Photography disconnect

[marklcooper]

<p>I was at Lynd Fruit Farm in Pataskala Ohio on Sunday. I have permission to wander around taking photos during the U-pick season. I had my Nikon D300 with battery grip and my Nikkor 70 - 200 mm f/2.8 VR mounted. During my wanderings I came across a young family. The dad was taking pictures of his kids. With his iPad. It was kind of strange watching him hold his iPad up to take a picture. I looked at my equipment, then his, then mine, then his. Now I wish I would have thought to take a picture of him taking pictures of his kids. Unfortunately I had that disconnect where I forgot what I was doing. I'm sure he's very happy with his results. He could upload directly to photo.net while standing out in the orchard if he wanted. I sure wonder what form cameras will take 5 years from now?</p>

<p>I still prefer my Nikon system. Fruit farm pictures can be seen at:<br>

http://auntellensfarm.com/marks-stuff/lynd-fruit-farm-2012<br>

I'm going back again next weekend. Maybe I'll see a Google Nexus Tablet. I'm thinking of taking my Mamiya C330 Pro F. </p><div></div>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm sure he's very happy with his results.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

That's really the only thing that matters.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>A few months ago in downtown Foat Wuth one evening, I watched a fellow using a tablet to take a very clever photo of his kids posed over some blue lights recessed into the sidewalk. I like taking photos of other people taking photos, so I grabbed my camera and... the battery was dead.</p>

<p>My only thought was that at that particular moment, he had the best camera. His still worked.</p>

[starshooter]

<p>Over 100 years to shoot photos on film you had to go into a darkroom and float chemicals on water, picking up the "film" on the water on a glass plate. You had to hang the film to dry and then use the film within five hours or it would go bad. Maybe you didn't get the e-mail, but things change. Right now you can get a camera that peeps out of a hole in the front of a baseball cap and njobody knows you're shooting with it. Me, I prefer shooting on film but digital is so easy to use it is not funny. No doubt they will make cameras so small you won't be able to punch up a new mode because thye buttons are too tiny. It's progress.</p>

[mike dixon]

Turning it into a film vs. digital thread on the third response! Sorry, not a record, but pretty quick.

 

"you had to go into a darkroom . . . You had to . . ."

 

Actually, most people just dropped off a little canister at the store and picked up pictures later.

 

" digital is so easy to use it is not funny"

 

As opposed to a century-old Kodak Brownie, where you push the button and Kodak does the rest . . .

 

The form of cameras has been evolving since they were first created--the only new development is that now your camera can also perform dozens of other functions.

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>I wish I would have thought to take a picture of him taking pictures of his kids. Unfortunately I had that disconnect where I forgot what I was doing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've done that kind of thing before. I was shooting a historic structure, a windmill, when a tour bus pulled up and the occupants got out surrounding the thing snapping away at it. I waited patiently but wished they would soon move on until realizing that they were handing me a gift. An image with them in it would be exponentially better that what I was shooting beforehand. But it was too late and they left before I recovered from my self absorption. <br /><br />Since then I have made more use of people and things 'disrupting' scenery and have produced some highly desirable results. This, in turn, led to other inclusive thinking overall and it helped make me a better photographer. Something far beyond what a fancier camera could ever help me achieve at that windmill or elsewhere.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

Taking pics with iPad/tablet computer isn't all that rare. I saw it every few days working in the tourism business...no need to

know or understand ISO, aperture, SS etc...my ma can shoot even without putting on her bifocals. The result is what

counts, not what mode or what camera used...

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>No doubt they will make cameras so small you won't be able to punch up a new mode because thye buttons are too tiny.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

There's no need for buttons with touch screens, they're a commodity now. And voice input is at the point where it can be used in noisy situations, especially with such a limited number of phrases as a camera requires.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> <br>

I've done that kind of thing before.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Me too. Just yesterday...</p>

<p><img src="http://spirer.com/hpfsolano/content/images/large/_57P3216.jpg" alt="" width="900" height="600" /></p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I live in a very tourist city, and I have seen many people this year carrying tablets for the photos. If it works for them, fine, and if they like the photos they get with it, great. I saw somebody trying his iPad in a poorly-lit church interior, though.... now those are conditions where dedicated cameras do shine a bit more... But again, if the pictures aren't all that important, carrying that camera might be a burden rather than a joy. To each their own.<br>

My main "concern" with them is how clumsy they are to keep still. You hold it with one hand, and then touch the screen to make the photo - I get the idea you'll somehow move the whole lot each time you actually want to take the photo? (Finding the same problem with a cellphone all too often). Handling, in short, is in my view just really poor.<br>

___<br>

Wayne, thanks for the history lesson. I think nobody needed it.</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>Our son's middle school principal just got her iPad from the district. (that's another off topic post for later) At the orientation / welcome back night she was walking around snapping photos left and right with it. </p>

<p>The photos she put up on their website came out quite well - Not DSLR quality, but a step up from the P/S stuff they had in the past. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[William Kahn]

<p>How long before someone asks Josh for an iPod/iPad forum?</p>

[carbon_dragon]

<p>I tried to buy an iPhone case with a tripod mount, but it turned out to be defective and cheap so I didn't buy another one. I like the idea though so those dimly lit church interiors might be more possible (even though I do carry a camera on my vacations). </p>

<p>The iPhone needs better ergonomics if it wants to be taken seriously as a camera though, imho.</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>I take a lot of pictures of people shooting pictures. They are having a great time and in their best animated humor. I get a kick out of someone watching what I'm shooting and then they come over to see what I got. I always encourage the phone and pad shooters. Sometimes they get very nice images.<br /> Bad ergonomics or not, some of the best photographs in galleries I've seen in the past year were shot whith phones.</p><div></div>

[richard_]

<p>the other day i went to a photo exhibition (below) which featured *prints* shot with film and also iphones/ipads (some with the 'hipstamtic' app). Really good! The more choices we have the better...</p><div></div>

[jcuknz]

<p>>>>I wish I would have thought to take a picture of him taking pictures of his kids. Unfortunately I had that disconnect where I forgot what I was doing.<<<<br>

<br>

I had the same experience when watching a couple of women copy a photo of them ... the i-phone was working so close to the picture ... amazing, i forgot to use my camera [ it was away in its bag anyway ]<br>

I was at a dinner last weekend and an I-phone [?] emitted red-eye and taking flashes .....</p>

[wogears]

<blockquote>

<p>Over 100 years to shoot photos on film you had to go into a darkroom and float chemicals on water, picking up the "film" on the water on a glass plate. You had to hang the film to dry and then use the film within five hours or it would go bad. <br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Please, if you are going to describe old processes, at least learn how they actually worked? You did not 'float' chemicals on water, you poured a small quantity of emulsion on a glass plate and swirled it around to coat the plate evenly. You would NOT hang it to dry, because when it was dry, it was useless. You had to expose and develop it wet.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>There was allot of thought that went into the design of the first SLR and later models. With each new model trying to improve on the last. There was practically zero thought that went into the iPad, iPhones etc. They just stuck a teeny tiny camera and lens in there and thats about it....</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>There was practically zero thought that went into the iPad, iPhones etc. They just stuck a teeny tiny camera and lens in there and thats about it....</p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>

 

There is a huge amount of research and effort put into cameras in mobile devices. All it takes is a simple search of the USPTO to see how much. It's not just "sticking something in there." That's something else entirely.</p?

<br /><br />

<p>However, that's not really the point. People take photos and enjoy them. If you have a problem with people enjoying their photos, regardless of what they use to take them, that is your problem.</p>

[jaydesi]

<blockquote>

<p>With each new model trying to improve on the last. There was practically zero thought that went into the iPad, iPhones etc. They just stuck a teeny tiny camera and lens in there and thats about it....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, there is a lot of thought put into them. If they just stuck the parts in there, the image quality would be lousy. Steve Jobs was too much of a perfectionist for the cameras to be handled in a slapdash manner. On Apple devices, anyway. Other companies had to do their own research in order to compete. They're not as good as a DSLR, but if it's the only camera that's handy, it's still better than nothing.</p>

[danmarchant]

<p>Took this while taking a short cut through a city churchyard. I wonder if there was someone with a point and shoot photographing me, while I was photographing this wedding photographer.</p>

<p><img src="http://g4.img-dpreview.com/D0927DE99A114726B88C9C171B842C44.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="533" /></p>

[mike dixon]

"There was practically zero thought that went into the iPad, iPhones etc. They just stuck a teeny tiny camera and lens in there and thats about it...."

 

Using the volume-up button as the "shutter release" on my iPhone, the handling is very similar to the operation of my Sony point'n'shoot, though I do have additional options for triggering the exposure with my phone. Have you ever actually used the camera on a recent smart phone?

[mark_drutz]

<p>Most people don't take photography as seriously as we do. They just want a decent snapshot and a good camera phone can do that. For more serious photographers their phone cameras are always with them. The best camera is the one you have with you. If you are a good photographer you can take good photos with any camera including a camera phone.</p>

<p>I look at them as a substitute for a P&S. If you like having a camera with you all the time and don't want to carry one, a camera phone is a good substitute. Personally I prefer to carry a pocket size camera. Mine is a Panasonic ZS15.</p>