Who needs a DSLR?

Spearhead · June 16, 2012

I understand where Jeff's misstatement comes from, the all-too-easy mistaking of a photograph for its referent.

</blockquote>

And that is total nonsense. As I said, I never claimed that "misstatement." There was no "misstatement." It's not like I claimed that Brad didn't photograph unusual people on the street.

If one takes 30 seconds to look up the definition of the word "reproduce," one will find that the rest of the world understands it to be more than simply an exact copy. One person cannot remove most of the definition in order to make an argument, it doesn't work that way.

lex_jenkins · June 16, 2012

Russell, I don't necessarily disagree with your opinions. But I didn't intend for my guitar analogy to carry any particular statements regarding a purist approach. Some of my favorite guitarists run their Teisco Del Reys and Les Pauls through tons of filtering and processing. In the end it's the music that matters to me, although I'd be lying if I claimed I didn't have at least a passing interest in their process as well. Much as I admire virtuoso guitarists, I enjoy equally the soundscapes of Cocteau Twins despite Robin Guthrie's claims to be a merely competent player. Filtering, processing and editing *are* art forms every bit equal to the earlier stages of the creative process.

Saint Ansel - a trained classical musician - has been widely quoted for his statement "The negative is the score, and the print is the performance". I'm continually astonished by the performances - the prints - produced by imaginative and creative photographers. While I'm curious about their equipment and process, in the end technical issues like "noise" are usually irrelevant for pretty much the same reason a noisy, hissy, hummy Stratocaster with single coil pickups continues to be a classic sound in the right hands despite the availability of "superior" technology.

Larry_G1664882113 · June 16, 2012

Bob, First as a DSLR user yourself, your question must be intended as rhetorical, to stir thinking and emphasize that it's not the camera that matters; it's the vision and skill of the person behind the camera. Good lenses don't have to cost thousands of dollars each, yet some do. I recently acquired a Lumix LX5 point and shoot that yields superb results, but it's not a replacement for my Nikon D80 (an antique that I have felt the need to replace) just an alternative. The DSLR has capabilities on a tripod that point and shoots don't, and point and shoots and iPhones have a leg up on ease of use and transport.

I recently saw a photography exhibit of Brian Brake, a superb New Zealand photojournalist. He emphasized (he died in the late 1980's or 90's, I think) the desire to not look like a photographer with lots of equipment. I think he used Leica rangefinders that he could stick in his pocket. Maybe the point and shoot is today's affordable version of this. Thanks for posing the question. Larry

Brad_ · June 16, 2012

>>> I don't know what Brad's snap of his print of the linked image is supposed to show.

Uh-oh...

Sorry Fred, it was not my intent to confuse and stymie, again. Your analysis is based on *your* flawed

premise/intent. Which of course was not mine.

>>> 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.

Of course not. If you are really that interested (I suspect you're not) in how they hold detail in dark/light areas, etc, I can refer you to a gallery not far from you, where they can be inspected on a wall, under proper light.

russell_contreras · June 16, 2012

But I didn't intend for my guitar analogy to carry any particular statements regarding a purist approach.

</blockquote>

Oh I know. If a picture is nice it's nice. It doesn't matter how it's created. I was commenting more from the perspective of my own personal work flow. If I can go out and buy a DSLR kit for less than an iphone 4s and it will have better ergonomics and get me my results faster that's what I'm going to use personally. I am not really concerned with what other people use as long as the results are equivalent. My point about Photoshop was if I can get my results faster because my out of camera shots require less processing I see that as a positive.

Filtering, processing and editing *are* art forms every bit equal to the earlier stages of the creative process.

</blockquote>

They are. I personally think some of that stuff takes more talent than some of the stuff I do out in the field. That's why I avoid it as much as possible. If I can get to the results quicker by achieving results in camera that's what I do. I notice on the internet periodically people with argue about the necessity of polarizer filters. Some claim you can achieve the effect in Photoshop. Well for me it literally takes seconds to get the polarizer effect with the filter on the camera in the field. Why would I want to mess with learning a bunch of Photoshop tricks and fiddle with it. If someone can do a reasonable polarizer facsimile in Photoshop that's great. That's talented. I just don't see why I would spend the extra time when it takes seconds to do in camera.

carbon_dragon · June 17, 2012

Choosing an iPhone as a photographic tool in preference to a camera is likely choosing a Corvette convertable to haul firewood. It will work, but it isn't the best tool for the job. It is an irrational choice. As I've shown by my postings, you can get moderately decent shots with the sensors in the iPhone, but the ergonomics aren't very good AS A CAMERA. This acts as a limiting factor on someone who tries to use it in that way.

This isn't the same as using a 35mm CAMERA in preference to a 8x10 view CAMERA. Both of these devices are built as photographic instruments.

God knows I've seen some interesting shots from some pretty decrepit devices but I don't see someone running around a football field with a quaker oats box with a pinhole on the end trying to capture the game. The fact is that devices made for photography are usually better at the job than a device like the iPhone which is meant to capture photographs as a secondary or possibly tertiary job.

I don't mind experimenting with my iPhone (obviously) but I'm not going to give up any of my actual cameras and I doubt anyone else who is serious about photography will either.

Brad_ · June 17, 2012

>>> I don't mind experimenting with my iPhone (obviously) but I'm not going to give up any of my actual

cameras and I doubt anyone else who is serious about photography will either.

I know quite a few photographers that are "serious about photography" who have. Including myself, going on 9 months now.

>>> The fact is that devices made for photography are usually better at the job than a device like the

iPhone which is meant to capture photographs as a secondary or possibly tertiary job.

With respect to that fact, you are speaking just for yourself, right?

russell_contreras · June 17, 2012

God knows I've seen some interesting shots from some pretty decrepit devices but I don't see someone running around a football field with a quaker oats box with a pinhole on the end trying to capture the game. The fact is that devices made for <a id="itxthook3" href="00aVPu?start=80" rel="nofollow">photography</a> are usually better at the job than a device like the iPhone which is meant to capture <a id="itxthook4" href="00aVPu?start=80" rel="nofollow">photographs</a> as a secondary or possibly tertiary job.

</blockquote>

David W. Griffin,

That's hilarious. I was thinking about that same exact analogy. I actually I was thinking I do take issue with you about one thing. My analogy would actually be about two cameras. While reading this I thought 35mm cameras are good and large format cameras are good. I would never compare the image quality of a 35mm camera to that of a large format camera. But then again I wouldn't photograph a football game with a large format camera!

Cameras are just tools. People have subjective preferences regarding tools. But if you have to make general objective statements about cameras no one can claim an iphone in general is better than a DSLR. Now an iphone might be better for clandestinely sneaking some street photography shots but it's not in general going to be better across a wide variety of tasks. All kinds of mini spy cameras have been built and they work great for their purpose but if anyone told me that for general use a spy camera was better than a digital SLR they would lose all credibility with me. Again though I don't think that is what Bob was saying.

steve m smith · June 17, 2012

"Guitars are completely different than cameras. Guitars create sound. Cameras reproduce what is in front of them."

</blockquote>

Cameras don't take pictures on their own and guitars don't play themselves.

mjferron · June 17, 2012

I forgot my iphone had a camera.

john_jennings2 · June 18, 2012

Wow! Are people still asking this question? Here's MY take. While affordable digital cameras don't QUITE deliver the quality of the best ISO 100 35mm films, the advantages of digital overwhelmingly make it the best choice for average users. I crank away hundreds of shots at family gatherings and public events, chasing that elusive peak action shot. Edit ruthlessly down to the best dozen or so, and a good time was had by all. When I have time, I shoot at ISO 100, compose carefully, and do all that to get 11 x 14 inch print quality.

I still got a few film cameras, but doubt I'll ever break them out again. Rather be shooting than in the darkroom, spending TONS of money on film and proccessing, or waiting for the mailman.

Both Nikon and Canon have intro DSLR's with a kit zoom in the $550 range, especially at Christmas time. Acquire. Shoot. Enjoy. Repeat.

Brad_ · June 18, 2012

>>> Now an iphone might be better for clandestinely sneaking some street photography shots but it's not

in general going to be better across a wide variety of tasks.

Do you shoot street photography and shoot with a cellphone? I do, and along with others I know who do,

don't sneak shots. Why on earth would you do that when you can simply square up in front of your

subject(s) and take the shot?

How about you?

carbon_dragon · June 18, 2012

I'm not a people photographer, but even I have been practically attacked by people who thought I was taking pictures of them or their property. And this was in my own apartment complex. People are often unreasonable and a bit mad. The talent for handling these situation is one I do not possess. I admire that talent in others, but if you don't have it, squaring up in front of your subject and taking the shot might be dangerous.

russell_contreras · June 18, 2012

Do you shoot street photography and shoot with a cellphone? I do, and along with others I know who do, don't sneak shots. Why on earth would you do that when you can simply square up in front of your subject(s) and take the shot?

</blockquote>

The point of the post was not why people take shots like that. The point was what is a superior tool for that job. For a niche application like clandestine people photography an argument can be made that a phone camera is superior in spite of the fact that as a general all round camera a DSLR is superior. Check out <a href="http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/photos/">People of Walmart</a>. Practically the entire webstite is an homage to clandestine people photography... I don't think any of those shots were done with a DSLR.

I'm not a people photographer, but even I have been practically attacked by people who thought I was taking pictures of them or their property. And this was in my own apartment complex. People are often unreasonable and a bit mad.

</blockquote>

Absolutely. In general I don't take clandestine photographs because I feel it is an invasion of privacy. You are right though. I have taken just general pictures of a street and frankly not even noticed one person in the frame and they thought I was taking a picture of them. It's unbelievable. I'm standing at a distance on a busy street with a wide angle lens and they feel they are the focus of the whole scene.

The other problem is people that want to be in the scene. People see the DSLR get pulled out and they will just linger in your shot because they think they are going to get famous. I've literally had to stand and wait for people to move along so I can get a shot. Or once you start framing up the shot crowds of the curious start to congeal around you because they want a picture of whatever this "professional" photographer is taking a picture of. If you ever do one of those tourist bus group tours you don't want to be the guy with the nicest looking camera on the bus. Every schmuck will crowd around to get the same shot you are taking because they assume you are some artistic genius.

russell_contreras · June 18, 2012

We're being fooled again. The Mobile Photography Awards is more a Photoshop contest. The two or three exceptions deserve to win for their superb composition

</blockquote>

Michael Chang, I missed your post earlier and paraphrased your thoughts in one of my own posts. The gallery in question is showing off what can be done with Photoshop. It is not showing off smartphone cameras. I shoot everything. Print film, slide film, DSLR, smartphone, etc. I use Photoshop. I use filters on my lenses. I cross process. I do all kinds of things but to be honest with you the majority of my work is done either in B&W film with either an orange filter or no filter or digital with either no filter or a polarizer. I do as little post processing as possible.

I can take an amateur and point them to a DSLR, lens, and polarizer and have them taking technically nice shots in no time (composition and choice of subject is another matter). I personally couldn't even come up with the Photoshop results in that gallery let alone teach the average smartphone user how to do it. You could give me a $40,000 digital medium format setup and a fully fitted out studio and it still wouldn't happen.

Brad_ · June 18, 2012

>>> I'm not a people photographer, but even I have been practically attacked by people who thought I was taking

pictures of them or their property. And this was in my own apartment complex. People are often unreasonable and a

bit mad.

People do respond to a photographer's behavior. If you act suspicious, people can pick up on that 100 feet away.

>>> I admire that talent in others, but if you don't have it, squaring up in front of your subject and taking the shot

might be dangerous.

Even more dangerous is sneaking photos. I've never had a problem being upfront and open taking pictures. Some

places I shoot would turn instantly disastrous for me if I were to sneak clandestine shots.

>>>> The point of the post was not why people take shots like that. The point was what is a superior tool for that

job. For a niche application like clandestine people photography an argument can be made that a phone camera is

superior in spite of the fact that as a general all round camera a DSLR is superior.

A person who does not engage in street photography would believe that to be true. Camera type makes no difference

for candid street photography. Again, using a cellphone cam in sp is not about being sneaky or clandestine, but

having a tool that compliments your photography. For me and many others, it's a cellphone cam.

carbon_dragon · June 18, 2012

I agree with that whole post. I do feel "sneaky" and that probably comes through. That said, in the incident I talked about, I was just walking for exercise with my camera looking for flowers and textures etc. to take pictures of and the guy came running out of his apartment and practically attacked me. As near as I can tell, he thought I was a representative of someone he was having trouble with or something. It wasn't clear. I'm usually pretty good about NOT looking like I'm shooting pictures of anyone.

Hey I ordered this just to see if it makes any difference in using the iPhone AS a camera. More in the nature of an experiment rather than a lifestyle change though ;-)

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B007KDM558/ref=pe_175190_21431760_M2C_ST1_dp_3">http://www.amazon.com/dp/B007KDM558/ref=pe_175190_21431760_M2C_ST1_dp_3</a>

russell_contreras · June 18, 2012

>>>> The point of the post was not why people take shots like that. The point was what is a superior tool for that job. For a niche <a id="itxthook1" href="00aVPu?start=90" rel="nofollow">application</a> like clandestine people photography an argument can be made that a phone camera is superior in spite of the fact that as a general all round camera a <a id="itxthook2" href="00aVPu?start=90" rel="nofollow">DSLR</a> is superior.

A person who does not engage in street photography would believe that to be true. Camera type makes no difference for candid street photography. Again, using a <a id="itxthook3" href="00aVPu?start=90" rel="nofollow">cellphone</a> cam in sp is not about being sneaky or clandestine, but having a tool that compliments your photography. For me and many others, it's a cellphone cam.

</blockquote>

Brad, you are fixating on street photography. All I was illustrating is that a reasonable argument can be made that a smartphone is superior for certain niche applications, but as a general all round shooter for the average person a DSLR is obviously the better choice.

The exception does not disprove the rule. And just because their is a general rule doesn't mean there are not exceptions. I have shot street photography and I like billions of people on the planet have taken surreptitious snaps with a camera phone. It works well for that purpose. Better than a DSLR. It's small silent and if you hold it right it doesn't look out of place and threatening.

Brad_ · June 18, 2012

>>> Brad, you are fixating on street photography.

You brought up clandestine people photography. My point is there's no need to be clandestine. That's what street

photographers routinely do; shooting without feeling the need to be sneaky.

>>> I have shot street photography and I like billions of people on the planet have taken surreptitious snaps with a

camera phone. It works well for that purpose.

And it works just as well for people who don't feel the need to sneak shots. Again, that's not the point of using a

cellphone camera.

>>> Better than a DSLR. It's small silent and if you hold it right it doesn't look out of place and threatening.

No. It is not cameras that can look out of place and threatening. Rather, it's a photographer's behavior and attitude.

carbon_dragon · June 18, 2012

How someone perceives a photographer is both related to how the photographer acts, and the "meaning" the person watching puts on it. My own experience demonstrates that pretty well. You can be as innocent as you want, and sometimes people will still ascribe to you motivations that you don't actually have.

Taking a picture with a cellphone or a relative unimpressive LOOKING camera tends to look more innocent than a Nikon D4 with a 300mm lens and a motor drive but there are no guarantees. Which is why I like taking pictures of trees instead of people.

Brad_ · June 18, 2012

>>> Nikon D4 with a 300mm lens and a motor drive but there are no guarantees.

With that you would likely be shooting something a block or two away and probably be acting nervous (your behavior) as a

result. That would quickly invite a ton of suspicion about what you're up to. Instead, put on a 35mm lens, get

close, be confident/proactive, and you'll be much better off.

russell_contreras · June 18, 2012

You brought up clandestine people photography. My point is there's no need to be clandestine. That's what street photographers routinely do; shooting without feeling the need to be sneaky.

</blockquote>

Okay, let's move beyond specific applications. My point was an 8x10 camera is excellent and has some advantages in certain situations and a camera phone can have advantages in certain situations. But a DSLR remains the best generalist camera amongst the three for the average photo enthusiast/professional. Whatever niche applications and perceived advantages an 8x10 shooter or smartphone shooter settles on is up to them. It's a free country. That's all I was trying to convey.

Brad_ · June 18, 2012

>>> But a DSLR remains the best generalist camera amongst the three for the average photo

enthusiast/professional.

That blanket statement may be true for you personally. Some may feel differently; ie a better enthusiast

choice could be one of the new "mirrorless" cams. Or a cellphone cam.

Good/great photography comes from a photographer's ability to see, imagination, and the ability to

translate what's before his/her camera into a compelling image. It's not about "the best." For example, my 5DII with 35mm f/1.4 L lens obviously offers better technical specs than my cellphone cam. But that does not necessarily or automatically translate into producing better images with more evocative pull.

russell_contreras · June 18, 2012

>>> But a DSLR remains the best generalist camera amongst the three for the average photo enthusiast/professional.

That blanket statement may be true for you personally. Some may feel differently; ie a better enthusiast choice could be one of the new "mirrorless" cams.

</blockquote>

I believe I said "amongst the three." The cameras listed were 8x10, DSLR, and camera phone. No mention of "mirrorless" cams.

>>> But a DSLR remains the best generalist camera amongst the three for the average photo enthusiast/professional.

That blanket statement may be true for you personally. Some may feel differently; ie a better enthusiast choice could be one of the new "mirrorless" cams. Or a cellphone cam.

</blockquote>

That reply is ironic considering the posts I was replying to. I also said the average photo enthusiast/professional. I did not say "every single last solitary one." Heck there are people that swear by lomography cameras. More power to them. Not my choice but it's a free country.

ilkka_nissila · June 19, 2012

In my opinion Fred's analogy between musical instrument and photography equipment is very valid. The musical instrument can be seen as a filter which takes the musician's finger movement as input and outputs sound which merely modifies the physical movement into a form that causes air to move, heard as pleasing sound. The fidelity of this transformation is dependent on the quality of the instrument. Similarly, the camera records light reflected from the subject and the fidelity of this record depends on the quality of the camera and lens. There are musicians who play with a saw or home-made instruments, and there are photographers who use a Holga, pinhole camera, or a camera phone. That doesn't mean most musicians will choose to do so, nor do most photographers and they all have good reasons for their choices.

one can claim how little the camera matters and then suggest there is such a thing as mobile phone photography. That suggests confusion to me.

I agree. And talking about apps further amplifies the point.

Sign In

Who needs a DSLR?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in