Your Dumb iPad Picture Taking Is Keeping Real Photographers From Doing Their Jobs

[Teuthida]

Mmm, these grapes sure are sour.

[Phantomas]

I laughed at iPod photography in theory before I saw one being used and thought "what an awesomly large viewfinder!"

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Is this a 1943 iPad?

Wow! is that the one with the built in pneumatic tube connection for sending the negs direct to the office?

[I Love Film]

I actually think that the LCD's on "serious" cameras will eventually morph to a gigantic size.

It's only logical for two reasons:

1) The huge LCD helps composition and makes it easier for older people, eyeglass wearers, beginners, etc, to compose their photos.

2) THIS IS THE BIG REASON. A huge percentage of people taking photos with imaging devices today don't know how to remove their memory cards, load files onto computers, etc. THEY HAND THEIR CAMERA PHONE TO OTHER PEOPLE and look at the photos on the display screen. That's it, that's as far as they go or can comprehend. When they break the phone or small camera, that's the end of the photos. The HUGE LCD screen is perfect for showing their photos. They can pass the iPad around, or the iPad even sends the photos to "the cloud" so that the punter can effortlessly save his photos.

That's it. That's the future of photography. Get used to immense screens with lenses attached.

[TXForester]

First, I think this is a tongue-in-cheek article.

Originally Posted by CNNY

I suppose if holding up ipads in a crowd has become socially acceptable, then no-one can complain if someone holds up an 8x10 camera in a crowd as they have the same 'blocking real estate'.

Second, CNNY makes a good point. If everybody used an eye level finder, then peoples heads would get in the way. That being the case, photographers for a long time have resorted to zone focusing and holding their cameras over their heads to get a shot. Pros do this too. It the nature of shooting in crowded environments. A little RF camera can ruin some other guy's photo just a much as a tablet.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by Phantomas

I laughed at iPod photography in theory before I saw one being used and thought "what an awesomly large viewfinder!"

Imagine it had a sensor the size of its display!

[segedi]

No comments on the poor composition from the iPadographer?

[sepiareverb]

Just keep getting closer and going wider. Seem to be the general direction a lot of PJ's take these days.

[semordnilap]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

I think the iPads make the shot actually, much better than just another boring photo of a politician

I agree with Stewart and Bob... I like this shot!

[icebear]

Originally Posted by Bob Michaels

This gets my vote as the best campaign photo I have seen so far this season. It is not the 1,000,001st version of the same old photo we see over and over.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaso
..................
Here's a picture of Barack Obama campaigning in West Palm Beach, Florida yesterday. Except you can't even get a great look at the prez because of all the amateur idiots taking idiot pictures with their idiot tablets, getting in the way of the real professional photographers. This disruptive behavior has to stop.




Bob,
+1 for your comment, especially as publicity over the social media is so important, I agree that this shot of the I-pad is an improvement over the un-obscured "have seen a 1000 times" campaign shot of the smiling candidate.

[Timmyjoe]

Couple of things.

Was covering the DNC last week, as a "professional photographer" with my Nikon D( ) and medium long lens. All of us were getting much flack from the DNC folks because we were getting "too close" so I hung back, walked up, took a few shots then went back to my "corner", waited for the next "moment" then walked up, took a few shots, returned to my "corner". Then the guys from the TV media who were shooting video from all the way in the back started complaining because we were coming in and out of the periphery of their shots.

Everybody is trying to get "the shot" because we all are paid for getting "the shot". It's a fact of life that while you're getting "the shot" for your editor, your blocking "the shot" someone else is trying to get for their editor. I always try to be polite and courteous, but at the end of the day, I will do what I need to do to get "the shot". Got a wife and kids to feed.

Second, for the first time I saw all these folks shooting pictures with iPads last week. Never seen it to such a degree before. I have always hated cameras that don't have an optical viewfinder (I'm old school) and have always believed what my friend says, "A camera without a viewfinder is a cell phone that doesn't make calls." But as I watched these folks take pictures with their iPads, I thought, "If I ever have to use a camera without an optical viewfinder, I want one of those iPads." Composition on one of those things must be a breeze. It's like composing with a picture frame in your hand.

Best,
-Tim

[daveleo]

The EXIF data says this photo was shot at 235mm !

This photographer must have been 40 feet ? from Obama ? . . . he / she was expecting a clear shot ? ?

Please ! !

[nanthor]

I agree with some others, this is a great shot. How many regular handshake pictures do you think there are of the President? This one is unique.

[Paul Luscher]

Originally Posted by Calzone

It's kind of like shooting the Mermaid Parade late in the day when there are mobs of people and too many photographers jumping in front of your shots. LOL.

Cal

And that reminds me of a problem created BY serious photogs:

Years ago, I got a permit to shoot the San Francisco Blues Festival. They even had a special platform built right in front of the stage that the photogs could use. The idea was that you'd go up there, keep down low, shoot your shots and get out quick.

Well, that all went to pieces when John Lee Hooker showed up. From the moment he got out of his car to the moment he went on stage, he was surrounded by a wall of photographers. I'm amazed he wasn't crushed or asphyxiated by the mob of camera-clicking obsessives.

Then, when he went on stage, ALL the photogs rushed up onto the aforementioned platform, stood straight up, and began firing away--not for a moment or two, but throughout Hooker's entire set. The audience--who paid for this, after all--was treated to the delightful view of a row of photographer's asses.

I got off the platform when I saw what was going on--it just seemed so rude and inconsiderate to me. Being an a**hole didn't seem worth it just to get the shot. I certainly was not surprised when in the years after that, no such privileges were extended to photogs. It's behavior like that which makes photogs as beloved as ...well, lawyers.

(BTW, I did get a decent shot of Mr. Hooker. I waited till the wall of asses parted for a few seconds, then fired about two or three frames.)

[swoop]

Originally Posted by CNNY

If your pictures aren't good enough, it is because you are not close enough.

I like the composition on the ipad better than the tele-pro shot.

The thing is you wouldn't even know what happened if it wasn't for that pro. Photojournalists take photos with the intent of those images being distributed to the public for the purpose of providing information. The person with the ipad took a picture just for themselves.

It's not a matter of who's right or wrong or who has the better photo or camera but a question of the goal of the photographer and in that regard I believe the access or ability to perform the job without being obscured goes to a member of the press because what they see, is what the public will see.

[I Love Film]

Hmmmmm.....YOU were not obsessive and YOU did not care about getting a shot, but all those other obsessive a**holes were. But you got three or four frames.

Originally Posted by Paul Luscher

And that reminds me of a problem created BY serious photogs:

Years ago, I got a permit to shoot the San Francisco Blues Festival. They even had a special platform built right in front of the stage that the photogs could use. The idea was that you'd go up there, keep down low, shoot your shots and get out quick.

Well, that all went to pieces when John Lee Hooker showed up. From the moment he got out of his car to the moment he went on stage, he was surrounded by a wall of photographers. I'm amazed he wasn't crushed or asphyxiated by the mob of camera-clicking obsessives.

Then, when he went on stage, ALL the photogs rushed up onto the aforementioned platform, stood straight up, and began firing away--not for a moment or two, but throughout Hooker's entire set. The audience--who paid for this, after all--was treated to the delightful view of a row of photographer's asses.

I got off the platform when I saw what was going on--it just seemed so rude and inconsiderate to me. Being an a**hole didn't seem worth it just to get the shot. I certainly was not surprised when in the years after that, no such privileges were extended to photogs. It's behavior like that which makes photogs as beloved as ...well, lawyers.

(BTW, I did get a decent shot of Mr. Hooker. I waited till the wall of asses parted for a few seconds, then fired about two or three frames.)

[I Love Film]

You don't know that at all.

Originally Posted by swoop

The person with the ipad took a picture just for themselves.

[daveleo]

Originally Posted by swoop

. . . . The person with the ipad took a picture just for themselves. . . . .

How did you figure that out ?

Why wasn't she (judging by the fingernails) a journalist, shooting that image across the internet to her office for a news report ? ?

EDIT: and why wasn't he (?) the rank amateur, since he shot a political mob scene at 235mm from ground level ??

[I Love Film]

The most important photographer in any situation is one who has a camera with him.

Think of all the photos and news videos that we have seen because someone had a camera phone. In the past, most people would not have a camera or a device with video capabilities, now everyone carries a tiny device capable of excellent HD video in their pocket all the time.

The Saddam execution, the Qadaffi execution, hundreds of crime and riot scenes, you name it, insane people fighting in the subways, screaming inner city people destroying a fast food joint, police beating citizens, EVERYTHING that happens in modern times is documented and gets posted somewhere online.

Nobody complains or mentions which cameraphone was used.

[Paul Luscher]

Originally Posted by I Love Film

Hmmmmm.....YOU were not obsessive and YOU did not care about getting a shot, but all those other obsessive a**holes were. But you got three or four frames.

Yes, it was a real "decisive moment"for me. I was standing at the bottom of the platform, gazing up at all those asses, wondering "WTF?",when they parted. That's when I whipped up the old camera and fired away. Got a nice low-angle shot. Having a motor drive and a zoom lens helped. (And was I part of the mob surrounding JLH when he got out of his car? No I was not. I could only gaze in awe and wonder from afar as he disappeared from view behind the wall of shooters).

(Not that I am claiming to be a paragon of virtue and righteousness on all occasions. There are plenty of people who will testify to the contrary.)

[twopointeight]

It is what it is. Just shoot it.

[ChipMcD]

Originally Posted by Calzone

It's kind of like shooting the Mermaid Parade late in the day when there are mobs of people and too many photographers jumping in front of your shots. LOL.

Cal

I had those folks blocking me early in the day too.

[colyn]

If I get your rant correct you are saying if a person uses an ipad, cell phone, or any camera other than a high dollar DSLR and carries the tag "professional photographer" he/she does not have the right to photograph an event??

"Professional" photographers usually have a better location at events than the average citizens...

[Keith]

Who's the guy in the pic everyone keeps refering to as 'prez?'

Must be pretty important huh!

[daveleo]

Originally Posted by Keith

Who's the guy in the pic everyone keeps refering to as 'prez?'

Must be pretty important huh!

here comes trouble methinks . . . .