3 ms·

This reads like a non sequitur to me. You start by saying that you saw some really nice reproductions of photos in some old photography magazines – great. Then

by foldr 4y ago

This reads like a non sequitur to me. You start by saying that you saw some really nice reproductions of photos in some old photography magazines – great. Then you say that skilled photographers will continue to prefer various cameras to the iPhone 12 Pro Max. Both statements may be true, but where's the connection between them? I mean, if subject matter, body language, light and composition are the really important things (and I agree!), then who cares which camera you're using anyway?

nisegami 4y ago
It's worse than non-sequitur imo, it's contradictory. I expected GP to end his reply saying that those shots were all done with worse cameras than an iPhone on worse display mediums (old magazines) so there's more to be gained from other aspects of photography than upgrading from an iPhone camera.
vr46 4y ago
Well, I'm adding to the conversation here rather than wanting to directly rebut the Reddit post, which is best done on Reddit anyway. The original poster has written - at length - about a very small attribute, detail, which is not entirely the responsibility of the sensor but they equate this to image quality. Detail isn't some universal hallmark of image quality and nor is dynamic range, and I don't think I want to be dragged into arguing anything at the level of the Reddit poster because it's all wrong, it's all apples and oranges and I cannot comprehend the confusion of ideas that leads them to write that post. Cameras are an external translator of all the electromagnetic waves going on around us, a little like human senses, producing snapshots of what we think is reality. Different people's senses translate things slightly differently, because they are differently sensitive to emotion, or sound, or smell, and camera hardware varies along similar lines, but perhaps to colour and light. These differences are cast aside in the post/rant, not explored, a very one-dimensional train of thought with accompanying potshots at supposed camera snobs and various insults at other commenters. On the point about who cares what camera you're using anyway, it's true to some extent, but sometimes I may be interested in some technical detail that relates to an aspect of a photograph. I keep a lens around because it renders hair in a magical way that no other lens I use does. Gear sometimes has a visual attribute that is quite interesting.
- foldr 4y ago
  The reddit post addresses detail, dynamic range and low light performance (and depth of field control, to a lesser extent). These are the things you’d expect to be the main advantages of a camera with bigger sensor, such as a DSLR, so it makes sense to focus on them. Subjective preferences for the ‘look’ of a particular camera or lens obviously exist. However, as they are subjective, there is not much to be said about them when comparing equipment or advising someone on which equipment to use. Anyone can just look at some sample shots and decide for themselves. In this post you play down the importance of detail (“a very small attribute, detail”), whereas in your original post you describe being “simply gobsmacked at not just the content but also the quality of resolution…” of the photos you saw. You seem very sure that there must be something inferior about phone cameras, but you're frankly all over the place when it comes to saying what this thing actually is.

by foldr 4y ago

nisegami 4y ago

It's worse than non-sequitur imo, it's contradictory. I expected GP to end his reply saying that those shots were all done with worse cameras than an iPhone on worse display mediums (old magazines) so there's more to be gained from other aspects of photography than upgrading from an iPhone camera.

vr46 4y ago

Well, I'm adding to the conversation here rather than wanting to directly rebut the Reddit post, which is best done on Reddit anyway. The original poster has written - at length - about a very small attribute, detail, which is not entirely the responsibility of the sensor but they equate this to image quality. Detail isn't some universal hallmark of image quality and nor is dynamic range, and I don't think I want to be dragged into arguing anything at the level of the Reddit poster because it's all wrong, it's all apples and oranges and I cannot comprehend the confusion of ideas that leads them to write that post. Cameras are an external translator of all the electromagnetic waves going on around us, a little like human senses, producing snapshots of what we think is reality. Different people's senses translate things slightly differently, because they are differently sensitive to emotion, or sound, or smell, and camera hardware varies along similar lines, but perhaps to colour and light. These differences are cast aside in the post/rant, not explored, a very one-dimensional train of thought with accompanying potshots at supposed camera snobs and various insults at other commenters. On the point about who cares what camera you're using anyway, it's true to some extent, but sometimes I may be interested in some technical detail that relates to an aspect of a photograph. I keep a lens around because it renders hair in a magical way that no other lens I use does. Gear sometimes has a visual attribute that is quite interesting.

foldr 4y ago
The reddit post addresses detail, dynamic range and low light performance (and depth of field control, to a lesser extent). These are the things you’d expect to be the main advantages of a camera with bigger sensor, such as a DSLR, so it makes sense to focus on them. Subjective preferences for the ‘look’ of a particular camera or lens obviously exist. However, as they are subjective, there is not much to be said about them when comparing equipment or advising someone on which equipment to use. Anyone can just look at some sample shots and decide for themselves. In this post you play down the importance of detail (“a very small attribute, detail”), whereas in your original post you describe being “simply gobsmacked at not just the content but also the quality of resolution…” of the photos you saw. You seem very sure that there must be something inferior about phone cameras, but you're frankly all over the place when it comes to saying what this thing actually is.