ZAnton: Big size does not help if they compress everything with 10% quality. All my photos have "nice" lines and squares on the color gradients.
It is a year and a half later and the quality of Facebook high resolution photos is still horrible.
clicstudio: I love going to Live Rock concerts.I am extremely happy with my canon Powershot sx280 hs http://m.dpreview.com/products/canon/compacts/canon_sx280hsSometimes I am close to the stage and sometimes I'm not that lucky.The 20x zoom and the very usable ISO 3200 on this camera lets me capture amazing photos which I can instantly transfer to my iPhone 5 and upload to Facebook thanks to the built wi-fi.All of this for $299. An entry level DSLR with a 28-500 lens would be huge and over $1000 and would probably give me just a little better quality. I own a canon 1D X but of course I can't put it in my pocket.Sensor size is important, only if you are going to need it for printing. Most pocket cameras are more than sufficient for anything. And convenient too.
I must agree with Plastek's remark on ISO 3200 via the Powershot. Only to simply say I grabbed the image. Nothing more.
JDThomas: Im sorry, but I don't see these as "documentary" photographs. Aren't documentary photographs supposed to tell a story or chronicle some sort of event? There is no context to these photos. I wouldn't be able to tell if this was Sarajevo or Los Angeles.
These images are "OK", but nothing amazing. I see photos on Instagram everyday posted by amateurs who never picked up a "real" camera in their lives that are as good or better.
Agreed. But the reason he and others are 'celebrated' is because there is a billion dollar corporation doing the celebrating (through proxies of course).
This billion dollar corporation happens to make the phone being celebrated.
bdcolen: I cannot help but laugh at the breathless excitement over doing "serious" photography with an iPhone, with or without any gimmicky filters. Yes, of course, the best camera is the camera you have with you. But imagine for a moment that someone told this or any serious - photographer, 'no, don't take your state-of-the-art cameras with you on assignment; do your work with this crappy 2004 point-and-shoot." The response from anyone not looking for publicity for doing something weird, would be, 'are you out of your mind, mate?' (And well it should be.) Yet today we have serious photographers, including some leading photo journalists, doing assignments with crappy 2004 point-and-shoots called iPhones, making the resulting photos technically even worse by using gimmick filters and post processing add-ons that produce the look of badly processed, fadded, color films from the 1970s.
Camera of choice? Results to be celebrated? For anything other than art(sy fartsy) photography? Not really.
And media organizations that print advertisements for Apple are running stories with the photos done with iphones as yet another advertisement for Apple. They don't think the best photojournalistic effort is being produced with the iPhone. They simply are being paid to suggest that. And the beat goes on. It's capitalism.
Even as I read this I knew this wouldn't play well in this community.
peevee1: A little late, aren't they?
Has anyone seen the connections between two types of threads that consistently pop up here?
There is the thread where the hand to mouth photographer with a small business laments changes in the camera industry and in the society that are forcing him/her to do things he would not normally do, some of which seem shitty or unprincipled to some. Like providing cds instead of prints to customers. When this topic emerges what also emerges are legions of users offering the advice that it is the responsibility of said photographer to do whatever is necessary to remain attractive and relevant to a customer base.
The other scenario that consistently arises is related to this threads topic. A multibillion dollar firm will announce that it is doing something it surely should have been doing 6-9 months ago. Something interesting happens next. Out of the woodwork pop these users explaining how said company has no responsibility to do anything free for users. Even if it obviously is in the company's interest to satisfy it's customer base.
Anyone else notice the rank hypocrisy in thought regarding the behavior of small business owners and the largest firms in the world? Why do little guys always side against other little guys?
KodaChrome25: M&M is a Google plant. She alienated half of YaHoo's employees. She's now alienating YaHoo subscribers. She dropped over a bil on Tumblr. She'll parachute out with another big chunk-o-cash. Then she'll run for Gov of CA having destroyed YaHoo. Like Whitman with E-Bay and now HP. Like Fiorina with HP.
I said the same thing about M&M the day she was announced. Her job is to sink them.
itsastickup: Very boring article, but the NYtimes reader's comments below it are hilarious.
Those reader comments are geeks without lives.
Newsflash folks. This is capitalism. Yahoo, owner of Flickr, will always need higher profits and the best way in a post labor economy to do that is to reduce service and increase fees. Things can only go down.
I can't believe this day came so soon. The pirates and torrenters defeated a billion dollar company. Open source won.
Apple fans don't want to hear anything bad about Apple. True or not. And it's off topic anyhow. So can we keep our eye on the ball and ignore the Apple talk? Please.
I'm looking forward to seeing the speed of this software on tablets out in the world. That will tell the story.
Another tool to kill people faster. Cool.
It wasn't mentioned that Klein was photographing the streets at a time before American desegregation. The cities were still largely white. We live in a different era. Street photography in an American city post-segregation has meant, often times, dealing face to face with poor people, mostly Black and Brown. I think the project mentality that seems to come along with street photography is associated with the fact that most of the photographers (at least the ones discussing this subject online) are white men who don't live on the streets being shot. Personally, I think it matters very little whether you live there or not. However, I think it does matter to most togs. I think most are afraid of to get out there for the same reason that their parents fled the cities after school racial desegregation and after racial desegregation of public facilities.
I love street photography but I tend to not love the way it is approached and written about on the internet.
I think this is great. I'm glad manufacturers are wising up that they don't have to pander only to the military type gearhead techies to make money. Bravo!
Peiasdf: How is the removable battery a boon to the environment? It promotes copious consumption. People will be multiple back-up battery and never use them. When the phone is outdated all will be throw out. It is not like you can drop in a S3 battery into S4 or S4 into S5.
Integrated battery last longer because it is less affected by the environment and never really discharged. They are also more likely to be recycled with the phone than just sit in a drawer somewhere.
The HTC HD2 was originally a Windows 6 phone but devs hacked it to run many versions of Android, Ubuntu, Windows 7, Windows RT and other systems a well. None of this would have happened if the phone couldn't age. And irreplaceable battery phones don't age well at all.
mrsfixit: I think the removable battery is great.Most people who have cell phones do NOT have multiple batteries for them. You use the battery that's in the phone until it starts to die, then replace it.With devices with integrated batteries- you have to toss out the device.It makes no sense to throw a whole device out- one that may still work perfectly and still suit your needs- just because the battery wore out.
Agreed. But the manufacture of electronics is so ecologically destructive that none of the phone companies want to get into that conversation. They lose no matter what.
dpLarry: The Samsung phone is so so.
Who cares if it's easily repairable?
You sound like someone who hasn't owned many smartphones
As someone who used to shoot without flash exclusively, I would venture to say that many admirers of this and similar articles are togs who don't know how to properly use flash meaning they don't understand light. And are looking for any reason to justify not learning. I know that you, the author, are not advocating not learning light and exposure but many will take your words for that.
All that said, I agree with much of what you've written about the flexibility in wedding situations when not using flash. You might mention the downsides as well. Some clients simply don't want moody, shadowy photos (despite artistic flair). I, and perhaps others, have to keep that in mind as well. Nice write up.
And you have an attractive website. Thanks again.
I can only hope surveillance goes off the charts after this and that the elite overplay their hand and put in place a serious police state apparatus. America's Black population has been talking about the police state for decades but it has fallen on deaf ears. Maybe you all will see it when you can no longer go anywhere outside your home without monitoring. Here's to the police state.
angrywhtman: These new releases are too frequent and there are not enough new tools to merit it.
I agree that the new features don't merit another $125. Paltry additions like this, called upgrades, are an indication that there is too little competition. What's with the 'don't upgrade' shouting? Are we only allowed to cheerlead products now?