have such bad results. Just say no to in-camera processing.
Now, the average Joe is as unlikely to know that as he is unlikely to avoid mp3s, but since presumably someone who reads this forum knows better, well, you know better.
-
The in-camera "magic" performed on what would otherwise be a perfectly good photo is half the reason people have such bad results. Just say no to in-camera processing.
I thought that it was cool that I could crop my photo above on my phone.
-
The in-camera "magic" performed on what would otherwise be a perfectly good photo is half the reason people have such bad results. Just say no to in-camera processing.
I put "magic" in quotes being sarcastic - I meant to include not just processing (esp. weird color schemes) but also completely unavoidable factors related to small sensor and slow lens, like limited DOF and dynamic range (the latter especially).
-
Ha. If you really want to be cynical, the real question is why bother capturing the same "special moments" and memories that aren't really all that unique or special?
Lots of people have kids, they all have the same milestones. Who really cares what other people think about someone else's kids? My childhood photos were taken on 126, 110, or even disc! Egad, my parents must not have cared at all! They used super8 with no audio! What did I sound like? I'll never know. The tragedy and shame!!!
I don't think anyone should pay $1,k for gear they don't know how to use. They already don't know how to use their $700+ iPhone. Why make them suffer more?
A better camera makes them a better photographer like a better guitar makes me a better musician.
We choose to see things as negative neutral or positive. There is no "right" in this discussion. Just personal perspectives.
I am tired of phones too. But I don't spread my cynicism to crtiquing the choice of camera for family snapshots that suck like they always have; due to lack of vision, skill, and/or creativity.
Carl
-
Phone photos can be quite engaging since most who have phones carry them with them and can shoot a pic at a moment's notice.
Yeah there are shortcomings, but cheap film cameras in the wrong hands were just as bad.
Sometimes, I'm glad I have a phone on me. (iPhone 6, uploaded directly from the phone to here)
(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=159767)
(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=159769)
-
My cousin showed me this really cool app on his phone the other day, where you could just move the phone in an arc and end up with a full panorama (up to IIUC nearly 360).
Uncle!
-
This was a nice scene one random afternoon.
iPhone 6.
(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=160068)
It was these kinds of shots that made me get rid of my Nikon P7700 and Canon and other cameras.
It's just fine for cool snaps.
For my pro-level prepared shots, I'll go full frame digital with fancy glass. ;) Or pay someone with that stuff, so I can be in the shots!
:)
Carl
-
I used to be heavily involved in photography as a hobbyist, but eventually sold everything off, so now I don't own a camera anymore. When I'm ready to upgrade my cell phone, I'm gonna look for one that has exceptional camera features and I'll consider adding a lens or two.
-
Long term cost=0
Opportunities for that unexpected shot...numerous.
(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=160156)