Can a smart phone take studio like images?

[Krav Maga]

In the right hands most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between smartphone image and one from a $10,000 medium format camera.

Set the guy with the A7RIV, the D750, and a bunch of decent lenses in his profile.

Nice way to leave out important context which is in the paragraph you left out.

Are you saying that my statement is incorrect?

I guess your hands are not right, so you need more than a phone? Nice site you have, BTW.

Yes, your statement is as wrong as it can be, and the bar on those forums is pretty low.

This must be why you were on my ignore list. Simply disregarding objective reason does not make for meaningful conversation.

Back on the ignore list for you.

 

[J A C S]

Back on the ignore list for you.

Thank you.

 

[Gato Amarillo]

Many here are focusing on the technical capabilities of the phone or camera, but that's only a small part of studio work.

Can a phone match the technical quality of full frame or medium format? None that I know of can, but how many studio photos really need that quality?

Can a phone meet the creative and commercial challenges of studio work? In many cases, yes. Commercial studio work is about creating an image to sell a product, and just about any kind of camera can do that.

Aside from high-end family portraits very little studio work will ever be printed, much less printed large. It will be seen on websites, viewed mostly on small screens -- laptops, tablets, and other phones. What is printed will rarely be larger than a magazine or catalog page, at most a double truck, and what is printed large will rarely be subject to close inspection -- can a driver on the freeway tell how a billboard was shot?

The problems of composition, creative design and storytelling don't change according to the camera type. There may be some jobs that call for faster reflexes or more lens selection than most phones offer, but these are exceptions. The vast majority of commercial studio photography is straight-up product shots for websites.

As to lighting, many phones offer all the control one needs to work with continuous lighting, and as several pointed out, we are beginning to see ways to work with flash. The OP mentioned the cost of lighting, but that doesn't change between phone and camera.

Overall, I'd say the majority of today's studio photography could be done with a phone and no one seeing the end product would ever notice the difference.

Gato

 

[NickZ2016]

Companies lie to us all the time through their advertising and marketing. Nothing new here.

It is up to us to see through these exaggerated claims.

Surely that's false advertising.

Most of what people think is false is at worst misleading.

Think of car ads. They tell you X fuel economy. That doesn't mean if you drive uphill all day long with a car full of people you'll get those numbers. It doesn't mean you can drive like a race car driver.

Which gets back to your question. Studio image meaning?

At the very least "Studio" just means inside with controlled lighting. Arguably that's easier not harder.

 

[MyReality]

Objective reason would dictate an objective test. One example might be say, 12x18 prints in a double bling test. My guess is choosing the print from the cellphone would be extremely difficult to choose. Of course, at a certain size, the cellphone images would fail. It is always end use.

The answer to the question as it is written is yes. It does not contain any conditions.

 

[Jeremy the Weak]

In the right hands most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between smartphone image and one from a $10,000 medium format camera.

You hit the nail on the head here.

The biggest difference (and it's a huge one) is ease of use and how many hoops you have to jump through to get the end result image you want from the smartphone. Of course, the lack of versatility is a huge one, too.

And it's the same when comparing images from a cheap, years old crop frame camera to today's latest and greatest tech.

I've put up images side by side from my Nikon D5200 and my Sony a7r4, and even photographers couldn't tell the difference.

But that's not to say that it's not worth the premium paid for latest and greatest. It's leaps and bounds easier to do what I want with my a7R4 than it is with my old D5200.

I can say for a fact that I've seen medium format photos that I've thought were taken with a smartphone. Make of that what you will.

Also, the other day, I saw this FX camera used to take a portrait that was quickly dismissed as a snapshot.

So, empirically, I think there's abundant proof for yours/our position.

 

[markyboy81]

What does studio quality even mean? It's a bit like when games consoles used to boast 'arcade style' graphics, it's kind of meaningless.

Of course a phone could be used in a studio and with the right lighting would take decent images. But why would you do that? The phone has a unique selling point of being portable and convenient, 2 things that aren't really necessary in a studio I would think.

There's a place for phones and there's a place for dedicated cameras. You can bring your phone almost anywhere and it's easier to carry. But on the other hand there are situations where a dedicated camera (or specifically the lens) is essential for the desired shot.

Horses for courses.

 

[tbcass]

In the right hands most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between smartphone image and one from a $10,000 medium format camera.

Most people can't tell the difference between a lot of things because they don't care.

 

[MyReality]

Well ... ? Maybe I assumed too much. When I said double-blind test I assumed you understood that a test is only valid if all variable are the same or close to the same except the one being test for(the cameras differ, but other variables should be the same or as close as possible).

Having said that and if the test meets those conditions, the answer to all your questions in your first paragraph is yes.

In a double-blind test(camera and sensor size is unknown, a group of people tries to choose the photo). Consumer Reports Magazine uses this method for 8x10 prints. They do separate tests for camera output and printer output.

One photo in 10 is the cellphone photo. Statistical significance is calculated.

By question I meant the question the OP asked. There are no conditions because "studio like" is too vague.

 

[MyReality]

"To put it in different terms; when you shoot with a phone vs. FF or MF, everything else DOES NOT stay the same, that is the whole point."

That seems to be the point of debates or "tests" on this forum, but not the point of a valid test. it makes the test essentially useless. When people talk about these comparisons on this forum, they are implying identical conditions.

A few years ago I read 13x9 prints tests of cellphone cameras that were virtually identical to prints from 1/2.3" sensors. Cellphone cameras have improve, but so have "real" cameras, so who knows. If I was a betting man, I would bet on not being able to tell the difference at print sizes that people normally print.

All bets are off, if you pixel peep.

 

[Antioch]

Studio like images are generally shot by Professionals using high end cameras and generally use Studio Lighting which costs thousands of dollars and requires considerable skill.

So a smartphone cannot generate studio quality images because smartphone sensors are too small, nor do they use studio lighting nor are they being used by skilled personnel.

However, since there are over 5 billion smartphones in use, most have a smartphone on their persons at all times, regular folks take pics on the fly whenever and wherever they occur. Thus over 1.6 billion photographs are uploaded everyday to social media, which is something that professional cameras can never do.

Smartphone camera users do not care about the quality of the picture nor about the lighting. They take the shot because they can. It is better to get any picture than none at all.

 

[jrtrent]

What does studio quality even mean? It's a bit like when games consoles used to boast 'arcade style' graphics, it's kind of meaningless.

I didn't see a link from the OP, so I'm not sure what he saw, but doing a search for google pixel studio-quality, I found a couple of quotes.

"In Portrait Mode photographs, Portrait Light provides more dramatic lighting to accompany the shallow depth-of-field effect already applied, resulting in a studio-quality look." https://ai.googleblog.com/2020/12/portrait-light-enhancing-portrait.html

"New editor in Google Photos: Even after you’ve captured your portrait, Google Photos can help you add studio-quality light to your portraits of people with Portrait Light, in the new, more helpful Google Photos editor." https://blog.google/products/pixel/new-5g-pixels-more-helpful-features/

 

[TacticDesigns]

Smart phones are capable of good images in good lighting like any other camera. However, I don't know if this had change with recent models but seeing a smart phone image on a big screen can look pretty horrible especially compared to likes of a M43 camera.

The reason for this topic is because Google is advertising their Pixel phone and stating their cameras in their latest phones are studio quality.

So here are my thoughts...

• There was a UK photography program on the BBC and the contestants struggled with using their mobile phones to deliver outstanding images.
• While you can use any camera for a studio, for example a photographer used an Em1.2 and the 12-40mm 2.8. Normally photographers prefer to use larger sensor cameras like Full Frame or Medium format.
• For studio photography, lighting equipment often used and can cost thousands.
• Majority of advertising photos are taken with Full Frame and Medium format, not a phone.

I've seen examples of shots taken on my brother's latest phone and compared to my M43 camera with a sensor now four years old. My camera wins easily yet my Z6 + S 50mm 1.8 beat M43.

So I'm interested how a Google Pixel can deliver studio quality like photos and make it pointless buying expensive glass like the Nikon S 85mm 1.8 or Canon R 85mm 1.2.

From a marketing perspective, I think this is simply a case of trying to reduce cognitive dissonance .

Basically some consumers that buy cellphones may decide to use their cellphones to take pictures.

But then, in the back of their mind they wonder if they need a dedicated camera to get better pictures. (In which case, maybe don't spend so much money on the phone and hold back some of that money to put it towards a dedicated camera.)

By saying something like "This cellphone takes studio quality like photos" in marketing, the marketer is trying to reduce the cognitive dissonance in the potential purchaser so they feel more comfortable in spending more money on getting that expensive cellphone.

And . . . the camera manufacturers IMHO are not wrong. I mean, I could walk into my basement studio and pick up my Pentax Q mirrorless camera and call it my "studio camera". And cellphones are great at being there to capture those great moments in life. So, all in all IMHO they are not being disingenuous.

If a consumer needs a marketing campaign to make them happy with shooting with their cellphone, I personally see no issue with that.

It is an imaging device. Lots of people get great shots with them.

Just shoot your cellphone and be happy.

If you decide to purchase a dedicated camera, then shoot it and be happy.

The two uses do not need to negate the other.

I have both a cellphone and dedicated cameras.

I use each when I decide to.

If there is an advertisement out there with a statement like that, it does not really have as much to do about IQ as it does about just being happy shooting what you got!

Take care & Happy Shooting! (With less cognitive dissonance.)


--
My Personal Flickr Favs . . .
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tacticdesigns/sets/72157631300869284/
[FL][RP][LS][GC][51][ML][TMPM][ExifTool][TimeStamp]

 

[MyReality]

"Say you are comparing a Prius and a Porsche but you want the Porsche driver to drive in the same sluggish way as the Prius one just to keep everything else the same..."

That would be fine if I was trying to compare a single variable such as road noise or ride at the same speed. Nothing wrong with that.

You are absolutely right that such comparisons are useless but then you are the one who brought them up.

True, but only because the OP posted a proposition. It did not stop people from trying to make the comparison.

 

[lilBuddha]

In the right hands most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between smartphone image and one from a $10,000 medium format camera.

You hit the nail on the head here.

The biggest difference (and it's a huge one) is ease of use and how many hoops you have to jump through to get the end result image you want from the smartphone. Of course, the lack of versatility is a huge one, too.

And it's the same when comparing images from a cheap, years old crop frame camera to today's latest and greatest tech.

I've put up images side by side from my Nikon D5200 and my Sony a7r4, and even photographers couldn't tell the difference.

I sell images made on my Canon EOS Ms, 5D, 1DMII, sony RX100 MI and even occasionally an old iPhone. My clients have not cared and their preference seems to be more subject (and treatment) based than camera based.

Does this mean the camera doesn't matter? No, it means I use the tools I have to their strengths and that a significant portion of what makes a good image isn't the camera.

But that's not to say that it's not worth the premium paid for latest and greatest. It's leaps and bounds easier to do what I want with my a7R4 than it is with my old D5200.

Earlier you said that 'in the right hands' one could not tell the difference between smartphone images and regular camera ones.

I would add 'and in the right circumstances'. And that addition shouldn't even be a question.

BTW, the difference in sensor size between your D200 and your a7R4 is a an order of magnitude less that a smartphone and a 10K medium format, so the comparison is not equivalent.

Also, in looking at your images, there are two other factors that make the comparisons between your old APS-C and newer FF less a significant test.

One is your images are done with carefully controlled/chosen lighting conditions. That reduces the strain on the sensor.

The other is your subjects. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that shooting attractive people who know how to pose makes a slight bit of difference in how images are evaluated.

 

[lilBuddha]

Smart phones are capable of good images in good lighting like any other camera. However, I don't know if this had change with recent models but seeing a smart phone image on a big screen can look pretty horrible especially compared to likes of a M43 camera.

The reason for this topic is because Google is advertising their Pixel phone and stating their cameras in their latest phones are studio quality.

So here are my thoughts...

• There was a UK photography program on the BBC and the contestants struggled with using their mobile phones to deliver outstanding images.
• While you can use any camera for a studio, for example a photographer used an Em1.2 and the 12-40mm 2.8. Normally photographers prefer to use larger sensor cameras like Full Frame or Medium format.
• For studio photography, lighting equipment often used and can cost thousands.
• Majority of advertising photos are taken with Full Frame and Medium format, not a phone.

I've seen examples of shots taken on my brother's latest phone and compared to my M43 camera with a sensor now four years old. My camera wins easily yet my Z6 + S 50mm 1.8 beat M43.

So I'm interested how a Google Pixel can deliver studio quality like photos and make it pointless buying expensive glass like the Nikon S 85mm 1.8 or Canon R 85mm 1.2.

From a marketing perspective, I think this is simply a case of trying to reduce cognitive dissonance .

I'd say it is closer to inducing cognitive dissonance.

Basically some consumers that buy cellphones may decide to use their cellphones to take pictures.

But then, in the back of their mind they wonder if they need a dedicated camera to get better pictures. (In which case, maybe don't spend so much money on the phone and hold back some of that money to put it towards a dedicated camera.)

By saying something like "This cellphone takes studio quality like photos" in marketing, the marketer is trying to reduce the cognitive dissonance in the potential purchaser so they feel more comfortable in spending more money on getting that expensive cellphone.

And . . . the camera manufacturers IMHO are not wrong. I mean, I could walk into my basement studio and pick up my Pentax Q mirrorless camera and call it my "studio camera". And cellphones are great at being there to capture those great moments in life. So, all in all IMHO they are not being disingenuous.

Of course they are disingenuous. Simply because people are happier believing the using a Pixel or iPhone will make them better photographers doesn't mean the adverts are not misleading.

For example, the "Shot on iPhone" adverts that feature lovely short films shot on an iPhone but neglect to reveal that they used expensive lenses, camera rigs and lighting.

If a consumer needs a marketing campaign to make them happy with shooting with their cellphone, I personally see no issue with that.

It isn't about making the customer happy. In fact, it is the opposite. It is about making the customer unhappy with what they have and induce them to buy something new.

Since at least the iPhone 5, smartphone cameras have been good enough for the majority of users. Smartphones have reached saturation in the first world, so to move units, an artificial need is created.

It is an imaging device. Lots of people get great shots with them.

Just shoot your cellphone and be happy.

If you decide to purchase a dedicated camera, then shoot it and be happy.

With this I agree.

The two uses do not need to negate the other.

I have both a cellphone and dedicated cameras.

I use each when I decide to.

If there is an advertisement out there with a statement like that, it does not really have as much to do about IQ as it does about just being happy shooting what you got!

Take care & Happy Shooting! (With less cognitive dissonance.)

 

[TacticDesigns]

Smart phones are capable of good images in good lighting like any other camera. However, I don't know if this had change with recent models but seeing a smart phone image on a big screen can look pretty horrible especially compared to likes of a M43 camera.

The reason for this topic is because Google is advertising their Pixel phone and stating their cameras in their latest phones are studio quality.

So here are my thoughts...

• There was a UK photography program on the BBC and the contestants struggled with using their mobile phones to deliver outstanding images.
• While you can use any camera for a studio, for example a photographer used an Em1.2 and the 12-40mm 2.8. Normally photographers prefer to use larger sensor cameras like Full Frame or Medium format.
• For studio photography, lighting equipment often used and can cost thousands.
• Majority of advertising photos are taken with Full Frame and Medium format, not a phone.

I've seen examples of shots taken on my brother's latest phone and compared to my M43 camera with a sensor now four years old. My camera wins easily yet my Z6 + S 50mm 1.8 beat M43.

So I'm interested how a Google Pixel can deliver studio quality like photos and make it pointless buying expensive glass like the Nikon S 85mm 1.8 or Canon R 85mm 1.2.

From a marketing perspective, I think this is simply a case of trying to reduce cognitive dissonance .

I'd say it is closer to inducing cognitive dissonance.

Well.

That you may be more accurate than I. LOL.

But I would say it depends on what you do with the difference between your belief and what the marketing is telling you.

If you do not change your belief, then there is still cognitive dissonance.

If you do change your belief, or at least rationalize it, then you have reduced cognitive dissonance.

It is up to each individual how they react. And how it is relevant to themselves.

Basically some consumers that buy cellphones may decide to use their cellphones to take pictures.

But then, in the back of their mind they wonder if they need a dedicated camera to get better pictures. (In which case, maybe don't spend so much money on the phone and hold back some of that money to put it towards a dedicated camera.)

By saying something like "This cellphone takes studio quality like photos" in marketing, the marketer is trying to reduce the cognitive dissonance in the potential purchaser so they feel more comfortable in spending more money on getting that expensive cellphone.

And . . . the camera manufacturers IMHO are not wrong. I mean, I could walk into my basement studio and pick up my Pentax Q mirrorless camera and call it my "studio camera". And cellphones are great at being there to capture those great moments in life. So, all in all IMHO they are not being disingenuous.

Of course they are disingenuous. Simply because people are happier believing the using a Pixel or iPhone will make them better photographers doesn't mean the adverts are not misleading.

For me personally . . . if the person doing the marketing honestly believes that the phone they are offering people will allow them to get better pictures, then they are not being disingenuous.

If they were offering a viewfinder, a pencil and a piece of paper, then I might think they were being disingenuous. LOL.

For example, the "Shot on iPhone" adverts that feature lovely short films shot on an iPhone but neglect to reveal that they used expensive lenses, camera rigs and lighting.

But I don't think Apple hides that fact.

They even did some videos of photographers do that. Showing using studio lighting to get the product shots of the Apple products.

So they were not trying to hide anything.

So, again, for me personally I don't believe they were being disingenuous.

Being disingenuous would be a cellphone company using pictures from a dSLR or MILC and trying to pass them off as being shot with the phone itself, and not telling anyone that that is what they did.

If a consumer needs a marketing campaign to make them happy with shooting with their cellphone, I personally see no issue with that.

It isn't about making the customer happy. In fact, it is the opposite. It is about making the customer unhappy with what they have and induce them to buy something new.

A bit of a double edge sword there.

If the cellphone manufacturers did not mention that they think they got a better mouse trap, then if a person is frustrated with their phone, and getting the new phone would have helped out, then . . . the cellphone company is not doing anyone any favours by not mentioning their new phone.

If they mention the new phone, and people buy it, and it is better, then . . . the cellphone company is helping people out.

Since at least the iPhone 5, smartphone cameras have been good enough for the majority of users. Smartphones have reached saturation in the first world, so to move units, an artificial need is created.

Yes. And no.

My wife updates her phone every 5 or so years.

And I can see the improvements with each phone she gets.

Some of it is more processing and user control capability than just raw image capturing capability. But . . . it is improvement non-the-less. IMHO.

It is an imaging device. Lots of people get great shots with them.

Just shoot your cellphone and be happy.

If you decide to purchase a dedicated camera, then shoot it and be happy.

With this I agree.

+1

Well. I am glad we at least agree on something. LOL!!!

Take care & Happy Shooting!

The two uses do not need to negate the other.

I have both a cellphone and dedicated cameras.

I use each when I decide to.

If there is an advertisement out there with a statement like that, it does not really have as much to do about IQ as it does about just being happy shooting what you got!

Take care & Happy Shooting! (With less cognitive dissonance.)

 

[lilBuddha]

Smart phones are capable of good images in good lighting like any other camera. However, I don't know if this had change with recent models but seeing a smart phone image on a big screen can look pretty horrible especially compared to likes of a M43 camera.

The reason for this topic is because Google is advertising their Pixel phone and stating their cameras in their latest phones are studio quality.

So here are my thoughts...

• There was a UK photography program on the BBC and the contestants struggled with using their mobile phones to deliver outstanding images.
• While you can use any camera for a studio, for example a photographer used an Em1.2 and the 12-40mm 2.8. Normally photographers prefer to use larger sensor cameras like Full Frame or Medium format.
• For studio photography, lighting equipment often used and can cost thousands.
• Majority of advertising photos are taken with Full Frame and Medium format, not a phone.

I've seen examples of shots taken on my brother's latest phone and compared to my M43 camera with a sensor now four years old. My camera wins easily yet my Z6 + S 50mm 1.8 beat M43.

So I'm interested how a Google Pixel can deliver studio quality like photos and make it pointless buying expensive glass like the Nikon S 85mm 1.8 or Canon R 85mm 1.2.

From a marketing perspective, I think this is simply a case of trying to reduce cognitive dissonance .

I'd say it is closer to inducing cognitive dissonance.

Well.

That you may be more accurate than I. LOL.

But I would say it depends on what you do with the difference between your belief and what the marketing is telling you.

If you do not change your belief, then there is still cognitive dissonance.

If you do change your belief, or at least rationalize it, then you have reduced cognitive dissonance.

It is up to each individual how they react. And how it is relevant to themselves.

Basically some consumers that buy cellphones may decide to use their cellphones to take pictures.

But then, in the back of their mind they wonder if they need a dedicated camera to get better pictures. (In which case, maybe don't spend so much money on the phone and hold back some of that money to put it towards a dedicated camera.)

By saying something like "This cellphone takes studio quality like photos" in marketing, the marketer is trying to reduce the cognitive dissonance in the potential purchaser so they feel more comfortable in spending more money on getting that expensive cellphone.

And . . . the camera manufacturers IMHO are not wrong. I mean, I could walk into my basement studio and pick up my Pentax Q mirrorless camera and call it my "studio camera". And cellphones are great at being there to capture those great moments in life. So, all in all IMHO they are not being disingenuous.

Of course they are disingenuous. Simply because people are happier believing the using a Pixel or iPhone will make them better photographers doesn't mean the adverts are not misleading.

For me personally . . . if the person doing the marketing honestly believes that the phone they are offering people will allow them to get better pictures, then they are not being disingenuous.

If they were offering a viewfinder, a pencil and a piece of paper, then I might think they were being disingenuous. LOL.

For example, the "Shot on iPhone" adverts that feature lovely short films shot on an iPhone but neglect to reveal that they used expensive lenses, camera rigs and lighting.

But I don't think Apple hides that fact.

They even did some videos of photographers do that. Showing using studio lighting to get the product shots of the Apple products.

There is a difference between a commercial intended for braod viewing and a video that is available if one looks for it.

So they were not trying to hide anything.

So, again, for me personally I don't believe they were being disingenuous.

Being disingenuous would be a cellphone company using pictures from a dSLR or MILC and trying to pass them off as being shot with the phone itself, and not telling anyone that that is what they did.

If a consumer needs a marketing campaign to make them happy with shooting with their cellphone, I personally see no issue with that.

It isn't about making the customer happy. In fact, it is the opposite. It is about making the customer unhappy with what they have and induce them to buy something new.

A bit of a double edge sword there.

If the cellphone manufacturers did not mention that they think they got a better mouse trap, then if a person is frustrated with their phone, and getting the new phone would have helped out, then . . . the cellphone company is not doing anyone any favours by not mentioning their new phone.

If they mention the new phone, and people buy it, and it is better, then . . . the cellphone company is helping people out.

Since at least the iPhone 5, smartphone cameras have been good enough for the majority of users. Smartphones have reached saturation in the first world, so to move units, an artificial need is created.

Yes. And no.

Only yes. They are in the business of selling things and creating the illusion of need is part of that if the sales numbers flatten. Publicly traded companies do not have he option of not pursuing numbers.

My wife updates her phone every 5 or so years.

And I can see the improvements with each phone she gets.

Some of it is more processing and user control capability than just raw image capturing capability. But . . . it is improvement non-the-less. IMHO.

I've no doubt of this, I update my mobiles periodically as well. That doesn't change that the updates are neither needed nor consumer driven.

It is an imaging device. Lots of people get great shots with them.

Just shoot your cellphone and be happy.

If you decide to purchase a dedicated camera, then shoot it and be happy.

With this I agree.

+1

Well. I am glad we at least agree on something. LOL!!!

Take care & Happy Shooting!

You see things in a more positive light than I and whilst I think that might mean you miss some things, it is probably a happier way to be,

The two uses do not need to negate the other.

I have both a cellphone and dedicated cameras.

I use each when I decide to.

If there is an advertisement out there with a statement like that, it does not really have as much to do about IQ as it does about just being happy shooting what you got!

Take care & Happy Shooting! (With less cognitive dissonance.)

 

[arbeterfroyen]

Yes, sure, why not. Tangerine (2015) was shot on an iPhone 5s and it looks great. I'm certain you could reproduce similar quality in a photo shoot with equivalent lighting and preparation. I know video is more forgiving sometimes but I think it's at least a point of reference (especially on an older piece of tech than what you're likely using now).

I think especially if you are shooting B/W it is not as serious as you can avoid glaring noise.

 

[PhotoFactor]

Too much ambiguity in the question.

The title is "studio-like". I'd say they can take pictures LIKE studio quality. With the right lighting of course.

Or are they claiming "Studio quality" (not LIKE)?

Where is the link to the actual ad claims?

Of course you're going to be limited to 12MP so that isn't like a lot of studio photography.