7 ms·

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).

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).