Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Because they only take quite good photos in an extremely narrow set of conditions (good light slow subjects, medium wide angle). That's around 1% of my photography.I'm born in 1999 so I guess I am millenial.
Saying smartphones are bad is stupid, it's just people not adapting the change. Why would everybody need to buy expensive cameras when you can have smartphone that takes quite good photos and you can carry it in pocket.
Plenty wrong with that. Needing to get known or basing your self worth on the validation of strangers is a psychological condition. Call it immaturity if you like. Try and grow out of it.Also, I am on social media because that is great way to get known, good place for people to see your photography. Nothing bad in that.
Lol, this is not what social networks are about. Most people know most of the people they connect with on social media. Ironically, you demonstrate this psychological condition you decry here every time you brag about being a small guy being able to carry a big camera and lenses, or validate yourself by appointing yourself the final judge of all things photography related.Needing to get known or basing your self worth on the validation of strangers is a psychological condition.
I can only speak for myself. Let me give you two personal perspectives ....Because they only take quite good photos in an extremely narrow set of conditions (good light slow subjects, medium wide angle). That's around 1% of my photography.I'm born in 1999 so I guess I am millenial.
Saying smartphones are bad is stupid, it's just people not adapting the change. Why would everybody need to buy expensive cameras when you can have smartphone that takes quite good photos and you can carry it in pocket.
Plenty wrong with that. Needing to get known or basing your self worth on the validation of strangers is a psychological condition. Call it immaturity if you like. Try and grow out of it.Also, I am on social media because that is great way to get known, good place for people to see your photography. Nothing bad in that.
----
Lee Jay
Moti's question brings up the issue of just what "social media" means in the context of this thread. Moti is including hobby forums such as DPR; I had assumed you meant sites like Facebook and Twitter. The school district I work for has had more than one presentation cautioning against the use of social media of that sort, so I have never and do not plan to ever be involved in websites of that kind.He can't make judgments of folks who use ML or cameraphones to their faces, so this is his outlet. It's not social for him; he is here solely to beat everyone in the head with what he thinks is the right way to take photographs.So why are you here that often?For a whole bunch of reasons, I would never, ever, put images up live.I think there is value in both sides. "Real" cameras can connect to smartphones, so if you are adept with the connectivity you can do both- take high IQ photos and share them quickly.
- They aren't "high IQ" unless they are post processed.
- The story they tell makes no sense until they are culled thoughtfully.
- I don't want to announce to the world where I am until I'm not there anymore.
- I don't want to announce to the world that I'm not home, until I'm home again.
- When I'm shooting, I'm trying to be where I'm shooting, and not worry about other people.
- My primary user of my photography is me, and the people I'm with.
The less social networking I do, the happier I am.But that also requires being entrenched in social media which I think a lot of traditionalists are not.
The quote you cut seems to indicate the opposite.Lol, this is not what social networks are about.Needing to get known or basing your self worth on the validation of strangers is a psychological condition.
Maybe you should have read the quote I quoted. I've bolded it for you above.I can only speak for myself. Let me give you two personal perspectives ....Because they only take quite good photos in an extremely narrow set of conditions (good light slow subjects, medium wide angle). That's around 1% of my photography.I'm born in 1999 so I guess I am millenial.
Saying smartphones are bad is stupid, it's just people not adapting the change. Why would everybody need to buy expensive cameras when you can have smartphone that takes quite good photos and you can carry it in pocket.
Plenty wrong with that. Needing to get known or basing your self worth on the validation of strangers is a psychological condition. Call it immaturity if you like. Try and grow out of it.Also, I am on social media because that is great way to get known, good place for people to see your photography. Nothing bad in that.
Social media, in particular Facebook, has completely changed the dynamic of my extended family, over the last few years. The family comprises cousins who I grew up with ages ago and now dispersed across the country, and their children in various places around the globe. With the passing of my dad and his siblings, the glue that holds this crew together is both the simple and mundane updates on family, who is getting together with whom, and the major life events of births, deaths, and weddings.
This past weekend, for example, a few of those cousins traveled across country to be with us at our son's wedding, and we'll be joining her later in the year at her wedding.
Our son and new wife, now traveling in Europe, plan to stop and visit a distant cousin who they've stayed in touch with via Facebook.
The second perspective comes from the two months we spend each summer at our lake home. This is a very rural area, with a unique lake culture. There Facebook is everything. There's no television, no radio to speak of, the local paper comes out twice a week is mainly police reports and obits. But on Facebook ... oh my gosh ... it's shop and swap, real estate, fishing reports, organizing get togethers, chatter about weather, boat repairs, you name it.
Social media is now the glue that binds many families and communities.
Are there pathologies out there? Of course, we're talking about real people after all.
But to say "Plenty wrong with that. Needing to get known or basing your self worth on the validation of strangers is a psychological condition. Call it immaturity if you like. Try and grow out of it." is simply wrong, even ignorant of the role of social media in many people's lives.
With regard to photography, it seems to me there are some interesting and unique aspects to visual communication via social media than more traditional photography. Sportsaccordy, for example, mentioned the role of context. There's a lot to talk about.
Your across-the-board rejection of social media is, imho, more than a bit off-base.
The right way to take photographs is the right way to do everything else - do the best you can. Smartphones aren't the best you can do, they're the least you can do. That's the lazy way to do anything.He can't make judgments of folks who use ML or cameraphones to their faces, so this is his outlet. It's not social for him; he is here solely to beat everyone in the head with what he thinks is the right way to take photographs.So why are you here that often?For a whole bunch of reasons, I would never, ever, put images up live.I think there is value in both sides. "Real" cameras can connect to smartphones, so if you are adept with the connectivity you can do both- take high IQ photos and share them quickly.
- They aren't "high IQ" unless they are post processed.
- The story they tell makes no sense until they are culled thoughtfully.
- I don't want to announce to the world where I am until I'm not there anymore.
- I don't want to announce to the world that I'm not home, until I'm home again.
- When I'm shooting, I'm trying to be where I'm shooting, and not worry about other people.
- My primary user of my photography is me, and the people I'm with.
The less social networking I do, the happier I am.But that also requires being entrenched in social media which I think a lot of traditionalists are not.
I think you're correct that we make too much of the technical aspects of photography. However, "sharing context, emotion, intimacy, and community" is not a "new frontier"; it has always been the aim of photography. Look at Dorothea Lange, David Heath, and even Ansel Adams to name a few.I agree. We make way too much of the technical aspects of photography when it is sharing context, emotion, intimacy, and community that is the 'new frontier'. The ideal camera for that job may be very different than the latest and greatest dslr.
And it doesn't have to be just a young person's game, either. The wisdom and experience of age can be reflected in the images we share. Just have to figure out what that means.
--
Jeff
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jck_photos/sets/
Expanding on this excellent thread:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4047433
I think it really comes down to one thing. Traditional older photo hobbyists view photography as the end. "Millenials" and the like use photography as a means to an end- that end being capturing and conveying an experience/moment/feeling.
You can see the huge difference in the way the two groups consume photos. For the traditionalist, I honestly think content is maybe ~20-30% of a photograph's value. The rest is all technical stuff- how sharp is it, how well was exposure controlled, how tasteful and well done was the post processing, etc. etc. I think this is why the prospect of smartphones is so, frankly, FRIGHTENING for a lot of traditionalists, and why a lot of folks say smartphone photos are "bad". There is no technical perfection to hide behind; no enhancements like narrow DoF or radioactive HDR.
Plus photographers generally present photos without context, where as for social media folks context is everything. Like for example some friends of mine recently got married across the country. But one of the guests kind of "live blogged" on social media with photos and helpful/funny hashtags. Naturally they had a professional photographer on hand, but a lot of times those pro photos feel very canned and nowhere near as intimate or all encompassing of the experience. So social media photography really helps to draw you into an experience and tell a story much better than looking at a description-free gallery, as well as provide a raft of alternative perspectives of an event that traditional photography often just does not.
I think there is value in both sides. "Real" cameras can connect to smartphones, so if you are adept with the connectivity you can do both- take high IQ photos and share them quickly. But that also requires being entrenched in social media which I think a lot of traditionalists are not. There is also validity in taking photos for nothing more than one's own enjoyment. But I think it's wrong to dismiss the concept of photography in the context of social media. It's a new frontier.
Similarly, there are young kids shooting with "real cameras". In small numbers, of course, just as us small numbers of us "old folks" shoot with real cameras. And just as with us old folks, they use their cameras and their phones for the things each does best.Hi sportyaccordy,
I don't believe in that "photography age gap".
When in tourist locations, I find that most everyone, irrespective of age, simply pull out their smartphones and happily shoot away, and pretty soon after that, share their best shots on social media or at least via messages.
My DSLR is 6 years old now and doesn't do panoramas in camera, but my couple years old A6000 does them very well. And it doesn't really take a "big lens" to do panoramics, particularly if you're content with the 28mm FOV that you're stuck with on a cell phone. There are also other choices in cameras besides DSLRs, from point & shoots to mirrorless, for people who want more than 28mm FOV on a tiny sensor.Besides the social media and the messaging, there are "small" things such as smartphone users taking in panoramas in sweep mode, while those poor souls carrying a DSLR with a big lens do some ridiculous multiple-shot shooting and will have to combine all this into a panorama later on, on their computer.
Agreed. A large number of people of all ages shoot with phones and a small number of people of all ages shoot with cameras.Last year, in 2015, 97 percent of all cameras sold in the world, were smartphones. There is no "age gap" in photography.
Really?Letters are carefully thought out and crafted, email is full of poor language and muddy thinking. Letters are kept, emails are deleted.
The quote you cut seems to indicate the opposite.Lol, this is not what social networks are about.Needing to get known or basing your self worth on the validation of strangers is a psychological condition.
"I am on social media because that is great way to get known..."
The right way to take photographs is the right way to do everything else - do the best you can. Smartphones aren't the best you can do, they're the least you can do. That's the lazy way to do anything.
The world is moving on without you. Think of all the life moments you'll miss because you didn't bring along your D810, or because you've set an arbitrary standard for visual communication.The right way to take photographs is the right way to do everything else - do the best you can. Smartphones aren't the best you can do, they're the least you can do. That's the lazy way to do anything.He can't make judgments of folks who use ML or cameraphones to their faces, so this is his outlet. It's not social for him; he is here solely to beat everyone in the head with what he thinks is the right way to take photographs.So why are you here that often?For a whole bunch of reasons, I would never, ever, put images up live.I think there is value in both sides. "Real" cameras can connect to smartphones, so if you are adept with the connectivity you can do both- take high IQ photos and share them quickly.
- They aren't "high IQ" unless they are post processed.
- The story they tell makes no sense until they are culled thoughtfully.
- I don't want to announce to the world where I am until I'm not there anymore.
- I don't want to announce to the world that I'm not home, until I'm home again.
- When I'm shooting, I'm trying to be where I'm shooting, and not worry about other people.
- My primary user of my photography is me, and the people I'm with.
The less social networking I do, the happier I am.But that also requires being entrenched in social media which I think a lot of traditionalists are not.
--
Lee Jay
I agree. We make way too much of the technical aspects of photography when it is sharing context, emotion, intimacy, and community that is the 'new frontier'. The ideal camera for that job may be very different than the latest and greatest dslr.
And it doesn't have to be just a young person's game, either. The wisdom and experience of age can be reflected in the images we share. Just have to figure out what that means.
Agreed... I sold cameras for a bit and folks of all ages were buying them. Being interested in photography as an artistic medium isn't tied to age, it's just something that you either have or you don't. The attempt to tie cell phone use to some kind of "grand unified theory of millennials" seems pretty silly to me. It's clear to me that in this day and age cell phone use, social media and the use of dedicated camera gear are all things that transcend age...Agreed. A large number of people of all ages shoot with phones and a small number of people of all ages shoot with cameras.
