4 ms·

The APO part doesn't matter, but the flat field of focus of a macro lens might have relevant there given the subject. Exotic gear only matters if your're tryin

The APO part doesn't matter, but the flat field of focus of a macro lens might have relevant there given the subject. Exotic gear only matters if your're trying to do something hard (for example big prints from 35mm film or extreme macro or high speed photography...) and I say this as a Contax/Leica/Hasselblad shooter/gear snob. Merely decent gear is important - smartphone pictures are universally awful when given a closer look.

microcolonel 8y ago
> ...smartphone pictures are universally awful when given a closer look. Which is another way of saying: smartphones tend to take pictures which are acceptable or good under a smaller set of viewing conditions than pictures taken by a skilled photographer operating an optically/electronically advantaged camera in equivalent circumstances.
- frostburg 8y ago
  No, you don't need something very advanced. You can take better pictures with consumer film cameras from the forties. The issue with smartphone pictures is that digital sensors cannot be made that small with good results yet; dynamic range is garbage especially if you move from base iso (which is often 32 or so) and even in optimal circumstances forcing your phone to take a correct exposure is generally very frustrating even with "manual" modes.
  - microcolonel 8y ago
    > You can take better pictures with consumer film cameras from the forties. That's not exactly a fair comparison. In a film camera, you're essentially replacing the "sensor" every time you add a new roll. '40s film (largely) has terrible dynamic range (far worse than an upmarket smartphone camera), is incredibly noisy under conditions smartphones can handle gracefully. Color film compatible with common cameras had only existed since 1930, and it remained disappointing well into the '70s.
    - jacobush 8y ago
      People tend to forget that say, Kodak Portra 400 is a technological marvel and pretty recent too. (2010)
jdietrich 8y ago
>smartphone pictures are universally awful when given a closer look. A few years ago, I would have agreed with you. The latest generation of flagship phone cameras (iPhone 8, Pixel 2, Galaxy S9) are comparable in quality to a good compact camera. I really can't see much difference between a modern smartphone and an old favourite like the Powershot S120. You wouldn't want to make big prints, but you can get genuinely good images from a flagship smartphone, especially with a third-party app like Camera+ or ProCamera.
- lmilcin 8y ago
  Smartphone cameras are excellent quality. The pictures are bad because statistical user is a person who never tried to become better photographer. There is A LOT of excellent smartphone photos, they are just being drowned in deluge of random photos.
  - frostburg 8y ago
    I'm not in any way implying bad faith here, but have you ever used a good camera?
    - lmilcin 8y ago
      Depends what you call good camera. For the past couple of years I have been using Nikon D600 with Nikkor 17-35 f2.8, Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 VRII and Nikkor 50 f1.4 as my workhorse. Camera doesn't mean much. I give my camera to random people and guess what, I get random photos exactly as if they were done with a smartphone. It is not the camera, it is the photographer that takes the picture. The picture is the light field that was present at the moment of taking it -- your job as a photographer is to create or find an interesting light field and the camera is just technical means of preserving it. CAMERA WILL NOT MAKE YOUR PHOTO INTERESTING. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGsmVw4tCWY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGsmVw4tCWY
      - frostburg 8y ago
        That's some very good practical gear. My inner snob would say that the 50/1.4 is no Summicron, that I would rather use a 135/2 Apo-Sonnar than the (actually not cheaper) 70-200 and that retrofocus wide angles meant to work well with digital sensors are inferior in the more rarefied markers of image quality to non-telecentric designs like the biogons, hologons and super-angulons of old. This doesn't matter, you probably know that you cannot obtain the same results from a smartphone camera (which doesn't mean that one cannot take an artistically valid picture with a phone, it's just going to be technically inferior). We're not talking about bad photographers here, we're talking about someone that knows what he's doing trying to use a smartphone camera seriously. All the skill and knowledge can't do much against rolling shutter or banding in gradients that should be smooth, etc.

microcolonel 8y ago

> ...smartphone pictures are universally awful when given a closer look. Which is another way of saying: smartphones tend to take pictures which are acceptable or good under a smaller set of viewing conditions than pictures taken by a skilled photographer operating an optically/electronically advantaged camera in equivalent circumstances.

frostburg 8y ago
No, you don't need something very advanced. You can take better pictures with consumer film cameras from the forties. The issue with smartphone pictures is that digital sensors cannot be made that small with good results yet; dynamic range is garbage especially if you move from base iso (which is often 32 or so) and even in optimal circumstances forcing your phone to take a correct exposure is generally very frustrating even with "manual" modes.
- microcolonel 8y ago
  > You can take better pictures with consumer film cameras from the forties. That's not exactly a fair comparison. In a film camera, you're essentially replacing the "sensor" every time you add a new roll. '40s film (largely) has terrible dynamic range (far worse than an upmarket smartphone camera), is incredibly noisy under conditions smartphones can handle gracefully. Color film compatible with common cameras had only existed since 1930, and it remained disappointing well into the '70s.
  - jacobush 8y ago
    People tend to forget that say, Kodak Portra 400 is a technological marvel and pretty recent too. (2010)

jdietrich 8y ago

>smartphone pictures are universally awful when given a closer look. A few years ago, I would have agreed with you. The latest generation of flagship phone cameras (iPhone 8, Pixel 2, Galaxy S9) are comparable in quality to a good compact camera. I really can't see much difference between a modern smartphone and an old favourite like the Powershot S120. You wouldn't want to make big prints, but you can get genuinely good images from a flagship smartphone, especially with a third-party app like Camera+ or ProCamera.

lmilcin 8y ago
Smartphone cameras are excellent quality. The pictures are bad because statistical user is a person who never tried to become better photographer. There is A LOT of excellent smartphone photos, they are just being drowned in deluge of random photos.
- frostburg 8y ago
  I'm not in any way implying bad faith here, but have you ever used a good camera?
  - lmilcin 8y ago
    Depends what you call good camera. For the past couple of years I have been using Nikon D600 with Nikkor 17-35 f2.8, Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 VRII and Nikkor 50 f1.4 as my workhorse. Camera doesn't mean much. I give my camera to random people and guess what, I get random photos exactly as if they were done with a smartphone. It is not the camera, it is the photographer that takes the picture. The picture is the light field that was present at the moment of taking it -- your job as a photographer is to create or find an interesting light field and the camera is just technical means of preserving it. CAMERA WILL NOT MAKE YOUR PHOTO INTERESTING. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGsmVw4tCWY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGsmVw4tCWY
    - frostburg 8y ago
      That's some very good practical gear. My inner snob would say that the 50/1.4 is no Summicron, that I would rather use a 135/2 Apo-Sonnar than the (actually not cheaper) 70-200 and that retrofocus wide angles meant to work well with digital sensors are inferior in the more rarefied markers of image quality to non-telecentric designs like the biogons, hologons and super-angulons of old. This doesn't matter, you probably know that you cannot obtain the same results from a smartphone camera (which doesn't mean that one cannot take an artistically valid picture with a phone, it's just going to be technically inferior). We're not talking about bad photographers here, we're talking about someone that knows what he's doing trying to use a smartphone camera seriously. All the skill and knowledge can't do much against rolling shutter or banding in gradients that should be smooth, etc.