Full Frame Not Practical in the Long Run?

**Rondec** · 07-09-2014, 12:17 PM

This is a wide digression for anything else, but whether or not people are able to view images on screens, there is way too little printing done. All of these cell phone photos will vanish into the haze that is the internet. There are lots of kids that will grow up to find that there are few photos that actually exist from when they were kids. There will be no cleaning out Mom or Dad's house and finding a shoe box full of photos that bring up memories from the past.

ElJamoquio · 07-09-2014, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by Rondec

This is a wide digression for anything else, but whether or not people are able to view images on screens, there is way too little printing done. All of these cell phone photos will vanish into the haze that is the internet. There are lots of kids that will grow up to find that there are few photos that actually exist from when they were kids. There will be no cleaning out Mom or Dad's house and finding a shoe box full of photos that bring up memories from the past.

It's way better than that IMO. The pictures are pictures in perpetuity.

Kunzite · 07-09-2014, 12:32 PM

I guess the painting equivalent of using a smartphone would be painting with boxing gloves...

philbaum · 07-09-2014, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by Rondec

This is a wide digression for anything else, but whether or not people are able to view images on screens, there is way too little printing done. All of these cell phone photos will vanish into the haze that is the internet. There are lots of kids that will grow up to find that there are few photos that actually exist from when they were kids. There will be no cleaning out Mom or Dad's house and finding a shoe box full of photos that bring up memories from the past.

Well said. I have memories from my childhood that i wouldn't have but for humble 4x6 photos that my parents kept in shoe boxes, lucky if they wrote names of folks on the back.

I was thinking today that any number of us are spending a lot on new cameras coming out, but are reluctant to spend anything on printers. Yet its the printers or commercial printers that are going to preserve family history. When my mother-in-law died, my wife and her sister went through her stuff and sorted it out within a few days, because her sister had to get back to a job. What they couldn't give away, they threw away. How many family heirs are going to be willing or have the technical knowledge to go through 100,000 hard drive files.

ElJamoquio · 07-09-2014, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by philbaum

Well said. I have memories from my childhood that i wouldn't have but for humble 4x6 photos that my parents kept in shoe boxes, lucky if they wrote names of folks on the back.

I was thinking today that any number of us are spending a lot on new cameras coming out, but are reluctant to spend anything on printers. Yet its the printers or commercial printers that are going to preserve family history. When my mother-in-law died, my wife and her sister went through her stuff and sorted it out within a few days, because her sister had to get back to a job. What they couldn't give away, they threw away. How many family heirs are going to be willing or have the technical knowledge to go through 100,000 hard drive files.

You don't have your best pics on smugmug or a similar site?

jogiba · 07-09-2014, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by Kunzite

I guess the painting equivalent of using a smartphone would be painting with boxing gloves...

Really ?

https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=Nokia%20808&sort=interestingness-desc
https://www.flickr.com/search?sort=interestingness-desc&text=Nokia%201020

Kunzite · 07-09-2014, 03:03 PM

Really. FTR, it is possible to paint wearing boxing gloves

**Rondec** · 07-09-2014, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by jogiba

Really ?

https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=Nokia%20808&sort=interestingness-desc
https://www.flickr.com/search?sort=interestingness-desc&text=Nokia%201020

Why don't you post any of your smart phone photos, Joe?

Uluru · 07-09-2014, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by ElJamoquio

You don't have your best pics on smugmug or a similar site?

Who guarantees you Smugmug will be there in 30 years, or even in 6 years from now?

Andi Lo · 07-09-2014, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by Uluru

Who guarantees you Smugmug will be there in 30 years, or even in 6 years from now?

There's no guarantee that prints or negatives will last that long either. A disaster (fingers crossed!) such as house fire or a flood could wipe them. All my digital (and scanned) photos are backed up in three places. As long as I'm alive they'll exist in some form.

I do agree that we need to print more though, and that the final print is really what matters most in many cases.

jogiba · 07-09-2014, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by Rondec

Why don't you post any of your smart phone photos, Joe?

Here is a screen capture from my Verizon HTC Droid DNA 1080p video :

link

mee · 07-09-2014, 06:17 PM

Originally posted by OregonJim

The dictionary is not a viable source of reference for such a complex subject.

I agree with Uluru in that a photograph is not a photograph until it is printed. Why? Because electronic display devices, today, are so varied in their presentation, that what you see may be a far cry from what the photographer (or anyone else) sees. Brightness, contrast, reflectance, color accuracy, color range, image size, pixel dimensions and squareness, and several other factors vary wildly among display devices. What you see is merely an idea - a rough draft. You do not get to see exactly what the creator of the image saw when he or she defined the vision of what they created. You never 'see' the photograph, merely a rough facsimile. When all display devices are calibrated to a photographically uniform standard, then I may change my mind.

The key word here is 'create'. With a smartphone, you have no control over the creative process. You are not creating, you are capturing. You cannot control the plane of focus, the depth of field, the moodiness that can be expressed through under or over exposure, the compression or expansion of background relationships through judicious use of focal length, the motion-stopping or motion-blurring effects available through shutter speed, the entire world of creative lighting with flash...on and on. Yes, there is some level of creativity available in post processing, but not at the point of capture. Therefore, again, I agree with Uluru. Using a smartphone is not practising photography - it is something very different.

Nonsense! I have Photoshop. I am taking the photograph and processing it through software plugins.. and then printing it either through a Lab somewhere or directly at home. So I'm involved in the entire process. I just am using a new method of doing so.

I guess you are saying that no one with a digital camera is a photographer then, since they are not actually recording and printing on or with a physical medium? That would be a rather extreme and elitist statement. What does it matter if one person's screen is slightly off of another? People's eyes/brains aren't the same so even with your analog, physical photograph, people are seeing it differently. The exactness doesn't make it a photograph. The image derived from photons does. It doesn't matter if it is done with chemicals in a dark room or through a digital image sensor and a computer processor.

Using a smartphone is practicing photography. Using a smartphone is not practicing darkroom techniques for print exposure. It doesn't make it any less photography (the art of recording an image) but rather in the developing or printing thereof.

The horse is the same, just a different cart.

philbaum · 07-09-2014, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by ElJamoquio

You don't have your best pics on smugmug or a similar site?

No, I don't. When i keep them at home - i know they won't be copied :-)

mecrox · 07-10-2014, 02:33 AM - **1 Like**

Oh well, folks will continue to use their smartphones to offer their view of reality, how they see. In time they will extend, reshape, change what smartphone photography can do as the cameras and software in the phone become more capable. One or two of them may turn out to be geniuses who influence the way we all look at the world - or not. Who knows. That's always the way. In the meantime, the 1.75 billion or so people with smartphones may well be relieved, for all we know, that they don't have to apply heavy-duty labels like "photography" or, gulp, "art" to what they do. They can just get on and do it, using or abusing those timeless ideas: good light, a clear subject, a balanced composition, a strong idea.

I'll bet most of them don't give a toss what a few grumpy old men on an obscure internet forum say along the lines of "Bah, weren't like that in my day when we all lived down t'coalmine, lad."

Anyway, maybe that is enough of smartphones. But I think the ideas about them in this thread suggest that for the camera companies to continue to produce me-too cameras, FF or otherwise, as if nothing has happened is rather like going out and spending a lot of money on koi carp only to introduce them to a pond with a huge leak in the bottom. Better first to fix those foundations.

Uluru · 07-10-2014, 03:19 AM

Originally posted by mee

What does it matter if one person's screen is slightly off of another? People's eyes/brains aren't the same so even with your analog, physical photograph, people are seeing it differently. .

Eh?! The world of art is 30,000 years old, and the skill of colour understanding is as old as the culture itself. Analog mediums are the mediums of our understanding of an image, not digital devices and computers screen since 10 years ago, all of which vary wildly in their output. You cannot erase 30,000 years of history just like that.

Original art is the original art. That art is the truth. A single photograph is finally a unique original, the unadulterated truth. It is not something reproduced differently on countless screens because right that moment it becomes a lie, same as a copy of Mona Lisa is not Mona Lisa any more.

07-10-2014, 02:33 AM - 1 Like	#539
mecrox Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Oxford, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,375	Oh well, folks will continue to use their smartphones to offer their view of reality, how they see. In time they will extend, reshape, change what smartphone photography can do as the cameras and software in the phone become more capable. One or two of them may turn out to be geniuses who influence the way we all look at the world - or not. Who knows. That's always the way. In the meantime, the 1.75 billion or so people with smartphones may well be relieved, for all we know, that they don't have to apply heavy-duty labels like "photography" or, gulp, "art" to what they do. They can just get on and do it, using or abusing those timeless ideas: good light, a clear subject, a balanced composition, a strong idea. I'll bet most of them don't give a toss what a few grumpy old men on an obscure internet forum say along the lines of "Bah, weren't like that in my day when we all lived down t'coalmine, lad." Anyway, maybe that is enough of smartphones. But I think the ideas about them in this thread suggest that for the camera companies to continue to produce me-too cameras, FF or otherwise, as if nothing has happened is rather like going out and spending a lot of money on koi carp only to introduce them to a pond with a huge leak in the bottom. Better first to fix those foundations. Last edited by mecrox; 07-10-2014 at 02:42 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The Full Frame NEX is going to be announced in October !	jogiba	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	30	09-15-2013 03:23 PM
Pentax does not care about Full Frame	Watson	Pentax Full Frame	88	08-19-2013 04:53 AM
Are Any of The 17-50 (or in that range) Lenses Full Frame?	reivax	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	12	02-04-2013 07:38 PM
Do you think in the long run, DA lenses are a bad buy? Size of CCDs in the future	Capslock118	Pentax DSLR Discussion	28	11-07-2010 06:46 PM

07-09-2014, 12:17 PM	#526
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	This is a wide digression for anything else, but whether or not people are able to view images on screens, there is way too little printing done. All of these cell phone photos will vanish into the haze that is the internet. There are lots of kids that will grow up to find that there are few photos that actually exist from when they were kids. There will be no cleaning out Mom or Dad's house and finding a shoe box full of photos that bring up memories from the past.

07-09-2014, 12:28 PM	#527
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Originally posted by Rondec This is a wide digression for anything else, but whether or not people are able to view images on screens, there is way too little printing done. All of these cell phone photos will vanish into the haze that is the internet. There are lots of kids that will grow up to find that there are few photos that actually exist from when they were kids. There will be no cleaning out Mom or Dad's house and finding a shoe box full of photos that bring up memories from the past. It's way better than that IMO. The pictures are pictures in perpetuity.

07-09-2014, 12:32 PM	#528
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	I guess the painting equivalent of using a smartphone would be painting with boxing gloves...

07-09-2014, 01:36 PM	#529
philbaum Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA Posts: 3,659	Originally posted by Rondec This is a wide digression for anything else, but whether or not people are able to view images on screens, there is way too little printing done. All of these cell phone photos will vanish into the haze that is the internet. There are lots of kids that will grow up to find that there are few photos that actually exist from when they were kids. There will be no cleaning out Mom or Dad's house and finding a shoe box full of photos that bring up memories from the past. Well said. I have memories from my childhood that i wouldn't have but for humble 4x6 photos that my parents kept in shoe boxes, lucky if they wrote names of folks on the back. I was thinking today that any number of us are spending a lot on new cameras coming out, but are reluctant to spend anything on printers. Yet its the printers or commercial printers that are going to preserve family history. When my mother-in-law died, my wife and her sister went through her stuff and sorted it out within a few days, because her sister had to get back to a job. What they couldn't give away, they threw away. How many family heirs are going to be willing or have the technical knowledge to go through 100,000 hard drive files.

07-09-2014, 01:46 PM	#530
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Originally posted by philbaum Well said. I have memories from my childhood that i wouldn't have but for humble 4x6 photos that my parents kept in shoe boxes, lucky if they wrote names of folks on the back. I was thinking today that any number of us are spending a lot on new cameras coming out, but are reluctant to spend anything on printers. Yet its the printers or commercial printers that are going to preserve family history. When my mother-in-law died, my wife and her sister went through her stuff and sorted it out within a few days, because her sister had to get back to a job. What they couldn't give away, they threw away. How many family heirs are going to be willing or have the technical knowledge to go through 100,000 hard drive files. You don't have your best pics on smugmug or a similar site?

07-09-2014, 02:38 PM	#531
jogiba Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Millstone,NJ Posts: 6,491	Originally posted by Kunzite I guess the painting equivalent of using a smartphone would be painting with boxing gloves... Really ? https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=Nokia%20808&sort=interestingness-desc https://www.flickr.com/search?sort=interestingness-desc&text=Nokia%201020

07-09-2014, 03:03 PM	#532
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Really. FTR, it is possible to paint wearing boxing gloves

07-09-2014, 03:08 PM	#533
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	Originally posted by jogiba Really ? https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=Nokia%20808&sort=interestingness-desc https://www.flickr.com/search?sort=interestingness-desc&text=Nokia%201020 Why don't you post any of your smart phone photos, Joe?

07-09-2014, 03:34 PM	#534
Uluru Banned Join Date: May 2010 Location: Back to my Walkabout Creek Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,535	Originally posted by ElJamoquio You don't have your best pics on smugmug or a similar site? Who guarantees you Smugmug will be there in 30 years, or even in 6 years from now?

07-09-2014, 03:45 PM	#535
Andi Lo Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia Posts: 2,924	Originally posted by Uluru Who guarantees you Smugmug will be there in 30 years, or even in 6 years from now? There's no guarantee that prints or negatives will last that long either. A disaster (fingers crossed!) such as house fire or a flood could wipe them. All my digital (and scanned) photos are backed up in three places. As long as I'm alive they'll exist in some form. I do agree that we need to print more though, and that the final print is really what matters most in many cases.

07-09-2014, 03:54 PM	#536
jogiba Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Millstone,NJ Posts: 6,491	Originally posted by Rondec Why don't you post any of your smart phone photos, Joe? Here is a screen capture from my Verizon HTC Droid DNA 1080p video : link

07-09-2014, 06:17 PM	#537
mee Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 7,403	Originally posted by OregonJim The dictionary is not a viable source of reference for such a complex subject. I agree with Uluru in that a photograph is not a photograph until it is printed. Why? Because electronic display devices, today, are so varied in their presentation, that what you see may be a far cry from what the photographer (or anyone else) sees. Brightness, contrast, reflectance, color accuracy, color range, image size, pixel dimensions and squareness, and several other factors vary wildly among display devices. What you see is merely an idea - a rough draft. You do not get to see exactly what the creator of the image saw when he or she defined the vision of what they created. You never 'see' the photograph, merely a rough facsimile. When all display devices are calibrated to a photographically uniform standard, then I may change my mind. The key word here is 'create'. With a smartphone, you have no control over the creative process. You are not creating, you are capturing. You cannot control the plane of focus, the depth of field, the moodiness that can be expressed through under or over exposure, the compression or expansion of background relationships through judicious use of focal length, the motion-stopping or motion-blurring effects available through shutter speed, the entire world of creative lighting with flash...on and on. Yes, there is some level of creativity available in post processing, but not at the point of capture. Therefore, again, I agree with Uluru. Using a smartphone is not practising photography - it is something very different. Nonsense! I have Photoshop. I am taking the photograph and processing it through software plugins.. and then printing it either through a Lab somewhere or directly at home. So I'm involved in the entire process. I just am using a new method of doing so. I guess you are saying that no one with a digital camera is a photographer then, since they are not actually recording and printing on or with a physical medium? That would be a rather extreme and elitist statement. What does it matter if one person's screen is slightly off of another? People's eyes/brains aren't the same so even with your analog, physical photograph, people are seeing it differently. The exactness doesn't make it a photograph. The image derived from photons does. It doesn't matter if it is done with chemicals in a dark room or through a digital image sensor and a computer processor. Using a smartphone is practicing photography. Using a smartphone is not practicing darkroom techniques for print exposure. It doesn't make it any less photography (the art of recording an image) but rather in the developing or printing thereof. The horse is the same, just a different cart.

07-09-2014, 06:58 PM	#538
philbaum Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA Posts: 3,659	Originally posted by ElJamoquio You don't have your best pics on smugmug or a similar site? No, I don't. When i keep them at home - i know they won't be copied :-)

07-10-2014, 03:19 AM	#540
Uluru Banned Join Date: May 2010 Location: Back to my Walkabout Creek Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,535	Originally posted by mee What does it matter if one person's screen is slightly off of another? People's eyes/brains aren't the same so even with your analog, physical photograph, people are seeing it differently. . Eh?! The world of art is 30,000 years old, and the skill of colour understanding is as old as the culture itself. Analog mediums are the mediums of our understanding of an image, not digital devices and computers screen since 10 years ago, all of which vary wildly in their output. You cannot erase 30,000 years of history just like that. Original art is the original art. That art is the truth. A single photograph is finally a unique original, the unadulterated truth. It is not something reproduced differently on countless screens because right that moment it becomes a lie, same as a copy of Mona Lisa is not Mona Lisa any more.