1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Is it time to accept the unthinkable

Discussion in 'General Equipment Chat & Advice' started by pixelpuffin, Dec 25, 2019.

  1. pixelpuffin

    pixelpuffin Well-Known Member

    There was absolutely no call for that, I wasn’t judging or being chauvinistic. In the first instance It was something I I had not noticed before. It’s a breath of fresh air. I want more women to get involved. The sleazy image of the male creepy photographer who purchased photo mags to leer at nudes and bikini shots is what drove me away in the first instance. God it was awful - I wrote many letters to AP back in the days when I was a regular reader. It was humiliating to even reach up and read photo mags back then.

    I’m so glad that it is today accepted for what it is....a medium to capture memories or even create them.
  2. dream_police

    dream_police Well-Known Member

    I think you’ll find it’s just humour. It is like that around here. :)
  3. nimbus

    nimbus Well-Known Member

    It's ironic humour!
  4. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    Went down like a lead balloon in that case :p
  5. John King

    John King In the Stop Bath

    Just how large (physically that is) is a sensor used in a camera phone? Apart from my 2 full frame Nikons I also have a Fuji x20 which is small convenient and has most of the gimmicks I very rarely use. Size for size the sensor is 12MP, the same as my D700, but the quality of the image from the D700 is light years ahead of the Fuji. The principal objection is noise in plain areas. So if the sensor of a camera phone is physically smaller than that in the Fuji I cannot see it being my preferred tool for my photography
  6. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    The sensors are tiny but the extremely small focal length of the lens means huge depth of field so there is virtually no "out of focus" possibility with phones. Given enough light they give 100% success. That is what people find useful. Add to that that many people only view the results back on a phone then the quality becomes irrelevant when compared to anything else.
  7. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    I think you missed a point there, whilst we might accept a depth of field restriction, many people want front to back sharpness and a phone delivers that.
  8. pixelpuffin

    pixelpuffin Well-Known Member

    TBH John
    I think you and I view photography at polar opposites

    Me, frankly could not give a toss about noise (ideally I’d like no golf balls) but so long as the image is sharp and not too noisy- I’m happy.

    it seems you are obsessed with absolute technical perfection. I did that in my college years with 5x4 and Kodak technical pan on MF, sometimes even 35mm....sometimes.
    Yes, our college tutors would accept nothing besides perfection. Hence the vast majority of my college portfolio was clinical devoid of any aesthetics whatsoever. In short it put me off taking pictures for years. Because I couldn’t just snap away carefree - I had to analyse the whole damn scene....it took the fun out!!
    Hence why for 15yrs after leaving (I gained the highest grades ever - name and picture in local paper) I fell out with photography and made do with a Sony digital compact.
    Now my college years seems like a lifetime ago. I’m loving this nonchalant approach to taking pictures if I can tweak in apps and make it look better then that’s even better.

    I suppose it’s horses for courses
    Each to their own
  9. nimbus

    nimbus Well-Known Member

    Or post them on social media where those viewing them are doing so on phones as well.
  10. nimbus

    nimbus Well-Known Member

    Technical perfection is a strange conception, I know people who are literally obsessed with taking pictures in full-sun and some will not take them in anything less, so they have a collection of technically high quality pictures which are "good". That they have and display such shots makes them excellent photographers...or does it?
  11. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    That was the point I was making - obviously not clearly!
  12. SXH

    SXH Well-Known Member

    True, but what lovely bokeh! ;)
    GeoffR likes this.
  13. John King

    John King In the Stop Bath

    Quite wrong, I am not obsessed with absolute technical perfection. If I want noise or in the case of film - call it grain, then that is fine by me but the noise/grain on the X20 especially in the sky is obtrusive and takes away the quality in areas where there is little difference in tone. In the days of Kodak High Speed Infra Red film, now that was grainy/noisy! More so than anything else comparable that I know then or since, but it was the way of the film and it was 'normal'.

    I have been there, done that more or less the same as you, but my field was with police scenes of crime and crash photography where the best quality and accuracy was required - always. Gone were the days of 5x4 Micropress cameras, we were using good old Pentax Spotmatics with 35mm film

    When I took my ARPS distinction back in 1993, other prospective entries were slated because of the quality deterioration caused by obtrusive grain.That was not just one of the panel of 5 judges being picky, they all said it! It has sort of stuck as something I look for automatically now and probably won't change. Both my D700 and D600 can make images without any grain, but there again I can only print to A3. I have had two images from the D700 used in posters for the Museum where I now work and those were enlarged up to at least A1. It was only the resolution of the lenses I used were starting to break up would prevent them going further.

    With my film based photography (preferred) I can do a mono or colour print 12x16 from film with 35mm and the grain from that size is nowhere as bad as the X20.
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2019
  14. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    We can all survive without any of the nice inventions since the 1700's, but surviving and thriving are different.

    My smart phone increases my enjoyment of life, which is after all, fleeting, and ultimately without purpose beyond creating more of it (and there's plenty to go around already). People survived without phones in their houses after they were invented and I'm sure people said, I've lived for 50 years without one of those in the house, I'll be fine for a few more years yet.
    dream_police likes this.
  15. SXH

    SXH Well-Known Member

    Not to mention...

    "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
    Ken Olsen, founder of Digital Equipment Corporation, 1977
  16. BOB-R

    BOB-R Member

    It's a bit like the BBQ argument. Does BBQd food always taste better? Is it more fun to cook that way, or just a man thing? Mostly it is easier and more controlled to cook in the kitchen, but where's the fun in that?

    I love to go out with my X100-F or XT-3 because I just feel that I have the equipment to nearly always capture as good an image as I could wish for. If, by chance I get a winner, I know that it can be converted into a decent size canvas print, or a stunning framed print to hang on the wall. On top of that, it has a much better chance of being archived onto a storage device, rather than floating about on a smartphone with every chance of being terminally deleted to make room for more snapshots.

    To me, a camera is a beautiful, precision instrument which has been crafted specifically to capture images. Even the most basic, entry level camera today is capable of capturing extremely good quality images, whereas I have frequently compared those taken on my iPhone 7 Plus, and found them to be significantly inferior when enlarged to any degree. When you pick up a camera you have in your hands the ability to precisely control the image that you plan to take. Indeed, this is the whole point about photography, and being a photographer. It might take time to acquire the skill to achieve such control, but that is what our hobby is all about. When you choose an aperture, focal length, exposure compensation, shutter speed etc. you are taking responsibility, and the buzz you get when you capture that image will make it all very worthwhile.
    If you don't share that feeling, I'm left wondering why you bother to read Amateur Photographer?

    I will agree that most smartphones do take remarkably satisfactory images for most purposes, especially social occasions etc. And yes, they are nearly always with us, thereby increasing the chances of capturing those moments, but are they really easier to use? They are slippery and awkward, or encapsulated in some sort of wallet that gets in the way of the piddly little lens, and manipulating them in order to take some sort of control of your photography is fiddly. But the other real drawback is that because they are used so casually and compulsively, the images that they capture are all too often just left on the phone to clog up the device and get forgotten. By contrast, images captured on a proper camera are valued because of the effort and pleasure that we as photographers get when we go out to do just that.

    And I don't care what anyone tells me, I maintain that my photos from my cameras are vastly better than those from my phone.
  17. Geren

    Geren Well-Known Member

    I've just read all four pages of this and now I'm wondering why!
    Andrew Flannigan likes this.
  18. Mark101

    Mark101 Well-Known Member

    You love it! Go on, admit it
  19. Chester AP

    Chester AP Well-Known Member

    Probably the confusing title of the thread.

    Whilst I often enjoy thinking the unthinkable, or can be depressed about accepting the unacceptable, confronting the idea of accepting the unthinkable confuses me.
  20. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    I also read all 4 pages shortly before midnight yesterday. I had just made a cup of tea that was too hot to drink. When I had finished reading I drank the tea and retired to my bed.

Share This Page