3 ms·

> Sure, but how often do you have them on your person in time to take candid photos? Totally bad argument in justifying phone cameras. If you are having the ex

by subhro 4y ago

> Sure, but how often do you have them on your person in time to take candid photos? Totally bad argument in justifying phone cameras. If you are having the expectation of getting photos of similar quality as shown on the page, my question is, how often do you have a high quality ring light on your person along with a stable tripod?

Karawebnetwork 4y ago
A lot of reptiles, fishes and insects are in vivariums that already provide a good light source. For wild animals, you are fine without a light since they are mostly outdoor and unless you're planning for it chances are that you'll stumble on them during daylight. Personally, I have a lot of ring lights because beauty and makeup brands give them for free with a lot of products. But even without all of this, you can get great footage and photos. Take a look at this spider that was walking around my sink for example. The phone (pixel 3, already quite aged) did not have a lot of trouble to focus on it even if we are talking about a small spider that is only a few milimiter in size. It's a video so focus comes and goes but the parts where the focus is set on the spider are quite clear (ignoring the upload compression). I am no artist and was focusing more on the spider's behavior. Someone who is an artist could have snapped great macros at that moment. https://photos.app.goo.gl/z2RALoGeXiAo6uHG6 https://photos.app.goo.gl/z2RALoGeXiAo6uHG6 Another example is this queen ant when it was in it's founding stage. The nanitics (first workers) are small even when it comes to ant scale. You can see them in great details and can even see the translucent parts of their gaster with the sugar water inside. Again, I focused on the behavior more than the art. But an artist could have taken a photo instead of a video with great results. https://photos.app.goo.gl/dmzMXLqG5v1cfFKx9 https://photos.app.goo.gl/dmzMXLqG5v1cfFKx9 Both of those were candid moments that I happened to snap because I had my phone in my pocket while my 4k camera and my canon reflex were in their box in my desk.
kemayo 4y ago
It's a great argument for camera phones, because you don't need added lighting or stabilization to get decent shots. The pictures you take are better than the ones you never took, and if you take a lot of pictures you're more likely to stumble onto a great one even as a total amateur. I think the pictures on that page are aspirational, to be sure... but my own experience with this camera system suggest that they're not out of reach. Here's one of the first macro pictures I took with an iPhone 13 Pro a day or two after I got it, completely without stabilization, on a momentary stop while I was walking my dog: https://imgur.com/uux8RNS https://imgur.com/uux8RNS (I'm not saying I'm a good photographer; this is just for technical purposes. It's also unedited.) Compare that to the "leaf illumination" picture in the article. The professional's picture is noticeably better, of course. But it's more a matter of framing and choice of subject than any hardware limitation.

by subhro 4y ago

Karawebnetwork 4y ago

A lot of reptiles, fishes and insects are in vivariums that already provide a good light source. For wild animals, you are fine without a light since they are mostly outdoor and unless you're planning for it chances are that you'll stumble on them during daylight. Personally, I have a lot of ring lights because beauty and makeup brands give them for free with a lot of products. But even without all of this, you can get great footage and photos. Take a look at this spider that was walking around my sink for example. The phone (pixel 3, already quite aged) did not have a lot of trouble to focus on it even if we are talking about a small spider that is only a few milimiter in size. It's a video so focus comes and goes but the parts where the focus is set on the spider are quite clear (ignoring the upload compression). I am no artist and was focusing more on the spider's behavior. Someone who is an artist could have snapped great macros at that moment. https://photos.app.goo.gl/z2RALoGeXiAo6uHG6 https://photos.app.goo.gl/z2RALoGeXiAo6uHG6 Another example is this queen ant when it was in it's founding stage. The nanitics (first workers) are small even when it comes to ant scale. You can see them in great details and can even see the translucent parts of their gaster with the sugar water inside. Again, I focused on the behavior more than the art. But an artist could have taken a photo instead of a video with great results. https://photos.app.goo.gl/dmzMXLqG5v1cfFKx9 https://photos.app.goo.gl/dmzMXLqG5v1cfFKx9 Both of those were candid moments that I happened to snap because I had my phone in my pocket while my 4k camera and my canon reflex were in their box in my desk.

kemayo 4y ago

It's a great argument for camera phones, because you don't need added lighting or stabilization to get decent shots. The pictures you take are better than the ones you never took, and if you take a lot of pictures you're more likely to stumble onto a great one even as a total amateur. I think the pictures on that page are aspirational, to be sure... but my own experience with this camera system suggest that they're not out of reach. Here's one of the first macro pictures I took with an iPhone 13 Pro a day or two after I got it, completely without stabilization, on a momentary stop while I was walking my dog: https://imgur.com/uux8RNS https://imgur.com/uux8RNS (I'm not saying I'm a good photographer; this is just for technical purposes. It's also unedited.) Compare that to the "leaf illumination" picture in the article. The professional's picture is noticeably better, of course. But it's more a matter of framing and choice of subject than any hardware limitation.