Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Check this out first, then ask yourself "What can I possibly learn about what gear produces the best quality by looking around the web?"
http://www.flickr.com/photos/librarybook/4980362465/#/photos/librarybook/4980362465/lightbox/
(photo at this link was apparently taken with an iPhone)
I think this image is another great example of how web-based images cannot answer questions about what gear produces the 'best' images or whether digital or film produces the best b&w or color photographs. I'm beginning to think that avoiding digital because it can't produce great b&w imagery is no longer a valid excuse.
"So what!" you say. Well, I say... ya got a point there. But there it is.
P.S.: Who's planning to be at the "Rally to Restore Sanity 2010" in Washington, D.C., October 30? I'm in!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/librarybook/4980362465/#/photos/librarybook/4980362465/lightbox/
(photo at this link was apparently taken with an iPhone)
I think this image is another great example of how web-based images cannot answer questions about what gear produces the 'best' images or whether digital or film produces the best b&w or color photographs. I'm beginning to think that avoiding digital because it can't produce great b&w imagery is no longer a valid excuse.
"So what!" you say. Well, I say... ya got a point there. But there it is.
P.S.: Who's planning to be at the "Rally to Restore Sanity 2010" in Washington, D.C., October 30? I'm in!
remegius
Well-known
Yep, that was taken with an iPhone alright. The guy did some post processing, but the fact remains. Images speak for themselves, n'est pas?
Cheers...
Rem
Cheers...
Rem
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
I guess so long as long as the iPhone doesn't have an optical viewfinder and inter-changeable lens capability, I'll still be able to resist. (G*d, I hope Steve Jobs isn't reading this!)
remegius
Well-known
Well, it's just another tool. And quite capable actually. I took this shot of my son a short time ago with my 3G.
Cheers...
Rem
Has anyone thought of modifying their camera phone to use D-Mount lenses?
Maybe an old camera phone? That would be cool. Nikkor 13mm F1.9 on a camera phone.
Nina bought a "Droid". My cell phone does not have a camera, and I keep it with the spare tire in my car.
Maybe an old camera phone? That would be cool. Nikkor 13mm F1.9 on a camera phone.
Nina bought a "Droid". My cell phone does not have a camera, and I keep it with the spare tire in my car.
Neare
Well-known
Gear doesn't take good photos for you.
The reason people may use film is not because you can't make a good B&W image from digital. It's that digital B&W looks like digital B&W, not B&W film.
It's just aesthetic (and the taking process) preference.
On that note, I love plastic lenses.
The reason people may use film is not because you can't make a good B&W image from digital. It's that digital B&W looks like digital B&W, not B&W film.
It's just aesthetic (and the taking process) preference.
On that note, I love plastic lenses.
aad
Not so new now.
I don't see any relationship between gear-geeks vs great pictures. Some real gear lovers make great pix, some suck swamp water, just like the "purist" who claims gear doesn't matter.
I ahve to ask, why does it bother people to see a nice picture made with a cellphone?
I ahve to ask, why does it bother people to see a nice picture made with a cellphone?
NickTrop
Mentor
Jamie - I agree in full about digital black and white. I was fooling around with Silver Efex... I was getting some shots in 10 zones taken with my Nikon. The level of control in post if you have the right sw is amazing, and in all honesty I get much more consistent and predictable results than I ever did wet process...
The shot you posted is just fine - taken with an iPhone.
I am 90% "in" for the "Rally to Restore Sanity"! Couldn't have come at a better time... the chick that upset Mike Castle in DE said on O'Reilly in 2007, ""American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains..." I think she watched too many episodes of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJPFSNu_QNs
at whatever asylum she was in...
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
That photo from the link in the first post is horrible IMO ... it looks like what it is, a low res image that's had the living crap processed out of it ... or into it depending on your point of view!
remegius
Well-known
Ah, yes. I was wondering how long it would take for the critics to arrive. Time to depart.
Ciao, baby...
Rem
Ciao, baby...
Rem
BTMarcais
Well-known
FrankS
Registered User
An iPhone is a capable enough tool for certain types of images with compelling content when viewed through the internet on a computer screen. It's analogous to listening to an MP3 file on an iPod and earbuds while jogging or rollerblading. Sometimes the best technical quality is not necessary and convenience is trump.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Who was it that made that famous remark ... "You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig!" I just call it as I see it.
Phones and cameras belong together like fish and bicycles in my book sorry!
remegius
Well-known
Frank...you obviously understand the truth of the matter. If, as you say, the content is compelling, the question of whether it was created by an iPhone or an M9 has little meaning. IF the content is not compelling the same holds true. That idea seems to be untenable to the peepers of pixels, and to gear heads in general.
Cheers...
Rem
FrankS
Registered User
Some images simply do not require high technical quality to be successful. They are often the best due to compelling content.
Last edited:
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Wow... Excellent!
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
I'm curious... have you made both b&w prints from both film and digital gear? Why do say digital B&W looks like digital? The only source of information I have at the moment are images I see on the web (such as the iPhone images shown here) and I often do not see the 'digital-ness' of these images. And now with advances in software, like the Silver FX stuff, I can't imagine that there's any digital-ness left, especially if the prints are made with inkjet printers.
FrankS
Registered User
If one is going to compare the look of film and digital, then one should allow the film to be traditionally wet printed, otherwise one may be seeing the look of film scanning and digital printing, not the look of film.
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Nick,
I was wondering how you're getting along with the digital. I'm almost there. I've made my way through all the Leica, Voigtlander, Zeiss cameras and lenses that I could afford (one or two at a time). I'm pretty much ready to shift over. The new Nikon D7000 has D90 low light capability AND can meter with legacy lenses... that's the last thing I was waiting for. Now I've got to get a copy of the latest Silver Efex.
Maybe I'll see you in Washington, with my "We The People Means All of Us" sign.
Jamie
I was wondering how you're getting along with the digital. I'm almost there. I've made my way through all the Leica, Voigtlander, Zeiss cameras and lenses that I could afford (one or two at a time). I'm pretty much ready to shift over. The new Nikon D7000 has D90 low light capability AND can meter with legacy lenses... that's the last thing I was waiting for. Now I've got to get a copy of the latest Silver Efex.
Maybe I'll see you in Washington, with my "We The People Means All of Us" sign.
Jamie
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Keith,
I can't see anything other than lots of shadow detail, plenty of grays, nice sharpness. What is it you see that doesn't look right? I've looked at most of the images that have been used to discuss this issue in the past here and for the life of me, I cannot see the 'digital-ness' in them. I've done a lot of darkroom b&w printing over the years and these web-based images look plenty good. Maybe you have some experience seeing these type of images in person, as a real print? If so, what do you see there? Thanks.
Jamie
I can't see anything other than lots of shadow detail, plenty of grays, nice sharpness. What is it you see that doesn't look right? I've looked at most of the images that have been used to discuss this issue in the past here and for the life of me, I cannot see the 'digital-ness' in them. I've done a lot of darkroom b&w printing over the years and these web-based images look plenty good. Maybe you have some experience seeing these type of images in person, as a real print? If so, what do you see there? Thanks.
Jamie