Exposure: Luis Rodriguez

The mobile phone brings new people into photography. It's a big change. A name is just something that makes it easier to discuss changes and trends in photography.

"A DSLR camera can have a wi-fi connection ...?"

If you edit and publish to the Internet directly from the screen of a DSLR, that's mobile photography.

"… there are cameras out there which are no phones with which you can take pictures in the same way as with phones. also tablets ..."

Yes again, if that's the way you use the device. More and more cameras are being sold with the capability of doing mobile photography, even if they are not primarily used that way.

"… nobody calls photography that is taken with film cameras and edited in a darkroom film darkroom photography ..."

If you want people under 40 to understand what you are talking about, the term "traditional film photography" would be good to use.

"why does it suddenly make a difference what one uses to take pictures?"

Wrong. Photographers have discussed specific tools and techniques for a long time. There is nothing new about that.

"if you want to call phone photography mobile or whatever then do the same with other photography."

Wrong again. That's not how language works. Things that are topical and popular get names, and things of equal taxonomic value that nobody talks about do not.

"From the point of the final product (photograph) there is not difference at all … it's a pointless and unnecessary word that of course no one will use 5 years from now."

Billions of people are learning photography for the first time. The tool that they are using, the cell phone, is relatively new. People who frequent this web site find this interesting, and are interested in discussing it. They are curious about how this photography gets from brand new a few years ago to ubiquitous in the next few years.

If you are not interested in discussing the most significant recent development in photography, If you think people who are interested in doing so are morons, I suggest you stop paying attention to this web site. You have nothing useful to add to the discussion here. "Stop it, stop it, stop it!!!" is not useful.

absentaneous,
The answer you are looking for is snobism. "Look - I can take better pictures with my phone than you with your DSLR!" It is just a new phase the "progressives" are going through. Simply ignore it. Once it runs out of being "a new thing", it'll die out for the lack of actual substance.

Actually you have a good point. It's all just photography. When we tag "mobile" onto photography, are we really doing this just so that we can preface the output by stating "let's just ignore quality issues and focus on the art"?

The real question is, with the tech already available, why can't we have both quality and art? Why is it necessary to split into this divide unless to pre-emptively state "there will be problems, just ignore those and concentrate on the picture".

It's all just photography and one has to wonder about the artificial split. Is it meant to split the "pros" from (and excuse) the more "amateur"? Because clearly there are very good photographers in this space.

"Wrong. Photographers have discussed specific tools and techniques for a long time. There is nothing new about that."

that's my point. the question is how did all that change photography? the answer is: it didn't. when 35mm came out I suppose everyone was calling that "35mm photography". who does that anymore? no one because it's pointless. when digital cameras came out everyone was calling that "digital photography". who does that anymore? no one, because it's pointless. it's still just photography. but some people never learn so yet again we "invented" something that was invented 150 years ago "mobile photography".

"Wrong again. That's not how language works. Things that are topical and popular get names, and things of equal taxonomic value that nobody talks about do not."

that's exactly my point. this "mobile photography" thing is a pointless trend invented by people who don't really understand that a "mobile phone" doesn't take anything more nor anything less than a photograph.

"Billions of people are learning photography for the first time. The tool that they are using, the cell phone, is relatively new. People who frequent this web site find this interesting, and are interested in discussing it. They are curious about how this photography gets from brand new a few years ago to ubiquitous in the next few years."

LOL... you said it! they are learning photography!!! not mobile photography or whatever. the tool doesn't change photography and its essence it only chances the way photography is done, not photography itself in the same way as you are not frying something else than eggs if instead of one tool you use another. that's the point. there are no different types of photography, there are just different tools and ways to do photography. so calling it mobile or whatever is missing the point.

"If you are not interested in discussing the most significant recent development in photography, If you think people who are interested in doing so are morons, I suggest you stop paying attention to this web site. You have nothing useful to add to the discussion here. "Stop it, stop it, stop it!!!" is not useful."

I use my tablet, phones, webcameras, whatever to take pictures too. I am just not delusional that what I am doing with these tools is something different than photography. so, I don't say hey, I am going to do some mobile photography today. I don't say I am going to do some tablet photography today. I just say I am going to do some photography. and when I look at pictures I don't wonder if they were taken with phones or not or make distinction between them if they were but they are all photographs. so, just cut with these mass nonsense. it's photography.

"The answer you are looking for is snobism. "Look - I can take better pictures with my phone than you with your DSLR!" It is just a new phase the "progressives" are going through. Simply ignore it. Once it runs out of being "a new thing", it'll die out for the lack of actual substance."

yes, that's my point. it just irritates me because it's stupid. photography has been photography for 150 years and no tool has ever changed it and never really will. the problem is that pictures are gaining both positive and negative attention from people just because they were taken with a phone as if it was any different if they were taken with a different tool. so, the question is would these pictures here be any less good, interesting etc. if they were not taken as "mobile photographs"? I guess not, but it seems that according to some mass hysteria they actually are.

Yep, they put the word "mobile" their to make them stand out from the rest of the photography world in a sort of "hey look at me!" way.

"It's all just photography and one has to wonder about the artificial split. Is it meant to split the "pros" from (and excuse) the more "amateur"? Because clearly there are very good photographers in this space."

exactly. the result we get is that it seems like taking pictures with a mobile phone is something so different that requires some different standards, a different way to look at it. like it's not good enough to be called photography so it has to be called something different to point out it belongs to some different league. it's basically the same thing that happened when digital cameras started to appear. also then you had photography and you had "digital photography" which was supposed to be something less than photography. something not as serious, not as photography.

"there are just different tools and ways to do photography."

That is the craft part of photography. Different tools require different techniques. They also make it easier or more difficult to achieve a particular result.

"... calling it mobile or whatever is missing the point."

No, calling it mobile is specifying a specific craft and set of techniques that are of interest. It's not a sin or crime to discuss craft and technique. That is the primary reason this website exists, to discuss craft and technique.

"No, calling it mobile is specifying a specific craft and set of techniques that are of interest."

LOL, what specific craft and technique are you talking about?! and of course we can discuss using different tools in photography but lets not be fooled that by doing so we are talking about different kinds of photography. it's still photography. you can use a camera with one hand, two hands, put it on a tripod, monopod, hold it vertically, horizontally, you can use viewfinder, LCD screen, you can set it manually, use touchscreen etc. these are all different techniques which don't mean different kind of photography. "mobile" photography is just photography. it's not any better not worse, not any more interesting as an output or less than any "other" photography one can define in this way.

Right, Michael! What a useless discussion...