10 ms·

> "The other group are people who argue the details of a phase detection autofocus in the Canon DSLR and the 51 point field autofocus of the Nikon DSLR and can'

> "The other group are people who argue the details of a phase detection autofocus in the Canon DSLR and the 51 point field autofocus of the Nikon DSLR and can't believe that the handset makers are allowed to actually call these things 'cameras' in their advertisements." This demographic can be safely ignored. The people who get the most up in arms about the "purity" of photographic tools are also the ones producing the least work. They're the ones who buy $10,000 worth of bodies and lenses but can never go beyond photos of their local park, or sharpness test charts in their basement. This group isn't good for much more than vociferous, highly-technical religion wars on the Internet. We'll start caring what they think when they start producing work. In the mean time there are many passionate photographers out there producing great work, with a variety tools, cheap to expensive, simple to complex. This guy with a crappy old iPhone 3GS has been taking better photos (and publishing them) than the bulk of people with 5D3's and 70-200 f/2.8's: http://boingboing.net/2009/10/29/photographer-takes-p-1.html http://boingboing.net/2009/10/29/photographer-takes-p-1.html

piyush_soni 12y ago
Really, I don't see anything good in his photos. All these post-processed photos lack a lot of detail, even from a smartphone standards.
- cema 12y ago
  Detail is not necessarily what one should be looking for in a photo.
  - piyush_soni 12y ago
    Sure, that was just one of the things it lacked as compared to the DSLRs. I'm not sure what's so amazing in these photographs (as compared to DSLRs) - to my untrained eyes they don't look great.
    - footpath 12y ago
      You are still looking at it from a purely technical perspective. In the article, the photographer already mentioned that he's only using the iPhone for the "composition and the perfect photo opp". The point of the parent, I think, is that in the hands of a competent photographer, any adequate camera can produce works of certain artistic merit. Those who are most up in arms about the technical aspects of a camera often ignore the artistic aspects of a photograph. Here is a video of how an awarding-winning cinematographer (Phillip Bloom) films a short video using a low-resolution Barbie Doll camera: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VS3C183G8g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VS3C183G8g All technical aspects of the Barbie Doll camera are dismal, but the end product, when viewed as a whole, is not something that an Average Joe can produce, even if equipped with a RED ONE camera.
      - technofiend 12y ago
        Guitarists have the same arguments (like audiophiles) about warmness and tone of their work. But the fact of the matter is: if you don't practice enough to reliably produce a chord of your choice, does it really matter if you're plunking on a Squier Strat or one of Hendrix's original guitars? Not really. Equipment bragging rights don't mean anything without a modicum of practice and talent.
- potatolicious 12y ago
  And this is part of the problem - it was never about detail, or more generally technical perfection. But yet that's where the conversation starts and stops. The conversation around cameras focuses on noise level, dynamic range, or lens sharpness - none of which are particularly critical traits for producing great photography. The Tank Man[1] photograph would not pass muster even by low-end cell phone standards today, but it's as powerful now as when it was shot. Nor Cartier-Bresson's famous "leaping man"[2] - more dynamic range, more sharpness, less noise, less grain, would not have made the image any better. Even moving into modern times, Bruce Gilden didn't need perfect sharpness or dynamic range to document the yakuza from the inside[3]. Not only did he not fuss over focus points and phase-detect vs. contrast-detect autofocus, he didn't even have autofocus! Like Weegee said: "f/8 and be there". It's about the picture, not the gear. You only care about the gear insofar as it enables you - and nearly all cameras (including cell phone cameras) are well past the point of enabling. And this is the problem with the "argues about gear on the internet" demographic - they don't produce. They spend a lot of money and time acquiring, testing, and verifying the technical perfection of their gear, and too little time actually photographing. The best you get out of this group are is technically-perfect banality. [1] http://iconicphotos.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/030.jpg http://iconicphotos.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/030.jpg [2] http://www.dienes-and-dienes.com/Assets/CBManLeaping.jpg http://www.dienes-and-dienes.com/Assets/CBManLeaping.jpg [3] http://3.bp.blogspot.com/--vyBAjPjz6U/TkgF6Qla38I/AAAAAAAAJAo/Csvy5n5uCzQ/s1600/bruce%2Bgilden%2Byakuza%2B2.jpeg http://3.bp.blogspot.com/--vyBAjPjz6U/TkgF6Qla38I/AAAAAAAAJA...
  - vinkelhake 12y ago
    All other things equal, better equipment will allow you to get better shots. You are aware that the iconic Tank Man photograph was shot from half a mile away. It would have been impossible to shoot with today's camera phones. I know that when I shoot my banal pictures of banal life, I prefer pictures where the focus isn't accidentally on the background or where the subject hasn't half-exited the frame because of a delay between pressing the button and the shot going off. Most of us are not in the habit of documenting the Yakuza or happening to be present in world-changing events. We just want to take pictures that look good, even if the subject is banal. Edit (since I'm not allowed to comment on the post): > This is the part we disagree. Better knowledge will allow you to get better shots We're not in disagreement. "All other things equal" means just that - all other things being equal - including knowledge. Of course a bad picture with perfect focus is still a bad picture. Likewise, a good picture can become even better if it's technically accomplished. Tank Man is an iconic photograph solely because of the subject matter. Ansel Adams didn't settle for a dinky rangefinder when heading out into Yosemite. He carried large heavy equipment because it would allow him to capture the detail and sharpness he wanted.
- chillingeffect 12y ago
  yeah I mean really: http://www.boingboing.net/filesroot/alleyway.jpg http://www.boingboing.net/filesroot/alleyway.jpg It's not what I would call pro by almost any definition. There is the 3x3 grid alignment, but dat fuzzy focus, those colors and the overblown lantern... It's a fine personal snapshot, but to call it "pro" is weak.
- micampe 12y ago
  Check any photo from any of the great 35mm photographers of the past century and let me know how much detail you see and how much that detracts from the photo's value (not talking about monetary value of course).
ghaff 12y ago
Mostly agree. Under the right conditions/use cases (and in the right hands of course) phones can take pretty nice photos--though I can't say most of those in the link you provided do a whole lot for me. For the majority of users, today's cameraphones are better than whatever mass market point and shoot they were using going back to the Instamatic days. With the exception of a few niches, there's little reason to buy a dedicated camera these days unless you're going interchangeable lens and learn how to use it--and make the effort to bring it with you. And there is a generally annoying group of online gearheads who spend a lot more time obsessing about camera specs than they do going out and taking photos.
nzealand 12y ago
Looks like he has upgraded to a 5s... http://sasurau.squarespace.com/about/ http://sasurau.squarespace.com/about/ It is a pity, there is something magical about the lomography look of a beat up 3Gs.
mnem 12y ago
Interestingly, he seems to use multiple cameras. For example, the alley shot as taken with a Lumix GF1: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sasurau/3944365957/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/sasurau/3944365957/ - personally I find the feeling of the Lumix one far more emotive in this case. I totally agree that it's not the price of your equipment though, it's what you do with it - most of the time. Photography has a great many reasons to occur and there are aspects which most definitely benefit from higher quality equipment. For example, nature macro photography (some beautiful examples from the same photographer above: https://www.flickr.com/photos/sasurau/sets/72157631002090680/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/sasurau/sets/72157631002090680... ). I guess the more you are looking for "The Decisive Moment", the less raw quality matters. Although, again, something like studio photography is likely to be a balance of quality and decisive moments. Ultimately, unless you're getting most of your income from the photographs, just make sure however you're doing it you're having fun and enjoying it :)
jemfinch 12y ago
Bullshit. Features like megapixels, 51 phase detection AF points, face detection metering and other goodies all allow real people to capture better, more memorable images than cell phone cameras. 1. https://www.flickr.com/photos/jemfinch/8594571664/in/set-72157634001222856 https://www.flickr.com/photos/jemfinch/8594571664/in/set-721... could not have been captured with a cell phone camera. I was holding my DSLR in my offhand and pushing him on the swing with my other hand. 2. https://www.flickr.com/photos/jemfinch/9326415006/in/set-72157634001222856 https://www.flickr.com/photos/jemfinch/9326415006/in/set-721... could not have been captured with a cell phone either. My wife was holding him and he was peeking out over her shoulder then switching to the other shoulder immediately when I brought the camera up. With a cell phone's shutter lag, he'd have been on the other side before the picture was taken. 3. https://www.flickr.com/photos/jemfinch/8582319362/in/set-72157634001222856 https://www.flickr.com/photos/jemfinch/8582319362/in/set-721... no cell phone camera in the world could have captured this in such low light so successfully. 4. https://www.flickr.com/photos/jemfinch/9012492563/in/set-72157634001222856 https://www.flickr.com/photos/jemfinch/9012492563/in/set-721... there are a hundred fleeting moments a day like this, and no cell phone in the world is fast enough to capture them. It's easy to take a picture of an abandoned alley or cats lying on blacktop with a cellphone camera. Try doing that with a newborn's first smile, or a mischievous preschooler's momentary smirk.
- theoh 12y ago
  I think you are right, particularly since your focus is (at least partly) on capturing your kid for posterity rather than making impressionistic or abstract work. There is, however, a marked tendency in photography to obsess about the technical. In the recent series of books "100 ideas that changed..." that also covers fields like art, graphic design, fashion, architecture and film, the photography book ("100 ideas that changed photography") is notable for its focus on technical developments. The other creative fields have their idiosyncrasies, and each book has a different editor, so this is hardly a well-designed study, but photography stands out as the most concerned with the purely technical. That seems to be just the way it is. Nobody would suggest that wobbliness or "looking like its about to fall down" are good ideas for architecture, but for some reason people coming from the art world like the idea of messing with photography's technical perfection. Maybe it's a personality thing.

piyush_soni 12y ago

Really, I don't see anything good in his photos. All these post-processed photos lack a lot of detail, even from a smartphone standards.

cema 12y ago
Detail is not necessarily what one should be looking for in a photo.
- piyush_soni 12y ago
  Sure, that was just one of the things it lacked as compared to the DSLRs. I'm not sure what's so amazing in these photographs (as compared to DSLRs) - to my untrained eyes they don't look great.
  - footpath 12y ago
    You are still looking at it from a purely technical perspective. In the article, the photographer already mentioned that he's only using the iPhone for the "composition and the perfect photo opp". The point of the parent, I think, is that in the hands of a competent photographer, any adequate camera can produce works of certain artistic merit. Those who are most up in arms about the technical aspects of a camera often ignore the artistic aspects of a photograph. Here is a video of how an awarding-winning cinematographer (Phillip Bloom) films a short video using a low-resolution Barbie Doll camera: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VS3C183G8g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VS3C183G8g All technical aspects of the Barbie Doll camera are dismal, but the end product, when viewed as a whole, is not something that an Average Joe can produce, even if equipped with a RED ONE camera.
    - technofiend 12y ago
      Guitarists have the same arguments (like audiophiles) about warmness and tone of their work. But the fact of the matter is: if you don't practice enough to reliably produce a chord of your choice, does it really matter if you're plunking on a Squier Strat or one of Hendrix's original guitars? Not really. Equipment bragging rights don't mean anything without a modicum of practice and talent.
potatolicious 12y ago
And this is part of the problem - it was never about detail, or more generally technical perfection. But yet that's where the conversation starts and stops. The conversation around cameras focuses on noise level, dynamic range, or lens sharpness - none of which are particularly critical traits for producing great photography. The Tank Man[1] photograph would not pass muster even by low-end cell phone standards today, but it's as powerful now as when it was shot. Nor Cartier-Bresson's famous "leaping man"[2] - more dynamic range, more sharpness, less noise, less grain, would not have made the image any better. Even moving into modern times, Bruce Gilden didn't need perfect sharpness or dynamic range to document the yakuza from the inside[3]. Not only did he not fuss over focus points and phase-detect vs. contrast-detect autofocus, he didn't even have autofocus! Like Weegee said: "f/8 and be there". It's about the picture, not the gear. You only care about the gear insofar as it enables you - and nearly all cameras (including cell phone cameras) are well past the point of enabling. And this is the problem with the "argues about gear on the internet" demographic - they don't produce. They spend a lot of money and time acquiring, testing, and verifying the technical perfection of their gear, and too little time actually photographing. The best you get out of this group are is technically-perfect banality. [1] http://iconicphotos.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/030.jpg http://iconicphotos.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/030.jpg [2] http://www.dienes-and-dienes.com/Assets/CBManLeaping.jpg http://www.dienes-and-dienes.com/Assets/CBManLeaping.jpg [3] http://3.bp.blogspot.com/--vyBAjPjz6U/TkgF6Qla38I/AAAAAAAAJAo/Csvy5n5uCzQ/s1600/bruce%2Bgilden%2Byakuza%2B2.jpeg http://3.bp.blogspot.com/--vyBAjPjz6U/TkgF6Qla38I/AAAAAAAAJA...
- vinkelhake 12y ago
  All other things equal, better equipment will allow you to get better shots. You are aware that the iconic Tank Man photograph was shot from half a mile away. It would have been impossible to shoot with today's camera phones. I know that when I shoot my banal pictures of banal life, I prefer pictures where the focus isn't accidentally on the background or where the subject hasn't half-exited the frame because of a delay between pressing the button and the shot going off. Most of us are not in the habit of documenting the Yakuza or happening to be present in world-changing events. We just want to take pictures that look good, even if the subject is banal. Edit (since I'm not allowed to comment on the post): > This is the part we disagree. Better knowledge will allow you to get better shots We're not in disagreement. "All other things equal" means just that - all other things being equal - including knowledge. Of course a bad picture with perfect focus is still a bad picture. Likewise, a good picture can become even better if it's technically accomplished. Tank Man is an iconic photograph solely because of the subject matter. Ansel Adams didn't settle for a dinky rangefinder when heading out into Yosemite. He carried large heavy equipment because it would allow him to capture the detail and sharpness he wanted.
chillingeffect 12y ago
yeah I mean really: http://www.boingboing.net/filesroot/alleyway.jpg http://www.boingboing.net/filesroot/alleyway.jpg It's not what I would call pro by almost any definition. There is the 3x3 grid alignment, but dat fuzzy focus, those colors and the overblown lantern... It's a fine personal snapshot, but to call it "pro" is weak.
micampe 12y ago
Check any photo from any of the great 35mm photographers of the past century and let me know how much detail you see and how much that detracts from the photo's value (not talking about monetary value of course).

ghaff 12y ago

Mostly agree. Under the right conditions/use cases (and in the right hands of course) phones can take pretty nice photos--though I can't say most of those in the link you provided do a whole lot for me. For the majority of users, today's cameraphones are better than whatever mass market point and shoot they were using going back to the Instamatic days. With the exception of a few niches, there's little reason to buy a dedicated camera these days unless you're going interchangeable lens and learn how to use it--and make the effort to bring it with you. And there is a generally annoying group of online gearheads who spend a lot more time obsessing about camera specs than they do going out and taking photos.

nzealand 12y ago

Looks like he has upgraded to a 5s... http://sasurau.squarespace.com/about/ http://sasurau.squarespace.com/about/ It is a pity, there is something magical about the lomography look of a beat up 3Gs.

mnem 12y ago

Interestingly, he seems to use multiple cameras. For example, the alley shot as taken with a Lumix GF1: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sasurau/3944365957/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/sasurau/3944365957/ - personally I find the feeling of the Lumix one far more emotive in this case. I totally agree that it's not the price of your equipment though, it's what you do with it - most of the time. Photography has a great many reasons to occur and there are aspects which most definitely benefit from higher quality equipment. For example, nature macro photography (some beautiful examples from the same photographer above: https://www.flickr.com/photos/sasurau/sets/72157631002090680/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/sasurau/sets/72157631002090680... ). I guess the more you are looking for "The Decisive Moment", the less raw quality matters. Although, again, something like studio photography is likely to be a balance of quality and decisive moments. Ultimately, unless you're getting most of your income from the photographs, just make sure however you're doing it you're having fun and enjoying it :)

jemfinch 12y ago

Bullshit. Features like megapixels, 51 phase detection AF points, face detection metering and other goodies all allow real people to capture better, more memorable images than cell phone cameras. 1. https://www.flickr.com/photos/jemfinch/8594571664/in/set-72157634001222856 https://www.flickr.com/photos/jemfinch/8594571664/in/set-721... could not have been captured with a cell phone camera. I was holding my DSLR in my offhand and pushing him on the swing with my other hand. 2. https://www.flickr.com/photos/jemfinch/9326415006/in/set-72157634001222856 https://www.flickr.com/photos/jemfinch/9326415006/in/set-721... could not have been captured with a cell phone either. My wife was holding him and he was peeking out over her shoulder then switching to the other shoulder immediately when I brought the camera up. With a cell phone's shutter lag, he'd have been on the other side before the picture was taken. 3. https://www.flickr.com/photos/jemfinch/8582319362/in/set-72157634001222856 https://www.flickr.com/photos/jemfinch/8582319362/in/set-721... no cell phone camera in the world could have captured this in such low light so successfully. 4. https://www.flickr.com/photos/jemfinch/9012492563/in/set-72157634001222856 https://www.flickr.com/photos/jemfinch/9012492563/in/set-721... there are a hundred fleeting moments a day like this, and no cell phone in the world is fast enough to capture them. It's easy to take a picture of an abandoned alley or cats lying on blacktop with a cellphone camera. Try doing that with a newborn's first smile, or a mischievous preschooler's momentary smirk.

theoh 12y ago
I think you are right, particularly since your focus is (at least partly) on capturing your kid for posterity rather than making impressionistic or abstract work. There is, however, a marked tendency in photography to obsess about the technical. In the recent series of books "100 ideas that changed..." that also covers fields like art, graphic design, fashion, architecture and film, the photography book ("100 ideas that changed photography") is notable for its focus on technical developments. The other creative fields have their idiosyncrasies, and each book has a different editor, so this is hardly a well-designed study, but photography stands out as the most concerned with the purely technical. That seems to be just the way it is. Nobody would suggest that wobbliness or "looking like its about to fall down" are good ideas for architecture, but for some reason people coming from the art world like the idea of messing with photography's technical perfection. Maybe it's a personality thing.