9 ms·

> An iPhone 14 enables you to take technically superior photos to the photos that professional photographers were taking only a couple of decades ago. I really

> An iPhone 14 enables you to take technically superior photos to the photos that professional photographers were taking only a couple of decades ago. I really don’t agree, and honestly it depends on what categories you’re judging it on. Film cameras from 20 years ago probably have better dynamic range than your phone. They probably have comparable resolution. You have a lot of options with lenses, so you can get lots of different looks. Full frame size lets in lots of light. Photography is all about light - no amount of processing is going to make up for the size of a sensor on an iPhone. Let’s not even bring medium format into the discussion. Hell, I’d say they could take photos that were technically superior to iphones over 100 years ago with tintypes and such. (Film was actually lower resolution than what came before it. ) There are lots of stunning portraiture, with a lot of clarity, from the start of photography that would be impossible to replicate with modern cameras.

foldr 4y ago
Have you ever used a 35mm film camera? I’ve taken loads of photos on 35mm film because I enjoy the process, but the technical quality in terms of resolution and dynamic range is clearly inferior to that of a modern cell phone camera - even if you are using very high qualify scans or wet printing. And the difference in color accuracy is even more stark. The amount of light that’s let in depends entirely on the aperture diameter, not the size of the sensor. Sometimes you can use a larger diameter on a 35mm camera if you don’t need a lot of depth of field; but equally, modern digital sensors are usable at ISOs where film is not. The acid test here is night photography. If you want to take night portraits, you're going to have a far better time of it using a modern cell phone than a 35mm SLR with, say, an f1.8 lens. Even with a wide aperture lens and 400 ISO film, you'd be lucky to get a shutter speed faster than 1/15th of a second. You can of course get more resolution with a larger format (I enjoy 4x5 myself). However, using medium or large format film cameras is a massive step down in terms of practicality and rules out entire genres of photography that phones excel at. I enjoy lugging my 4x5 film camera around and I very occasionally I get a nice photo out of it. Even when I do, the version I take on my phone is inferior in terms of resolution (not actually that important) but better in every other respect. You can drive yourself insane trying to get a 4x5 negative that doesn't have any uneven development or scratches. The bottom line is that a modern cell phone is a vastly superior general purpose photographic tool to anything that was available in the 1990s. We all (in rich parts of the world) have access to cameras that professional photographers would have killed for a few decades ago. Thus, it annoys me when people compare these incredible devices unfavourably with "real cameras". It's pure gatekeeping.
- appletrotter 4y ago
  > Have you ever used a 35mm film camera? Yep. > The amount of light that’s let in depends entirely on the aperture diameter, not the size of the sensor. That’s wrong. The size of the sensor, the aperture size (and of course the distance between the two) are all factors that together on this. Saying the sensor size is the reason is also wrong, but the size of the sensor is a factor in the equation - and the sensor being so small forces manufacturers to go with wide open apertures. It’s not ideal for every shot. > Even with a wide aperture lens and 400 ISO film If I was shooting at night, why would I use 400 iso? > You can drive yourself insane trying to get a 4x5 negative that doesn't have any uneven development or scratches. Sounds like a good time for a hobbyist. > Thus, it annoys me when people compare these incredible devices unfavourably with "real cameras". It's pure gatekeeping. I’m not the one gatekeeping. Cell phone cameras are real cameras. They’re just different. You say it’s good for general shooting, I’m talking about professional and hobbyist use. I will say though, it’s just an interesting fact AFAICT - digital cameras are still behind - or are only just hitting parity - in terms of dynamic range. https://petapixel.com/2019/05/02/film-vs-digital-this-is-how-dynamic-range-compares/ https://petapixel.com/2019/05/02/film-vs-digital-this-is-how...
  - foldr 4y ago
    >That’s wrong. The size of the sensor, the aperture size (and of course the distance between the two) are all factors that together on this. For a given angle of view, the amount of light incident on the sensor depends solely on the diameter of the aperture (the absolute diameter, not the f number). You can see this visually in the comment I made here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33426540 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33426540 If you really want to think of it in terms of a combination of sensor size and f number, you can do so. But it's easier just to look at the size of the hole the light is going through – which not surprisingly, determines how much light ends up being collected, once you fix the angle of view. >If I was shooting at night, why would I use 400 iso? Because films with higher ISOs are unacceptably grainy for most uses.
    - appletrotter 4y ago

foldr 4y ago

Have you ever used a 35mm film camera? I’ve taken loads of photos on 35mm film because I enjoy the process, but the technical quality in terms of resolution and dynamic range is clearly inferior to that of a modern cell phone camera - even if you are using very high qualify scans or wet printing. And the difference in color accuracy is even more stark. The amount of light that’s let in depends entirely on the aperture diameter, not the size of the sensor. Sometimes you can use a larger diameter on a 35mm camera if you don’t need a lot of depth of field; but equally, modern digital sensors are usable at ISOs where film is not. The acid test here is night photography. If you want to take night portraits, you're going to have a far better time of it using a modern cell phone than a 35mm SLR with, say, an f1.8 lens. Even with a wide aperture lens and 400 ISO film, you'd be lucky to get a shutter speed faster than 1/15th of a second. You can of course get more resolution with a larger format (I enjoy 4x5 myself). However, using medium or large format film cameras is a massive step down in terms of practicality and rules out entire genres of photography that phones excel at. I enjoy lugging my 4x5 film camera around and I very occasionally I get a nice photo out of it. Even when I do, the version I take on my phone is inferior in terms of resolution (not actually that important) but better in every other respect. You can drive yourself insane trying to get a 4x5 negative that doesn't have any uneven development or scratches. The bottom line is that a modern cell phone is a vastly superior general purpose photographic tool to anything that was available in the 1990s. We all (in rich parts of the world) have access to cameras that professional photographers would have killed for a few decades ago. Thus, it annoys me when people compare these incredible devices unfavourably with "real cameras". It's pure gatekeeping.

appletrotter 4y ago
> Have you ever used a 35mm film camera? Yep. > The amount of light that’s let in depends entirely on the aperture diameter, not the size of the sensor. That’s wrong. The size of the sensor, the aperture size (and of course the distance between the two) are all factors that together on this. Saying the sensor size is the reason is also wrong, but the size of the sensor is a factor in the equation - and the sensor being so small forces manufacturers to go with wide open apertures. It’s not ideal for every shot. > Even with a wide aperture lens and 400 ISO film If I was shooting at night, why would I use 400 iso? > You can drive yourself insane trying to get a 4x5 negative that doesn't have any uneven development or scratches. Sounds like a good time for a hobbyist. > Thus, it annoys me when people compare these incredible devices unfavourably with "real cameras". It's pure gatekeeping. I’m not the one gatekeeping. Cell phone cameras are real cameras. They’re just different. You say it’s good for general shooting, I’m talking about professional and hobbyist use. I will say though, it’s just an interesting fact AFAICT - digital cameras are still behind - or are only just hitting parity - in terms of dynamic range. https://petapixel.com/2019/05/02/film-vs-digital-this-is-how-dynamic-range-compares/ https://petapixel.com/2019/05/02/film-vs-digital-this-is-how...
- foldr 4y ago
  >That’s wrong. The size of the sensor, the aperture size (and of course the distance between the two) are all factors that together on this. For a given angle of view, the amount of light incident on the sensor depends solely on the diameter of the aperture (the absolute diameter, not the f number). You can see this visually in the comment I made here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33426540 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33426540 If you really want to think of it in terms of a combination of sensor size and f number, you can do so. But it's easier just to look at the size of the hole the light is going through – which not surprisingly, determines how much light ends up being collected, once you fix the angle of view. >If I was shooting at night, why would I use 400 iso? Because films with higher ISOs are unacceptably grainy for most uses.
  - appletrotter 4y ago