In a previous thread, we started a tangent on cameraphone quality vs ‘real cameras’.
What was amazing to me was just how good phones were getting, especially in light [heh] of the fact they have teeny, tiny, optics. I submit that my iPhone 4s’s quality is superior to The digital cameras I was using 8-10 years ago.
I took this as the kid’s birthday party:
Is it noisy? yeah. Is it good? I think so. It’s certainly better than a)not taking the picture at all, or b)constantly carrying around my DSLR
Here are some other pics, other people are taking:
Now…are you going to make 24x32 prints from these? Naw…but I can’t tell you the last time I committed a photo to paper.
You’ve got a good point there. In the past couple of years, I’ve taken roughly 10,000 photos on a pro-grade DSLR, and put maybe five of them on paper. Even then, they were only 4x6 inch snapshots, except for one that was printed at 16x20 inches.
So, only .001% of my work has been printed, framed and displayed. All the others, if they ever see the light of day again, are only seen on-screen.
I have no problem with people using their phones for snapshot memories.
For my own use, I have a small cheap digital camera that I can keep in my shirt pocket. Gets me pics of things I wouldn’t have if I didn’t have a camera on me.
For my paid photography, tho, I go with my DSLR. It’s not just the megs, it’s the larger size of the chip that gives better results.
I use my snap shots for e-mail and web albums, have printed very few. From my DSLR, I’ve printed (and sold) hundreds of prints.
Use whatever you feel comfortable with. If you have a good camera on your phone, you are likely to use it. Missed photos are worse than lower image quality for those images of events important to you.
I’m a strong proponent of the idea that the most important tools for any photographer is his/her eye and brain. A really good photographer can capture great images with a pin hole camera or a DSLR. They learn to work with the limitations of their hardware, not against them, to tell a story.
The photo you posted is adequate, but it’s not a very good photo by any means. IMO, it doesn’t tell a story well because the important details are lost in the noise and blur. There’s too much extraneous info in the frame, it would benefit from significant cropping or getting closer to your subject. Camera phones rarely have useful zoom so it’s more important to zoom with your legs to capture cleanly what the tool is capable of.
The choices aren’t only camera phones and DSLRs. Small quality cameras exist and would allow you to frame that shot better and take a cleaner shot with a shorter shutter speed by pushing the ISO and tracking the subject better. The UI of phones is inferior to a dedicated camera for tracking and especially for taking burst shots. Phone cameras are improving, but the UI is always going to lag behind a dedicated camera, IMO. I don’t commit a lot of shots to paper either, but I display them on large screens and the limitations of blurry, noisy camera phones are apparent at that scale.
There’s different kinds of photography. One of the hardest things to do, photographically, is take a picture of a moving vehicle. Usually, you end up with a well lit, composed, thing that looks stationary. The noise and blur are what make it a good picture
It doesn’t have to tell a story. It’s job is to be esthetically pleasing.
IMO, this picture neither tells a story nor is it aesthetically pleasing. Since you put it out there to start the thread, I thought that was important. It comes across to me as a relatively poor snapshot, which doesn’t go far in supporting your case that camera phones are a great substitute for a dedicated camera. While the phone camera may be better than a camera from 8-10 years ago, it isn’t better than a camera from 4-6 years ago. I think you could get a better picture with an entry level camera due to the ability to set the ISO, track the subject, and shoot in burst mode.
But everything’s a constantly moving process. Will a cameraphone 5 years from now be equivalent to a good point and shoot today? I see no reason why it wouldn’t be, which is pretty amazing considering the lack of class in something the size of a phone.
As far as what YOU think is worthy or not, well, it’s not your tastes I’m shootin’ for. (And I’ve found nothing brings out a critic like a discussion on photography.)
Who’s the fool who argued you on that? Yes, 10 years ago I was using a very expensive digital camera that got some picture that could have been improved by the technical advantages of even modern crummy cell phones. eg. That was the biggest usable size I could get, and it was a pano!
Anyway, that first picture you posted is an example of great idea, bad execution. And it is entirely possible that the problem in execution is due to the limitations of your camera, not an indictment of you as a photographer. Sometimes the camera you have cannot convey the story you want to tell, so you gotta find another way.
80% of my pictures are used on screen only, about 20% are printed in books, magazines, adverts, brochures, etc. That is because a lot my pictures are for personal consumption. I have about 20,000 pictures of my daughter alone, the vast majority of which have not been printed (I print a lot though for her grandparents and such).
To me a good picture, technically speaking, has to look good as a screen saver in my 27" iMac. That doesn’t mean I don’t have a lot of great but noisy pictures, sometimes it’s worth getting the shot even if you don’t get a Pulitzer for the picture (like the pictures I took of my kid’s Xmas recital, very noisy at 6400 ISO, shot from pretty far and using my umbrella as a monopod, and a not-really-fast 300 mm, but they are awfully better than the pictures taken by parents with their iPhones and pocket cameras).
So, in short, yes: iPhone camera > 10 year-old 3 megapixel camera > Daguerreotype.
FTR, of those 20K pictures only about a few thousand are unique photos, most are pictures shot in bursts and that I didn’t delete. When my kid is stationary I use more a sniper rifle and less machine gun approach.
I suspect I was unclear in getting my initial thoughts out…let me try again:
I am amazed at what technological advances have been made in Digital photography, specifically as it relates to ‘throwaway technology’ in a device where taking pictures is a secondary feature.
I do not equate current phones with current full sensor cameras, that would be silly and wrong. I AM amazed at the quality of photo that can be obtained with a teeny tiny sensor and almost NO optics.
Whether or not the example photo is ‘all that and prize winning’ is not the point. What IS the point is: I have my phone nearly every waking moment. It is capable of taking surprisingly high quality pictures with teeny tiny optics.
I am generally not a huge fan of camera phones, but I do think they are great so you don’t miss that unexpected shot. I would never use one as my main camera though. I do like to have printed copies of my photos and IMO a good shot should at least work as my desktop background.
What really blew my mind was when I went to Machu Picchu last year and saw people just using their phones. By all means, don’t get an DSLR but if you are going to Machu freaken Picchu bring a real camera.
Photography isn’t even mostly about the equipment. The best camera in the world will still only produce mediocre images without an eye for composition, pattern, colour, etc. Whereas that eye can coax a striking image out of very basic equipment. To deny this is to downrate the best efforts of the great photographers of the past, whose kit was technically inferior to a budget camera of today.
Blurring part of the picture can have an artistic affect. This picture is lousy, because everything is blurry, so there is no real impression of speed. Here is one picture I took back in 2000 with a digital camera that I liked even thou it is blurry.
Probably not from Apple. They won’t take the cosmetic hit to put some decent optics in front of the sensor and a reasonable flash. Before Steve Jobs died, I wouldn’t have bothered saying probably. The Nokia N8 proves it is possible to produce a cell phone camera that doesn’t totally suck. Of course in 5 years, pocket cameras will do the equivalent of a APS-C camera except for the optics.
I don’t think anyone is going to argue that camera phones have improved dramatically in the past 5-10 years. I think they’ll always lag behind a dedicated camera for image quality, but that’s not very controversial, either. Technology is constantly improving.
The point I think a few of us are trying to make is that regardless of how good camera phones are, the vast majority of shots taken with them will still be of poor quality because good photography isn’t a matter of technology, for the most part. At best, people will take higher quality snapshots. There’s nothing wrong with that, but it’s not the same thing as fine photography.
Here’s a shot I took which I think conveys movement fairly well - http://www.hikethewhites.com/japan2009/IMG_6856.jpg
It was taken by panning with a fast moving skier and shot in burst mode. Without an optical view finder I think this shot would be fairly difficult to take, especially in conditions like that. I was using my small Canon P&S, but the form factor and features that it provides aren’t duplicated in any camera phone today. That may change, but I doubt you’ll ever see an optical view finder on a phone. They’re disappearing on most cameras as well, sadly.
Again, I don’t think that anyone is arguing that camera phones aren’t improving in leaps and bounds, and the fact that everyone has a decent camera with them at all times isn’t a good thing. It’s just that most images taken with most cameras are going to be poorly composed snapshots, and good technology isn’t going to change that.
You need to work on your self-criticism skills. BTW the picture above works, but crop it down to emphasize the blond kid. He expression makes the picture.
Much of a good photo is in the photographer. But a good photo taken by a good photographer with a GOOD camera is always going to beat out the same but taken with an okay camera.
Cell phone cameras are IMO getting to the okay level for certain situations and certain types of photos. But they are not anywhere near the “I can’t tell the difference” level yet and may not ever be so (people should not confuse things keep getting better with things will eventually get WAY better, because there are fundamental limits in the real world).
Cell phone cameras ARE pretty amazing, for WHAT they are. I’ve got a point and shot pocket camera that has got to be better than a cell phone camera. But about the only pics I take with it are “there’s BIGFOOT! get a picture fast!” shots. As a regular take some nice pics camera? It sucks enough that I don’t generally bother with it.
Phone Cameras will never match DLSR or similar things because depth of focus is physically related to sensor size. It doesn’t matter how awesome your chip is. You simply can’t blur the background nearly as much as a full size camera. Even the big point and shoots today can’t touch the DSLR cameras.
