jcmarfilph: Seriously? Credit goes to overdone filters and PP to mask mediocrity of these images.
Agree, and BTW the rules specifically state that no desktop PP can be done - what a joke, does anyone believe lots of these weren't tortured outside the phone?How would you check it? And did they bother to check any of the finalists? Oh I forgot this is more about propagating the myth of convenience over quality, and selling more 'camera's that are worse than digital P&S from 10 years ago.Phone cameras record only limited exif data, and this can easily be swapped back to the original data with quite a few exif tools.
Dames01: Nice set of pictures. In the end some people have talent and others do not. It does matter what camera you have with you...Nevertheless, under some lighting conditions as well as for certain types of composition, a camera phone will not be up to scratch.
Agree some great compositions, but it does matter what 'tool' you use. Ignoring that this WAS a phone contest, why would any one DELIBERATELY use an inferior tool? Why use a blunt chisel if you know you might need a sharp one - too lazy to sharpen it?Everyone of these glaringly show the limitations of very low end sensor/lens/processing.This deluge of phone vendor marketing is dumbing people down - they want us to believe photography is only about convenience, let's ignore the noise, crummy focus, non existent shadow detail, blown highlights, inconsistent colour, distortion......lets all pretend that because someone with talent can use these tools they will magically turn one's narcissistic dreams into reality - with no real effort of course.
Much of the great technical advantages from the digital age are being sacrificed purely on the alter of convenience - most of these images would have come out just as good with a 70 year old box brownie - or a tiny film camera.
Sam Carriere: Gee, just imagine what these people might have accomplished if they had been using cameras.
eopix - not true - every one has such glaringly poor IQ that they would be significantly improved if the the same person used a better tool - one worthy of their talents.agentul - I would care - because we are encouraging people to remain ignorant about an important part of photography - get the best shot you can first - not the easiest, and don't be lazy, if you have the talent, invest in a bit of extra effort (inconvenience ) to maximise the results.
sir_bazz: Some of these images are very, very good.
Just reiterates to me that there's so much more to producing good images beyond the size of the sensor thats being used.
More fortune cookie statements - I'm sure Ansel Adams would have agreed with you - that's why he lugged that huge land camera around instead of a box brownie right?BTW can you point me to ANY images from the all time heroes of photography taken with the lowest quality tool available?
Johnsonj: These images are awesome. Love the iPhone imaging look. The best camera is the one that's with you. Every day, more photos are taken with the iPhone than any other camera.
Nonsense - I'm sick and tired of this fortune cookie quote "the best camera is the one that is with you", Only if you didn't know you needed one - i.e. if you knew you were going to take a shot why would you take an inferior tool? To show how trendy you are? Oops I blurted out the secret reason many people buy things.IMO most of these show fine composition, such a shame that the IQ is so atrocious in every one that it borders on pathetic.
jcmarfilph: Mobile photography does not necessarily mean you have to make your life miserable by forcing yourself to use a mediocre smartphone and make it to act and look like a real camera. Epic fail!
Buy a 100$ pocket travelzoom cam. No need to DIY, no need to buy plasticky accessories. Transfer it to your internet enabled phone or notebook with wifi or card reader and upload the pictures from there if uploading a picture right away is more important than anything else.
Agree completely, why would anyone put a phone camera on a tripod? So where did this tripod come from? If the opportunity deserved carrying around a tripod then just take a camera that will do it justice.Sigh... this endless drivel about how great phone cameras are - and yet behold ! DPR and others never ever allow a comparison in their tests to other cameras - just other phones. Maybe I need to do one myself and post it so the BS can be 'exposed'.Sure I use my HTC OneX regularly, but I don't pretend it can produce anything more than grainy, low IQ shots.
Why is there a DX-Mark-Mobile score? Why not the same test as per a P&S. What is different & how can one compare results? If phone cameras are as good as the hype, why the need to create a differant score - if they are supposed to be useful as a camera then just test them using the same scoring as other (compact) fixed lens cameras.
Of course we shouldn't be snobs about what type of camera was used....,but likewise we shouldn't be suckers for fads, i.e. just because it was taken with a gosh golly PHONE! doesn't make it any more worthy either. Can someone point me to the great trove of 'fine art' taken with box brownies back in the early 1900's (equivalent to today's phone cameras)...no I thought not.
I took the time to view all 38 finalists, most look like clumsy 'happy snaps' tortured with PP to make up for sloppy technique, some were just embarrassing, and a couple were OK, but fine art? The Age of Narcissism reigns supreme.
Sad that everyone thinks they have talent just because mummy told them so.
I disagree with the first section - i.e. the cannonballs, elephant etc.
As I hear it - he is saying posing and cropping are the same thing - they ARE NOT. Same for framing and posing, the elephant gimmick is just silly, what about what was behind the camera, or maybe on the next continent/planet??Classic example of twisted logic - to excuse straight out fraudulent activity by photographers.
There is a BIG difference between a deliberate choice of framing/cropping and a deliberate physical interference in what is in the actual scene displayed - be it by 'posing' cannonballs, or deleting/inserting objects afterwards.
Changing objects, faking scenes, passing off re-enactments as the original is cheating and fraud and no amount of 'nothing is real' or "all pictures lie" blather excuses a cheater.So a photo (i.e. a chosen field of view) can't tell the whole story - so how exactly does that make cheating and faking scenes OK?
Shame on him for suggesting they are the same.
I'm looking forward to the 1D X, for me this sounds like the best 1 series ever - I have a mixture of work, studio, action and architecture. For me the best points are:
Better dynamic range (assumed) - for me I'll sacrifice resolution for DR every day - less need to resort to HDR which IMO always look a little fake.
Improved button and dual joysticks
Full frame video with additional controls/features with 1 series sealing.
I'm also bemused by those who complain about the size/weight. Compared to P&S and pseudo SLR's these things are like a 'toaster'... but ... they differ little to a standard DSLR with a grip - e.g. my old 50D with grip and dual batteries weighs only about 100g less and is only a few mm smaller. Most of the 1d 'grip' space is taken up with a big battery - which is a must have.
This a crop from Lenthall's winning entry in the 'Under Attack' challenge - the arrows point to rather suspect areas - see the comments in the challenge
Thank you Lenthall for responding - as a vocal critic here are two questions:
1- The hills - Can you explain why the line of the hill behind the chopper suddenly stops at the end of the (also) rather strange squarish darkish patch around the chopper?
2- Can you explain this darkish patch? Why does it have a squarish shape - sure smoke can be disturbed around the rotors - but with an almost neat cut-off?! Also the longest left blade - based on the angles looks a bit short.
I've put a crop of this area in my gallery for those that are interested
Hey stan_pustylnik - did you actually look properly at this fake?
Maybe you could explain why the the mountain behind the chopper is way out of alignment?? Maybe you looked at it on your phone ;)
Like the saying says "a sucker born every minute"
BTW everyone - 24 hours gone by and not a peep from the author or the challenge host
Agree - clearly a fake, and an amateurish one to boot.
This is not debate about authenticity - you know the old 'what's real anymore' crap - the 'author' specifically lied in his notes - 'not a composite' and thus should be banned from future challenges.
It also shows the gullibility of the average viewer and voter - ooh look mummy at the pretty picture - I like it so it must be good.
I look forward to a response from the perpetrator and the challenge host.
Thanks for your comments Cits.
I had the string in left hand, the 990 in my right.I recall having to shoot a couple of times because he was tugging at the string like a dog, causing me to jerk the camera :)
And you are right, whilst the 990 was good for its day, the noise was quite high. Makes one realize how lucky we are to have such great equipment available now.
BTW the 990 cost about $1700 then !!
Nice shot, would have been better without the amateurish PS work, hmmm wonder how a sky could have such a huge halo around the main building?