3 ms·

Yep. As any photographer or videographer will tell you, it's not the camera that makes the difference, it's the person operating it. Do they understand the imp

by rchaud 3y ago

Yep. As any photographer or videographer will tell you, it's not the camera that makes the difference, it's the person operating it. Do they understand the importance of lighting? Can they get around the technical limitations of the device? We all know that Apple demos take place under the most regimented of conditions. Jobs' iPhone demo had full reception bars hard-coded into it. I imagine the iPhone cameras were used in similarly generous conditions.

seec 3y ago
I hate this type of argument; it is very often nonsense. Sure, someone is not good because of its tools, but those enable him to be good it is not an either/or relation. A lot of the time, some skills are indissociable from the necessary tooling, and it does not matter how good you are if you do not get the tool to enable it. I had this argument with a friend about darts. I recently started playing with him and he has a lot more experience than I do, thus he is quite a bit better than me no matter what darts we use. But after we broke some darts, I decided to look at what the pro uses and buy something similar. He said the same thing about skills not requiring a particular dart. Yet since we have had the new darts, we are both more consistent in our shots and hit the targets way more often, the consistency is extremely obvious considering how grouped the darts land compared to cheaper one. I did not become magically better than he is, he still wins more often than I do. However, with those darts I improved a lot more than he did and if the end goal is proficiency, it seems logical to use as close the "end game" tooling as is reasonable for training. Sometimes people feel like others are trying to minimize their achievements, but this is not about that at all. The tools are a major part of the road to expertise and anyone pretending otherwise is lying and I would be very suspicious. It reads like: "yeah I achieved my skill with this high level, performant tool, but just use this much worse one, it will be fine." I feel like it is disingenuous and most of the time, people trying to prevent new competitions in their fields. And this is exactly why Apple's marketing is extremely deceptive at best. Sure, if you are an accomplished videographer and understand all the limitations coming from working with such a tool, you will work around/with those limitations, because you already know. But if you are starting out or still an amateur the iPhone is a poor choice as it will make your work harder than it would be with a more specialized camera (that can be had for cheaper than a brand-new iPhone, that most people do not need...).
klodolph 3y ago
I think beyond “it’s not the camera that makes the difference” we need to have a discussion about lighting. A shitty camera and shitty lens in fantastic lighting will give good results. The best camera with the best lens in awful lighting will give bad results. Kind of like microphones, that way. Like how the Apple video was shot on an iPhone (except it had great lighting and a ton of production work), there are hit songs with parts recorded on iPhone. They aren’t advertised like that. But it happens. The advantage of the iPhone is that it’s already in your pocket, and for something as intimate as singing, that proves to be a major, major advantage. Your producer may try to get you to recreate that beautiful performance in the studio, but audio quality doesn’t matter as much when you compare the recording of a good performance to the recording of a much better performance.
- Retric 3y ago
  The amount a good camera can tolerate bad lighting has significantly improved over time, as has the minimum quality of an average camera. Not that long ago you needed a great camera and great lighting to get a great result, now there’s a lot more flexibility available. Decent camera + great lighting or decent lighting + great camera both work well enough for the general public not to notice anything wrong.
  - Espressosaurus 3y ago
    A lot depends on how you're viewing the content too. Lots of stuff that looks good on a tiny phone screen looks like trash on a monitor. And forget about printing, not that anyone other than dedicated photographers do that these days.
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    I think people are using "lighting" two different ways in this conversation. Assuming there are decent light levels to begin with, "lighting" means the play of light and shadow that makes your subject pop, that makes their face look like it has depth, then generally makes everything look attractive. This has nothing to do with your camera, and cameras have not gotten better at this, because cameras are irrelevant to it. When TV shows are lit well today, this is the lighting that's usually being talked about. The other thing "lighting" means is "light that isn't too low". This was harsh studio lighting in the 1920's for example, and why even in the 1960's studio scenes couldn't be "naturally" lit -- and which was a major focus of lighting TV shows well in the 1960's, for example. But which we don't worry about anymore -- TV shows are generally shot at "real life" brightness levels today. The larger point is that today, when we say that it's the lighting that matters for a shot more than the camera, we're usually referring to the first type I'm describing -- the artistic lighting. Cameras have not gotten any "better" at that. What has happened is that they've enabled shots at low lighting that weren't possible before, but that's only relevant in low-light conditions -- and you still need to distinguish between good/bad artistic lighting even when the light is low.
yreg 3y ago
>it's not the camera that makes the difference, it's the person operating it Mostly yes, but the phone cameras are easier to operate (in a way to get really nice photos) than more traditional cameras. My mom had this exact remark about her iPhone (and her ability to take nice photos) on a recent vacation.
TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
This is categorically not true. If it were true professional photographers wouldn't waste six figures on high-end equipment. Not only there are visible differences - smoothness, sharpness, colour balance, the overall look - but some effects and looks are impossible without expensive tools. Especially in difficult light, or challenging shooting situations. And then there's the workflow. The difference is more that amateurs and prosumers never reach the point where the equipment limits their talent. Top professionals reach that point fairly quickly because they just can't do some of the things they want to do. The iPhone is no different. It's a decent video camera and may be starting to edge against some of the mirrorless/SLR prosumer cams. But it doesn't have features that are standard on ARRI and RED. You can make some videos with it, and if you have talent they'll be good. But you can't make all currently possible videos with it. No-compromise professionals are going to understand the difference.

by rchaud 3y ago

seec 3y ago

I hate this type of argument; it is very often nonsense. Sure, someone is not good because of its tools, but those enable him to be good it is not an either/or relation. A lot of the time, some skills are indissociable from the necessary tooling, and it does not matter how good you are if you do not get the tool to enable it. I had this argument with a friend about darts. I recently started playing with him and he has a lot more experience than I do, thus he is quite a bit better than me no matter what darts we use. But after we broke some darts, I decided to look at what the pro uses and buy something similar. He said the same thing about skills not requiring a particular dart. Yet since we have had the new darts, we are both more consistent in our shots and hit the targets way more often, the consistency is extremely obvious considering how grouped the darts land compared to cheaper one. I did not become magically better than he is, he still wins more often than I do. However, with those darts I improved a lot more than he did and if the end goal is proficiency, it seems logical to use as close the "end game" tooling as is reasonable for training. Sometimes people feel like others are trying to minimize their achievements, but this is not about that at all. The tools are a major part of the road to expertise and anyone pretending otherwise is lying and I would be very suspicious. It reads like: "yeah I achieved my skill with this high level, performant tool, but just use this much worse one, it will be fine." I feel like it is disingenuous and most of the time, people trying to prevent new competitions in their fields. And this is exactly why Apple's marketing is extremely deceptive at best. Sure, if you are an accomplished videographer and understand all the limitations coming from working with such a tool, you will work around/with those limitations, because you already know. But if you are starting out or still an amateur the iPhone is a poor choice as it will make your work harder than it would be with a more specialized camera (that can be had for cheaper than a brand-new iPhone, that most people do not need...).

klodolph 3y ago

I think beyond “it’s not the camera that makes the difference” we need to have a discussion about lighting. A shitty camera and shitty lens in fantastic lighting will give good results. The best camera with the best lens in awful lighting will give bad results. Kind of like microphones, that way. Like how the Apple video was shot on an iPhone (except it had great lighting and a ton of production work), there are hit songs with parts recorded on iPhone. They aren’t advertised like that. But it happens. The advantage of the iPhone is that it’s already in your pocket, and for something as intimate as singing, that proves to be a major, major advantage. Your producer may try to get you to recreate that beautiful performance in the studio, but audio quality doesn’t matter as much when you compare the recording of a good performance to the recording of a much better performance.

Retric 3y ago
The amount a good camera can tolerate bad lighting has significantly improved over time, as has the minimum quality of an average camera. Not that long ago you needed a great camera and great lighting to get a great result, now there’s a lot more flexibility available. Decent camera + great lighting or decent lighting + great camera both work well enough for the general public not to notice anything wrong.
- Espressosaurus 3y ago
  A lot depends on how you're viewing the content too. Lots of stuff that looks good on a tiny phone screen looks like trash on a monitor. And forget about printing, not that anyone other than dedicated photographers do that these days.
- crazygringo 3y ago
  I think people are using "lighting" two different ways in this conversation. Assuming there are decent light levels to begin with, "lighting" means the play of light and shadow that makes your subject pop, that makes their face look like it has depth, then generally makes everything look attractive. This has nothing to do with your camera, and cameras have not gotten better at this, because cameras are irrelevant to it. When TV shows are lit well today, this is the lighting that's usually being talked about. The other thing "lighting" means is "light that isn't too low". This was harsh studio lighting in the 1920's for example, and why even in the 1960's studio scenes couldn't be "naturally" lit -- and which was a major focus of lighting TV shows well in the 1960's, for example. But which we don't worry about anymore -- TV shows are generally shot at "real life" brightness levels today. The larger point is that today, when we say that it's the lighting that matters for a shot more than the camera, we're usually referring to the first type I'm describing -- the artistic lighting. Cameras have not gotten any "better" at that. What has happened is that they've enabled shots at low lighting that weren't possible before, but that's only relevant in low-light conditions -- and you still need to distinguish between good/bad artistic lighting even when the light is low.

yreg 3y ago

>it's not the camera that makes the difference, it's the person operating it Mostly yes, but the phone cameras are easier to operate (in a way to get really nice photos) than more traditional cameras. My mom had this exact remark about her iPhone (and her ability to take nice photos) on a recent vacation.

TheOtherHobbes 3y ago

This is categorically not true. If it were true professional photographers wouldn't waste six figures on high-end equipment. Not only there are visible differences - smoothness, sharpness, colour balance, the overall look - but some effects and looks are impossible without expensive tools. Especially in difficult light, or challenging shooting situations. And then there's the workflow. The difference is more that amateurs and prosumers never reach the point where the equipment limits their talent. Top professionals reach that point fairly quickly because they just can't do some of the things they want to do. The iPhone is no different. It's a decent video camera and may be starting to edge against some of the mirrorless/SLR prosumer cams. But it doesn't have features that are standard on ARRI and RED. You can make some videos with it, and if you have talent they'll be good. But you can't make all currently possible videos with it. No-compromise professionals are going to understand the difference.