[johnmflores]

Aussie mag shoots iconic Instagrammer with an iPhone for its cover

"Shot during sunset on Bondi Beach by fashion photographer Georges Antoni, it's the first magazine cover in Australia shot with the iPhone 7 Plus' portrait mode, and follows similar work in the U.S. with Billboard magazine back in February.

'One thing that struck me was how liberating it was to shoot and not worry about lenses, tripods, tethering to the computer, etc,' Antoni said in a statement.

'It's also such an interesting dynamic to see how the public are so conditioned to seeing people shooting on their phones that they don't really take notice, so the shoot could happen in a much more stealth way.'"

[normhead]

I've seen many images taken with cell phones that I thought were magazine quality. And of course there have been many magazine covers shot with previous Pentax models. The thing here is art directors who demand that images be shot in a certain format, almost as a way of weeding out "less serious" competition. The technology to produce a magazine cover has been here for quite a while. It's the conservative nature of the industry that has held it back.

One of my favourite stories is about AL Kooper coming to a Bob Dylan recording session as a guitar player. However with Michael Bloomfield there it became apparent that he wasn't going to be playing much guitar.

So he sat down at the organ and improvised the lead riff for Like A Rolling Stone. One of the band members complained "He's not even an organ player." To which Dylan replied, "Don't tell me who is and isn't an organ player."

We need more artistic directors like that.

Some of them seem to believe they can evaluate talent, by what kind of camera the guy owns.

[mohb]

Given that 99.9% of the population couldn't care less what camera was used why don't more photographers do it the easy way or would it spoil the mystique of

lenses, tripods, tethering to the computer, etc

that they build around themselves.

[ZeljkoS]

Good marketing for iPhone

[normhead]

Good marketing for iPhone

Sometimes all you have to do for good marketing is point out the technical specs of your product. As I said, cell phones could have been used for magazine covers since the iPhone4. The fact that they weren't was based on the conservative nature of the industry, not the lack of capability of the phone.

Lots of magazine covers were shot with Benjikans K20D. If you know that, the surprising things here is it took folks so long to figure it out you could use a cell phone just as effectively. The big question is why it took all these photographic geniuses so long to figure it out.

[pathdoc]

why don't more photographers do it the easy way

Because not all shoots are done under ideal conditions. If he'd been doing his shoot in a dilapidated warehouse on an overcast day instead of during the Golden Hour on Bondi beach, I would venture to suggest that he'd have brought a hardcore DSLR or MILC and some serious portable lighting.

[johnmflores]

Because not all shoots are done under ideal conditions. If he'd been doing his shoot in a dilapidated warehouse on an overcast day instead of during the Golden Hour on Bondi beach, I would venture to suggest that he'd have brought a hardcore DSLR or MILC and some serious portable lighting.

I'd imagine that an iPhone plus a good lighting kit could get the job done in a warehouse.

---------- Post added 05-29-17 at 10:19 AM ----------

I've seen many images taken with cell phones that I thought were magazine quality. And of course there have been many magazine covers shot with previous Pentax models. The thing here is art directors who demand that images be shot in a certain format, almost as a way of weeding out "less serious" competition. The technology to produce a magazine cover has been here for quite a while. It's the conservative nature of the industry that has held it back.

Some of them seem to believe they can evaluate talent, by what kind of camera the guy owns.

I don't shoot fashion but I've never had a client or publisher question my gear. Much of the conservatism comes from the photography industry and community themselves. Manufacturers create this myth that pro=full frame and the community takes the bait hook, line, and sinker. Now with so much invested in full frame, pros and serious amateurs need to protect their investment and decision and perpetuate the myth.

[pathdoc]

plus a good lighting kit

This is the big if. Cellphone cameras are outstanding when they have good light to work with, but it all goes to hell very quickly as the conditions become suboptimal. That's what the vast majority of the iPhone buying public doesn't understand, nor how much manipulation goes on in post.

When we have cellphones which can routinely dump a .DNG file, and (widely available and well-tested) apps which can routinely work with it in-phone, then we will really start to see something interesting.

[D1N0]

Are people still trying to shove the idea an iPhone is all we need down our throats? Very ugly fake bokeh in that pic.

[johnmflores]

This is the big if. Cellphone cameras are outstanding when they have good light to work with, but it all goes to hell very quickly as the conditions become suboptimal. That's what the vast majority of the iPhone buying public doesn't understand, nor how much manipulation goes on in post.

When we have cellphones which can routinely dump a .DNG file, and (widely available and well-tested) apps which can routinely work with it in-phone, then we will really start to see something interesting.

We are talking about a profesional fashion photographer here, not some amateur . I suspect that he'd know how to light the warehouse.

---------- Post added 05-29-17 at 10:38 AM ----------

Are people still trying to shove the idea an iPhone is all we need down our throats? Very ugly fake bokeh in that pic.

...and 99.9% of the people seeing the cover will not notice or care.

And the fact is, outside of photojournalism, every photo published these days is fake.

[D1N0]

excuse me for caring

[johnmflores]

excuse me for caring

LOL keep caring! Personally, I love that everyone now has a camera in their pocket and that those cameras are getting better every year because it forces those of us with fancy gear to constantly up our game.

[alamo5000]

Early on advice that I was given by a salty old photographer who has had more stuff published in major mags than I can even think up:

"Your camera doesn't suck. YOU SUCK!"

[pathdoc]

I suspect that he'd know how to light the warehouse.

I never questioned it. But any average Joe (or Josephine) who saw in isloation the results of such a shoot and "Taken with iPhone" (insert version here) would have every right to feel hoodwinked if, having failed to achieve such results on purchasing one themselves, they later found out how much energy and effort had gone into it.

And the fact is, outside of photojournalism, every photo published these days is fake.

I think this degree of cynicism (or is it postmodernism?) is unjustified.

Very ugly fake bokeh in that pic.

Yes, but who cares about the bokeh? The audience at which Margaret Zhang's image is pitched certainly won't; their eyes will be fixed on the foreground, and all that matters about the background is that it's OOF to avoid distractions.

As to the rest, it confirms what I already expressed above, not having even seen the photo. Golden hour with a cellphone cam = gimme shot, if you can get the composition right. And you can bet your life they didn't take just one.

[normhead]

I never questioned it. But any average Joe (or Josephine) who saw in isloation the results of such a shoot and "Taken with iPhone" (insert version here) would have every right to feel hoodwinked if, having failed to achieve such results on purchasing one themselves, they later found out how much energy and effort had gone into it.

Much like the same thing that's going to happen to the majority of A9 worshipers, and many of the 1Dx or D5 worshippers.

Early on advice that I was given by a salty old photographer who has had more stuff published in major mags than I can even think up:

"Your camera doesn't suck. YOU SUCK!"

You wonder how much money some guys and gals have to spend before they figure this out. It would seem, they are always thinking the next "latest greatest" camera is going to be so good it let's them access their unrealized photography talent.

For most of us it comes down to we don't have unrealized photographic talent, we have absent photographic talent.

One of the joys about studying photography is getting to hang for a bit with guys with talent in spades. You know your place in the world of photography right off the bat. Me, I'm probably a good to average photographic technician, but artistic vision is not my strong suit. It was worth taking a year of my life just to understand that.