Each day more photos are taken with a ....

[Polar01]

There is a commercial on TV about a certain companies' cell phone with a camera.
They claim that each day more photos are taken with a iphone camera than with all other cameras.
I would really like to see an additional sentence added such as:
"There are more really bad photos taken each day with an iphone, than in the history of all other types of cameras."
Just my own thoughts, on the subject, what are yours.

Cheers:

Allan

[tbob]

I am afraid that with all the photons being sucked up by these cameras that one day the earth will be plunged into darkness. Of course maybe they are staving off a global warming catastrophe.

Actually I have the opinion that is all very harmless. If it increases the quotient of joy in the world I am all in favor of it. (Just spare me images of past their prime, overweight men in speedos.)

[PhotomanJohn]

It has been said by many that it is not the camera but the photographer that makes a good picture. This is certainly true in this case. iPhones are capable of producing very nice 4X6 or 8X10 photos which is the most that the average person wants out of a camera. I feel sorry for the manufacturers trying to make a buck on P&S cameras.

John

[shreds]

They have their place and as said can produce some good but limited results.

The rest will not last beyond the next phone model change in most cases.

Gone and forgotten.

Ce La Vie.

[dubaiphil]

There is a commercial on TV about a certain companies' cell phone with a camera.
They claim that each day more photos are taken with a iphone camera than with all other cameras.
I would really like to see an additional sentence added such as:
"There are more really bad photos taken each day with an iphone, than in the history of all other types of cameras."
Just my own thoughts, on the subject, what are yours.

Cheers:

Allan

I disagree, Allan. You can never have enough 'selfies', or pictures of legs and feet on a sunlounger, or wingtips when flying on vacation!

[MrB]

Assuming that photographic ability follows a similar kind of distribution curve as do all other kinds of human capabilities, and assuming that in the company's claim "more" means "a greater number", surely it would be logically reasonable to make a similar suggestion for the other end of the scale, i.e. "There are more good photos taken each day with an iphone, than with all other cameras."

Philip

[jcuknz]

Since the cellphone is a very personal item it depends on what you consider a 'good photo' ...I have a photo from my son which I thought he had taken with his MFT G3 but no ... it was his I-phone and I have visited sites with phone shots and I am sure most/all had a definite meaning for the taker. The best camera is the one you have with you when you need one.

[FootLoose]

On an optimistic note: maybe the current crop of "iphone" pitcha-takers* will eventually realise they could take much better pitchas with a proper camera, and they will start buying heaps of dslrs and the camera manufacturers will drop their prices and all we proper photographers will be able to buy pro quality equipment.


(*I have been stopped by several to ask about the quality of the photo produced by my camera ie resolution, focus, etc)

[MrB]

...it depends on what you consider a 'good photo' ...I have visited sites with phone shots and I am sure most/all had a definite meaning for the taker. The best camera is the one you have with you when you need one.

And there are probably many images with qualities that appeal not only to the photographer but also to many others:
http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=iphone+images

Philip

[Clactonian]

As recently reported on 'Connect' ...
"... the Chicago Sun-Times laid off its entire 28-person photography staff ........ remaining Sun-Times staff are beginning mandatory training on “iPhone photography basics,""
A well timed advert I guess.

[drjuice]

My take on this? Why should I worry about something I can't control and don't care about? My answer? I have more useful things to worry about, not to mention more important to me.

My observation: Some folks will get turned on to more serious photography and, when they show up in CiC, we can discuss the more serious stuff with them.

I look at the rest as being like the people who come to learn game programming because they like to play computer games.
However, they're not interested in learning the math/physics/art that makes game programming work properly so they decide to go elsewhere. Good luck, I sez!

I'm jes' sayin'....

virginia

[Shadowman]

Based on a small sampling, various travels, I'd have to agree with the "more photos are taken..." statement. Soon to be followed by iPads, bridge cameras, point and shoots and so on. I see very few DSLRs on the streets and I think this is what the commentator was talking about, people on the streets. Now what they (cell phone users) do with the photos is another story.

[tao2]

The best camera is the one you have with you when you need one.

+1...

I see very few DSLRs on the streets and I think this is what the commentator was talking about, people on the streets.

Ah'd never use a DSLR on the street, unless for architecture. One of my old rangefinders, a compact, at largest; my wee Olympus OM10. It's extremely difficult tae get real street shots with a big camera.

[Andrew1]

Nokia's new 41 megapixel camera/phone is the latest and greatest. In-camera editing and transmission is also advancing.

Back up a few years and you could find purists poopooing the digital SLR as a gimic. Editing with a computer? What's the matter, can't you take a picture properly? Times are a changin'. I guess the best thing about the technology train is each of us can get off whenever we like. Opinions and choices vary and that's a good thing.

[Shadowman]

+1...




Ah'd never use a DSLR on the street, unless for architecture. One of my old rangefinders, a compact, at largest; my wee Olympus OM10. It's extremely difficult tae get real street shots with a big camera.

I've tried a technique described by Bryan Peterson, not necessarily for street photography but sometimes works.

1. Determine whether you want a Deep or Shallow depth of field image, set aperture accordingly.
2. Set shutter speed and ISO to get desired exposure.
3. Manually focus at a prescribed distance (1/3rd into foreground for Deep dof, no where in particular for shallow).
4. Compose shot for your desired capture.

The shallow dof works best for cityscapes, protraits,etc. The deep dof works best for street photograph but depends on the type of lens you are using. For telephoto lens in the 100-300mm range you may not be able to focus on a subject standing within five feet of you and closest acceptable focus range may be thirty feet away. For wide-angle lenses at the short end your subject will have to be closer than you might like. With a mid-range zoom (18-70mm) you should be right on target.

[Dr Bob]

I have two things that come to mind about cell phone cameras.

One is they can be a very convenient and useful tool in some applications. I work in a manufacturing facility. It is a very useful and common practice on the job to take a cell phone picture of a breakdown or problem and email it to others for viewing and discussion. Being that the photo is on ones cell phone, it is very simple and quick to send it to several other people to view. It is a very effective tool for on the job.

My second thought is what others have mentioned here, at some point some of those cell phone or ipad photographers will decide they want to take better pictures and will move to a point & shoot or DSLR. Thus, increasing the number of people interested in photography.

From a photographic point, I don't see anything bad here.

Dr Bob

[xpatUSA]

They have their place and as said can produce some good but limited results.

The rest will not last beyond the next phone model change in most cases.

Gone and forgotten.

Ce La Vie.

Horses for courses, perhaps, Ian? I bought a Galaxy SII because of it's camera, 8MP, blah-di-blah. I always have it with me and my DSLRs are always at home when the snapshot of the week presents itself. Before I get told about the smallness of the sensor, the noise, the color casts, the flaring, etc. ad naus, I better post these, I suppose . .





C'est la vie . . .

[rpcrowe]

This is just a prelude to the complete demise of paper printed newspapers. We are already down to one daily paper which is "supposed" (but, doesn't) cover the entire San Diego County. This county is as large as some smaller European nations...

However, the death of printed papers is due to the choking off of advertising revenue due to Internet ads rather than cellphone coverage. Nowhere is this more true than in the classified section. There is no way that I will spend money on a classified ad when I can advertise the same item or items free (and more efficiently) on sites like craigslist.com....

[Trina]

They have their place and as said can produce some good but limited results.

The rest will not last beyond the next phone model change in most cases.

Gone and forgotten.

Ce La Vie.

So true. I think the thing that is saddest to me is there is a generation of babies growing up that will not have baby pictures around when they are older... in the case of my grand daughter..here parents take all the photo's with an I phone...they are usually poor out of focus shots... and the few that do turn out nice are soon gone when the next upgrade comes along:<

[tao2]

I've tried a technique described by Bryan Peterson, not necessarily for street photography but sometimes works.

1. Determine whether you want a Deep or Shallow depth of field image, set aperture accordingly.
2. Set shutter speed and ISO to get desired exposure.
3. Manually focus at a prescribed distance (1/3rd into foreground for Deep dof, no where in particular for shallow).
4. Compose shot for your desired capture.

The shallow dof works best for cityscapes, protraits,etc. The deep dof works best for street photograph but depends on the type of lens you are using. For telephoto lens in the 100-300mm range you may not be able to focus on a subject standing within five feet of you and closest acceptable focus range may be thirty feet away. For wide-angle lenses at the short end your subject will have to be closer than you might like. With a mid-range zoom (18-70mm) you should be right on target.

Sorry Shadowman, wasn't clear enough. Didn't mean it was technically difficult; ah usually zone focus. Ah meant that it's very difficult tae capture spontaneous or fortuitous moments when yer carrying a big f*** off DSLR.

... A camera's a camera - they're all limited...

HTC Desire HD - phone - 8 mp...

[IMG][/IMG]