Printable View
Shooting landscape with a wide angle lens requires a different compositional approach - otherwise, you'll end up with boring photos of distant mountains.Quote:
Originally Posted by muted
Sometimes, the best zoom or "telephoto" is your feet. Look at how Galen Rowell used to shoot.
... Thom
Phones taking “way better shots” these days is mainly based on sophisticated processing algorithms. Your phone measures the light, ups the ISO, and has decent IS like a GoPro.
Going manual and making an image, shooting raw, and using a tripod to reduce ISO levels is still going to yield a much higher-quality image. Assuming the processing is also high quality.
I have yet to find an app that allows me to adjust aperture. There are some processing presets that approximate that, but phones (at least my iPhone XR) can’t actually change aperture. The LR mobile app is nice to allow raw, but there are still significant limitations and I would say that my mobile has a pretty decent camera.
Ultimately though, most images are shared on IG or something similar. And phones’ sophisticated processing is really all that most people need.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
^^^ this ^^^Quote:
Originally Posted by splitter
I just shot my entire European vacation using my S9 and the 18MM and 58MM Moment lenses. I am really happy with the results so far.
I might try to download that LR app for the last few days here in Sicily. TR to follow.
Couple of example shots-
https://scontent-mxp1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...02&oe=5E200181
https://scontent-mxp1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...58&oe=5E2B926D
Nice.
I've been saying lately to the phone deniers, go to a museum and check out some famous photos shot on 35mm, usually Tri-X. The prints are small, and, well, suck, a lot of them. Phones today are so much better than that, and, in five to ten years, I might be making 16x20s in my P800 that you could step a few feet back from and say, hmmmm, not bad. As though 99% of phone pics actually make it to any kind of paper print, though.
Not that I'm planning on using a phone like that. I'm waiting for the 2000 dollar or less small mirrorless 65 or even 100 MP camera to hit the market. Maybe 3000 dollars. The same tech progression will make that. Then I can buy a camera that will last a decade, because I won't need anything more. Unless they make a sub 1000 dollar 150 MP portable, small camera.
I wonder how hard it is to create a small manufacturing company that will make phone cases with a sliding door or some sort of cover for the lenses (now, lenses on the iPhone) on the back? Is that too much to ask? That is the biggest issue with these contraptions - the lens gets all mucked up with crap during daily use. That, and, not being able to see the screen in bright sunlight.
I'm looking, he definitely didn't use an iphone. I'm not into the foreground-anchoring style either to solve my problem, I'm looking for a real camera, like what he uses.Quote:
Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un
Yup. the whole point of a 35mm Leica or a 35mm Nikon was it was the lightest flexiblest thing that would take a good enough picture. "good" pictures were taken with MF or LF. course the other reason some of those pictures suck is they didn't have "the best" equipment even within their preferred format, Robert Frank wasn't a pixel peeping messageboard whore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny Profane
the whole ultraflexible zoom with your feet works with an uncrowded world... not so much some things now. You aren't going to go sprinting across Lhasa to take a picture of the Pothala palace. street photography? meh. get off my lawn.
Pro Tip 4 bennie: Don't put the phone in the stolen sandwich meats pocket from the breakfast buffet at Big SkyQuote:
Originally Posted by Benny Profane
That's pretty cool. I follow a photographer on IG by the name of Dina Alfasi. I think she's Israeli. She shoots a lot of in your face portraits in trains that are quite nice, and, yeah, that's something that would be hard to impossible to do with a camera.Quote:
Originally Posted by BaNosser
Of course it is, when the only place people consume photos anymore is instagram it doesn't really matter.
I have gone on several amazing trips the past few years with friends and took the time to take photos and process them and send out download links for high res photos and no one ever consumed them anywhere other than scrolling on their mobile phones.
Everything could be 4000 ISO and out of focus completely and you never know on a smartphone.
Eventually you start thinking... "what is the point".
I'm not saying you can't take a great photo on a smartphone, but I see a lot that aren't so great that look great on that little screen with the auto HDR and really vibrant processing.
I started an incendiary thread on reddit analogcommunity a week ago talking about why "street" is shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by dunfree
I still love getting the comment notifications. That M6 or that Ricoh GR3 aren't really doing much for the medium other than keeping profits and prices high.
is there still street photography? it seems like what passes for street now consists of some fashion whores posing outside like peter lindbergh’s flock of models at the brooklyn bridge. it’s a shame. actual street photography is so cool, but i guess everyone else is just staring at their phones now.Quote:
Originally Posted by MakersTeleMark
Of course there is. I can't say I'm an expert on who-is-who, but the new trendy guy is Daniel Arnold, for example, who is king of awkward. His assignments for magazines covering NYC parties can be hilarious, but his street stuff is great. https://www.vogue.com/article/daniel...121?verso=trueQuote:
Originally Posted by ml242
There are a lot of 'fashion whore' photography out there, like @apehouse, which yes it's posing and not in-the-moment, but it still can be good. This guy is interesting too: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/10/s...e-antoine.html
They are all NYC peeps, if anyone wants to share some other worldly people feel free. I've seen some great stuff from some guy in Eastern Europe, can't remember who...but there are a ton of people out there. Walking around NYC I've seen random people with cameras 'hidden' at about waist high in crowded areas, just watching all us awkward people go by. I think Ricky Powell is still out there doing it, too.
lots of thats editing I think - those "great" street photogs took tons of shots, and edited them down to really tight presentations, e.g. Robert Frank shot 767 rolls of film for "The Americans" about 27,000 images, made 1,000 work prints, and edited that down to a book of 83 pictures. And at least 2 of the final pictures came from the same roll of film - there were a bunch that didn't amount to anything obviously.Quote:
Originally Posted by MakersTeleMark
Attachment 298206
I'm not seeing the same dedication to editing in most of the modern practitioners of "street", but then nobody really gives a fuck about books or tightly edited shit anymore it's all just shit on a feed.
friedlander died with 700 undeveloped rolls or something. still, lots of people get pretty far by copying what these guys did.
Why would u want over 50mp? Pixel envy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny Profane
Ability to crop, larger prints.
It's not really mp, that's a crude measure. Better dynamic range, less noise at a little higher ISO would be great, too.
My benchmark is prints made from fine grain 4x5 negs. You still have to spend a ton of money to get close in digital.