Cell Phone Post Processing

[bernie moore]

<p>While playing with my new cell phone (not an E phone or top of the line blackberry thing) I noticed that there is software that allows some rudimentary photographic post processing. I am pleased and also a bit suprised at how much this thing can do. I still only use it as a phone, but I'm starting to get drawn into the possibilities offered. A rather subtle seduction, eh?</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>I think pin hole or Holga cameras take better pictures.</p>

[richsimmons]

<p>What phone is it? I just got the Behold and it does some of the same things. 5mp camera. And it has a flash. I can set brightness, continuous shooting, panarama, smile shot, and mosaic. It has a self timer and zoom too. It also has a rule of third grid. Plus I can add effects (filters, styles, warp, blur), Levels, contrast, color, resize, rotate, flip, crop, add frames, clipart, emoticon's or text. Pretty nuts for something that's barely bigger than my palm.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Both Hockey mages got published in color in a newspaper back in 2004; shot with ancient cellphones by todays standards. To a pursit a cellphone or digital image is never good as film; to an editor; an action shot like being set to the sin bin; or fight is saleable; it doesnt matter what tool was used; they do not worry about these issues; amateurs do.<br>

Shot with a sub VGA cellphone back in 2004; its actual sensor is about 240x320; ie Barbie cam; this unit has a simple lens.<br /> <img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/hockey/tripods-547.jpg?t=1231346098" alt="" width="500" height="375" /> <br /> this shot was with a sub VGA image cellphone back in 2004 and upsized<br>

<img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/hockey/tripods-361.jpg?t=1231348528" alt="" width="578" height="433" /><br>

This is a Hooter girl bringing me a beer and some wings; shot with the 2004 VGA Audiovox cellphone; its performance is poor in low light; alot of noise.<br>

<img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/video%20cellphone/tripods-537.jpg?t=1231349051" alt="" width="360" height="480" /><br>

These were shot with a higher end cellphone of 2004/2005; the 1.3 Mpixel Kyocera KOI; it has white balance; flash; selection of resolution; shoots video. This shot was of a blown tire on my truck; sheered off lug bolt. I shot these while I replaced the tire; I didnt have a real camera; I just used the phone to shoot these about 4 years ago.<br>

<img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/TireBlowout/TIREHUBsmall.jpg?t=1231349439" alt="" width="320" height="427" /><br>

A crop of the above images shows the flaws of a pseudo 1.3 Mpixel 2004 cellphone; noise; one can read the brake drums diameter; the threads on the lugs are abit iffy as being resolved.:<br>

<img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/TireBlowout/TIREHUBdetail.jpg?t=1231349580" alt="" width="486" height="413" /><br>

Here the tires failed sidewall is shown; the green tint is due to grease on the lens<br>

<img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/TireBlowout/TireHole.jpg?t=1231349743" alt="" width="320" height="427" /><br>

Nice nail too!<br>

<img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/TireBlowout/TireNail.jpg?t=1231349834" alt="" width="320" height="427" /><br>

To a purist I should have left the truck and gotten my Hasselblad and shot with a tripod; and drum scanned film at a zillion dpi! :)<br>

Many times cell cams are used in a fun way; its like being a kid again!</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Cellphones specs often lie. Many units really "upsize" internally; this was/is common on older and cheaper units. The shutter speed is often real low' like 1/29 second too; a common issue with performance is just plain camera shake; crud or grease on the window. The green cast on the tire shots is crud/grease on the window port. In older 2004 vintage cell cameras I tested; many lower end units that outputed VGA images really had sub VGA sensors; and upsized in the camera; a sube VGA shot was often equal to or better sometimes.</p>

[sionnac]

<p>I got an LG Dare with a 3.2 mp camera, and camera shake/shutter speed is a problem, no way to adjust that I can find. My old 1.3 mp phone took better pix: <img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3036/2749261755_b05294533e.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[bernie moore]

<p>Dana G, that's what I got. Really haven't taken pics with it, but modified some that got transferred from the old one.</p>

[phule]

<p>I post process my cell phone camera photos in Lightroom. Mostly it's just to lower the saturation of the purples to eliminate fringing or to convert to B&W. </p>

<p>A cell phone camera can produce some interesting results with fast moving objects :)</p>

<p><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3196/2721969161_ac6ab02ceb.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="375" /></p>

[robbie_robertson]

<p>I can't wait to make phone calls on my next DSLR!</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>I've been using a Nokia N95 (5 mpix, Carl Zeiss Tessar lens with AF) for some 18 months now. Quality is quite ok when the shooting in favorable circumstances. Naturally, dynamic range isn't very high, but I've gotten some good shots with it. Usually I'm not so into trying though, since the sluggishness is irritating, but in general the camera is a huge leap over older models. The auto WB is actually better than in any DSLR I've tried.<br>

The main problem with phonecams is that the camera is supposed to be as cheap as possible and only megapixels seem to matter. so only higher-end models have AF and properly-made lenses. Also the signal processing required is heavy and phonecams usually don't have that fancy electronics, which leads to annoying lags. Then of course the sensors are small, but that's a fact of life. However, phonecams certainly have potential and things do develop...</p>

[Brad_]

<p>I process my cellphone pix with LR or CS. Just like any other photo...</p>

<p><img src="http://pages.sbcglobal.net/b-evans/Images38/Walker.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p> </p>