Axel
singleshooter
I find this question to sound a bit vintage.
Cell phones have become an important tool of (my) daily life from various reasons and they are equipped with cameras since 10-15 years.
So sure, if I have a cell phone with me I also have a camera and the ability to take a picture wherever I am. Whenever I see a picture I can take it.
That was an important experience for me and my photography. It changed my perspective from a temporarely photographer to an instantly one.
This "quality thing" you also mentioned does not matter for me in this way.
If I need more (resolution, light performance, functions, ergonomics...) I have to buy a better phone or camera or some for various demands.
But I always see a picture as a whole one. That means that my way to see pictures always is as whole composition and I have to choose the right distance to make it possible for me to see.
And I don´t meditate if the Mona Lisa was painted in 10 or 100 Megapixel until I get the picture when I look at it.
So - for me - approximately 2-3 MP are enough to present a photo picture in every size from passport to wallpaper or more.
My actual phone cam has 12 or 14 or so. Much room to crop if necessary.
Corran
Well-known
Outside of specialist cases like birds or sports where super telephotos are standard, why not?
Why not?
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
One thing you are totally missing by your declarations about RFF is media.
This site golden time and still is with analog photography.
And if you think what darkroom print, Instax could be taken with cell, sorry, it is blindly foolish.
Did you also make statement what good picture could be taken with any camera?
Markov takes good photos with iPhone. They are good for IG. Once he is selling it as big print (for charity) it is not so good. Everything is good for charity, but not every large print is for charity.
Back to average photography, a.k.a. could be taken with any camera, how good are mobile phone photos to crop. Or for macro. Or for WA...
Cell is nothing but P&S. Some, without experience, often thinks what if photo looks simple it was easy to get.
Corran
Well-known
Firstly, I can actually make darkroom prints and Instax reprints with a digital file, which includes cell phone. So can anyone else make "digital" darkroom prints through services like Digital Silver Imaging or on Instax via the variety of products out there for that.
Your second point boils down to "quality" of the image. Simply put, "good images" do not have to be the highest quality. And beyond that, the technical differences between the best cell phone cameras and the average digital camera is almost nil. You can quibble about DOF effects and the like but again - is that what makes a "good" image?
PS: I say all this as a film photographer shooting up to 12x20 ULF cameras and making darkroom silver prints, not to mention doing art festivals and selling work. Next festival I do I will actually have a silver gelatin print on fiber paper that I shot on a cell phone originally and printed by hand in the darkroom on the wall, along with the other regular prints...
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Glad it works for you. It doesn't for me. If I want darkroom print I use film negative. If I want Instax it is only Instax, no phones.
Also, my standards for quality of image seems to be different than yours.
kshapero
South Florida Man
Cameras for film and digital for iPhones except my Leica M-P 240.
Corran
Well-known
You've clearly missed the part where I'm shooting up to ULF film and making contact prints. Yeah, that works for me, and digital is something I rarely shoot, and the cell phone print was on a lark.
That said you are clearly hyper-focused on "quality" and what "works for you," but I'm not arguing what "works for you." I've merely posited that what makes a good photo is 99% not related to the gear one uses or how "high quality" the image is. Of course one can argue that they can't get this or that image without some kind of specialized gear, and I agree with that to an extent - but again, is that what makes a "good" photograph?
I think many need to evaluate what makes a "good" photograph and try to divorce themselves from the process-oriented camera geekery, at least for a moment. It's something I've been thinking about recently and the disdain for cell phone cameras is especially relevant in such a discussion.
A few years ago I saw a series of cyanotypes made from cell phone images. They were gorgeous. That's what photography is ultimately about, not how many megapixels your camera is or how many lp/mm the lens produces. Literally no one cares except other camera geeks. Furthermore, I see more and more struggles from run-of-the-mill family photographers because all the camera gear in the world can't compete with the always-available cell phone camera, moments they can't capture during a 30-minute photo shoot in a cotton field or whatever.
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
Many of us like to use DOF as creative component in photographs. Cell phones can't achieve this. When AI computational manipulation gets close, I will be very sad. No more creative skill and ability necessary...another 500 million pics with cool DOF to flood the web each year and none of the image makers have a clue what makes the effect, either in the real physical world or the virtual world. I get sad just realizing that day will come. For now, I would suggest that it isn't "quibbling" about computational emulation of real world properties.
I say this as both a Luddite and a person who uses cutting edge machine learning in my research
Corran
Well-known
I think the current implementation of fake dof effects already are "good enough" for most. As for the flooding of shallow dof pics...well what do you call the last decade?
I’m not sure why it’s hard to understand that a cellphone camera can be good be enough and not good enough at the same time… I mean there were plenty of photographers who thought 35mm film wasn’t good enough and plenty who loved it. It all depends on context, content, presentation and expectations.
shimokita
白黒
and they're more than cameras on a mobile phone...
Cell phone cameras are part of a mobile translation device... take a photo of a menu item and you can get a translation of the text...
-or-
Take a photo of your sports club bar-code ID and one less thing to carry when going to your Pilates Class...
What's not to like about cell phone cameras...
.
Cell phone cameras are part of a mobile translation device... take a photo of a menu item and you can get a translation of the text...
-or-
Take a photo of your sports club bar-code ID and one less thing to carry when going to your Pilates Class...
What's not to like about cell phone cameras...
.
Cell phone camera is useful for sending someone an image of a document. Stopped by the (distant) car dealer last week to arrange for an additional electronic key for the used car we recently bought. He needed to see the car registration (which we didn't have with us) and drivers license. Said to send photos of those two things in a text message when we got home and handed us his card.
Well, I never send text messages as the screen is too small for comfortable typing, and anyway I didn't know photos could be sent by text message... Live and learn... it worked fine!
Well, I never send text messages as the screen is too small for comfortable typing, and anyway I didn't know photos could be sent by text message... Live and learn... it worked fine!
CMur12
Well-known
We used to take snapshots with "Brownie" film cameras (fixed-focus single-element lens, single aperture, single shutter speed).
There used to be articles in photography magazines about the quality of image that one could get working within the camera's limitations.
Then we got more sophisticated Instamatics (along with the less sophisticated Instamatics), and finally 35mm point-and-shoots.
Obviously, a newer cell phone has a camera vastly superior to most of the above.
Still, I, too, would rather use a good camera where I want to exercise more control to "create" an image, which would be most of the time. (That doesn't mean I would never take a photo with a cell phone.)
- Murray
There used to be articles in photography magazines about the quality of image that one could get working within the camera's limitations.
Then we got more sophisticated Instamatics (along with the less sophisticated Instamatics), and finally 35mm point-and-shoots.
Obviously, a newer cell phone has a camera vastly superior to most of the above.
Still, I, too, would rather use a good camera where I want to exercise more control to "create" an image, which would be most of the time. (That doesn't mean I would never take a photo with a cell phone.)
- Murray
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
But have you noticed the shift in skill? Yes, we once had photo publications to help us develop skills that required intimate interaction with the physical universe. Most cell camera users have delegated all or most of that skill and knowledge to the computer in their phone. Some who go a little further into creative process are primarily software users.
Don't get me wrong, I use Photoshop. I use statistical and math softwares, too (not in the mood to do 10,000 MCMC iterations by hand
). But, I know what I'm asking the computer to do and more importantly, why. The phone camera leaves me cold as a photographic tool. I guess I'm just not able to fully articulate why...
CMur12
Well-known
But have you noticed the shift in skill? Yes, we once had photo publications to help us develop skills that required intimate interaction with the physical universe. Most cell camera users have delegated all or most of that skill and knowledge to the computer in their phone. Some who go a little further into creative process are primarily software users.
Don't get me wrong, I use Photoshop. I use statistical and math softwares, too (not in the mood to do 10,000 MCMC iterations by hand
The phone camera leaves me cold as a photographic tool. I guess I'm just not able to fully articulate why...
My main point was that as a point-and-shoot camera, compared to the Brownie cameras of yore, the cell phone camera is a big improvement. While they aren't exactly the same, they fill the same role.
The phone camera doesn't enthuse me, either. As one who takes photography seriously, I want more control when I'm creating serious images. As a simple visual recording device, the phone camera can still be useful, and some have even been able to create art within the phone camera's limitations.
- Murray
Corran
Well-known
It depends on the phone, but one of mine has a full-manual mode.
I can toggle between f/1.5 or f/2.4, ISO 50 through 800 in 1/3 stop increments, exposure time of up to 10 seconds or as fast as 1/24,000 (!), full manual focus, a white balance setting (2300 to 10000 Kelvin or Auto), and finally a selection of contrast and saturation settings.
Oh, and it has an exposure compensation setting that can be set in 1/10 stop increments! It can even do all this in video mode.
I would not call it "limiting" that's for sure. And this is an old model phone! In fact this has more settings than many mid-tier DSLRs that I've used, especially in video.
I can toggle between f/1.5 or f/2.4, ISO 50 through 800 in 1/3 stop increments, exposure time of up to 10 seconds or as fast as 1/24,000 (!), full manual focus, a white balance setting (2300 to 10000 Kelvin or Auto), and finally a selection of contrast and saturation settings.
Oh, and it has an exposure compensation setting that can be set in 1/10 stop increments! It can even do all this in video mode.
I would not call it "limiting" that's for sure. And this is an old model phone! In fact this has more settings than many mid-tier DSLRs that I've used, especially in video.
CMur12
Well-known
Wow, I wasn't aware of anything like that.
Though the phone camera you describe would be handy to have along, I would still want a good camera.
- Murray
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
I think we are of the same mind.
Axel
singleshooter
The short extract of everlasting discussions.
Exactly.
And it also describes the opposite case of "the best" camera.
There is none.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Some phones have manual control of their cameras. Usually it is not iPhones, but some quirky androids or over priced Pro iPhones.
Some here seems to swear by holding phone in the hand and swiping screen to adjust controls. For some here and where it is good enough. Not to me. My well more than ten years old GRD cameras are smaller, lighter than any iPhone and have normal controls. With great IQ.
Why I have to dink with phone crappy swipe controls, if smaller camera does it better and with better IQ...
Where are cells from 2006-2008 now? ... Right, at best case scenario they were recycled. My GRD cameras from 2006-2008 just works.
And so are Brownies. I could get Brownie from circa 1920 load it with still available 120 film and get prints from it.