Who needs a DSLR?

[gordonjb]

<p>I would buy a camera phone if I could find one without a phone in it... what a minute then it would just be a camera... never mind, I already have one of those and it take good photos and my in-laws never call me on it.</p>

[carbon_dragon]

<p>But I like arguing about cameras! </p><div></div>

[Brad_]

<center>

<P>

.

<P>

 

<img src= "http://citysnaps.net/2011%20photos/Gibson450.jpg"><br>

 

<i> Gibson • Downtown, San Francisco • ©2011 Brad Evans</i> <P>

.

</center>

 

<P>

 

>>> No sane person would consider an iPhone to be a good tool for photography, ...<P>

 

 

Right. Using anything less than a Deardorff 8x10 is a huge compromise. It's all about the tools.<P>

 

 

 

>>> But I like arguing about cameras!<P>

 

 

And I like making street photos and portraits with cameras.

[Norma Desmond]

<p>[in a recent memorable and contentious thread about whether cameras matter . . .}</p>

<p><<<<em>Compared to everything else that makes up what my photography is or is about, my camera is at the absolute bottom of the list in terms of mattering.</em>>>> --Brad</p>

<p>[And in the current contentious thread . . .]</p>

<p><<<<em>there are many engaged in mobile phone photography that would disagree; for many it's the apps</em>>>> --Brad</p>

<p>You gotta love the confusion. Cameras don't matter but there are some engaged in <em>mobile phone photography</em>. Presumably to the self-described <em>mobile phone photographers</em>, cameras matter, thus the chosen epithet. Obviously, even apps matter!</p>

<p>I happen to agree. Cameras do matter. Sometimes a lot. Sometimes a little. They affect shooting. They affect outcomes. They can affect vision to the sensitive user. What I don't understand is the need (or want, if you prefer) to deny that cameras matter much even while clearly asserting how much they do.</p>

<p>Could it be ego? The photographer is the only one that matters. In other words, ME! Well, good classical musicians aren't afraid to tout their Steinways or their Bosendorfers and the great rock guitarists weren't afraid to pay homage to their Fenders. Read what Jeff Beck and Eric Clapton have to say about their guitars sometime. But I guess they were secure enough to be able to honor or at the very least be conscious of the importance of their instruments without feeling that that somehow would compromise their own status as a musician.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Guitars are completely different than cameras. Guitars <em>create</em> sound. Cameras <em>reproduce</em> what is in front of them. False equivalence.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>It would be a false equivalence if I had claimed there was a precise equivalence. Think about it some and you might get my point and see some of the important similarities which, to me, outweigh the obvious differences. Or, and I suspect this is more likely, you won't.</p>

<p>In any case, the point was not a discussion about musical instruments. The point was the lack of coherence of many claims of the camera not mattering. In the same breath, one can claim how little the camera matters and then suggest there is such a thing as <em>mobile phone photography</em>. That suggests confusion to me.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>"The cellphone gallery only has great images because those images fit within the capabilities of the cell phone. I challenge you to take your phone on an African safari and try to get the same great shots as the guy with the DSLR and super telephoto lens."</p>

<p>How many days of your life will you spend on safari? Aren't the pictures made with that 600/4 limited by the parameters forced upon them by the nature of the rig?<br /> ________________________________________________</p>

<p>>>> No sane person would consider an iPhone to be a good tool for photography, ...</p>

<p>That's harsh, if not patently unfair. The same thing was said about medium format when it was first introduced. And about 35mm. There are things you and I might not personally think about, but that does not mean they are unthinkable.</p>

<p>__________________________________________________________</p>

<p>I do not consider cameras tools. To me they are <em>instruments to be played, with light instead of sound. </em>Would a cello player put down someone because they play the mandolin? Or a tuba player disdain he who plays a harmonica? No. People in other arts understand things most photographers do not begin to fathom.</p>

[luis_g]

<p><em>"</em>Cameras <em>reproduce</em> what is in front of them. False equivalence."</p>

<p>That <em>is</em> a false equivalence. A camera does not reproduce the Grand Canyon when pointed at it. Nor a clone of Barthe's mother. I understand where Jeff's misstatement comes from, the all-too-easy mistaking of a photograph for its referent. The very fetishization that drives most applied uses of the medium, and has from the beginning. A camera transduces the light issuing/echoing from the subject into other forms, and its final product is a <em>transform or transfiguration </em>of what it was pointed at, which the viewer (mis)interprets and (mis)connects to the referent. The photograph is not the thing photographed. Whether with an iPhone or a Gigapan rig. And in that process of transduction, the camera/lens (much like a musical instrument) imparts its own signature unto the file or negative, as the photographer does, via the inputs into the controls, P.O.V., lighting, and/or modified or straight algorithms employed or allowed to affect the process. Not to mention PP.</p>

<p>...and it's grand, IMO.</p>

<p> </p>

[Brad_]

>>> You gotta love the confusion. ... That suggests confusion to me.

 

Uh-oh...

 

Fred, seriously, it wasn't my intent to cause your head to explode trying to understand this stuff. Rather

than sweat the little things, take a breather and go make some art with your tool of choice.

[russell_contreras]

<blockquote>

<p>The cheapest iphone 4s @ $199 + $120 x 24 months cost is actually over 3k, same price as a d800. And there's one coming with a non contract clause, but then it's still over $600 w/o any plan...<br>

I'd love an iphone but the iphone really isn't cheap at all when you do the math</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Leslie Cheung,</p>

<p>You are 100% correct. You can buy a used Canon DSLR and a 50 mm 1.8 and take pictures that will smoke what you can take with an iphone. I think Bob Atkins post is nice because it shows cell phone cameras aren't useless and anyone that says they can't explore photography because of equipment limitations isn't really trying.</p>

<p>But if you have thousands to blow on a smartphone with mandatory data plan and your passion is photography I would skip the iphone and monthly data plan and just get a solid used DSLR. The beauty of a DSLR is not just superior image quality. It is also versatility. You put even a relatively inexpensive polarizer on your lens and it makes a huge difference in certain scenes. I'm not for collecting gear for gears sake. But if you can inexpensively get better image quality and more versatility why not do it?</p>

<p>Really to me getting an iphone instead of looking for deals on photo equipment is not intelligent. If you want a DSLR for it's image quality and versatility get a DSLR. If you want portability and mobile data get a smartphone. You can make great images with all kinds of contraptions and devices. It doesn't mean that one is superior to all others in ALL situations. Niche tricks with smartphones will never supplant DSLRs.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>David, puzzling to see from your iPhone image that it records and renders shaded soil with the familiar "Purple Dirt" color cast the same as my old film P&S's from the '80's & '90's.</p>

<p>I have to wonder if this is intentional or some natural screw up in optics/processing. What causes this?</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Here's my "Purple Dirt" shot on Kodak HD 400 negative print film. Ah, such a joy working with film...NOT!</p><div></div>

[russell_contreras]

<blockquote>

<p>Here's my "Purple Dirt" shot on Kodak HD 400 negative print film. Ah, such a joy working with film...NOT!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Try slide film... and a good lens.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Yeah, maybe that and a decent processing lab that didn't charge an arm and a leg.</p>

<p>But beside that I thought this thread was about it doesn't matter what equipment is used.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>The photograph is not the thing photographed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> Nobody said it was. The camera reproduces it, maybe not accurately, but that's what it's doing. Nobody is twanging their hand on a camera or putting paint on it to paint on a canvas. It's being used to snap what is in front of it. <br /> <br />The equivalent in the music world to choice of camera is the choice of mixing board. Very different than choice of guitar, but similar to the way the camera works. You can bend things in certain ways, you can choose what is important and what is not, but you are processing what is in front of you, metaphorically speaking since it's usually a digital stream.</p>

[russell_contreras]

 

<blockquote>

<p>Yeah, maybe that and a decent processing lab that didn't charge an arm and a leg.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tim Lookingbill,<br>

Don't go crazy but I get my E-6 stuff done through Walmart's send out service. It takes a couple of weeks to come back but it's always correctly developed and it's not scratched up or anything like that. It's the cheapest lab I've found. My understanding is it is more difficult for a lab to screw up E-6 processing than print film.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p> But beside that I thought this thread was about it doesn't matter what equipment is used.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>I'm not sure what this thread is about. I think Bob was trying to say don't dismiss any modality. Having been by his website I doubt he of all people would say equipment doesn't matter.</p>

 

 

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"Guitars are completely different than cameras. Guitars <em>create</em> sound. Cameras <em>reproduce</em> what is in front of them."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dunno, Jeff, the analogy seems apt. Some digicams do impose signature looks that are comparable to the characteristic sounds of some guitars. But it's debatable whether those distinctions are significant or even perceptible to anyone other than guitar wonks and photographers. And, like some photographers, some guitarists run so much filtering and processing it doesn't much matter whether they're playing a Teisco Del Rey or a Les Paul.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>It takes a couple of weeks to come back but it's always correctly developed and it's not scratched up or anything like that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Appreciate the tips, Russell, but I just don't have the patience to wait that long for pictures. Besides I have more fun with digital because I am the one injecting my own tastes in how I want the image to look which makes me the ultimate creator. A processing lab can't claim credit for any creative nuances that seem to be desired by mobile phone device photographers.</p>

<p>As an afterthought, I sure am amazed and glad that Bob's linked site can market and promote the idea of mobile phone photography the way they have. Just didn't realize there were that many graphic design minded folks who shoot slick and sophisticated looking photos using a mobile phone. Wonder how their high paying corporate clients think about that?</p>

<p> </p>

[russell_contreras]

<blockquote>

<p>And, like some photographers, some guitarists run so much filtering and processing it doesn't much matter whether they're playing a Teisco Del Rey or a Les Paul.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think this is a very correct statement. I find a lot of these "oh look what I did with this little camera posts" use a particular camera in a specific situation, then heavily process the image and only display the results at shrunken internet resolution. Now if someone were to take side by side pictures with an iphone and a DSLR of various diverse scenes and then place minimally processed 20"x24" prints on a wall side by side the differences between the two would be readily apparent in presumably every case.</p>

<p>The thing is I don't want to limit my photography to certain types of scenes. I also don't want to spend my time Photoshopping. I would rather shoot a DSLR and get it close to perfect in the camera and do a couple of minimal tweaks in Camera Raw or whatever and then send the image off to be printed. I like taking pictures... not Photoshopping.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>But it's debatable whether those distinctions are significant or even perceptible to anyone other than guitar wonks and photographers.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I find spending five minutes pointing out the quality differences between two prints makes the deficiencies readily apparent to the vast majority of people. You have to be careful though. Once you show people the noise in the shadows of their compact digicam or their cell phone camera images a small subset become neurotic. I usually just talk them down and explain to them if they want to use a tiny senor that is the trade off they are making. I show them the alternative is lugging around a noisy DSLR. That usually smooths them out.</p>

[russell_contreras]

<blockquote>

<p>Appreciate the tips, Russell, but I just don't have the patience to wait that long for pictures.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Film requires patience. No doubt about that.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Besides I have more fun with digital because I am the one injecting my own tastes in how I want the image to look which makes me the ultimate creator. <strong>A processing lab can't claim credit for any creative nuances that seem to be desired by mobile phone device photographers</strong>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think they are claiming credit for nuances of any type. I suggested E-6 processing because it is consistent. If you send out five E-6 rolls shot at the same time on the same equipment to five different decent E-6 labs they should all come back basically identical. That's the point. It's consistent and predictable. My understanding is print film is less consistent and is more susceptible to the vagaries of whichever lab develops the roll/sheet.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Just didn't realize there were that many graphic design minded folks who shoot slick and sophisticated looking photos using a mobile phone. Wonder how their high paying corporate clients think about that?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you can deliver the agreed upon image at the agreed upon price I don't think they know or care how the image is created. Personally for my workflow I prefer to have a nice, low noise, RAW file to work with. It's easier and more versatile for me. If I was shooting commercially to put food on the table I wouldn't muck about with a phone cam. The ergonomics are atrocious.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> A processing lab can't claim credit for any creative nuances

that seem to be desired by mobile phone device photographers.<P>

 

Nor would there be any patience for that. I can upload a processed 20x20" image online to Costco, where it is printed on 20x30" paper from an Epson

4880 professional ink jet printer using K3 inks, yielding superb black and white. For $8.99.<P>

 

An hour or so latter, I pick it up, trim to 20x20, and put it in an Ikea 20x20 shadow box frame. Easy, quick, and looks really good... Here's a quick snap I just took of <a href= "http://citysnaps.net/2011%20photos/White.jpg"> one I did

yesterday</a> - sorry for the bad reflections behind me showing on the glass...<P>

 

<center>

<img src= "http://citysnaps.net/2011%20photos/Framed400.jpg"><BR>

.

<P>

</center>

[wogears]

<blockquote>

<p>You can buy a used Canon DSLR and a 50 mm 1.8 and take pictures that will smoke what you can take with an iphone.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Show me one. One that 'smokes' the pictures in the original link. Those have vision and imagination; I see all too many shot with DSLRs that have neither. They may have Eye-Cue and Bokeh, but who cares if the image has no emotional context?<br>

<br>

An iPhone or Android is a great choice for street photography, because these days they are invisible. </p>

[russell_contreras]

<blockquote>

<p>Show me one. One that 'smokes' the pictures in the original link. Those have <strong>vision and imagination</strong>...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Unfortunately vision and imagination are not something that comes from a cold metal technological device. That is something that comes from within the artist. Purchasing a $600 camera phone or a $500 DSLR kit ain't going to give you either.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I don't know what Brad's snap of his print of the linked image is supposed to show. When talking specifically about quality and aesthetics of a print, we'd need to see the print, not a low res screen image of the file that got printed and not a snap of the print. A print is a different animal from a low res screen image or a snap of it. I'm not putting down screen images. They are now a good means of delivery and some photographers even tailor their processing to the backlit monitor and the screen viewing experience. But I can't tell by looking at a low res screen image whether the print has held the detail in the darker dark areas and how the strong hair highlights are rendered. I can't tell if the contrast in print is anywhere near what we're seeing on the monitor. I can't tell if the emotional or visual or aesthetic impact of the print is anywhere near what it is on the monitor. A print is a print. It's quality can't be shown this way.</p>

[russell_contreras]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't know what Brad's snap of his print of the linked image is supposed to show. When talking specifically about quality and aesthetics of a print, we'd need to see the print, not a low res screen image of the file that got printed and not a snap of the print. A print is a different animal from a low res screen image or a snap of it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred G.,</p>

<p>You and I have some differences on our preferred subject matter for photography be we match up 100% on this aspect of photography. I've quoted you for truth.</p>