farnz Posted July 10, 2009 Share #21 Posted July 10, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Nicely put, Mr Pope. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 10, 2009 Posted July 10, 2009 Hi farnz, Take a look here Does a cellphone do a better job than an M8?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
erl Posted July 11, 2009 Share #22 Posted July 11, 2009 OK. The 'combatants have fired a shot across each others bows! Provacation & response have been executed. I declare that 'one all'. The personal contest is now declared "over." Personal jibes are not appreciated on this forum. Confine the discussion to legitimate commentary please. Now, to address the topic, last night I was shown a stunning image quality pic made on an 8MP cell phone. I reckon its quality exceeded what I often create on my M8. But of course, there are countless other vital factors in acquiring a superb image and these factors often come into play when shooting, most or all of which would exclude the use of a cell phone, or even another high end camera. There is no "best" tool. Just the one that best suits the project at any given time. I think the only complete answer to the thread title is - "Yes, if you are making a phonecall." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfokevin Posted July 11, 2009 Share #23 Posted July 11, 2009 It's not relevant to why we're here and seems, as is your habitual style, to be more deliberately provocative than aired in good faith. It is too bad there is not a "Under The Bridge" subsection to put this worthy thread... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Clair Posted July 11, 2009 Share #24 Posted July 11, 2009 Any camera is only as good as the person holding it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scaryink Posted July 11, 2009 Author Share #25 Posted July 11, 2009 OK. The 'combatants have fired a shot across each others bows! Provacation & response have been executed. I declare that 'one all'. The personal contest is now declared "over." Personal jibes are not appreciated on this forum. Confine the discussion to legitimate commentary please. Now, to address the topic, last night I was shown a stunning image quality pic made on an 8MP cell phone. I reckon its quality exceeded what I often create on my M8. But of course, there are countless other vital factors in acquiring a superb image and these factors often come into play when shooting, most or all of which would exclude the use of a cell phone, or even another high end camera. There is no "best" tool. Just the one that best suits the project at any given time. I think the only complete answer to the thread title is - "Yes, if you are making a phonecall." Spot on. I guess the essence for me is that we can always be observing whether the camera is on our shoulder or on the counter. Some of the best lessons might be learned from simple observation of our environment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
epand56 Posted July 11, 2009 Share #26 Posted July 11, 2009 Cheers - some bloody good images there... a reminder that it's what you take that's important, not what you take it on. Sure, the problem is you can't probably see them any wider than that... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tashley Posted July 11, 2009 Share #27 Posted July 11, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) It is too bad there is not a "Under The Bridge" subsection to put this worthy thread... ROTFL From your signature picture, there'd be plenty of room to host such a subsection! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scaryink Posted July 11, 2009 Author Share #28 Posted July 11, 2009 That's true, though cameras in phones are increasing in quality exponentially - and some are perfectly adequate for A4 (10 inch) prints. Also, sometimes as photographers we can lose sight of the image, especially with today's emphasis on technical quality: if an image says something, has soul, it matters not a jot that it's noisy, soft and can't be printed larger than 6 inches. Capa's D-Day photos could have been taken on anything, and their technical quality is appalling, yet... Well said and so true. Alternatively, you MUST think the capa photo would have been at least a million times better with the newest Noctilux or at the very least a 28 'cron with measurable edge to edge sharpness and far superior contrast. This image would never be up to snuff and shouldn't be shown on this forum. He was capturing history with a - gasp - contax. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alman1 Posted July 11, 2009 Share #29 Posted July 11, 2009 I would reverse the question... Why can't we make phone calls with the M8, that would not be so much work for leica's engineers, and it would be a great feature. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted July 11, 2009 Share #30 Posted July 11, 2009 I would reverse the question...Why can't we make phone calls with the M8,... Oh, but you can. The only problem I find is that no one you call ever answers ... Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwelland Posted July 11, 2009 Share #31 Posted July 11, 2009 Well said and so true. Alternatively, you MUST think the capa photo would have been at least a million times better with the newest Noctilux or at the very least a 28 'cron with measurable edge to edge sharpness and far superior contrast. This image would never be up to snuff and shouldn't be shown on this forum. He was capturing history with a - gasp - contax. Tangent: btw, Capa's photos would have been a LOT better if the darkroom tech in London hadn't fried them all ... we only have the crispy critters left that weren't completely baked & destroyed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted July 12, 2009 Share #32 Posted July 12, 2009 My point is that what's important is the image, not technical quality. Would the D-Day photos if they were more technically proficient tell a clearer story or more about what those soldiers were going through? No. In fact, if they were sharper, without camera shake, and correctly developed, they may well impart less. Sometimes I think that we as photographers forget that a good photograph has nothing to do with equipment. Lesser equipment will impose constraints but that does not mean worse photographs. In fact, perhaps we ought to apply an acid test to our own photos: would any work if taken with a cheap camera-phone? If not, is the fault our camera or our eye. Give the Magnum photographer Trent Parke a camera-phone, and his images would still stun us! I think you've argued yourself into incoherence. If a good photograph has nothing to do with equipment then there is no such thing as "lesser equipment". Also, a good photographer can take good photographs with a cheap cameraphone - but they won't be the same photographs s/he would take with their favoured equipment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpattinson Posted July 12, 2009 Share #33 Posted July 12, 2009 Really, I think the most important determinants of a great photograph are: 1. where you stand 2. when you push the button All the rest of it: sharpness, focus, dof, resolution, even subject to some degree, are less important. So, the cameraphone is clearly at least as good as an M8 in the 'where you stand' aspect. Quite possibly better in that you are more likely to be carrying it. However, the cameraphone does fail on the 'when you push the button' aspect. Shutter-lag is the bane of most digital point-and-shoots, and isn't any better on any of the camera phones I've used. So, I would say that camera phones do not do a better job than the M8 on what I consider to be the most important aspects of a good photograph. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted July 12, 2009 Share #34 Posted July 12, 2009 Rich, Do you have permission to publish the Capa and Tarkovsky photos? Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted July 12, 2009 Share #35 Posted July 12, 2009 If Ansell Adams had had a PhoneCam, I reckon all he could do with it would be TALK! And that's how it should be. Similarly, a lot of my pics could be taken on a PhoneCam, but would fail because of it. Once again I will say, as a craftsman you must choose your tools carefully, AND know how to use them. Personally, I use phones for talking and cameras for imaging. Never seen any evidence to demonstrate I've got it wrong. If any of you are having trouble working it out, get a parrot to talk for you and a kinder kid to make the pictures. It will be a winning combination. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted July 12, 2009 Share #36 Posted July 12, 2009 Thanks, Rich, just wanted to be certain to avoid trouble for Andreas. Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scaryink Posted July 12, 2009 Author Share #37 Posted July 12, 2009 If Ansell Adams had had a PhoneCam, I reckon all he could do with it would be TALK! And that's how it should be. Similarly, a lot of my pics could be taken on a PhoneCam, but would fail because of it. Once again I will say, as a craftsman you must choose your tools carefully, AND know how to use them. Personally, I use phones for talking and cameras for imaging. Never seen any evidence to demonstrate I've got it wrong. If any of you are having trouble working it out, get a parrot to talk for you and a kinder kid to make the pictures. It will be a winning combination. While some may believe that the good old dayz are be better than the thin now - there is a point the world is moving towards - convergence. It may be overwhelming and indeed intimidating, but it is here to stay. The dearly revered AA was not Moses bringing the tablets of photographic truth, he was indeed talented but never did own the patent to all things good in photography. If he couldnt have used a cellphone camera - oh well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted July 12, 2009 Share #38 Posted July 12, 2009 While some may believe that the good old dayz are be better than the thin now - there is a point the world is moving towards - convergence. It may be overwhelming and indeed intimidating, but it is here to stay. The dearly revered AA was not Moses bringing the tablets of photographic truth, he was indeed talented but never did own the patent to all things good in photography. If he couldnt have used a cellphone camera - oh well. Ah such a set of non-sequitors and red herrings, and I don't believe I've ever heard Moses and Ansel Adams mentioned before in the same sentence The photographer takes (creates) the photograph. The camera is just a tool. A great photographer with a pinhole camera could out-shoot 99% of photographers using the best technology available, because there's more to photography (and visual arts) than the technology. To that extent (the visual excellence of the image) the technology is mostly inconsequential. But--and this is an important but--technology *is* related to technique. So like any tool, there are ones more or less suited to the job. Currently, cell-phone snapshots are suited to low-resolution reproductions of slow-moving (often stationary) objects in well-lit situations. Shutter lag alone makes them unacceptable for events, at least for the way I like to shoot) though you could always get lucky I suppose (a ton of point and shoots suffer from the same laggy shutter, and it's important). IOW, in most of the cell-phone pictures (even those linked) I've ever seen, the precise moment is never caught except for dumb luck. While I enjoy a random art as much as the next person (and maybe more) it's not deliberate. The deliberate cell-phone compositions I've seen all-too-often are not even sophomoric composition exercises in a completely static field. So for me they're a toy: they miss the fact that even a Brownie could capture the photographic impulse to shoot. About a million other things the M8 does that no cell-phone does makes the M8 an infinitely better photographic tool than any "converged" thing out there, or anything likely to come within the rest of my life. And this has nothing to do with the "good old days." When every camera can take video easily and perfectly, we'll see if we get qualitatively better video or just an overwhelming amount of perfectly exposed crap Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted July 13, 2009 Share #39 Posted July 13, 2009 While some may believe that the good old dayz are be better than the thin now - there is a point the world is moving towards - convergence. It may be overwhelming and indeed intimidating, but it is here to stay. The dearly revered AA was not Moses bringing the tablets of photographic truth, he was indeed talented but never did own the patent to all things good in photography. If he couldnt have used a cellphone camera - oh well. Scary, maybe I was being too oblique for you. My ref. to A.A. was directing my comment towards his work. That is the part that never would have succedded on a cellphone, but indeed did need quality gear to record what he did (mainly). It is often said that "the devil is in the detail". With Adams work it is "the beauty is in the detail." That aside, I never reverred his subject matter more than anyone elses. His use of "the right tool(s)" was his forte; and should be ours. On the point about convergence. I suspect that to be interchangeable with collision!......... with similar consequences. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted July 13, 2009 Share #40 Posted July 13, 2009 As the Capa example shows, any camera can be used to take a fuzzy picture. That's easy. Getting a sharp picture is what's difficult and expensive - and it has its uses. If your world is limited to the Web, most anything can look good. Which does not speak to the high quality of cellphones images, but only to the low-quality, least-common-denominator character of the Web. Even though I'm a web journalist, I do most of my living elsewhere. In the real world, where 16x20 prints are my norm and fine detail is often (not always) a part of the content of the image. Where good writing is not 140 characters on Twitter, but a novel or magazine piece. I just don't see a need to limit myself. That being said, Ansel hisownself said, "There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept." And Bill Pierce said, "Never confuse 'sharp' with 'good' - or you'll end up licking razor blades and shaving with an ice cream cone." When a cell phone can do this - then let's talk (M8,90 'cron): Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/90371-does-a-cellphone-do-a-better-job-than-an-m8/?do=findComment&comment=960727'>More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.