The end?

Thomas A Anderson wrote:

Cyril Catt wrote:

Thomas A Anderson wrote:

[...]

It's really too bad that people look at images mostly on their phones or other small screens. It's also a shame that people don't realize how much better their images would be with a zoom lens, larger sensor, and LESS processing.

I'm sure that many people DO realise that (technically)...

I wasn’t referring to technical image quality alone.

I was. I assumed you were also referring to aesthetic qualities as well.

A zoom lens allows for widely varying compositional techniques to be used, especially when you’ve got the variable aperture to go along with it.

...'better' images are possible with better lenses...

Not better lenses alone, also a variety of lenses including zooms.

And variable frame format, to reduce post processing time?

...and sensors , and less processing. But I suspect that many are satisfied with what shows up on the small screens of their pads, with little or no processing time....

Sure. They’re also unaware that their phone is a pretty lousy camera.

Certainly many may be unaware. But some will surely rate convenience higher than perfection.

The narrative that is so commonly repeated is that phone cameras have made most regular cameras obsolete.

Not obsolete: but instruments for special needs, warranting high precision manufacture for limited markets

That was much the same as the recognition by George Eastman that simplicity was a seller.

And that’s why the narrative exists. Most people don’t really care about photography, so the camera glued to their phone is just fine.

Standards of acceptance are also changing. There are fewer press photographers being employed: shots from phone cameras wielded by reporters’ or the public ‘will do’. Wide angle shots with obvious distortion are also prevalent.

The cost and complexity of producing excellent poster sized images may not be considered relevant if the final product sought is simply a postcard sized image on a screen.

That misses the point, but I imagine that’s exactly the oversimplified story many phone photographers believe accurately reflect the attitude of those snobby photographers who use a camera other than their phone.

And might THAT not be an oversimplified point of view? I’m sure there are still quite a few photographers who started in the 1940s with a simple Kodak camera, learnt by trial and error the successful use of lighting; saved costs, and reduced delays, by doing their own processing; advanced to larger formats, cut film and 35 mm; and to removeable lens cameras.

Then, after decades of travelling with several camera bodies, lenses, light meters, dozens of cassettes of film, and hope that they’d ‘got the shot’, welcomed the semi-automation of exposure and focus. And with digitization, the convenience, instant check of results, and lower expense of still, video, colour and monochrome all in one piece of equipment; and very quickly thereafter, the increasing availability of zoom and wider angle lenses.

The lighter weight of is of particular concern to those octogenarians, who may nevertheless still carry a small digicam, and pause from their rapid recording of exotic scenes to smile at people who seem to carry expensive cameras, with long zoom lenses attached, slung conspicuously around their necks - but never seem to raise them to their eyes to take a shot!