[Dipsoid]

In short, if one cannot fully control the shutter speed, aperture and iso, at all times, technically it is not photography.

Uhm, no, that's technically not true at all. "The art or practice of taking and processing photographs." Is the definition the Oxford Dictionary gives to photography. You'll notice it doesn't mention anything about controlling shutter speed or aperture manually. I've seen people take better pictures with their smartphone than many gear heads who could rattle off a great deal of technical details about their cameras. Does that mean one couldn't become a better photographer by knowing and controlling all the aspects of the exposure triangle? Of course not. You'll notice more smart phones are giving you manual control to exposure as well as RAW developing options. My 30$ Microsoft phone comes with manual controls for exposure out of the box. Photography doesn't require the pretensions you proclaim because photography is just about creating images. Controlling all of the settings you want won't create a good image if you don't know anything about light, color, and composition anyway, all of which don't particularly require any of the exposure controls to get right.

[johnmflores]

In short, if one cannot fully control the shutter speed, aperture and iso, at all times, technically it is not photography.

Also...
If you shoot in PAS or anything other than M, technically it is not photography
If you do not turn the focusing helicoid with your hand, technically it is not photography.
If you use pixels instead of chemicals, technically it is not photography.
If you do not view an image on paper, technically it is not photography.

Technically, photography is dead.

[luftfluss]

I was just reading through the last couple pages and I'm like...

[BigMackCam]

smartphone takes all control from the photographer. In a similar manner expired film takes away control of basic parameters and rewards us with pure chance; aperture, shutter speed, etc, inside smartphone all is determined by chance, and 'brain' inside camera.

No matter how automated the camera, or how unpredictable the medium, it's the person using it that's responsible for composition and lighting (including using natural / available light to its best effect).

So smartphone imaging is a combination of an idiot camera snap-shooting and lomography. Idiot camera being a simple box, or, just-press-the-shutter-release box.
In short, if one cannot fully control the shutter speed, aperture and iso, at all times, technically it is not photography.

You're entitled to your personal opinion, of course, but it's factually inaccurate. From Merriam-Webster:

Definition of photography
: the art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (as film or an optical sensor)

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 03-14-2017 at 12:16 AM.

[UncleVanya]

I know of many excellent phone based images. I fear hubris and elitism are creeping into this discussion. The reality is that their are compromised and the platform has limitations but having a camera always with you makes some opportunities get captured that would be lost.

Using apps like 645pro on iPhones brings lots of control to the photographer. It may not offer complete control but aperture and ISO and exposure compensation go a long way towards maximizing the capability of the platform.

[serothis]

I know of many excellent phone based images. I fear hubris and elitism are creeping into this discussion. The reality is that their are compromised and the platform has limitations but having a camera always with you makes some opportunities get captured that would be lost.

Using apps like 645pro on iPhones brings lots of control to the photographer. It may not offer complete control but aperture and ISO and exposure compensation go a long way towards maximizing the capability of the platform.

There's some wonderful photos in this thread to support this claim.

A compact mirrorless to compliment my k-1 would be a very appealing.

[monochrome]

Again . . . ! !

In the 60's and 70's the Instamatic and Polaroid cameras for the masses were all set to destroy 'proper' photography - when actually SLR's were mostly tools for Journalists, artists and portraitists (very broad groups). Wealthy UMC hip people bought SLR's and lenses, too - especially Pentax - so Insta wasn't a threat then and it isn't a threat now.

Then compact automatic film cameras happened, the Instamatics went to the landfill and SLR's were set to die - except Canon captured Sports Illustrated and Nikon captured People magazine . . . and Minolta grew a mind for the UMC hip set.

Of course digital came and everyone cashed in their wonderful SLR's for a BestBuy craptacular kit - and then June, 2007 came around, and the kits went on the shelf.

Meanwhile artists, journalists, portraitists and enthusiasts still buy cameras, some of them modern Rangefinders (MILC) and some of them modern SLR's (dSLR's) - I think both will be around long after I've died.

---

Last edited by monochrome; 03-14-2017 at 07:52 PM.

[reh321]

....
Of course digital came and everyone cashed in their wonderful SLR's for a BestBuy craptacular kit - and then June, 2007 came around, and the kits went on the shelf.

What happened in June 2007?? {I purchased my first DSLR on Black Friday 2007 because I decided they had finally reached a level of being able to deliver images at least as I was getting from my SLR + Kodak slide film}

---------- Post added 03-14-17 at 02:40 PM ----------

Again . . . ! !

In the 60's and 70's the Instamatic and Polaroid cameras for the masses were all set to destroy 'proper' photography - when actually SLR's were mostly tools for Journalists, artists and portraitists (very broad groups). Wealthy UMC hip people bought SLR's and lenses, too - especially Pentax - so Insta wasn't a threat then and it isn't a threat now.

Then compact automatic film cameras happened, the Instamatics went to the landfill and SLR's were set to die - except Canon captured Sports Illustrated and Nikon captured People magazine . . . and Minolta grew a mind for the UMC hip set.

Of course digital came and everyone cashed in their wonderful SLR's for a BestBuy craptacular kit - and then June, 2007 came around, and the kits went on the shelf.

Meanwhile artists, journalists and enthusiasts still buy cameras, some of them modern Rangefinders (MILC) and some of them modern SLR's (dSLR's) - I think both will be around long after I've died.

Of course, Instamatics did supplant the box cameras that came before them, and 35mm cameras did largely supplant large format and medium format film cameras.

[redrockcoulee]

Also...
If you shoot in PAS or anything other than M, technically it is not photography
If you do not turn the focusing helicoid with your hand, technically it is not photography.
If you use pixels instead of chemicals, technically it is not photography.
If you do not view an image on paper, technically it is not photography.

Technically, photography is dead.

But as you cannot control your ISO at all times in a roll film camera than film photography is technically not photography either.

On my Holga I have two aperture settings however the lever is not connected to the aperture at all so is using a Holga technically not photography or is it only virtually not photography? So many rules I did not know of

[monochrome]

What happened in June 2007?? {I purchased my first DSLR on Black Friday 2007 because I decided they had finally reached a level of being able to deliver images at least as I was getting from my SLR + Kodak slide film.

iPhone was introduced June 29, 2007. They're not even ten years old yet - in fact, the whole thing happened during the financial crisis and limp recovery.

My father shot his slides with an Argus C3. I have it, but the rangefinder is borked.

Yeah, I suppose the Brownie is the analog for compact digital if I flog the metaphor .

[biz-engineer]

If they should so choose, it is quite reasonable to assume Pentax could acquire the components and electrical engineering skills to release a competent MILC.

Is the Pentax X5 not having a EVF ? I don't think designing a camera without mirror and an EVF and image sensor base AF is difficult, on the contrary it is more simple, that existed with compact cameras and phones. It is a conscious choice of Ricoh to still make cameras with OVFs.

[surfar]

This discussion has veered way off-topic, but in a broad sense, it's relevant to the argument central to this thread. The way photography became acceptable as an art form, and not just a means of recording the state of the world at various points in time, was that the early proponents printed in large form and displayed their work. While the phone camera has been used for this purpose, it will always have its limitations. If we believe that the camera as a single entity needs to survive, in order that photography as a credible art form should also survive, we need to do the same, as well as continue to support the camera makers, and maybe bicker less about the details.

YES, and its great to have the ability to look at things from both ends(a great advantage you have down there!)...ha ha

[Uluru]

Uhm, no, that's technically not true at all. "The art or practice of taking and processing photographs." Is the definition the Oxford Dictionary gives to photography. You'll notice it doesn't mention anything about controlling shutter speed or aperture manually...

Who defined it for the dictionary? That definition is lacking. It is an age old rule, that photography is the process of image taking with a light-capturing device which is able to control aperture of light and shutter speed for exposure (duration), which is too determined by the sensitivity of the photographic medium. If you take away any of those of three, it is not photography. Word is coined photo + graphy, to clearly illustrate what is necessary for the process, which I explained above.

---------- Post added 03-15-2017 at 12:22 PM ----------

Also...
If you shoot in PAS or anything other than M, technically it is not photography
If you do not turn the focusing helicoid with your hand, technically it is not photography.
If you use pixels instead of chemicals, technically it is not photography.
If you do not view an image on paper, technically it is not photography.
Technically, photography is dead.

If YOU set the camera in M, S, T or A modes, YOU have set it, because YOU had an established idea of the output in which YOU decided what parameter is allowed to be pre-set, and others to change. So you have full control of set and other parameters. Even on most primitive camera obscura the sensitivity of the medium is given, pre-set.

However, using camera in full program mode (Sensitivity, Aperture and Shutter speed decided entirely by the camera) definitely is not photography, same as person who uses that mode is not photographer, but a newbie who is learning basics of framing and camera operation. If you print such an image and call it your photograph, that is lying and cheating.

Lens can be operated in any manner — operation is irrelevant as long the aperture of light can be changed. If you want, you may block/unblock lens with your hand.

Pixels or silver halide, it is not important as long as the image is transferred visible in normal light and is final.

Yes, digital image alone is not representative of the photograph; photograph must be printed on paper / surface specified by the photographer, in size determined by the photographer, so that it does not alter its appearance (as it is altered in size and representation on different screens). And it must be framed / observed as the photographer indented.

If it is observed on screen only, it is still digital negative only, which has potential to become a photograph one day if printed accordingly. So any 'digital photography challenge' we see around is in fact digital-negative challenge.

To summarise from the above, assembled for smartphone 'photography': it is lying and cheating (you controlled nothing, smartphone did it all) about digital negatives, which even if printed, will never be true photographs, and never your photographs.

[cali92rs]

Who defined it for the dictionary? That definition is lacking. It is an age old rule, that photography is the process of image taking with a light-capturing device which is able to control aperture of light and shutter speed for exposure (duration), which is too determined by the sensitivity of the photographic medium. If you take away any of those of three, it is not photography. Word is coined photo + graphy, to clearly illustrate what is necessary for the process, which I explained above.

---------- Post added 03-15-2017 at 12:22 PM ----------



If YOU set the camera in M, S, T or A modes, YOU have set it, because YOU had an established idea of the output in which YOU decided what parameter is allowed to be pre-set, and others to change. So you have full control of set and other parameters. Even on most primitive camera obscura the sensitivity of the medium is given, pre-set.

However, using camera in full program mode (Sensitivity, Aperture and Shutter speed decided entirely by the camera) definitely is not photography, same as person who uses that mode is not photographer, but a newbie who is learning basics of framing and camera operation. If you print such an image and call it your photograph, that is lying and cheating.

Lens can be operated in any manner — operation is irrelevant as long the aperture of light can be changed. If you want, you may block/unblock lens with your hand.

Pixels or silver halide, it is not important as long as the image is transferred visible in normal light and is final.

Yes, digital image alone is not representative of the photograph; photograph must be printed on paper / surface specified by the photographer, in size determined by the photographer, so that it does not alter its appearance (as it is altered in size and representation on different screens). And it must be framed / observed as the photographer indented.

If it is observed on screen only, it is still digital negative only, which has potential to become a photograph one day if printed accordingly. So any 'digital photography challenge' we see around is in fact digital-negative challenge.

To summarise from the above, assembled for smartphone 'photography': it is lying and cheating (you controlled nothing, smartphone did it all) about digital negatives, which even if printed, will never be true photographs, and never your photographs.

What you have written is completely arbitrary and reeks of narcissism. Who gave you the right to decide for everyone else what is and what isnt photography? The fact that noone else can corroborate your "definition " of photography is and what it isn't what makes it arbitrary.

[reh321]

The other day, splendid sunset; I walked with my wife reflecting on life of my mother who died recently; suddenly I pointed to cloud tops, illuminated like a fiery gem through a complex web of sun rays. She took her iPhone and made several snaps, and I took a photograph with my Leica. The images were incomparable. Even she commented afterwards that the iPhone images are total rubbish. In addition to distortions in the iPhone pictures, 70% of nuances at least have all gone.
That is not photography — I would say, that in terms of quality, smartphone photography today is the new lomography.
I think that is fair assessment.

What difference does it matter, whether people use iPhones to perform photography, lomography, or ishcagaphy??

Today people are using iPhones when they would have used a standard camera some time in the past.

That is the basis of this discussion; what we call the process is irrelevant, and should not be used to derail or take this discussion off track.