Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 26 to 42 of 42
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    3,171
    Quote Originally Posted by muted View Post
    I always thought the 'best camera you have is the one with you' is bullshit. Phone cameras are good for selfies. The wide angle is made for when you want to do the 'IDK, feeling cute, might delete' selfie, which means only an arm's length away. Countless times I've been in amazing mountains, took a pic, and looking at it, it's a boner-killer. Everything looks so small and far away. The best camera then would have a 35 or 50mm prime, or most likely a 70-200mm, not some dumb phone.

    Phone cams can be great for a lot of things, and you can process amazing images with it. I recently figured you can take RAW photos with the Lightroom phone app, which is so cool. They are amazingly advanced, I'm often blown away by many images I take with mine, but phones are not that great for a lot of pics I want to take, and I don't buy into the 'creativity comes with limitations' bullshit either. Mountains shouldn't look like molehills. And it's really hard to frame out the bullshit with those things.
    Shooting landscape with a wide angle lens requires a different compositional approach - otherwise, you'll end up with boring photos of distant mountains.

    Sometimes, the best zoom or "telephoto" is your feet. Look at how Galen Rowell used to shoot.

    ... Thom
    Galibier Design
    crafting technology in service of music

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,477
    Phones taking “way better shots” these days is mainly based on sophisticated processing algorithms. Your phone measures the light, ups the ISO, and has decent IS like a GoPro.

    Going manual and making an image, shooting raw, and using a tripod to reduce ISO levels is still going to yield a much higher-quality image. Assuming the processing is also high quality.

    I have yet to find an app that allows me to adjust aperture. There are some processing presets that approximate that, but phones (at least my iPhone XR) can’t actually change aperture. The LR mobile app is nice to allow raw, but there are still significant limitations and I would say that my mobile has a pretty decent camera.

    Ultimately though, most images are shared on IG or something similar. And phones’ sophisticated processing is really all that most people need.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    3,171
    Quote Originally Posted by splitter View Post
    Phones taking “way better shots” these days is mainly based on sophisticated processing algorithms. Your phone measures the light, ups the ISO, and has decent IS like a GoPro.

    Going manual and making an image, shooting raw, and using a tripod to reduce ISO levels is still going to yield a much higher-quality image. Assuming the processing is also high quality.

    I have yet to find an app that allows me to adjust aperture. There are some processing presets that approximate that, but phones (at least my iPhone XR) can’t actually change aperture. The LR mobile app is nice to allow raw, but there are still significant limitations and I would say that my mobile has a pretty decent camera.

    Ultimately though, most images are shared on IG or something similar. And phones’ sophisticated processing is really all that most people need.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    ^^^ this ^^^
    Galibier Design
    crafting technology in service of music

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    West Coast of the East Coast
    Posts
    6,538
    I just shot my entire European vacation using my S9 and the 18MM and 58MM Moment lenses. I am really happy with the results so far.

    I might try to download that LR app for the last few days here in Sicily. TR to follow.

    Couple of example shots-



  5. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Big in Japan
    Posts
    36,718
    Nice.

    I've been saying lately to the phone deniers, go to a museum and check out some famous photos shot on 35mm, usually Tri-X. The prints are small, and, well, suck, a lot of them. Phones today are so much better than that, and, in five to ten years, I might be making 16x20s in my P800 that you could step a few feet back from and say, hmmmm, not bad. As though 99% of phone pics actually make it to any kind of paper print, though.
    Not that I'm planning on using a phone like that. I'm waiting for the 2000 dollar or less small mirrorless 65 or even 100 MP camera to hit the market. Maybe 3000 dollars. The same tech progression will make that. Then I can buy a camera that will last a decade, because I won't need anything more. Unless they make a sub 1000 dollar 150 MP portable, small camera.

    I wonder how hard it is to create a small manufacturing company that will make phone cases with a sliding door or some sort of cover for the lenses (now, lenses on the iPhone) on the back? Is that too much to ask? That is the biggest issue with these contraptions - the lens gets all mucked up with crap during daily use. That, and, not being able to see the screen in bright sunlight.

    Let's do some livin'
    After, we die

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    5,512
    Quote Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un View Post
    Shooting landscape with a wide angle lens requires a different compositional approach - otherwise, you'll end up with boring photos of distant mountains.

    Sometimes, the best zoom or "telephoto" is your feet. Look at how Galen Rowell used to shoot.

    ... Thom
    I'm looking, he definitely didn't use an iphone. I'm not into the foreground-anchoring style either to solve my problem, I'm looking for a real camera, like what he uses.

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    2,064
    Quote Originally Posted by Benny Profane View Post
    I've been saying lately to the phone deniers, go to a museum and check out some famous photos shot on 35mm, usually Tri-X. The prints are small, and, well, suck, a lot of them.
    Yup. the whole point of a 35mm Leica or a 35mm Nikon was it was the lightest flexiblest thing that would take a good enough picture. "good" pictures were taken with MF or LF. course the other reason some of those pictures suck is they didn't have "the best" equipment even within their preferred format, Robert Frank wasn't a pixel peeping messageboard whore.

    the whole ultraflexible zoom with your feet works with an uncrowded world... not so much some things now. You aren't going to go sprinting across Lhasa to take a picture of the Pothala palace. street photography? meh. get off my lawn.

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    5,512
    Quote Originally Posted by Benny Profane View Post

    I wonder how hard it is to create a small manufacturing company that will make phone cases with a sliding door or some sort of cover for the lenses (now, lenses on the iPhone) on the back? Is that too much to ask? That is the biggest issue with these contraptions - the lens gets all mucked up with crap during daily use. That, and, not being able to see the screen in bright sunlight.
    Pro Tip 4 bennie: Don't put the phone in the stolen sandwich meats pocket from the breakfast buffet at Big Sky

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Big in Japan
    Posts
    36,718
    Quote Originally Posted by BaNosser View Post
    Olympus Imaging Q1 YoY down 8% too.... mirrorless revenue down 11%

    The son of a co-worker is actually a world renowned Photo-Journalist... Having covered the Libyan Revolution (damn near died.. the journalist standing next to him did when an RPG was fired at them).. numerous projects for Nat Geo.. Time.. opening ceremony China Olympics for SI etc... He has done many shoots with just his iPhone..

    http://time.com/3790801/an-iphone-in...stopher-brown/

    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/phot...the-libyan-war

    https://michaelchristopherbrown.com/galleries/road/
    That's pretty cool. I follow a photographer on IG by the name of Dina Alfasi. I think she's Israeli. She shoots a lot of in your face portraits in trains that are quite nice, and, yeah, that's something that would be hard to impossible to do with a camera.

    Let's do some livin'
    After, we die

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    600
    Of course it is, when the only place people consume photos anymore is instagram it doesn't really matter.

    I have gone on several amazing trips the past few years with friends and took the time to take photos and process them and send out download links for high res photos and no one ever consumed them anywhere other than scrolling on their mobile phones.

    Everything could be 4000 ISO and out of focus completely and you never know on a smartphone.

    Eventually you start thinking... "what is the point".

    I'm not saying you can't take a great photo on a smartphone, but I see a lot that aren't so great that look great on that little screen with the auto HDR and really vibrant processing.

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    11,928
    Quote Originally Posted by dunfree View Post
    street photography? meh. get off my lawn.
    I started an incendiary thread on reddit analogcommunity a week ago talking about why "street" is shit.

    I still love getting the comment notifications. That M6 or that Ricoh GR3 aren't really doing much for the medium other than keeping profits and prices high.

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,472
    Quote Originally Posted by MakersTeleMark View Post
    I started an incendiary thread on reddit analogcommunity a week ago talking about why "street" is shit.

    I still love getting the comment notifications. That M6 or that Ricoh GR3 aren't really doing much for the medium other than keeping profits and prices high.
    is there still street photography? it seems like what passes for street now consists of some fashion whores posing outside like peter lindbergh’s flock of models at the brooklyn bridge. it’s a shame. actual street photography is so cool, but i guess everyone else is just staring at their phones now.
    .....I hope you know that this will go down on your permanent record

    http://procatinator.com/?cat=80

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    5,512
    Quote Originally Posted by ml242 View Post
    is there still street photography? it seems like what passes for street now consists of some fashion whores posing outside like peter lindbergh’s flock of models at the brooklyn bridge. it’s a shame. actual street photography is so cool, but i guess everyone else is just staring at their phones now.
    Of course there is. I can't say I'm an expert on who-is-who, but the new trendy guy is Daniel Arnold, for example, who is king of awkward. His assignments for magazines covering NYC parties can be hilarious, but his street stuff is great. https://www.vogue.com/article/daniel...121?verso=true

    There are a lot of 'fashion whore' photography out there, like @apehouse, which yes it's posing and not in-the-moment, but it still can be good. This guy is interesting too: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/10/s...e-antoine.html

    They are all NYC peeps, if anyone wants to share some other worldly people feel free. I've seen some great stuff from some guy in Eastern Europe, can't remember who...but there are a ton of people out there. Walking around NYC I've seen random people with cameras 'hidden' at about waist high in crowded areas, just watching all us awkward people go by. I think Ricky Powell is still out there doing it, too.

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    2,064
    Quote Originally Posted by MakersTeleMark View Post
    I started an incendiary thread on reddit analogcommunity a week ago talking about why "street" is shit.

    I still love getting the comment notifications. That M6 or that Ricoh GR3 aren't really doing much for the medium other than keeping profits and prices high.
    lots of thats editing I think - those "great" street photogs took tons of shots, and edited them down to really tight presentations, e.g. Robert Frank shot 767 rolls of film for "The Americans" about 27,000 images, made 1,000 work prints, and edited that down to a book of 83 pictures. And at least 2 of the final pictures came from the same roll of film - there were a bunch that didn't amount to anything obviously.
    Name:  frank2_200-1369d1fe309d0378c18dd2c068799c2578591f62-s300-c85.jpg
Views: 81
Size:  20.2 KB

    I'm not seeing the same dedication to editing in most of the modern practitioners of "street", but then nobody really gives a fuck about books or tightly edited shit anymore it's all just shit on a feed.

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,472
    friedlander died with 700 undeveloped rolls or something. still, lots of people get pretty far by copying what these guys did.
    .....I hope you know that this will go down on your permanent record

    http://procatinator.com/?cat=80

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    3,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Benny Profane View Post
    Nice.

    I've been saying lately to the phone deniers, go to a museum and check out some famous photos shot on 35mm, usually Tri-X. The prints are small, and, well, suck, a lot of them. Phones today are so much better than that, and, in five to ten years, I might be making 16x20s in my P800 that you could step a few feet back from and say, hmmmm, not bad. As though 99% of phone pics actually make it to any kind of paper print, though.
    Not that I'm planning on using a phone like that. I'm waiting for the 2000 dollar or less small mirrorless 65 or even 100 MP camera to hit the market. Maybe 3000 dollars. The same tech progression will make that. Then I can buy a camera that will last a decade, because I won't need anything more. Unless they make a sub 1000 dollar 150 MP portable, small camera.

    I wonder how hard it is to create a small manufacturing company that will make phone cases with a sliding door or some sort of cover for the lenses (now, lenses on the iPhone) on the back? Is that too much to ask? That is the biggest issue with these contraptions - the lens gets all mucked up with crap during daily use. That, and, not being able to see the screen in bright sunlight.
    Why would u want over 50mp? Pixel envy?

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Big in Japan
    Posts
    36,718
    Ability to crop, larger prints.

    It's not really mp, that's a crude measure. Better dynamic range, less noise at a little higher ISO would be great, too.

    My benchmark is prints made from fine grain 4x5 negs. You still have to spend a ton of money to get close in digital.

    Let's do some livin'
    After, we die

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •