Smartphones are better than expensive cameras for street photos- so says the BBC

[yardcoyote]

I don't think it is, but Fuji seems to yield very good JPEGs, which is fine for me. The GR as it stands is much too wide--I'd really prefer a 40mm fov, or even 50mm, but can work with 35. Here's hoping the new model comes out and is so awesome that prices take a plunge.

 

[Gone for Good]

considered a "Bottom Feeder" by some of you. Think of all the great period images we would have missed! Also, if any of you are offended by being photographed, gripe against the NSA, Police, Banks, airports,and all of Great Britain.

 

[fcimbar]

for amateurs or the folks in BBC

 

[tko]

Playing up to what the student wants to hear is good marketing. Not truth.

The people running the course tried to train people to get the best out of their smartphone cameras.

During the programme one of the trainers said that for street photography, smartphones were better than "expensive cameras" because smartphones are very commonly used in most locations

The people running the course are selling a course on how to get the best from a smart phone for travel photography. It's unlikely they're going to say something like "smart phones are bad for street photography", as the people on the course are not paying to hear that.

Put another way, how many people would recommend the course to other people if they found the "teacher" saying things like "Actually an RX100 or an FZ1000 would beat the heck out of your smartphone." ?

People need to be a lot more cynical about these things.

 

[T3]

The people running the course tried to train people to get the best out of their smartphone cameras.

During the programme one of the trainers said that for street photography, smartphones were better than "expensive cameras" because smartphones are very commonly used in most locations

The people running the course are selling a course on how to get the best from a smart phone for travel photography. It's unlikely they're going to say something like "smart phones are bad for street photography", as the people on the course are not paying to hear that.

Put another way, how many people would recommend the course to other people if they found the "teacher" saying things like "Actually an RX100 or an FZ1000 would beat the heck out of your smartphone." ?

People need to be a lot more cynical about these things.

I think your cynicism is getting away with you. First of all, was this course marketed exclusively as a "smart phone street photography course"? Or was it merely a case of a trainer saying "during the program" that "for street photography, smartphones were better than "expensive cameras" because smartphones are very commonly used in most locations"? If it was a case of smart phones being included as one item in the itinerary of the course, then I think your cynicism is overblown.

But even if the course were solely and entirely about smart phone photography, you obviously have to have an established base for this, i.e., people have been doing it, it's an existing phenomenon, and this course pops up to fulfill the desire for people to get good at it! It's a case of "what came first, the chicken or the egg!" Obviously, smart phone photography came first, because people have been doing it for YEARS now, and so there's a widespread, established interest in it. No need to SELL people in the idea, because the cat's already out of the bag. Most people already take more photos on smartphones than they do on stand alone cameras. It's not as if you need someone to sell the idea of smartphone photography!

Frankly, I think smartphones are great for street. They are actually far more in keeping with the spirit of street photography established by legends like Cartier-Bresson and Doisneau: use a compact unobtrusive camera, and a single focal length camera, that's it! And essentially, that's what a smartphone camera is: a compact unobtrusive camera with a single focal length lens. No need for zooming, you zoom with your feet. Walk up to the scene, and shoot it. That's what street is about. So I think the smart phone is the natural tool for street photography. And even better, it democratizes street photography. Now anyone with a smartphone can do it, and "self publish" their images to the world.

 

[T3]

If you are a huge news agency that hates paying good money for photos, having every person on the planet equipped with a 5mp phone camera is great. Few people know what a photo is worth (or, more accurately, should be worth), and will likely GIVE you the photo, just to hear their name on TV or see it in print.

First of all, phone cameras are producing very good quality these days, and are well over a mere 5mp now. My LG G2 has 13mp, and I'm constantly amazed by the quality of the photos it produces.

Secondly, I think citizen photojournalism is extremely valuable, because citizens are everywhere, but photojournalists are not. As a result, citizens are able to capture things that would otherwise go uncaptured. It also democratizes news photography, because newspaper edits aren't cherry picking which photos the world gets to see. Smartphone photography allows citizens to have direct access to the world, without going through gatekeepers and intermediaries.

There are plenty of places where photojournalists are the only good source of photos, like war zones. Those photos have greater value because it is far more costly to capture those particular images. But do you really expect "a huge new agency" to "pay good money for photos" of run-of-the-mill events in your local town?

BTW, I don't think many people are out to simply "hear their name on TV". A lot of people do it simply because they know they have a photo that they think people need to see, like an illegal police shooting, or some other moment that no one else saw. If I captured a photo of some incident that I felt people should see, like a case of police abuse, or a terrorist bombing at a local marathon (like the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013), I would absolutely give the photo to whoever needed it, and I could care less about hearing my name on TV or seeing it on print. I would feel it's my duty as a human being and a citizen to have people see what I saw for he sake of justice!...I wouldn't try to pawn it for cash!

Yes, people get paid to take photos. But it doesn't necessarily mean that every photo anyone takes has a cash "worth". Contrary to what some people with cameras seem to think, a camera isn't a money printing machine. I like to get paid as a photographer as much as anyone. But I don't charge per photo. I charge an hourly or daily rate, and the client gets whatever I produce during that day. I just think that's a lot easier, and more fair, than deciding every photo that I've produced has a "worth".

 

[T3]

for amateurs or the folks in BBC

Today's smartphones easily produce image quality far better than anything the true legends of street photography such as Henri Cartier-Bresson or Robert Doisneau were using. So I think smartphones are really a fantastic tool for street.

One of my favorite living photographers is the legendary David Alan Harvey, permanent member of Magnum since '97 and longtime NG photog. If you think a smartphone is just for "amateurs", I suggest you watch this video interview with David Alan Harvey, particularly at around 1:30 when he mentions the iPhone:

"This (photo) is with a Leica and this is with an iphone, and the quality is the same". min 1:50 of the video.

His point is that it really doesn't matter. It's really about the photographer behind the camera, and simply being there to take the photo!

 

[Greg A A]

His point is that it really doesn't matter. It's really about the photographer behind the camera, and simply being there to take the photo!

However, if you are taking the time to be there wouldn't you prefer to have a better camera in your hands? A high quality fixed lens compact camera does that job better. I prefer a compact camera on my belt because I have faster access to it there than digging a phone out of my pocket.

 

[Optimus Prime Lens]

considered a "Bottom Feeder" by some of you. Think of all the great period images we would have missed! Also, if any of you are offended by being photographed, gripe against the NSA, Police, Banks, airports,and all of Great Britain.

A grose oversimplification. If your trying to equate CCTV with photographs it's not the same at all. CCTV is not viewed unless there is a specific reason, and then only for the specific individuals. Everything else is wiped without ever being seen. The cameras are generally of poor resolution and unable to produce the sort of print you'd want to keep. That is a far cry from someone taking your photo with a modern camera for their own personal reasons, what ever they may be.

Its weird I'm far more protective of kids having their photos being taken by strangers in public than adults. Go figure.

 

[T3]

His point is that it really doesn't matter. It's really about the photographer behind the camera, and simply being there to take the photo!

However, if you are taking the time to be there wouldn't you prefer to have a better camera in your hands? A high quality fixed lens compact camera does that job better. I prefer a compact camera on my belt because I have faster access to it there than digging a phone out of my pocket.

Yes, and some people even prefer to carry around a D4S or 1DX. The point is that it really comes down to whatever you're comfortable with, and that the equipment has a lot less to do with capturing a good photo than people realize. My other point is that no one gives a damn what kind of device you used to capture your photo because in the end the photo has to speak for itself. And no one, other than people on equipment forms, cares about pixel peeping either. David Alan Harvey can publish a book with iPhone photos mixed in with Leica photos, and you'd be hard pressed to tell one from another. More importantly, it doesn't MATTER! Photos that move you move you because of their content, not because one photo has cleaner pixels and higher detail at the pixel level than another!

And as for walking around with a compact camera on your belt, just try that while walking down the street in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil! You won't have it for long. Someone like David Alan Harvey goes to a lot of places that are a bit more "challenging" (economically, criminally, safety-wise) than you may realize. And sometimes, carrying less is better. The fewer devices you have on you, the fewer things to keep track of. Sometimes, a smartphone really is the best thing to use. I'm not going to lecture someone like David Alan Harvey on how to do his job, and I don't think you should either. In the end, it really doesn't matter, because a good photo is a good photo is a good photo. And Harvey's Instagram feed shot with his iPhone is better than 99% of people who are shooting with far more expensive equipment.

 

[tko]

I'm not convinced, but would like to see the attempts. I think good street photography is one of the most difficult genres. Many try, most fail. Above all, you need to be quick and spontaneous, something a cell phone isn't very good at.

So, if cell phones are so good at this, are their any on-line galleries anywhere? I would truly like to see what could be achieved.

 

[Ed B]

I'm not convinced, but would like to see the attempts. I think good street photography is one of the most difficult genres. Many try, most fail. Above all, you need to be quick and spontaneous, something a cell phone isn't very good at.

So, if cell phones are so good at this, are their any on-line galleries anywhere? I would truly like to see what could be achieved.

 

[ZX11]

I'm not convinced, but would like to see the attempts. I think good street photography is one of the most difficult genres. Many try, most fail. Above all, you need to be quick and spontaneous, something a cell phone isn't very good at.

So, if cell phones are so good at this, are their any on-line galleries anywhere? I would truly like to see what could be achieved.

 

[Timj351]

T3, I agree with much of what you are saying except for a few things. When you talked about street photography and said, “No need for zooming, you zoom with your feet. Walk up to the scene, and shoot it. That's what street is about.” I disagree because street photography can be anything you want it to be. What you are talking about is “traditional” street photography the way it was commonly done in the past and that method may or may not appeal to everybody today. I personally like the zoom range of my LX7 with its 24 to 90mm lens. I use the step zoom feature and pick one of the six preset FL to use for a given scene. Its sort of like having six prime lenses at my disposal. You also said, “...it doesn't MATTER!” speaking about the image quality vs content and while I agree that content is the most important thing in photography there are many cases where IQ and content need to be equally considered especially at a professional level. Landscape and formal portrait photography are two examples of this. I love shooting landscapes with my LX7 and FZ200 but I'm not going to kid myself and think that most of the shots could be sold professionally. There's a high level of image quality that is expected with this type of photography and anything less is not fair to the clients. There are always exceptions, of course, if the content is truly amazing. In the context of street and documentary photography I agree with you that content is by far the most important aspect and that almost any modern camera can be successfully used.

I have been getting more interested in street photography lately and enjoyed reading about the Japanese photographer Daido Moriyama. He has used some basic P&S cameras to more advanced compact cameras for his work with great success. He said that he prefers using the rear LCD screen, in part, because it is the common method of shooting by people with smart phones and P&S cameras so he can move around and shoot while attracting little attention. This makes a lot of sense to me and I intend to develop my own similar style to his.

As for interacting with people in the streets and taking their pictures I think it is all fair game but I try to be very respectful and not sneaky about it. I try not to linger too long and remember to smile a lot at my subjects to show that I am just enjoying shooting their activities and interactions. It's a work in progress for me so some situations are still a little uncomfortable but I am much happier when I try to get a certain shot than if I shied away from it. I've found that if I am using my camera like a smart phone most people barely notice me and I can get more natural expressions.

Anyways, this has been a good discussion and has given me more things to think about so thank you everybody.

-Tim

 

[T3]

I'm not convinced, but would like to see the attempts. I think good street photography is one of the most difficult genres. Many try, most fail. Above all, you need to be quick and spontaneous, something a cell phone isn't very good at.

So, if cell phones are so good at this, are their any on-line galleries anywhere? I would truly like to see what could be achieved.

Time to join the 21st century. Just Google "street photography iphone" . You'll find millions of photos. It's not as if they're rare! LOL.

 

[Ed B]

I'm not convinced, but would like to see the attempts. I think good street photography is one of the most difficult genres. Many try, most fail. Above all, you need to be quick and spontaneous, something a cell phone isn't very good at.

So, if cell phones are so good at this, are their any on-line galleries anywhere? I would truly like to see what could be achieved.

--
professional cynic and contrarian: don't take it personally
http://500px.com/omearak

There is a mobile photography forum here at DPR. Maybe there are some images there.

The last time I visited that forum I only found one thing wrong with it.

All the posted images looked like they were taken with a cell phone.

Elitist! The latest smart phone is all some of us, can afford :-(

--
"Very funny, Scotty! Now beam me down my clothes."

+1

Actually, I have nothing against cell phone cameras and think that most people who are casual photographers and who mainly like to take snapshots and post them to social media, etc. get some pretty good pictures with their cell phones.

Just the same, I also think that someone who's interested in photography, as a hobby, would be better off with a dedicated camera.

Everyone is different and as long as they're happy with their pictures, that's all that really counts.

 

[doady]

The recently announced Olympus PL7 seems interesting to me partly for its unobtrusive looks. I don't really do street photography, but it's nice to have the option, and unobtrusive is good regardless.

People seem to associate SLRs more with "professional" photography, so the lack of pentaprism hump is a big deal. I think Olympus kind of missed the point of mirrorless and m4/3 by making their cameras look like SLRs as much as possible. They look kind of ridiculous considering the lack of mirrors or prisms and will definitely attract more unwanted attention.

That said, I'm not sure that a street photographer necessarily has to be stealthy or sneaky. I think ultimately the street photographer is a participant in the scene, and in some way they will have to connect with people regardless. It's really photography about people not streets, and I'm not really an outgoing person, so I don't bother with it anymore because I just suck at it.

 

[tko]

I tried Google search, but didn't find much, that's why I asked. But I did find a lot of people walking on the street and talking into iPhones, but shot with a normal camera

So, how does an elite forum pro manage to post so much without showing any photos?

I'm not convinced, but would like to see the attempts. I think good street photography is one of the most difficult genres. Many try, most fail. Above all, you need to be quick and spontaneous, something a cell phone isn't very good at.

So, if cell phones are so good at this, are their any on-line galleries anywhere? I would truly like to see what could be achieved.

Time to join the 21st century. Just Google "street photography iphone" . You'll find millions of photos. It's not as if they're rare! LOL.

 

[Albert Macfarlane]

I suggested above that a correspondent who felt smartphones shouldn't be classed as cameras should take a look at

http://www.ippawards.com/?project=2014-winners

I have no connection at all with this site, but perhaps TKO could with advantage also scan some images from this competition - for iPhones only. There is no section labelled 'street photography" but some of the images under the heading "People" are as good as any I've seen elsewhere. You can enlarge individual frames if you wish to examine the quality.

 

[ecka84]

How about expensive smartphones, are they bad for street photos?