Do you care to back it up with something different from your own opinion ?
I see photography with a proper lighting set-up in a studio or some other controlled environment.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Why do DPR posters treat cellphone photography like a capital crime?
- Thread starter sportyaccordy
- Start date
I see photography with a proper lighting set-up in a studio or some other controlled environment.
Bad pictures - pictures I could have used and enjoyed except that they were ruined by having been taken on a cell phone.
yardcoyote
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 18,132
- Solutions
- 14
- Reaction score
- 18,310
Landscape photography? Street photography? Photojournalism? Nature and wildlife? Garden macro?
sportyaccordy
Forum Pro
People are no more or less stupid than they've ever been. There are just more people now than there ever have been, and more platforms and visibility of said stupidity. If you think people were any more substantive or intelligent "back in your day" you're fooling yourself.
sportyaccordy
Forum Pro
Newspapers now often use reader's pictures, shot with whatever they have, instead of sending a professional photographer, in my regional paper it certainly shows.
When I travelled for my job I would have been very happy to have a smart phone, it would have saved me time, I could have documented various things better, however, it would not have deserved the term photography.
For me, photography is a deliberate, planned act which may take bits and pieces of accessory equipment.
Glen Barrington
Forum Pro
That's tarring with a pretty broad brush. That being said, I don't see many smartphone produced images that are any good. (none, actually)
The truth is the smartphone is not designed, ergonomically, to produce optimum photos. It's impossible to hold steady, and virtually impossible to perform the level of control I consider necessary to produce the photos I want to produce.
Most android phones only have 3 analog controls, an on/off button, a rocker switch for volume, and that software access button at the bottom of the screen. I'd like to see one of those three controls become programmable so that when the camera is activated, it becomes a shutter button, I think tapping the screen is unreliable and adds camera movement to the photo. The BEST way to do it is a separate shutter button towards the bottom of the vertical screen, but I don't expect to see that in the future Motorola tried that about 7 years ago and abandoned that idea. I wish they had kept it. Smartphone photography would be far more advanced than it is.
And THAT being said, I do occasionally use my smartphone camera to take pictures with. It's always with me and is a camera of convenience. "The camera you have with you . . ."
I will probably upgrade my Galaxy S5 to an S7 some time this year, most likely in part, because of the camera. This is the first time I've EVER considered the camera as part of the decision making process when selecting a smartphone.
Samsung's foray into producing REAL cameras was short lived, but it sounds like they put what they learned into their other products, and I am curious to see what they have come up with.
The truth is the smartphone is not designed, ergonomically, to produce optimum photos. It's impossible to hold steady, and virtually impossible to perform the level of control I consider necessary to produce the photos I want to produce.
Most android phones only have 3 analog controls, an on/off button, a rocker switch for volume, and that software access button at the bottom of the screen. I'd like to see one of those three controls become programmable so that when the camera is activated, it becomes a shutter button, I think tapping the screen is unreliable and adds camera movement to the photo. The BEST way to do it is a separate shutter button towards the bottom of the vertical screen, but I don't expect to see that in the future Motorola tried that about 7 years ago and abandoned that idea. I wish they had kept it. Smartphone photography would be far more advanced than it is.
And THAT being said, I do occasionally use my smartphone camera to take pictures with. It's always with me and is a camera of convenience. "The camera you have with you . . ."
I will probably upgrade my Galaxy S5 to an S7 some time this year, most likely in part, because of the camera. This is the first time I've EVER considered the camera as part of the decision making process when selecting a smartphone.
Samsung's foray into producing REAL cameras was short lived, but it sounds like they put what they learned into their other products, and I am curious to see what they have come up with.
Tom_Bruno
Senior Member
No, no, no. What "anger?" Where do you see that?
Cell phone shots are great, quick, convenient, easily shared etc. But they're not of good visual quality. Certainly nothing you'd make a large print from. Are people "angry" about that? No, no.
I *wish* I had a pocket camera that made images as good as my big rigs, but so be it. I have all the options available. I might be inconvenienced by carrying a bigger camera, but not "angry." I do use a smartphone for snapshots. Does that mean folks here think I'm "stupid?" When people like my wife shoot with their iPhone I don't consider her "stupid."
You're barking up a rotten tree here. Where's *your* "anger" coming from? Just who are you angry at? How "inferior" do you feel? Show us your pictures, either smartphone or otherwise, and let us judge whether we should consider you "stupid" or "inferior." Put up or shut up.
Perhaps you "have no substance or character." Why else would you write such an insulting and hostile post?
The "root of this anger" is guys like you, I suspect.
---------------
Tom B
Last edited:
sportyaccordy
Forum Pro
THAT'S tarring with a pretty broad brush.
I have had a few Sony smartphones including my Xperia Z1 Compact. They all had dedicated shutter buttons.
How is the camera in a smartphone not a "REAL" camera? Does it not take "real" pictures?
This is what I'm talking about. Why are we so emotionally invested in camera specs? They are just devices. Any camera that takes photos is a "REAL" camera.
Mostly, I think the same reason they get angry at anyone using a smaller sensor than full frame, or a horrible 18-200 eq. walkaround lens, or Auto mode, or shoot JPG, or no EVF, or a pentamirror instead of a pentaprism, or insufficient manual controls, or whatever....
Guys who exhibit this anger (and it's always us men, isn't it?) are usually driven by feelings of both pity and scorn, born from an ego that thrives on a feeling superiority, which overwhelms whatever empathy and compassion they may for the tastes and choices of others.
Heres a good article about it on Wikipedia (narcissistic personality disorder) .
The best of these souls are like wine drinkers who, having acquired a taste for the very best wines, shake their heads at anyone who chooses or cannot afford the same indulgence. At least they're anger comes from an intense but somewhat misguided compassion. Although they will angrily shake their heads and cluck their tongues, at least they usually stop after concluding, "Well, it's fine smartphone photography is your cup of tea, that's fine. But no EVF and no manual controls means it's simply not good enough for me, and it never will be." And they move on.
The worst are those insufferable types who can't leave it at that. They believe that smartphone users (and everyone not using their approved equipment list) are single-handedly responsible for both destroying the art of photography AND are destroying the digital photography industry.
In my humble opinion, of course.
TacticDesigns
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 8,446
- Solutions
- 9
- Reaction score
- 3,729
Some cellphones have a built-in button for the shutter.
The Sony T3 that I have has one.
But also there is this add-on button that you stick in the earphone jack that can act as a dedicated shutter button.
Loading…
gizmodo.com
Take care & Happy Shooting!
.
sportyaccordy
Forum Pro
I am seeing anger in this very post, LOL.
But in pretty much any thread about cameraphones there are snide remarks and insults hurled at cameraphones and the people who use them. There are some in this very thread! I just want to understand what about a camera in a phone drives these folks to their wits' end. I'm not angry, just curious and a little confused.
For whatever its worth you can look at my gallery here, though I never claimed to be an incredible photographer nor do I see why one has to be to ask questions. In fact as a novice I feel entitled to ask questions- how else will I learn?
Glen Barrington
Forum Pro
For the record, I'm NOT going to get into an extended dialog over this. You aren't likely to get me to respond again.
However, that has been my experience, NONE of the photos I've seen coming from a smartphone have been any good, not even mine (and I am one of the greatest photographers in all of Western Civilization!) I believe,as I explain in the paragraph below, the smartphone camera is poorly designed for photography.
Unfortunately, Verizon doesn't SELL Sony phones for their network at all. I'm not sure why, but if they haven't done so yet, it seems unlikely that they will do so in the future. Since smartphone photography is not a high priority for me, my choice of carrier is not something the photography options play much of a factor for me.
And in fact Sony hasn't been much of a factor in the North American market. I don't think I've EVER seen one out 'in the wild', or even in a display case for that matter.
I though I was being ironic by using the word 'real'. This isn't emotional investment for me. It is a rational decision. I wonder if you are confusing my my reactions to the smartphone photo environment I have to work with, with your reactions to my decisions.
And if you aren't, that's OK too. Like I said, I don't want to get into an extended sub thread over this. It just isn't important enough to me. I just wanted to express my objection to using an implied 'all' to DPR users over this.
Glen Barrington
Forum Pro
What an interesting idea! The only negative I see is the possible location of the phone's 3mm headphone jack. It would be pretty poorly placed, I think on a Galaxy S5 for a camera phone shutter button, but maybe holding the phone a bit differently might solve that issue.
--
I look good fat, I'm gonna look good old. . .
http://glenbarrington.blogspot.com/
http://glenbarringtonphotos.blogspot.com/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/130525321@N05/
--
I look good fat, I'm gonna look good old. . .
http://glenbarrington.blogspot.com/
http://glenbarringtonphotos.blogspot.com/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/130525321@N05/
Last edited:
sportyaccordy
Forum Pro
FWIW AT&T does not sell my phone. $300 for a brand new 4G phone with 2GB of RAM and a quad core processor was too good of a deal to pass up.
Jonathan Brady
Veteran Member
The Galaxy S6 does this - not with the "home" button though, it's with the volume rocker. Pressing up or down on the volume rocker takes a picture. It's also incredibly easy to get to the camera app, just double click the home button from ANY screen and you're there. I deleted the camera icon because it's inconvenient compared to double clicking the home button.
This is the same on the iPhone - use the Volume Up button on the phone or the headphone remote to trigger the shutter. It's pretty useful.Some cellphones have a built-in button for the shutter.
The Sony T3 that I have has one.
But also there is this add-on button that you stick in the earphone jack that can act as a dedicated shutter button.
http://gizmodo.com/add-a-button-to-any-android-phone-with-this-genius-head-1221431712
Take care & Happy Shooting!
I think cellphone cameras are great, it means the times where you wish you had a camera on you are over - you always have your phone. Is the quality bad? Eh, I've seen some amazing photos done with cellphones, although personally I find I'm pretty poor with them! I'd rather have a mediocre picture of something amazing than no picture at all though.
If cellphones mean virtually everyone has a camera on them at all times, this is a good thing. So many events that would be lost to history are now captured (preferably horizontally if in video form!). It also means many people are discovering a love for an art form they might decide to take more seriously. It means you can take photos in places where you can't take a 'real' camera. What's to hate? Except people using tiny flashes that won't make a difference to a subject many metres away, of course!
Matt Kolberg
Well-known member
I have done that, and the results are *drastically* better. For one thing, I can set the dSLR to a much faster shutter speed than the cell phone achieves, but adding good ergonomics and image stabilization also have a dramatic impact.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum