An Interesting Article About Lomography and Smartphone Apps

[james_smith55]

<p>Jon Stewart RIPPED instagram. <a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/tue-april-10-2012-elon-musk">Link.</a> The skewering starts 10:18 in. Hilarious. Enjoy.</p>

[james_smith55]

<blockquote>

<p>"Most of these cell phone pictures aren't that great to begin with"<br /> "The cell phone cameras are taking pictures that would not have been otherwise taken."<br /> Not only wrong, but laughable...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry you feel that way <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=153336">Brad</a>. I have pictures taken with 30+ year old cameras that look better than ALL cell phone pictures. And based on my admittedly anecdotal experience a lot of people are taking pictures now that never even owned a camera before they were forced to own one via their new cell phone. I have no recollection of anyone going out for the night with a camera when I was in college. Now people whip out cell phones and take all kinds of pictures that simply would never have been taken. I could do a far better job with my medium format camera and my Mecablitz 60 CT-4 but that is usually safely at home in the closet when I'm on beer number 3. Your experience may vary.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>fair enough Sarah, all in all. Still, I think you take this way too personal and there's hardly a discussion on the internet that's worth that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree with this. Sarah just roll with it. Instagram from what I've seen is not worth getting this worked up about. I'm in your corner. I'm the kind of nutcase that is checking out 6x9 film cameras and furious Kodak stopped making slide film. Instagram is not on my radar. To to the Instagram fanboys I say, you want the old school look? Find some Ektachrome on the internet. Shoot it in medium format. Get it cross processed and be a man for Pete's sake! ;)</p>

[Brad_]

>>> I have pictures taken with 30+ year old cameras that look better than ALL cell phone pictures.

 

Great! But "looking better" is in the eye of the viewer. Post 'em up with a link. I'd like to see them.

 

>>> And based on my admittedly anecdotal experience a lot of people are taking pictures now that never even owned a camera

before they were forced to own one via their new cell phone.

 

Sounds good to me. The more people shooting, the better.

 

>>> I could do a far better job with my medium format camera and my Mecablitz 60 CT-4 but that is usually safely at home in

the closet when I'm on beer number 3.

 

Then please, impress me with some of those compelling photos.

 

Like I mentioned above, cellphone pix I've seen range from stunning to awful. But that's true with *all* photography. In the end I

judge photos, among other things, by what they release and how I'm moved by their content. Not by technical parameters of the

capture; film/digital/cellphone, lens pedigree, format, yada yada, etc.

[james_smith55]

<blockquote>

<p>Great! But "looking better" is in the eye of the viewer. <strong>Post 'em up with a link</strong>. I'd like to see them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As has been pointed out numerous times on this forum and others you simply cannot truly evaluate the quality of an image based upon some 800 px (in the long dimension) digital reproduction. The minimum size for any picture on my wall is 11x14. I simply cannot accurately represent on this forum the subtleties and characteristics of a B&W fiber print taken with a medium format camera and quality lens using high quality filters. You will simply have to take my word for it that the results are slightly better than what you get with a camera phone. Not really sure why this has to be explained on a photography forum.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Then please, impress me with some of those compelling photos</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Please see my statement above. Furthermore I have no need to "impress" you. If you feel your Android phone takes better pictures than my medium format camera that hardly sounds like an issue <strong>I</strong> need to resolve. You should make your art with whatever makes you happy. Enjoy your camera phone.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Why not offer to loan him a print?</p>

[james_smith55]

<blockquote>

<p>Why not offer to loan him a print?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not a museum. If he is an active member on this forum and he can't figure out the quality difference between a medium format film print made from a tripod mounted camera using 25 ISO B&W film and a hand held camera phone image he is pretty much the last person I would mail one of my pieces to. I regularly take pictures with a camera phone, 35mm film and digital and various medium format film cameras. They all have their pros and cons and I am not beholden to any one format. I can take a step back and state why I honestly like/dislike certain qualities of each. <strong>I've seen a lot of things on the web but I've never seen someone say they want to get into some kind of Android phone vs Medium format film camera image quality duel. </strong> I just don't understand that level of fanaticism about ANY format. I'm still trying to figure out how he uses a bounce flash for the quick portraits or uses the polarizer for the landscapes. The bokeh with that Android phone shot wide open must be breathtaking.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> If he is an active member on this forum and he can't figure out the quality difference between a

medium format film print made from a tripod mounted camera using 25 ISO B&W film and a hand held

camera phone image he is pretty much the last person I would mail one of my pieces to.

 

I understand now. Your photography and photographs are about communicating technical parameters

and quality of your equipment. My photography is definitely not.

 

>>> As has been pointed out numerous times on this forum and others you simply cannot truly

evaluate the quality of an image based upon some 800 px (in the long dimension) digital reproduction.

 

That's just utter nonsense...

 

Still, in any event, please post some links to your work. I'll accept your caveat for web viewing purposes this one time as I would still like to look.

[james_smith55]

<blockquote>

<p>I understand now. Your photography and photographs are about communicating technical parameters and quality of your equipment. My photography is definitely not.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nope. I just like to make quality work. If anyone took a look at my equipment and knew anything about photography they would most certainly not mistake me for some gear head spending exorbitant amounts of money on over priced yuppy jewelry. I have never heard anyone that uses a Bronica ETRS as their medium format workhorse being accused of having photographs that, "are about communicating technical parameters and quality of your equipment."</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"As has been pointed out numerous times on this forum and others you simply cannot truly evaluate the quality of an image based upon some 800 px (in the long dimension) digital reproduction."<br /> That's just utter nonsense...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yeah, dude whatever. I assume you've never done any digital photo editing. I can take a 10 megapixel blurry shot and shrink it down to 800 px in the long dimension and apply some unsharp mask and it'll look pretty good. You can't evaluate lenses, cameras, film, scanners, technique, film grain, anything in a 800 px shot. You can judge composition though I prefer to be a bit more holistic. If your goal is to make 800 px pictures I would tell you a medium format film camera is a waste. But if you want to make a nice large print to hang on your wall and enjoy I would suggest upgrading from your and Andriod phone. I'm still scratching my head about why this is even a topic for debate on a <em>photography forum</em>.</p>

<p>A cell phone picture can look pretty good on a cell phone or on a computer screen shrunk down after some editing. But try and make a 11x14 print and compare it to some scanned Velvia and it's going to look pretty mediocre. This is not an opinion.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> I assume you've never done any digital photo editing.

 

Busted...

 

>>> You can't evaluate lenses, cameras, film, scanners, technique, film grain, anything in a 800 px shot.

 

Understand. But my photography is not about lens/equipment evaluation. That's what yours is about.

 

 

>>> I'm still scratching my head about why this is even a topic for debate on a photography forum.

 

Beats me too... With respect to *photography*, I like talking about *photographs* and what they release. I can use a variety of cams to get there, to

make quality photographs that express something, release narrative, evoke emotion, etc. With respect to your photography, it appears it's about lenses, format, and overall technical quality.

 

It's a real shame Robert Frank didn't use sharp and contrasty quality lenses, or use medium format when he

captured images for The Americans in the 1950s. His work could have turned out great, then...

[james_smith55]

<blockquote>

<p>Understand. But my photography is not about lens/equipment evaluation. That's what yours is about.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bad news my friend every photographer uses lenses and "equipment." They are a part of the process. They aren't the ONLY part of the process but they are a part. If you confine your activities to making nice 800 px images then yes there are a lot of things you can skimp on. Most of us don't live there. Nothing chaps my hide like getting a nice image and then realizing I can't blow it up and hang it on my wall because I used the wrong format or the film is too grainy for my purposes. If that makes me an evil person then guilty as charged. I am just baffled by people that get married to one format and then fiercely defend it to the grave. Be adventurous. With today's falling prices on analog equipment go out and have some fun. You don't have to spend a bunch of dough and if you try something out and it doesn't live up to your expectations just sell it on ebay for a small loss or maybe even a small profit.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>It's a real shame Robert Frank didn't use...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>He seemed to do okay with is <strong>LEICA</strong>! LEICA $$$$>Bronica $. Wanna use another example? Robert Frank used a solid piece of equipment for his work. It was hardly the "camera phone" of his day. Don't mean to hurt your feelings but I would take a LEICA rangefinder over your Android camera phone any day of the week. So would most people on this forum. No offense dude. I'm sure you have a nice phone.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> No offense dude. I'm sure you have a nice phone.

 

None taken, bro... But humor me. Show me some of your photos. I promise I'll make a mental allowance

knowing that a web rendering probably sucks 95% out of the life out of their printed glory.

[james_smith55]

<blockquote>

<p>Show me some of your photos. I promise <strong>I'll make a mental allowance knowing that a web rendering probably sucks 95% out of the life</strong> out of their printed glory.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Unfortunately it really doesn't work that way. There's a lot that goes into making an image. You really can't put an exact clinical number such as 95% on any part of the process. Furthermore when you view an image at 800 px you really can't tell what all has or has not been lost as compared to the original. When I send small images to friends and clients I do a little photoshopping and add sharpening. Some of the images I send to friends have technical issues like slightly off focus that I can cover up by shrinking the image down and adding some sharpening. If people want prints I tell them that's not possible because the original is a bit out of focus.</p>

<p>Sometimes people ask about a lens or camera based on a few small emailed pictures. I kindly explain to them that any reasonable camera/lens combination could get similar results since it is such a small image. I don't tell them I shot the image with a medium format camera. It's not relevant. On the other hand if they ask me about a portrait with nice bokeh I explain to them that the only way to achieve the same result easily is with a fast lens. Several people after hearing this have gone out and gotten a fast prime lens and thank me to this day. Same when they've asked me about a landscape. I explain to them what a polarizer is and they come back grinning ear to ear. Same with a cheap bounce flash and portraiture.</p>

<p>When you are looking at an 800 px photoshoped image you can't tell much about the camera, lens, technique, film, etc. This isn't me talking here. It's been said numerous times on this forum. When I want to buy a lens I find a site that has tested it out and compared it at full size to several other lenses in that focal length. The results are often surprising to me. Some decades old lenses hold their own against high priced modern lenses. Some lenses that are cheaper actually catch up to more expensive lenses when they are stopped down one or two stops. And some things that look like a big deal are actually irrelevant when an image is printed.</p>

<p>In short you won't even be able to tell me what camera, medium format, 35mm film, or 35mm digital, I used to make an image if I post a 800 px sample on this forum. How on earth are you going to be able to evaluate what an 11x14 print will look like on my wall? You can't just take the image and use some algorithm in your head to add back some "95%" mystery factor. Photography and physics for that matter don't work that way. Do me a favor. Take one of your full size images. Shrink it down to a 800 px TIFF. Add some sharpening. Make it look nice. Now interpolate it back up to its original size. Open the original and look at them side by side at 100% or there abouts. Do they look the same? I didn't think so. If your computer and Photoshop can't do it then I don't you can do it in your head.</p>

[mike dixon]

<i>When you are looking at an 800 px photoshoped image you can't tell much about the camera, lens, technique, film, etc. </i><P>

But it should give you a very good idea whether the image is worth looking at. A collection of images, even at 800 pixels on a screen, can tell you about the photographer's vision, how he approaches his subject, how he uses light, etc. The point that Brad is trying to make is that these elements are far more important in determining which photos are "better" than what camera, lens, and capture medium are used.

[Brad_]

>>> When you are looking at an 800 px photoshoped image you can't tell much about the camera, lens, technique,

film, etc.<P>

 

But that's not what I care about when looking at photographs. Generally, I could care less about that.<P>

 

>>> In short you won't even be able to tell me what camera, medium format, 35mm film, or 35mm digital, I used to

make an image if I post a 800 px sample on this forum. <P>

 

Again, who cares? Unless your photography is all about gear, rather than photographs.<P>

 

>>> Do me a favor. Take one of your full size images. Shrink it down to a 800 px TIFF. <P>

 

OK, here's one of my street portraits, a person named Delondra I encountered on the street, posted at 700 pixels,

max allowed by pnet:<BR><P>

 

<img src= "http://citysnaps.net/2011%20photos/Delondra.jpg"><P>

 

>>> Now interpolate it back up to its original size. Open the original and look at them side by side at 100% or there

abouts. Do they look the same?<P>

 

Of course not, that's silly. <P>

 

Now, post up one of yours. I'd like to see what your photos are about, not try to determine your lens' pedigree.

[james_smith55]

<blockquote>

<p>>>> When you are looking at an 800 px photoshoped image you can't tell much about the camera, lens, technique, film, etc.<br>

But that's not what I care about when looking at photographs. Generally, I could care less about that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If all you do is make 700 px cell phone pictures and post on Facebook you can afford to be that cavalier. If your intention is to make 11x14 prints all that stuff comes into play. I learned this from years of experience. People are going to have to separate themselves from their emotions. All these modalities exist for a reason. None of them is perfect and at these rock bottom prices I see no reason to try and use one imperfect tool for everything.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>OK, here's one of my street portraits, a person named Delondra I encountered on the street, posted at 700 pixels, max allowed by pnet:</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As I've stated multiple times. That doesn't tell anyone what it will look like in an 11x14 print on the wall. If your domain is 700 px images then you can skimp on all kinds of things and get reasonable results. When people ask me about what camera I used for a particular image I ask them why. If they are just curious I tell them. If they want to replicate the experience I ask them what they want to do with the final image. If all they want is some facebook pictures I steer them to much cheaper more convenient options.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>When you are looking at an 800 px photoshoped image you can't tell much about the camera, lens, technique, film, etc. </em><br /> But it should give you a very good idea whether the image is worth looking at.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If composition, lighting, subject matter are bad they ain't gonna get better just because you have a bigger file. But if focus is slightly off or there is motion blur or shallow depth of field in a landscape some PS sharpening can mask that. A soft lens can be masked as well in Photoshop particularly if the original is shrunk down to 700 px. Even noisy images can be cleaned up and shrunk down and look respectable.</p>

<p>I have sent small 800 px proofs to people that were thinking about buying one of my images. Most of the stuff I have sold is editorial so a lot of the time they aren't looking for the most artistic picture. They want one that tells the story. But I am honest with them if the image is a little soft or blurry. It may not be apparent at all in the smaller image. I explain to them if you want to use the image on the web or make a small quarter page reproduction it will be fine. But if they want something that is full page I inform them that the 800 px proof is not representative of what they will see in regards to sharpness and detail.</p>

<p><strong>Having a 700 px bake off does NOT tell you anything about what a large print will look like on the wall.</strong> It is a completely futile exercise. I don't know how many ways there are to say it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>>>> Now interpolate it back up to its original size. Open the original and look at them side by side at 100% or there abouts. Do they look the same?<br /> Of course not, that's silly.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Now, post up one of yours. I'd like to see what your photos are about...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I photograph anything that comes in front of my lens that doesn't involved gross violations of people's privacy. My film/digital sensor honestly doesn't care what I shoot. It produces the same quality of images regardless of subject matter. And none of the results can be fully evaluated in a 700 px small sample.</p>

<p>Look Brad heck will freeze over before I dump my SLRs and rely solely on my camera phone for 11x14 prints. You can post all you want but no one in this forum is going to jump on that band wagon. Don't know what to tell you.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>I photograph anything that comes in front of my lens that doesn't involved gross violations of people's privacy. My film/digital sensor honestly doesn't care what I shoot.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br>

I, and I suspect Brad as well, are far more interested in creating a body of work than a collection of things that film or a sensor happened to capture. </p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>I'm sure a pointalist would have been very particular about the quality and character of his/her brushes in a way that Jackson Pollock never would have appreciated. However, it would be a gross oversimplification and plainly unfair for Pollock to accuse pointalists of being interested only in making collections of dots, rather than bodies of work.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>(I'm giving James the benefit of the doubt that he doesn't just shoot stuff at random. I don't think that's what he meant.)</p>

[Brad_]

>>> I'm sure a pointalist would have been very particular about the quality and character of his/her

brushes in a way that Jackson Pollock never would have appreciated.

 

If Georges Seurat were alive today, painting, and online, I wonder if he'd be able to show some of his work

to an interested viewer on the web? Or would he refuse saying that an online viewing of his work cannot possibly

recreate the quality and character of how his brushes render points?

[james_smith55]

<blockquote>

<p>"I photograph anything that comes in front of my lens that doesn't involved gross violations of people's privacy. My film/digital sensor honestly doesn't care what I shoot."</p>

<p>I, and I suspect Brad as well, are far more interested in creating a body of work than a collection of things that film or a sensor happened to capture.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Welcome to the club. Not sure why that needs to be explicitly stated on a photography forum.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>(I'm giving James the benefit of the doubt that he doesn't just shoot stuff at random. I don't think that's what he meant.)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thank you Sarah. I assumed everyone would understand as you do that I photograph a wide variety of things, but I guess on the internet you have to spell it out for some.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If Georges Seurat were alive today, painting, and online, I wonder if he'd be able to show some of his work to an interested viewer on the web? Or would he refuse saying that an online viewing of his work cannot possibly recreate the quality and character of how his brushes render points?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think George Seurat would be like the rest of us who routinely show our work in a digital medium regardless of how we create it. And I think that George Seurat if he saw a 700 px image of an Ansel Adams landscape and a camera phone picture he could appreciate them for what they were and wouldn't assume if he want to an art gallery to see a full size hard copy he would confuse the two.</p>

 

[Brad_]

>>> If composition, lighting, subject matter are bad they ain't gonna get better just because you have a

bigger file. ... I have sent small 800 px proofs to people that were thinking about buying one of my

images. ... Most of the stuff I have sold is editorial so a lot of the time they aren't looking for the most

artistic picture. They want one that tells the story. ... Look Brad heck will freeze over before I dump my

SLRs and rely solely on my camera phone for 11x14 prints. You can post all you want but no one in this

forum is going to jump on that band wagon. Don't know what to tell you. ... ... ...

 

You're obfuscating. No one is asking you to dump your SLRs. Or to rely on your camera phone for 11x14

prints. Those are *your* words.

 

What is being simply asked is for you to post a link to some of your photos. This is a photography forum after all. It's not complicated...

[james_smith55]

<blockquote>

<p>What is being simply asked is for you to post a link to some of your photos. This is a photography forum after all. It's not complicated..</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You're right this is a photography forum. It is not a Stalinist gulag in Siberia. None of use has to respond to orders from other forum members demanding that we post this or that. I think I've taken up enough of the forum's time and space debating I don't know what. Time to give the other folks a chance to express their opinions.</p>

<p>Good bye.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Good bye.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br>

Great. Now we can read posts from people who take photos and show them. Nothing like finding out if what people talk about is what they actually do.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Deja vu! I seem to remember this exact same discussion before. I was 10 years old at the time, and I was being challenged by a group of other kids to prove something. It was EXACTLY the same, except that I'm now watching it happen to someone else. Well, that and the kids who bullied me didn't know words like "obfuscation."</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Good bye.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can't really blame him. </p>

[David_Cavan]

<p>You know Jeff, I think Sarah has a point. It feels like your objective is to chase away everyone who doesn't agree with your point, and it pretty much appears you've done that on this thread. I dropped back in to see how it was going this evening, and I have to say that what I see is not a process that encourages people to have dissenting opinions.</p>