It's not the camera, it's the photographer...and good light

<p>Exactly, Patrick and Brad, I have yet to see a camera, lens or software program that comes with a vision. They just allow your vision to be expressed. </p>

<p>The images made with the I-phone in the video looked good, but were not really a display of <em>vision, </em>more a display of technical know-how in every step of the process in order to make an I-phone image as polished and clean as possible as if it could have been made with a "real camera", rendering it very much back to being about hardware after all.<br /> Shooting it with a pinholed shoe-box and coming up with an actual original fashion image with vision would have been more fun, proving more the point that it <em>is</em> the photographer<em> </em>that matters.<br /> <br /> Atget didn't needed an I-phone to prove that.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>

<p>I am not all that impressed when someone can get a photo that looks ok, at a very small size, when taking a lot of time to get the light just right and time to post process. What I have been impressed with is just how good many people are doing with available light were the lighting has not been set up and is darker then what one work normally want to photograph in.<br>

　<br>

Take the photos from the White House Flicker account<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse</p>

 

 

<br>

A cell phone would hardly work in this case. The camera does not matter people would seem to want to just not worry about taking a photograph where things are not set up to meet the limited capabilities of their camera.<br>

I don't take set up photo, I don't mind that other people do but it is not what I am interested in.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Silliness.<br>

<br /> This proves nothing except to the person involved.<br /> If i were to send in photos to a fashion magazine<br /> taken with a one time use camera they would not<br /> bother to send me a rejection letter.<br>

The premise of a successful art piece not<br>

being dependent ( with some exceptions) on the best equipment,<br>

but rather to the person using such<br>

remains an inviolate truth.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Mike, im amazed how you take this to the first degree...</p>

<p>the point was not to make a pro photoshoot to send to the italian vogue or to make a amazing billboard out a iphone picture.. the point was just to show that you can make a good looking image out of a iphone in this case.</p>

<p>does the image look good? yes. point accomplish.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>By de-facto, a redundant and droll submission bordering on phishing or trolling, crudely put to the good intellect of the photo.net community.<br>

This type of experiment reminds me of how desperate the media and major distributors of popular culture have become. They and all of us have become saturated with information, so that nothing seems new anymore. When that happens, i think a culture can become more willing to accept anything as art,as long as it is DIFFERENT.<br>

Give me a cell phone and the blessing of a big sponsor and i could take photos and have them marketed and published, no problem. Anyone could. Shock has a value in popular culture and art; always has for a hundred or more years.</p>

<p>I once did something similar at a school to make a teacher look like an idiot. I was shooting school day pics, with a hand held 35mm. A teacher went to the principal and complained that I wasn't a professional photographer because I wasn't using a tripod and my camera wasn't big (long roll medium format) like last years photographer's. The school had fired the previous company because they received complaints about non-centered and blurry shots. The tops of students heads were cut off in some of the shots. I explained that the teacher didn't know much about photography and shouldn't be taken seriously. I assured him, I knew what I was doing,but to make my point I pulled out my wife's cheap Wal Mart instamatic camera and synced it up with my strobes using the built in flash and a peanut slave. I blocked the built in flash with some black tape so it wouldn't interfere. When the pictures came back from the lab, the principal nor the teacher could pick out which one's were taken with which camera. The principal was happy with in-focus centered pics and realized what a moron his teacher was. That was fun. The teacher is long gone and the school is still one of my clients. LOL </p>

<p>This is a specious argument and pointless out of hand. Any photographer worth the title can replace one element from a fashion shoot with a P&S equivalent, whether it is the camera, lighting, stylist, model, set, or MUA and get by - especially under very controlled circumstances for a specific use- and that is without having to send the images to a third party for post. It does not mean he will willingly do it other than as a stunt or if the content will be interestingly served editorially. Some editors and certain clients actually prefer trashed images with bad lighting, bad contrast and ugly models on any given day- but the other 6 days of the week not so much. </p>

<p> (Considering a Pentax 67 with a 135mm lens goes for less than one would pay to have that iPhone for six months I would also argue as to just who is using the expensive camera.)</p>