[Wheatfield]

Are we still having the camera vs. phone debate? For 99% of the people 99% of the time, the phones have won.

It's pretty much turned into a circle jerk at this point.

[normhead]

Are we still having the camera vs. phone debate? For 99% of the people 99% of the time, the phones have won.

Exactly. And it's not even close. When I was younger there were more little small format throw away pocket cameras than any other type. People on vacation bought them from park concession stands. Convenience has always been the key, for most people.

[SFTphotography]

So this image isn't as good as yours?


Why not?
I understand the value for people selling their images or printing large of the larger files but, some of my best sales were from 12 MP point and shoots. I can push the value of my K-1 but also understand the value of my smaller cameras. I'm not seeing what you see. And the vast majority of shooters, neither sell their images nor do they print large enough to need 36 MP or more.

This seems to me to be more the argument of a pro emphasizing the value of larger formats (that he happens to employ) as a selling point, than a criticism valid for every day photographers.

Had I been there, with my camera - I'd have taken that better. Look at the clouds - above the mountain - specifically the hot sections - they're not right with some infill by the phone with some nasty yellow colour. It's a nice scene, but as an image it falls far short of the potential of the scene, and that is soley down to the cheap equipment.

So being blunt - no - it's not in the same league or grade of any of my pictures and if you did what I did for a living you wouldn't ask such an assanine question.

---------- Post added 08-22-21 at 08:09 AM ----------

Exactly. And it's not even close. When I was younger there were more little small format throw away pocket cameras than any other type. People on vacation bought them from park concession stands. Convenience has always been the key, for most people.

And that's why most people's pictures suck compared to a professional who a) uses better equipment b) know's how to use it c) understands photography.

---------- Post added 08-22-21 at 08:12 AM ----------

To put it bluntly you're trolling us, you decided before looking at them that you didn't like any phone pictures. If those exact same pictures had been posted in the Show us Your K-1 or K-3 Photos threads you'd have loved most of them.

---------- Post added 08-22-21 at 08:48 AM ----------
.

Don't be stupid. I've shared my superior pictures with you to demonstrate my point, answered questions around this and had they keen taken on a K1 or K3 they'd just somehow look better. As it is I shoot the 645z and the IQ is all to see.

[Serkevan]

At this point I'm just grabbing the popcorn. I'm gonna keep any further opinion on this thread to myself.

[normhead]

At this point I'm just grabbing the popcorn. I'm gonna keep any further opinion on this thread to myself.

Ya, smart move....
No point in dwelling on the obvious.
The soft approach to image comparisons is "Some people like that." While people can explain why "my pictures better" the assumption is always that everyone should see the way they do. And that's just not true. What one guy thinks is important and a reason to dismiss an image, is not important at all to others.

I've never seen a discussion where one photographer dismissing the work of others ends well. While I understand that STFphotography likes the images he posted better than the phone image, I find his photographs flat by comparison. When I was one of two photography teachers at a high school, I had the same discussion with my compatriot many times. I preferred high contrast in you face images that often left detail out in the highlights and shadows, he preferred latter the all encompassing show all your dynamic range even if it make the image look flat approach. SO I have a 25 year history dealing with these kinds of issues. Sometimes we'd debate abut in front of classes just to install the idea that there was no universally accepted style that every photographer adhere's to.

MY basic point was, much of the time utilizing the whole DR of an image, can make individual elements to look flat. There's only so much out put DR to go around. You can make the most important elements stand out by concentrating the available out put DR in them, and there is absolutely no reason to not have pure black or pure white areas in some prints. But at the end of the day, my buddy Jim and I both attend post HS photography programs, and we didn't process the same. As I said, which of these philosophies was correct is open to interpretation. Neither is some kind of law, that has to be followed.

I've never met an advanced photographer that didn't have negative opinions about other people's work but not his own. People can't see out of their rabbit holes, to see into someone else's, and professionals are by nature self promoting.

[Wheatfield]

At this point I'm just grabbing the popcorn. I'm gonna keep any further opinion on this thread to myself.

Yeah, you know when medium format files get downsized to cell phone screen resolution it's time for a big bag of hot buttered popcorn.

[reh321]

And that's why most people's pictures suck compared to a professional who a) uses better equipment b) know's how to use it c) understands photography.

but the professional has no idea what is important to most people.
My wife used to borrow my small camera when she would travel, so I have SD cards with photos of people I never met - but she did.
She took lots of photos of exotic looking individuals in exotic looking sites when she went to Turkey.
Professional slides would show the entire site - but not the people - and would lose their {exotic} colors in a few years.
She is retired now and travels less - but she has her own iPhone now.

[mlt]

Probably time for a moderator to close this thread, it has gone well past the original topic and taken some twists along the way.

[biz-engineer]

Yeah, you know when medium format files get downsized to cell phone screen resolution it's time for a big bag of hot buttered popcorn.

Can popcorn be replaced by peanuts?

We still don't know what the new camera(s) registered is(are) , a Pentax K1 successor or 645z successor.

---------- Post added 22-08-21 at 20:14 ----------

With pleasure - below 645z

Could potentially have taken the same pictures with a phone, given that the phone would have equivalent lenses, but still wouldn't be able to get the same quality when enlarged to about 30" and more.

[builttospill]

With pleasure - below 645z

I love the image with the castle and the one with the lighthouse. Great work.

So this image isn't as good as yours?

No, it's not. As someone who visits this exact location at least once a year, this is not what our eyes see. It's not a bad image, and certainly not the typical image taken by a phone, but it doesn't look real. If you like oversaturated, fake-looking images, this one has its merits and is quite impressive. I'd prefer to view more natural-looking images which look more like how my eyes would see the location if I were there in real life.

Probably time for a moderator to close this thread, it has gone well past the original topic and taken some twists along the way.

No need to call for moderators to close a thread you personally have lost interest in.

[biz-engineer]

Are we still having the camera vs. phone debate? For 99% of the people 99% of the time, the phones have won.

It's not good for camera companies, but I actually like it. A few year back, every place I went was full of people with DSLR cameras. Now, same places, I'm often the only one with a real camera, people ask me if I can provide photos and sometimes I get money in exchange of photos, this seldom happen 10 years ago when everyone had a proper ILC camera with lenses. ILC cameras become the tool of the professional photographer again, in some ways, it's good news. I don't mind being the 1% of people who is not stuck with a smartphone for sport images and ultra wide angle real estate images, and the more people only own a smartphone the greater the value of high definition ILC images. People don't buy expensive cameras, hiring me for a photo assignment is still a lot cheaper than buying a camera system.

[SFTphotography]

Ya, smart move....
No point in dwelling on the obvious.
The soft approach to image comparisons is "Some people like that." While people can explain why "my pictures better" the assumption is always that everyone should see the way they do. And that's just not true. What one guy thinks is important and a reason to dismiss an image, is not important at all to others.

Well. Mine are better.

I've never seen a discussion where one photographer dismissing the work of others ends well. While I understand that STFphotography likes the images he posted better than the phone image, I find his photographs flat by comparison. When I was one of two photography teachers at a high school, I had the same discussion with my compatriot many times. I preferred high contrast in you face images that often left detail out in the highlights and shadows, he preferred latter the all encompassing show all your dynamic range even if it make the image look flat approach. SO I have a 25 year history dealing with these kinds of issues. Sometimes we'd debate abut in front of classes just to install the idea that there was no universally accepted style that every photographer adhere's to.

I completely disagree. Dynamic range, colour depth is to be used - no such thing as too much dynamic range for a camera. I wish every scene would fit within the histogram possible without using grad filters or blending.


Mine fill the bulk of the range of the histogram - where appropriate of course. I would say for landscapes crunched blacks and and blown whites are a no to be honest. Personally I don't think you need to utilise the full dynamic range of a camera either - not every picture has to have pure blacks and pure whites to stand out.

I can think of very few scenes where having clipped whites and crunched blacks would be acceptable. I prefer to keep within the midtones and have a spread within that. If you think you need to have pure whites/blacks in every scene I cannot agree with you.


In a scene with mist - it will always be quite diffused for instance, etheral. Setting pure black/white points would be an asault on the scene. The image of grand tetons is very flat - look at the trees in the mid ground - just washed out, same with the sky. It's a nice scene but was begging for someone with a real camera, with real skill to rock up and take it. Someone like me really.

MY basic point was, much of the time utilizing the whole DR of an image, can make individual elements to look flat. There's only so much out put DR to go around. You can make the most important elements stand out by concentrating the available out put DR in them, and there is absolutely no reason to not have pure black or pure white areas in some prints. But at the end of the day, my buddy Jim and I both attend post HS photography programs, and we didn't process the same. As I said, which of these philosophies was correct is open to interpretation. Neither is some kind of law, that has to be followed.

I've never met an advanced photographer that didn't have negative opinions about other people's work but not his own. People can't see out of their rabbit holes, to see into someone else's, and professionals are by nature self promoting.

We are self promoting - we have to be. It's called running a business. When producing images for commercial use - you need to have a technical quality as well as artistic. Having people say you could take that on a phone is rather disingenuous. Camera's are needed and used by hobbyists because they'll give a better result and by professionals for this reason.


Even for amateur use - big cameras are better. Try looking at a phone image on a 27inch screen. It is lousy. A proper camera file is lovely. Now try looking at a phone image on an 8k 85 inch screen. Not very good. A medium format digital file looks nice.




---------- Post added 08-22-21 at 12:30 PM ----------

Can popcorn be replaced by peanuts?

We still don't know what the new camera(s) registered is(are) , a Pentax K1 successor or 645z successor.

---------- Post added 22-08-21 at 20:14 ----------


Could potentially have taken the same pictures with a phone, given that the phone would have equivalent lenses, but still wouldn't be able to get the same quality when enlarged to about 30" and more.

You could compose the same with a phone - yes...but...that's where the buck would stop. You'd never get the colour depth, dynamic range and IQ. 30inches is also a tiny elargment. I quite like displaying on my TV which is 50inch and will be buying 85inch 8k and want to stick my face in it and see all the detail. My clients also demand 8k images so need something with at least 4600px on the short side and 7600px on the long. 8k will become a visual standard for a long time so getting something that fulfills this paramater is very important. 645z does, K1 does ok on the short side but you cannot make a 16:9 from this as it isn't got enough PX on the long. D850, 5ds all ok. We need 63mp K1 basically yesterday and 100mp 645z would be lovely but I can make do with 50mp 645z for many years.

[ThorSanchez]

Well. Mine are better.

- If only we could tell at web sizes with 8-bit jpegs maybe we'd all agree with you
- Much of "better" is subjective and it's nice that you like your photos

[SFTphotography]

- If only we could tell at web sizes with 8-bit jpegs maybe we'd all agree with you
- Much of "better" is subjective and it's nice that you like your photos

Like my pictures. I love them and am very proud of them. I didn't like the phone ones.


I can clearly see with my own eye mine have much nicer colours and depth even from the low res. For commercial reasons I share small files to protect against meaningful copyright infringement. On a big Eizo screen I can you the difference between phone camera shots and images like mine is very obvious.

[Rondec]

So this image isn't as good as yours?


Why not?
I understand the value for people selling their images or printing large of the larger files but, some of my best sales were from 12 MP point and shoots. I can push the value of my K-1 but also understand the value of my smaller cameras. I'm not seeing what you see. And the vast majority of shooters, neither sell their images nor do they print large enough to need 36 MP or more.

This seems to me to be more the argument of a pro emphasizing the value of larger formats (that he happens to employ) as a selling point, than a criticism valid for every day photographers.

It isn't a bad image, but you can certainly see its flaws without zooming in. But I'm also someone who lugs a tripod along and shoots landscapes with pixel shift because it gets an extra 10 percent improvement over standard images. And I always shoot RAW.

Is it surprising if I find cell phone images often to lack something?

(It isn't necessarily even a sensor thing -- most people don't use tripods with their cell phones, don't shoot RAW, don't control their settings. When you cede control to a computer -- even a very smart one -- your images tend to get a similar look).