[Oakland Rob]

Me.

Smartphones are a great photography tool, even if I don't use the camera. Check weather forecasts. Lookup sunrise and sunset times, as well as showing exactly where on the horizon the sun will rise so I know where to put my tripod. Use astronomy apps to help select astrotracer targets. Hiking charts and GPS. Read the camera manual if I don't remember how to use an esoteric feature. Etc.

And email co-workers to say I'll be arriving late, when I want to take photos before work.

Yeah, I agree. Not to mention stuff like the Photographer's Ephemeris if you're planning landscape shots. Or Viewfinder if I want to see what the FOV will be with various lens/camera combos I own. And even the normally crappy camera apps can be handy; when my stuff is set up in an awkward position for macros I like to use the live view in the app so I don't disturb the scene or the critter. I can also control one of my lights via bluetooth.

And I preview color on my phone, since it has a wider gamut than my srgb computer screen. Esp for yellowish reds and greens. So like fall trees.

Could I get buy without it? sure. I did. But would I give it up now? no, just as I wouldn't give up my Pentax digital camera.

[rogerstg]

I'm convinced that my mirror has an old and fat option turned on.

I have one of those too. I also have a closet that shrinks my clothes.

[ZombieArmy]

* Pay Phones, Voice Calls (Text Messages), Long Distance Calls, Maps, Phone Books, Address Books, Flashlights are the other ones I remember.

Phone "flashlights" are good in a pinch, but they're weak compared to a big torch, and for good reason too. Don't want something that can actually blind people for 10+ seconds on a phone.

[Rondec]

I'm not a big fan of smart phone photos. It isn't the fact that the images are automatically processed, it is that I don't have much control over the process. Landscape images tend to be overly saturated and sharpened and more HDR-ish than I like. Portrait images seem to have over much smoothing of skin that makes people look like they just got the most aggressive chemical peal available. At this point, computer generated background blurring leaves weird transition zones that don't look like the results you get when shooting with a nice wide aperture lens.

I'm certainly not against post processing, whether it be HDR, smoothing of skin or bumping shadows. I just want to be in control of the process.

[aslyfox]

[quote=Rondec;4517478]I'm not a big fan of smart phone photos. It isn't the fact that the images are automatically processed, it is that I don't have much control over the process. Landscape images tend to be overly saturated and sharpened and more HDR-ish than I like. Portrait images seem to have over much smoothing of skin that makes people look like they just got the most aggressive chemical peal available. At this point, computer generated background blurring leaves weird transition zones that don't look like the results you get when shooting with a nice wide aperture lens.

I'm certainly not against post processing, whether it be HDR, smoothing of skin or bumping shadows. I just want to be in control of the process.[/quote]
that is what I've been struggling to say

[ThorSanchez]

some,

definitely not me,

get it right straight out of the camera and don't have to " rescue " via pp

Would you prefer that Ansel hadn't rescued Moonrise over Hernandez and instead just did a straight-up development with no dodging and burning?

---------- Post added 11-18-18 at 09:37 AM ----------

I'm certainly not against post processing, whether it be HDR, smoothing of skin or bumping shadows. I just want to be in control of the process. that is what I've been struggling to say

It's not black and white, off or on. If you shoot jpg you're taking the photo but letting the engineers at Pentax develop it. If you're shooting RAW and manual you still have left some control to the engineers who developed the hardware and software you're using. If you want results like the Pixel 3 you could take 10 or 15 exposures with your SLR and combine them in post, but the results probably won't be quite the same because the phone buffers the shots continuously. So it's a choice of not getting that shot, or making the choice to give up some control to get a result you want.

---------- Post added 11-18-18 at 09:40 AM ----------

I'm not a big fan of smart phone photos. It isn't the fact that the images are automatically processed, it is that I don't have much control over the process. Landscape images tend to be overly saturated and sharpened and more HDR-ish than I like. Portrait images seem to have over much smoothing of skin that makes people look like they just got the most aggressive chemical peal available. At this point, computer generated background blurring leaves weird transition zones that don't look like the results you get when shooting with a nice wide aperture lens.

I'm certainly not against post processing, whether it be HDR, smoothing of skin or bumping shadows. I just want to be in control of the process.

We're circling back around to the same old "smartphones aren't as good as SLRs" argument. What I want to move on to is putting this technology into large sensor cameras with controls over how it is used. If you can get pretty good results with a tiny sensor in near darkness imagine the cool stuff you could do with APS-C or FF and that technology.

[UncleVanya]

I'm not a big fan of smart phone photos. It isn't the fact that the images are automatically processed, it is that I don't have much control over the process. Landscape images tend to be overly saturated and sharpened and more HDR-ish than I like. Portrait images seem to have over much smoothing of skin that makes people look like they just got the most aggressive chemical peal available. At this point, computer generated background blurring leaves weird transition zones that don't look like the results you get when shooting with a nice wide aperture lens.

I'm certainly not against post processing, whether it be HDR, smoothing of skin or bumping shadows. I just want to be in control of the process.

I use apps that allow enough control that I can disable or modify the features.

[Rondec]

Would you prefer that Ansel hadn't rescued Moonrise over Hernandez and instead just did a straight-up development with no dodging and burning?

---------- Post added 11-18-18 at 09:37 AM ----------



It's not black and white, off or on. If you shoot jpg you're taking the photo but letting the engineers at Pentax develop it. If you're shooting RAW and manual you still have left some control to the engineers who developed the hardware and software you're using. If you want results like the Pixel 3 you could take 10 or 15 exposures with your SLR and combine them in post, but the results probably won't be quite the same because the phone buffers the shots continuously. So it's a choice of not getting that shot, or making the choice to give up some control to get a result you want.

---------- Post added 11-18-18 at 09:40 AM ----------



We're circling back around to the same old "smartphones aren't as good as SLRs" argument. What I want to move on to is putting this technology into large sensor cameras with controls over how it is used. If you can get pretty good results with a tiny sensor in near darkness imagine the cool stuff you could do with APS-C or FF and that technology.

I don't think I'm saying that.

I struggle with smart phone cameras for a number of reasons. Many of them have to do with ergonomics -- lack of dedicated controls, needing to download special apps just to allow some semblance of control over the camera. As Uncle Vanya says, there are some apps that allow some phones to save a RAW files. In the end, though, it really is about control and phone cameras aren't great in that respect. -- whether control of your settings before you take a photo, or control of processing afterwards.

[reh321]

Are you saying you have never lifted a shadow to get some extra detail or toned down a highlight a little bit?
I have a hard time believing that, since it is something that is done pretty much automatically when doing raw conversion.

The point is, we do this sort of manipulation all the time, either when doing the raw conversion or during post production, or by setting the output of in camera jpegs, I suspect without giving it a passing thought, but when it's done by a cell phone it's the end of the world.

The hardware engineers I worked with considered firmware to be a part of the overall product, just as resistors, capacitors and dials are.

[reh321]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/11/14/your-smartphone-photos-...=.3d1f14db7111

Your smartphone photos are totally fake - and you love it

" The little camera on this phone has a superpower. It can see things our eyes cannot . . . "

I, for one, don't love it

For me, "letting the machine do it" has been a central part of my photographic experience. With film, when I shot Kodachrome, my job was done when I pressed the button and automated professional developing took over - I view JPEG as being a continuation of that process ..... but I want the process to be adjusted so that it renders the scene to accurately show what I saw when I took the photo.(*)




(*) Or would have seen if I had super powers. I am perfectly OK with a shutter speed that can "freeze" action that my eyes/brain cannot freeze. Likewise, I've been an advocate of ever higher ISO values because

(1) that technology allows the use a normal lenses instead of super-expensive f/2 lenses - for example, in covering sports or wildlife

(2) that technology can eliminate flash - which distorts the view and is disturbing to other participants and can be damaging to artifacts

[reh321]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/11/14/your-smartphone-photos-...=.3d1f14db7111

Your smartphone photos are totally fake - and you love it

" The little camera on this phone has a superpower. It can see things our eyes cannot . . . "

I, for one, don't love it

I totally disagree with the statement

Photography has never been just about capturing reality

For me, photography has always been about recording reality. Period. I think like a newsman, not like an artist.

[reh321]

That "sort of" take away the fun of being a photographer!
The heck with skills, then !

To me, the skill is concentrated in 'composition' - from where do you take the photo, aiming where, and when do you press the button?
My wife is well-accustomed to the fact that a "5 minute photo stop" may actually take over half an hour as I try {and reject} one perspective after another.

[RobA_Oz]

Yes, we’re talking about two different skill sets here – technical and artistic. Part of the thrill (joy for some) of photography used to be exposure estimation, for example, but even fifty or more years ago, cameras could be bought with three aperture settings, bright sun, shade and overcast. I’m sure there were people who decried such simplifications, then, but it made life easier for those who didn’t want to learn the technical side. Even so, when I look at many old photos taken like that, the exposure was OK, but the composition wasn’t anything to write home about – sloping horizons, trees sprouting from heads, lots of sky and cut-off legs. For many people, a photo was just a memory jogger, a memento or a record, and artistic merit was the second-last thing on their minds.

[Wheatfield]

The hardware engineers I worked with considered firmware to be a part of the overall product, just as resistors, capacitors and dials are.

I'm not sure what this has to do with my post?

[Oakland Rob]

I think some people here must be using "smart" phones from like 10 years ago. You might be pleasantly surprised to see what they can do now. Indeed you are probably seeing smartphone shots all over the place without even realizing it.

My iPhone shoots raw, and so did my previous one. Lr CC's camera has plenty of controls, and if not that, there are several other apps. On most (all?) you can't control aperture but you can shutter speed and ISO (in single digit increments, no less). And focus. And WB. And unlike a Pentax you can do stuff like shoot HEIC (better than JPEG), and even twin camera shots that allow depth mapping. And better video. And a better screen for seeing say the histogram or live view. If I wanna chimp a shot the iPhone screen is light years ahead of the screen on the Pentax, and of course I can view a color corrected image if I want. Colors on the Pentax screen aren't true because you can't calibrate it like an iPhone, nor does it have the gamut.

And for some tasks my iPhone has completely supplanted my DSLR. Like for documents. With the intelligent deskewing in smartphones, quick corrections, and ease in setting up (including mobility and getting images to my final destination) it has not only made my document rig collect dust but also my flatbed scanner. With the wider lens of a smartphone I even use it more these days for quick product photos.

And I suppose there is someone who never downloads an app and still uses say the Apple Camera. Just like there are people who buy a Pentax and never buy another lens, or switch out of Auto. But anyone who does want control would do those things, and can. And as a tool, in some ways a smartphone can now supplant or even do better than a regular DSLR, mirrorless, etc. As most of of the world has discovered.