[BigMackCam]

Ah, but couldn't you argue that having control over ISO instead of going out for the day with ISO400 film is too much automation? Isn't TAv mode with auto-floating ISO too much of an intervention in the creative process? What about autofocus of the Mark III that tracks a moving subject almost like it knows what I'm trying to focus on? Or the 11+ fps that I can use to get a whole sequence and pick out the one(s) I really like? Daguerre, choking on mercury fumes, would probably think a modern ILC's processes amazingly simple and automated.


I enjoy the process of using my DSLR and my skills to make unique photographs. But every line drawn in the "it's too easy to be art any more" sand is pretty arbitrary.

I never said smartphone photography isn't art I don't think any less of someone else's work taken with a smartphone, and more of mine taken with a DSLR. A great image is a great image, period. Observation, story-telling, composition, lighting are still important, and that requires some creativity and skills. As with all my photography, I try to exercise those skills when I use my smartphone - so, in fairness, I suppose I can take at least some satisfaction from it.

What I meant - and thought I'd explained reasonably well, but perhaps not - is that I personally get more satisfaction creating an image with my enthusiast-level DSLR camera and chosen lenses, and feel I have much more control over the process. I feel more invested in creating the image. I don't claim that DSLRs are the pinnacle of manual creativity, and it doesn't concern me that Daguerre had to work even harder than me. That's irrelevant to my personal enjoyment of photography in whatever manner I prefer - and I simply prefer the level of work required, and control provided, by a DSLR...

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 10-22-2021 at 01:28 PM.

[ThorSanchez]

I never said smartphone photography isn't art I don't think any less of someone else's work taken with a smartphone, and more of mine taken with a DSLR. A great image is a great image, period. Observation, story-telling, composition, lighting are still important, and that requires some creativity and skills. As with all my photography, I try to exercise those skills when I use my smartphone - so, in fairness, I suppose I can take at least some satisfaction from it.

What I meant - and thought I'd explained reasonably well, but perhaps not - is that I personally get more satisfaction creating an image with my enthusiast-level DSLR camera and chosen lenses, and feel I have much more control over the process. I feel more invested in creating the image. I don't claim that DSLRs are the pinnacle of manual creativity, and it doesn't concern me that Daguerre had to work even harder than me. That's irrelevant to my personal enjoyment of photography in whatever manner I prefer - and I simply prefer the level of work required, and control provided, by a DSLR...

I get it, completely understand and often live that sentiment. I'm just playing devil's advocate a bit. Almost every advance in technology is greeted by some with "bah, don't need it, too easy."

[BigMackCam]

I get it, completely understand and often live that sentiment. I'm just playing devil's advocate a bit. Almost every advance in technology is greeted by some with "bah, don't need it, too easy."

It's also a case of picking the right tool for the right job, isn't it?

I spent some of this afternoon taking photographs with a Soviet BeLOMO VILIA 35mm, using a shoe-mount BLIK rangefinder to ascertain focus distance, manually dialling that in to the camera's lens, guessing exposure using a variation of Sunny-16 then checking my guess against an incident light meter, setting aperture and shutter speed on the camera, then - finally - taking the shot. I had an absolute blast... but I wouldn't want to be doing that for every photograph I'll ever take. Give me my DSLR for day-to-day stuff Then again, there are situations and use-cases where - for me - the smartphone is simply better than the DSLR, and I'd prefer to use the smartphone in those situations even though I personally get less satisfaction from it.

It's all good, and we'd all do well to keep an open mind about such things. I've said numerous times recently, a smartphone is a great additional tool for any photographer's kit bag...

[Rondec]

@brainwave - may I offer a response too?

Specific use-cases aside (and I agree with the examples given by @ThorSanchez), when I use my smartphone it feels like much of the hard and clever work is done for me, and I get what the phone thinks I want... which is fine, as it usually provides a decent image - but I don't get much (if any) satisfaction from the process. Aside from composition, I know that anyone could have taken that same photo using an equally-capable smartphone.

When I use my DSLR, I have to use the skills I've learned to craft each image as I visualise it, and I have very fine control over every aspect of the exposure (or multiple exposures). There's a real sense of satisfaction in applying knowledge and skill to obtain what I visualised while composing.

I guess it's rather like the difference between ordering a piece of solid wood furniture online and crafting one from raw materials using the tools in your workshop. Ordering a ready-made item is much easier, and either way you end up with a nice piece of furniture, but if you make it yourself, you exercise absolute control over every aspect... and the satisfaction of having crafted it with your own hands makes it all the more special to you.

Working to achieve something is much more satisfying than having it handed to you on a silver platter..

For me, smartphone photos tend to be snap shots. This is not a demeaning term, just that there is, as you say, less planning and craft involved in taking them. It is much harder to adjust settings and so I tend not. Beyond which, I find the phone camera a little uncomfortable to hold and so if I do a lot of shooting I'll try to have an ILC with me. It isn't that photos shot with a phone never turn out or even look decent compared to those shot with an SLR, they could for many situations, but other than framing, I'm not doing a whole lot of control of the situation.

[ThorSanchez]

Ah, the frustrations of the early adopter. I pre-ordered the Pixel 6 a little over a week ago, with an estimated delivery date from Verizon of 28 October. At about 1800 on 28 October the order was updated with a new estimated delivery date of 9 November. So it'll be almost two weeks before I get to try out the new camera features.

[gatorguy]

Ah, the frustrations of the early adopter. I pre-ordered the Pixel 6 a little over a week ago, with an estimated delivery date from Verizon of 28 October. At about 1800 on 28 October the order was updated with a new estimated delivery date of 9 November. So it'll be almost two weeks before I get to try out the new camera features.

Mine is still showing receipt by the 5th. Things may change but fingers crossed.

EDIT: As of this evening it now shows "Shipped", so it may even arrive a day or two early.
EDIT2: Yup, FedX says Monday.

[gatorguy]

A smartphone for astro photography? Photos that might be even be mistaken as coming from some entry-level DSLR/MILC with far larger sensors?

Apparently YES based on the results from the Google Pixel 6
Google Pixel 6 Pro Astrophotography Review: Stellar Results | PetaPixel

[LeeRunge]

The pixel 6 is looking really good! I’d love to see some shots when you guys get them. Throw in some comparisons with your ILC camera if you can. I really really wish there was a way to tether these phones to a FF camera and somehow tap into that sensor with these night modes, it would probably be unreal. I don’t care if it takes 5 minutes to process.

[ThorSanchez]

The pixel 6 is looking really good! I’d love to see some shots when you guys get them. Throw in some comparisons with your ILC camera if you can. I really really wish there was a way to tether these phones to a FF camera and somehow tap into that sensor with these night modes, it would probably be unreal. I don’t care if it takes 5 minutes to process.

This is my first very quick and dirty comparison. I'm sure I'll be told all the myriad reasons why this is an invalid test (why didn't you use a faster shutter speed with the K-3 III?!? It's a little blurry handholding at 1/20th! Slightly different angles so the reflected light is different and you can see that smudge next to the buttons in one but not the other), but nevertheless. One of these is with a K-3 Mark III and a 20-40 LTD, the other with the Pixel 6's normal 1x camera. Full sized, plus 100% crops. Nighttime, meh kitchen lighting, handheld. K-3 III processed with just the Squirrel Mafia's ISO 3200 pp3 defaults in RawTherapee.

Yes, I need to clean off the espresso machine. Things you don't notice until you see the photograph.

[gatorguy]

This is my first very quick and dirty comparison. I'm sure I'll be told all the myriad reasons why this is an invalid test (why didn't you use a faster shutter speed with the K-3 III?!? It's a little blurry handholding at 1/20th! Slightly different angles so the reflected light is different and you can see that smudge next to the buttons in one but not the other), but nevertheless. One of these is with a K-3 Mark III and a 20-40 LTD, the other with the Pixel 6's normal 1x camera. Full sized, plus 100% crops. Nighttime, meh kitchen lighting, handheld. K-3 III processed with just the Squirrel Mafia's ISO 3200 pp3 defaults in RawTherapee.

Yes, I need to clean off the espresso machine. Things you don't notice until you see the photograph.

Some here will be surprised by which shot came from which camera.

[LeeRunge]

Some here will be surprised by which shot came from which camera.

I'm not at all surprised. The depth of field probably is the giveaway and the shutter speed blur. These phones have exceeded ILC cameras for handheld low light IMO. You can beat them with a tripod of course, but not handheld in really low light conditions.

Pixel 6 is looking like the king of handheld low light at the moment.

It's lightyears past the old small sensor point and shoots. Turn off computational though and it'll look like that old point and shoot. I just wish one of the camera company's would just embrace computational techniques for low light and HDR conditions.

[gatorguy]

I'm not at all surprised. The depth of field probably is the giveaway. These phones have exceeded ILC cameras for hand held low light IMO. You can beat them with a tripod of course, but not handheld in really low light conditions.

Pixel 6 is looking like the king of handheld low light at the moment.

I agree it you're looking for clues as to which is which, DOF being a biggie. FWIW first impressions/at a glace did fool ME as to which came from the smartphone.

[ThorSanchez]

Another test. Handheld in my front yard early this morning. Pixel 6 normal camera, K-3 Mark III and the DA 21 LTD. Cropped around 100% and to a pretty close angle of view, taken from the same spot on my porch. Both DNG RAW files, processed to taste in RawTherapee.

I'm noticing that the Pixel defaults to a cooler color temperature than the Pentax setup, at least with the Squirrel Mafia pp3s in RT.

[ThorSanchez]

And the uncropped versions, slightly tweaked some more in RT from the first post. Maybe not the greatest subject. I'll shoot some more and post them as I get a chance.

[brainwave]

Those pictures don't look as good as my pixel 2 XL from 2017! They look overprocessed and HDRy! I am underwhelmed by the Pixel 6 camera atm.