Iphone photos

<p>Hi all,<br>

I've been doing iphone photos for over a year now and would like to Let you guys at this forum know about it. Trying to gain more traction and more viewers. If you like it , please comment and let me know what you like. I would just like to keep the page going! Thank you for your support!</p>

<p><a href="http://www.facebook.com/pages/Iphone-Photo-of-the-day/306495654402">http://www.facebook.com/pages/Iphone-Photo-of-the-day/306495654402</a></p>

<p>Emmanuel</p><div></div>

<p>I have an iPhone, but I must be missing something. I suppose there can be a point to intentionally having a poor-looking photo, but I'd have to guess, and trying to guess the intentions or thinking of another person is a very hazardous undertaking. So for me to not have to guess, it's up to the photographer to state his/her intentions, what they want the photo convey, what it says to them, etc. Is there a point or message to this, other than the simple fact that it was taken with an iPhone (i.e., it's entirely about equipment)?</p>

<p>I guess I'm missing the point also. What is your intent with these pictures? Are you trying to show us some vision of your world, embodied in camera-phone pictures, or ...</p>

<p>Anyone can take a picture everyday with their phone, why are yours special?</p>

<p><Chas></p>

<blockquote>

<p>I suppose there can be a point to intentionally having a poor-looking photo</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sort of like shooting with a Holga probably.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Anyone can take a picture everyday with their phone, why are yours special?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Anyone can take a picture every day with a D3, why are those special?</p>

<p>I can see a mood in the images that aren't found in many portfolios and the quality issues adds to it. That's why we have cameras. To make images. I applaud the effort here.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Apple enthusiasts used to value quality once upon a time. Perhaps they are only into being fashionable these days?</p>

<p>Camera phone photography, not just limited to iPhones, is suppose to be an emerging art form.</p>

<p>What a lot of pretense and snobbery in the first replies to this thread.</p>

<p>Emmanuel I like the concept of what you are doing. From what I've seen you are a talented photographer. Do go on with what you're doing. I like it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I can see a mood in the images that aren't found in many portfolios and the quality issues adds to it. That's why we have cameras. To make images. I applaud the effort here.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Same here</p>

I looked at the set of images - they're outstanding with loads of drama and emotion. And it again proves

that talent rests within one's eye. No better way of recording the world around you than with a camera

that's always with you.

 

Adding to what Ton said, it's sad that some aren't able to say something nice when another photographer

puts out some great work. Or doubts that any camera in great hands can consistently create compelling images.

<p>I'd like to add my voice to those who appreciate this photo. A good photo may be, but certainly needn't be, explained. No justification is required. Just a viewer willing to look, see, and experience. No, there is no pretty sunset here and no colorful flowers. Just an internal mood as reflected in the external one on the street, a great sense of depth, and a manhole cover that keeps my attention more than most children-on-the-beach subjects. It's not up to the photographer to explain, it's up to the viewer to open up to something, something personal and real. It's not a matter of anyone having to guess, it's a matter of a viewer being curious or not and open to suggestiveness and personal vision.</p>

<p>Very nice work congrats.</p>

<p>It appears, as so often here, that there is a great divide between people interested in photos and people interested in the technicals. The photos are definitely worth taking a look-see and looking at them for what they have to say, not what a technical analysis would give.</p>

<p>Emmanuel,<br>

I think they are wonderful images, and for me, the image is what counts. You have a wonderful eye and capture a lot of mood and feeling in your shots, and there is a consistancy that adds even more power to the set. Really wonderful stuff, and I look forward to more! Keep up the good work-<br>

Mark</p>

<p>It seems to me that the single most important criterion for judging an image these days is summed up in a single question: Is it different? If it's different than what we usually see on these forums, that alone will bring it many fans and high praise. Witness an ordinary landscape but with purple clouds: high praise. Witness a marine shoreline with neon green algae in fading sunlight: high praise. Witness a nude female with a burlap bag over her head: high praise. Perhaps good photographs are so ubiquitous that we've become somewhat jaded, and it takes something completely out of the ordinary to stir any interest. Photos taken with an iPhone are different only with respect to the camera used; other cameras can give similar results. The camera is supposed to be just a tool, and we're supposed to be interested only in the image. Yet the main emphasis here seems to be iPhone-based images, with an emphasis on the iPhone. How would it be if no mention was made at all regarding the use of the iPhone as the camera, and we only had the images to look at? That way we could focus solely on what the photo had to say and not be distracted by mechanical stuff.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It seems to me that the single most important criterion for judging an image these days is summed up in a single question: Is it different?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The only person here who has referenced "different" is you. Obviously, it's an important criterion to you. Others here seem far more interested in whether an image communicates or not. </p>

<p>Emmanuel, Rough crowd...eh? <br>

Very talented images you have displayed. Please don't be discouraged by the unwarranted criticism of the few.</p>

<p>Far better composition in your images, than those I often see submitted from many Holga and Pinhole captures.</p>

<p>P-Net has POTW in many different equipment forums, so there might be a place for a POTW in the cell phone category.<br>

In your image of the glasses at the dinner table, you have given me some new ideas in lighting. Thank you.</p>

<p>Emmanuel, I'm in agreement with those above who found your photos interesting, and your efforts worthwhile. Well done.</p>

<p>Jeff, I'm just making an observation. The importance of being "different" is my <em>impression</em> after viewing a wide variety of photographs and reading a wide variety of comments on this site. The examples I gave came from postings on this site. "Different" is not an important criterion to me (in fact, that notion is entirely at odds with my post -- please, read it again more carefully and you'll see). This thread is about taking photos with an iPhone; it's titled "iPhone Photos of the Day." That seems to be more gear oriented than message oriented (however, like some others who have commented, I am able to find messages, feelings, or impressions in some of Emmanual's photos....but I admit the single photo he posted is not among them; for me, the more meaningful photos are in the link). I would think that a moderator would spend more time with D.B. Cooper's post, which raises questions about posting guidelines that keep this community running properly, rather than going to such lengths to argue against my personal opinions. Nevertheless, I'd still like to know how it would be if no mention was made at all regarding the use of the iPhone as the camera, and we only had the images to look at. I wonder (really, I don't know, but I'm curious) if they would still have the same appeal without the novelty (differentness) of the iPhone.</p>

<p>They would have the same appeal to me whether made with an iPhone or any other camera.</p>

<p>That this is a series of iPhone images is relevant. Why not? That Avedon worked with large format or Danny Matthys worked with Polaroids has significance. Sometimes the relationship between the particular tool and the type of result and vision is an important part of the work. Some tools inspire certain approaches and looks. Why not?</p>

<p>This series is denoted as an iPhone series. That does not mean it's entirely about equipment by any stretch of the imagination. It means that the photographer feels that information about the camera used is relevant to the series.</p>

<p>Where do the "shoulds" come from? <em>"The camera is supposed to be just a tool, and we're supposed to be interested only in the image."</em> Who says? Some of us can be interested in all aspects of a photo, from tools used to methods used to final product. A photo is an integration of a lot of things, not necessarily an isolated incident we run across.</p>

<p>Marc, you call some of the comments "unwarranted criticism." Do you mean to say that if someone doesn't like these photos they should just remain silent? Is praise the only kind of comment that should be posted?</p>

<p>When I post a photo, I expect some will like it and some won't. Frankly, I learn more from those who post criticisms. Coincidently, earlier this evening I responded with an extended explanation and a thanks to someone who criticized one of my photos that a large number of other folks had praised (http://www.photo.net/photo/11004471).</p>

<p>It may surprise you, but I'm also in agreement with John Henneberger -- I applaud the effort. One of my favorite sayings is that the only difference between a rut and a grave is the depth. That's the reason I'm trying square format -- I'm wanting to shake up my vision after seeing the world in rectangles for so many years. That's also the reason I'm trying a pinhole camera (don't knock it -- they're tough to compose!); I want to try something very different. I must admit I got off on the wrong foot with Emmanuel with the single photo he chose to post. Had he chosen a different one from within the set in the link, I would have had a different first impression. But my basic question would still remain: how important is being "different" when folks are making comments on photos today? To what extent is "differentness" influencing their impressions and their comments? </p>

<p>@ Fred: "<em>The camera is supposed to be just a tool, and we're supposed to be interested only in the image."</em> Who says?" Fred, that's the sentiment I read nearly every day on this site. It's a very common reaction to so-called gearheads -- surely you've read this statement many times here as well. That's where the "shoulds" come from. I'm being somewhat the devil's advocate here, because I'm interested in equipment and I think it has a role in our discussions. As an aside, I think it's the iPhone camera that makes some of Emmanuel's photos work and others fail. IMO, of course. You seem to be disagreeing to some extent with Jeff Spirer who seems to be primarily interested in whether the image communicates (implying that gear is irrelevant, and I hope I'm reading and interpreting his response correctly; if not, I apologize).<br /><br /><br /><br /> </p>

<p>@ Fred, another comment: You mentioned a manhole cover in Emmanual's photo, and I presume you're referring to the single photo in his post (not one of the photos in the link). You've got a better eye than I (that sounds like a pun, but that's just the way the sentence comes out), because I can't make out much in this photo. In fact, that's where my initial criticism came from. I think Emmanual's iPhone meter was heavily influenced by the backlighting, and it rendered much of the rest of the photo unrecognizable below the midline.... at least to my eye. I can see some objects at the bottom, but I can't recognize anything there as a manhole cover. The same thing happened to me today when I took an iPhone photo of our snowfall; folks to whom I sent the photo commented how dark and dreary it looked, when it was actually fairly bright but the meter was turning the white snow to gray.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It seems to me that the single most important criterion for judging an image these days is summed up in a single question: Is it different?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>to most people <strong>in this thread</strong> the most important criterium seems to be whether it's interesting as should be clear by now so your <em>impression</em>, whether true or not, is quite redundant here. Why not then limit yourself to the postings in this thread?</p>

<p>It's obvious that we hold different opinions on Emmanuels photography and I have no problem with that, your opinion on that is equally valid as mine or anyone elses. But especially your first post (and that of Charles) was not constructive and blatantly condescending. Having read a lot of your posts in the last year I find that both surprising and disappointing.</p>

<p></p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't know, but I'm curious) if they would still have the same appeal without the novelty (differentness) of the iPhone.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can't help you there but for me the answer would be a unequivocal yes.</p>

<p>Tom, the question of being different seemed to me to be an issue in this photo, just as it has seemed to be in other photos I've seen. I simply made a connection between an aspect of this photo and others, and it raised a general question in my mind.</p>

<p>I've grown quite discouraged over the last several months in trying to provide meaningful comments on photos. I've made a comment or suggested a way the photo might be changed or improved, and the reply from the photographer has sometimes been, "What I presented was exactly what I had intended." A good example is HDR. Sometimes it can be used to produce a natural-looking photo, much as the eye might see a scene. Other times it can produce a "comic book" look with halos, exaggerated colors, and a very artificial look to the scene. But sometimes that exaggerated, artificial look is <em>exactly</em> what the photographer was after. I'm then off base if I criticize it for poor HDR technique. Therefore, increasingly I'm wanting to know what the photographer had in mind when the photo was made or processed; otherwise, my comments may be irrelevant or in error, especially if the photo is not a "run-of-the-mill" kind of photo. So rather than being condescending, I was honestly seeking more information, trying to understand a photo that, from my point of view, was poorly exposed. I knew it was a photo of city buildings, but that's about it. Now why would a person post a photo like that? I wasn't sure, and that's why I was asking. In retrospect, I regret stating part of my opinion of the photo when I used the words "poor-looking photo;" that violated my own intention of first understanding the photographer's point of view. Even if I thought the outcome was poor after understanding the photographer's intention, I should use more sensitive and diplomatic language than that.</p>

<p>So Emmanual, for that I apologize. The iPhone camera with that backlighting produced a result much like I obtained today when I used an iPhone to take a picture of a snowy landscape. The gray rendition of a white landscape wasn't my intention; I don't know if the dark cityscape was your intention. Until I know, I can't really offer a meaningful critique.</p>

<p>In the end, it's up to an individual to interpret a photo, and the photo has to stand on its own merits in the viewer's eye. Nevertheless, for me a more complete understanding is one that encompasses my personal opinion as well as some knowledge of the photographer's own intention or interpretation, especially if the photo is unusual in some way.</p>

<p>OK Stephen, enough said I guess.</p>

<p>for me the appeal of the photo above (and those in the link) is not that it is different but perhaps most of all because of its atmosphere. Different is after all a very subjective adjective. What's interesting is that you say that a photo has to stand on its own merits (with which I agree) but also that in order to understand it completely knowledge about the photographers intention is needed. That to me is a paradox. First of all because not every photo needs to be analyzed ad infinitum but can be enjoyed (or not) just for what it is. Secondly, I don't think the photographers intentions are always relevant in evaluating a photo. Personally I think that in such a strict sense context is far more important. For me it certainly is here.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>It seems to me that the single most important criterion for judging an image these days is summed up in a single question: Is it different? If it's different than what we usually see on these forums, that alone will bring it many fans and high praise. Witness an ordinary landscape but with purple clouds: high praise. Witness a marine shoreline with neon green algae in fading sunlight: high praise. Witness a nude female with a burlap bag over her head: high praise. Perhaps good photographs are so ubiquitous that we've become somewhat jaded, and it takes something completely out of the ordinary to stir any interest.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think this holds true in many areas, not just photography. When people are immersed in one thing to a great degree, "different" takes on more value. I used to work in a record store, and the new things that caught the interest of the employees weren't the typical things, it was whatever was different, such as Pat Boone's album of heavy metal song covers, or a moog organ album. Were these particularly good? No, but they stood out because they were different. Classical music, modern art, these seemed to have moved away from beauty and into shocking or disharmony, seemingly for the sake of being different. Novelty does have value, but i think the work has to be able to stand on merits above and beyond novelty to actually be "good", whatever that may mean in a given circumstance.</p>