Some thoughts ...

[jiberlin]

of me to two different topics:

Phones vs. Cameras

Because the use of (smart)phones to take images is in most cases different to the use of (real) cameras we should/could call such type of image taking 'phonography' in contrast to the more classical image taking with cameras that we call 'photography'.

Remark: This not meant offensive. I think we could call different things with different names.

(Youtube) videos

• A video recorded with a very short focal length looks like someone is talking to you with <30 cm distance. In real life, most people would not be comfortable if someone talks to one so near.
• Many videos are recorded with a 'sensational style' while talking about non sensational topics. Is this really necessary to et the attention of the viewer?

For both topics i am interested in the view of others, please write a comment.

 

[ishwanu]

Because the use of (smart)phones to take images is in most cases different to the use of (real) cameras we should/could call such type of image taking 'phonography' in contrast to the more classical image taking with cameras that we call 'photography'.

That's already an English word with a different meaning.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/phonography

A video recorded with a very short focal length looks like someone is talking to you with <30 cm distance. In real life, most people would not be comfortable if someone talks to one so near.

Smartphone users have become so accustomed to wide-angle close-distance perspective that they consider it normal. I'm sure they don't see or understand the perspective the way experienced photographers do.

Many videos are recorded with a 'sensational style' while talking about non sensational topics. Is this really necessary to et the attention of the viewer?

Not sure what you mean by sensational, but someone posting a video is likely to jazz it up in some ways to try to avoid having it seen as boring.

 

[Redhenry]

I don’t think that it’s possible to categorise pictures based on the device with which they were taken or the attitude and knowledge of the person taking the picture. If you look at the “smartphone photography” forum, you will see that there are many very competent photographers who simply enjoy the convenience of having a camera in their pockets. Yes, there are millions of people who aren’t interested in the finer points of photography and whose phone images may not qualify as “good pictures”, but in film days, the pictures taken on Instamatics each summer were much the same. I take the point made about people overlooking the standard wide-angles but many of us treat our 1x, 2x and 3x settings as wide, standard and short tele primes. I have over 50 years’ experience in photography, have had my pictures published many times all over the world but I continue to think of the images from my iPhone as photographs.

 

[Aidan Williams]

I think 'computational photography' has already taken root with anyone that really cares to make the distinction.

But for the asking, regarding the camera itself:

Polaroids and such are 'instant cameras' because they deliver a print immediately.

In the past, a type of 'simple' camera was an 'instamatic'.

As most people do not print, but their photos are for Internet consumption, the digital file is typically the end result, and it is the simplicity of the process that is attractive to users.

This could qualify using the 'insta' prefix. The only relevant thing that springs to mind for a 'ma...' ending would be 'math', leading to 'instamath cameras' or 'instamaths'. It's not going to take over 'my phone', but if compacts get developed with serious computational processing power, then it may just have an opening.

Most people don't care about the process until they realise they can't do something someone else can. If it takes photos, it's a camera.

 

[WilyKit]

The word "smartphones" is just an outdated term to describe a general-purpose media consumption and production device as well as communications device, not to mention a general-purpose computer.

They are in fact "real cameras" (some are much better than others), among other things, and "computational photography" (mainly referring to image stacking techniques) is nothing special and exists in various standalone cameras and will become standard in most of them.

Yes, "vlogger" videos with talking heads right next to the lens are obnoxious. I'm not comfortable with those videos for the same reasons I'm not comfortable with someone talking right into my face.

The sensationalism is from lamers trying to stand out and make money. They think it helps them. In some cases it does, in many cases it doesn't and often does the opposite.

 

[GeoffRG]

If it takes photos, it's a camera.

A camera doesn't necessarily have to "take photos". Cars use cameras to recognise road signs for example. Your phone camera can be used to scan a QR code, it doesn't need to record the image, indeed the EVF on a mirrorless camera isn't a photo, it is a video stream. The legal term "in camera" simply means in a closed room. What the word "camera" means has changed over the years.

 

[Brian Chichester]

Smart phones embody a camera so images taken with them are photographs within the accepted use of the word.

Your coinage of the word "phonography" is misguided because the root "phono" refers to sound, not vision: sound being the other function of the smart phone.

 

[yardcoyote]

Of course you call it photography. It is the act of creating images by exposing a a light sensitive surface to focused light. (Blah blah blah correct definition) English doesn't work by redefining long established words. It works by adding meanings to the words we have. (The classic example is the word "set", which is both a noun and a verb and has literally dozens of meanings in everyday use, and more in the technical vocabularies of fields as diverse as mathematics and the theater. If you ever find a print copy of the Oxford English Dictionary, the definition of "set" famously goes on for miles.)

"Photography" does the same thing. The word does not change. Its definitions accumulate. To distinguish between them we look for context clues or add modifiers. We can talk about computer-assisted photography or online photography, app photography, drone photography, or even plain old cellphone photography on one hand and traditional photography, traditional digital photography, film photography, traditional camera-and-lens photography, old school photography or whatever on the other.

Making up new words on purpose seldom works. Trying to get the "other guy" to give up the revered and respected old word and make up a new one so you can keep the old one to yourself almost never does. My advice is to use the words you have to get your point across and let the long term development of the English language sort itself out over time. It always does.

--
Instagram: @yardcoyote

 

[GeoffRG]

of me to two different topics:

Phones vs. Cameras

Because the use of (smart)phones to take images is in most cases different to the use of (real) cameras we should/could call such type of image taking 'phonography' in contrast to the more classical image taking with cameras that we call 'photography'.

Thomas Edison invented the Phonograph in c 1899 so, sorry but you can't have that one.

The device we call a "phone", (more correctly a 'phone when I was at school) is actually a telephone.

Photo = light

Graph = Drawing

Thus photograph = drawing with light. It follows that phonography would be drawing, or writing, with sound, today we call it recording.

Nice try though.

 

[jxh]

Smartphone users have become so accustomed to wide-angle close-distance perspective that they consider it normal. I'm sure they don't see or understand the perspective the way experienced photographers do.

Not just phones. Look at how many cameras (including fix lens) have 35 or 24mm lens. I'm from a generation where a 55 was a normal lens (on some phone it's a 'telephoto')

 

[Cherry_F]

[../..] Because the use of (smart)phones to take images is in most cases different to the use of (real) cameras we should/could call such type of image taking 'phonography' in contrast to the more classical image taking with cameras that we call 'photography'.

What differs most is the process, as taking pictures with a camera requires some photography notions. I'm not sure about the use, as more and more images are intended to be displayed using electronic devices... Additionnally, except for wildlife and a few other niches, smartphones are more and more capable to capture any subject.

[../..] Many videos are recorded with a 'sensational style' while talking about non sensational topics. Is this really necessary to et the attention of the viewer?

I'm afraid the same can be said about photography, to some extent. It seems to me that there is some kind of quest for the "WOW" effect. An example is the sea milky effect obtained using long exposure.

___
Photography is so easy, that's what makes it highly difficult - Robert Delpire

 

[Redhenry]

[../..] Because the use of (smart)phones to take images is in most cases different to the use of (real) cameras we should/could call such type of image taking 'phonography' in contrast to the more classical image taking with cameras that we call 'photography'.

What differs most is the process, as taking pictures with a camera requires some photography notions. I'm not sure about the use, as more and more images are intended to be displayed using electronic devices... Additionnally, except for wildlife and a few other niches, smartphones are more and more capable to capture any subject.

[../..] Many videos are recorded with a 'sensational style' while talking about non sensational topics. Is this really necessary to et the attention of the viewer?

I'm afraid the same can be said about photography, to some extent. It seems to me that there is some kind of quest for the "WOW" effect. An example is the sea milky effect obtained using long exposure.

___
Photography is so easy, that's what makes it highly difficult - Robert Delpire

Your point about the increasing search for the WOW effect is good. My own photographs are often quite ordinary and unspectacular records of things and scenes which please me and although I give some thought to composition, the pictures are mostly for me and my wife. I don’t post-process except for the occasional straightening of a horizon.

 

[grsnovi]

Not sure what you mean by sensational,

I suggest that Jared Polin uses a sensational style which is why I will never know if he actually knows what he's talking about because I can't get past his presentation.

 

[Hike Pics]

of me to two different topics:

Phones vs. Cameras

Because the use of (smart)phones to take images is in most cases different to the use of (real) cameras we should/could call such type of image taking 'phonography' in contrast to the more classical image taking with cameras that we call 'photography'.

Remark: This not meant offensive. I think we could call different things with different names.

I've been calling it "smartography". Just my own personal term though.

(Youtube) videos

• A video recorded with a very short focal length looks like someone is talking to you with <30 cm distance. In real life, most people would not be comfortable if someone talks to one so near.
• Many videos are recorded with a 'sensational style' while talking about non sensational topics. Is this really necessary to et the attention of the viewer?

For both topics i am interested in the view of others, please write a comment.

 

[alcelc]

of me to two different topics:

Phones vs. Cameras

Because the use of (smart)phones to take images is in most cases different to the use of (real) cameras we should/could call such type of image taking 'phonography' in contrast to the more classical image taking with cameras that we call 'photography'.

Remark: This not meant offensive. I think we could call different things with different names.

Not an output from a real camera must become a real photo (if I can get your meaning).

While usually a real camera could produce a higher IQ image, thousands of reasons such image could be inferior to an image from a phone by a capable shooter.

IMHO while the tool is important, we should also put the other factors: shooter, the tool, the environment of shooting, the luck, the PP skill etc into consideration for an art piece, a proper photo or just an image.

(Youtube) videos

• A video recorded with a very short focal length looks like someone is talking to you with <30 cm distance. In real life, most people would not be comfortable if someone talks to one so near.
• Many videos are recorded with a 'sensational style' while talking about non sensational topics. Is this really necessary to et the attention of the viewer?

I am also a big UTube watcher nowadays.

There are so many choices on UTube: history, science, accessory review and invention, traveling, music, cooking, to thousands of other types of tropics which you don't have to watch and listen to a stranger (in any sort of distance...).

e.g. Go4x4 (Australian) is one of my favorite outdoor channel on UTube. No word but just background noise (wind, rain, monkeys, birds, insects), a man and a dog camping overnight in the wood under all sort of weather conditions, shows various camping tools, cooked a meal etc etc. Majority of the footage should have been taken by a few cameras (L-Mount?) on tripod in carefully planned locations. If there would be any big head shot it would mostly on the lovely dog only...

UTube is not only recorded by a phone on armlength distance. In fact, there are many UTubers use tripod for full body or wider scenery recording. Some would use selfie pod long as 2~3 meters. Big head only? I shall skip those channels.

If you have those impression, you might have not look around enough.

For both topics i am interested in the view of others, please write a comment.

 

[Ozzie SD]

of me to two different topics:

Phones vs. Cameras

Because the use of (smart)phones to take images is in most cases different to the use of (real) cameras we should/could call such type of image taking 'phonography' in contrast to the more classical image taking with cameras that we call 'photography'.

What do you mean with "the use of (smart)phones to take images is in most cases different to the use of (real) cameras"?

How is the usage different, and how much in percentage is "in most cases" and based on what source?

Remark: This not meant offensive. I think we could call different things with different names.

(Youtube) videos

• A video recorded with a very short focal length looks like someone is talking to you with <30 cm distance. In real life, most people would not be comfortable if someone talks to one so near.
• Many videos are recorded with a 'sensational style' while talking about non sensational topics. Is this really necessary to et the attention of the viewer?

For both topics i am interested in the view of others, please write a comment.

 

[jiberlin]

Thank you all for sharing your thoughts about my topics.

My thoughts/answers to all the posts:

Specific photo styles

Some people use a (smart)phone like a normal dedicated camera, but others use it in a way that is, in my view, very specific to (smart)phones:

• Taking photos from every meal they get in a restaurant or every cocktail they get in a bar (Foodp***)
• Taking photos of them self in every situation (me in the bus, me in the local train, me in the tram, me in car, me...)
• Taking photos of friends in bizarr poses
• Visiting special locations only to take photos for the social media without real interest on the place they visit

Sometime such photos are also taken with dedicated cameras, but in my view, these type of photos are specific to a (smart)phone or (smart)phone like use of a dedicated camera.

I hope I've clarified what I meant. It's not about what a recording was made with, but rather the style that has evolved with the new equipment.

What is photography

Yes, the root of the term photography is 'image from light', but even in the past there were different names like photogram for images taken without a camera, and specific names for different types of photos. I can't see why it is 'forbidden' to give the photo styles mentioned above a different name.

I can see that my suggestion 'phonography' is probably not the best wording because the same name is an ancient name for tone recordings.

Sensational video style

Perhaps this is a cultural thing. I am German and films produced in Germany are normally in a more neutral/factual/objectively style. I we have films in public TV that originated from US, they are much more in the sensational/excited style. For me, it is strange to be such excited about a new lens/camera/...

 

[Ozzie SD]

Thank you all for sharing your thoughts about my topics.

My thoughts/answers to all the posts:

Specific photo styles

Some people use a (smart)phone like a normal dedicated camera, but others use it in a way that is, in my view, very specific to (smart)phones:

• Taking photos from every meal they get in a restaurant or every cocktail they get in a bar (Foodp***)
• Taking photos of them self in every situation (me in the bus, me in the local train, me in the tram, me in car, me...)
• Taking photos of friends in bizarr poses
• Visiting special locations only to take photos for the social media without real interest on the place they visit

Sometime such photos are also taken with dedicated cameras, but in my view, these type of photos are specific to a (smart)phone or (smart)phone like use of a dedicated camera.

That these kind of pictures are taken with a phone camera is all about availability, convenience and connectivity. You have your phone (and thus camera) already in your pocket, so some people like to take a picture of their nice meal . This can be easily done without getting too much attention. Bringing out a big DSLR with a big lens and an external flash would make people turn their heads. Taking selfies ... again, convenience. People like to capture themselves in certain situations they want to remember. This is way more easy with a phone than a regular camera. "Taking photos of friends in bizar poses". Not sure what you mean by that. Has nothing to do with a phone or regular camera. Maybe you might see it more often because people always have a phone on them, while not carrying a regular camera all day. So, this is simply about availability. "Visiting special locations only to take photos for the social media without real interest on the place they visit". Phones are connected to the internet, so pictures can easily be shared, which is often not (or way more difficult) with a regular camera. Besides that, it is impossible to know what others might think, so stating that these people take pictures "without real interest on the place they visit" seems to be an assumption rather than a fact.

I hope I've clarified what I meant. It's not about what a recording was made with, but rather the style that has evolved with the new equipment.

Both are cameras. There is no real difference in style. It is the small size, availability and connectivity with the internet that make people use the phone camera more often in different situations. In the end, regular cameras and phone cameras are exactly the same. They are devices to capture an image. Nothing more and nothing less.

What is photography

Yes, the root of the term photography is 'image from light', but even in the past there were different names like photogram for images taken without a camera, and specific names for different types of photos. I can't see why it is 'forbidden' to give the photo styles mentioned above a different name.

I can see that my suggestion 'phonography' is probably not the best wording because the same name is an ancient name for tone recordings.

Sensational video style

Perhaps this is a cultural thing. I am German and films produced in Germany are normally in a more neutral/factual/objectively style. I we have films in public TV that originated from US, they are much more in the sensational/excited style. For me, it is strange to be such excited about a new lens/camera/...

Germany is well known for its solid quality products. People are more modest. The videos you are probably watching often have a commercial purpose of selling a product. The person in the video is extremely enthusiastic. Why? Because he wants to sell that product. Often there is a link in the description. If you click that link, the person in the video gets a small amount of money. So that is probably why he tells you with a big smile "This lens/camera/car/bike/television/phone is so great and amazing!!! It's really incredible what you can do with it! You won't believe the fun I already had playing with it and I can't wait to use it again! It is really amazing and for this price it's a bargain!". Something like that ... :-D

 

[Dennis]

Specific photo styles

Some people use a (smart)phone like a normal dedicated camera, but others use it in a way that is, in my view, very specific to (smart)phones:

This is a social media thing ... the phone's "on you all the time" and "connected all the time" aspects allow people to not only shoot the photos you mentioned, but share the photos you mentioned. To me, it's kind of "visual texting". The photos are not meant to endure, but to illustrate what you want to share at any moment in time. I don't do much on social media, but use my phone to shoot and share (via text msgs to friends & family) all kinds of silly little things that I wouldn't normally bother taking pictures of.

That said, I wouldn't say it's something different. Photography is evolving (branching out). There are billions of people on the planet taking all kinds of pictures with all kinds of gadgets for all kinds of purposes. It's all photography and it's a huge umbrella.

Sensational video style

Perhaps this is a cultural thing.

I call it the "cesspool of desperation". People far more interested in becoming influencers than in their subject matter. It turns me off. I don't watch much content, but I have no interest in wannabe influencers. (Or even real influencers!)

For me, it is strange to be such excited about a new lens/camera/...

It is. I occasionally watch some woodworking videos and the styles run the gamut from calm, cool, collected accomplished woodworkers chatting about something (sometimes even boring!) to clowns whose eyes bug out with big flashing neon words on the screen while they hoot & holler about how they're going to save you from making a big mistake! ( I save myself from making a big mistake by switching to another video).

 

[Overrank]

Thank you all for sharing your thoughts about my topics.

My thoughts/answers to all the posts:

Specific photo styles

Some people use a (smart)phone like a normal dedicated camera, but others use it in a way that is, in my view, very specific to (smart)phones:

• Taking photos from every meal they get in a restaurant or every cocktail they get in a bar (Foodp***)

The Pentax 17 film camera, introduced last year, has a focus setting for “food” so I don’t think this is something limited to phones, it’s more changes in society.

In the early days of digital cameras there was an argument that using a digital camera was not photography (because it was not “writing with light”) but rather digital imaging. Rebranding something to try and create space between “real” cameras and phones has a similar look to it.