Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Least informed comment ever on digital photography?  (Read 7923 times)
EduPerez
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 696


WWW
« Reply #20 on: October 19, 2009, 01:48:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Dick Roadnight
I was thinking that, for a wedding party, two or three stitches would be ample with a 60 Mpx back ...does anyone do a motorised back for so you can take two or three pictures as fast as bracketing?
Well, it is not a back, it is not as fas as bracketing, and it is for P&S's only, but... Gigapan.
Logged

Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #21 on: October 19, 2009, 02:28:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: EduPerez
Well, it is not a back, it is not as fas as bracketing, and it is for P&S's only, but... Gigapan.
Great idea ... I have a Leica Dlux 3, which I am thinking of upgrading to a Dlux - 4. I was thinking of becoming a robotics engineer, so I might make one myself, especially for using an H4D-60 and a Sinar P2/3 on a Manfrotto Agnoscope 10m tripod, for landscapes where it is difficult to get round foreground obstructions.
Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8385



WWW
« Reply #22 on: October 19, 2009, 05:17:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Chris Pollock
Just about every assertion in this sentence is wrong. Is there anyone here who would defend it?

Well...

He is basically saying that switching to digital has opened the door to inifinite technological progress. His basic assumption is that mobile phone in 10 years from now will deliver an image quality equal to that of our current best cameras. I wouldn't bet much on him being wrong on this account.

The flaw here, so widespread that it might in fact be reality, is that he is obviously overlooking many important aspects of photography (talent, composition, light, moment, location,...). He is one more of these many people for whom photography is still aimed mostly at capturing reality. Per this definition, he is 100% right, mobile phones will soon capture reality as well as today's high end cameras.

How could we blame him for this perceptional gap though? We claim that the photographer's abilities makes 95% of the photograph, yet we keep talking about high resolution, DR, detail capture,... we keep differentiating our work using the brand of the cameras it was shot with (there was one great example in this very thread).

Photography might have been an art form in the film days, but every line we - photographers - write on its technical aspects in the digital world is one additional nail we stick in the coffin of photography as an art form. We de facto contribute to the mobilephonization of our work.

We are not alone, camera manufacturers are also doing a great job at this. The digital revolution is the metrics revolution. An object can be assessed along a limited number of axis, starting with pixel count. Benchmarks have also been invented, supposedely to measure what matters to photographers, and cameras are designed so as to perform well long these axis. People debate within the pre-defined box, but forget that the key thing is to fight the metrics themselves.

This is a beautiful example of self fullfilling prophecy when you think about it.

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: October 19, 2009, 05:25:34 PM by BernardLanguillier » Logged

A few images online here!
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #23 on: October 19, 2009, 06:34:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RSL
Jonathan, Are you talking about "professional" photography or about art? There's a world of difference.

I agree, but I also think that my comments are applicable to either. Yes, professional photography is undergoing great upheaval because many things that used to be done by a professional can be done by Aunt Sally and her digicam with an acceptable level of quality. Because of technological advances, the low-hanging fruit on the tree of for-pay photography is being devoured by hordes of amateurs with digicams or entry-level DSLRs. But those same technological advances have raised the top of the tree quite a bit higher than it used to be. Those who learn to climb survive, those who don't are eaten by the zombies.

The same is true of art. New tools offer new means of artistic expression. Some people learn how to use them creatively, others don't.
Logged

Chris Pollock
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 213


« Reply #24 on: October 20, 2009, 03:43:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
He is basically saying that switching to digital has opened the door to inifinite technological progress. His basic assumption is that mobile phone in 10 years from now will deliver an image quality equal to that of our current best cameras. I wouldn't bet much on him being wrong on this account.
He didn't use the future tense. He wrote that a current mobile phone camera can outperform the best professional equipment.

Unless cell phones become a lot bigger, I very much doubt that a phone camera 10 years from now will be able to outperform a medium format digital back or large format film camera of today. I'd be suprised if it could even equal a current 35mm DSLR. I predict that fundamental physics (diffraction, shot noise, etc.)will limit what can be done. In 10 years we'll see if I'm right.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8385



WWW
« Reply #25 on: October 20, 2009, 04:04:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Chris Pollock
He didn't use the future tense. He wrote that a current mobile phone camera can outperform the best professional equipment.

Unless cell phones become a lot bigger, I very much doubt that a phone camera 10 years from now will be able to outperform a medium format digital back or large format film camera of today. I'd be suprised if it could even equal a current 35mm DSLR. I predict that fundamental physics (diffraction, shot noise, etc.)will limit what can be done. In 10 years we'll see if I'm right.

We will see. I don't think anybody 5 years ago would have expected Canon and Nikon to release DSLRs with usable ISO 100,000 in 2009, and the very same physical reasons were used then to explain us why it would not be possible to do.

Whether his predictions end up being true or not is not really the point anyway. The belief is what matters.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6553



WWW
« Reply #26 on: October 20, 2009, 09:40:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Seems to me this thread is getting awfully close to the "my camera (or whatever) is bigger than yours" kind of argument you can see every day on "Leica User Forum" or "Nikonians" or the equivalent forum for Canon. What difference does it make whether or not a cell phone will be able to shoot quality pictures? If it can, I'll be happy to use a cell phone to make quality pictures.
Logged

Chris Pollock
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 213


« Reply #27 on: October 20, 2009, 04:13:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
We will see. I don't think anybody 5 years ago would have expected Canon and Nikon to release DSLRs with usable ISO 100,000 in 2009, and the very same physical reasons were used then to explain us why it would not be possible to do.
This is off-topic, but I own a 5D II with a nominal maximum ISO of over 25,000, but I certainly wouldn't call it usable for anything but the most extreme emergency, such as finally getting close enough to the Loch Ness Monster to get a clear shot. Even 6,400 is too noisy for my liking.

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
Whether his predictions end up being true or not is not really the point anyway. The belief is what matters.
I don't think they were meant as predictions. He didn't use the future tense, so I'm pretty sure he intended to make a statement about the state of current technology.
Logged
Chris Pollock
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 213


« Reply #28 on: October 20, 2009, 04:18:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RSL
Seems to me this thread is getting awfully close to the "my camera (or whatever) is bigger than yours" kind of argument you can see every day on "Leica User Forum" or "Nikonians" or the equivalent forum for Canon. What difference does it make whether or not a cell phone will be able to shoot quality pictures? If it can, I'll be happy to use a cell phone to make quality pictures.
I don't really care about what a cell phone camera will or will not be able to do in 10 or 20 years time. Bob Park wrote that a cell phone camera in the hands of a child can (present tense) outperform the best professional equipment in the hands of a professional. If you think that's a reasonable statement, please explain why.
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 6291


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #29 on: October 20, 2009, 05:59:42 PM »
ReplyReply

I think it would be helpful for Mr. Pollock to check the meaning of hyperbole.... and yes, in that sense (ie., abstract and hyperbolic), the quoted author is absolutely right. It would be also fair to assume that Bob Park was contrasting digital photography with film-based one, in which case his sentence makes even more sense.

And just for the fun of it:

"...iPhone photo... of the crash into New York’s Hudson River... The picture appeared on the front of Janis’ hometown Sarasota Herald Tribune today, as well as at least 21 others — including the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Sun-Times, the Orlando Sentinel, the Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, the Kansas City Star, the San Diego Union Tribune, the San Franscisco Chronicle and the Charlotte Observer.

[attachment=17384:iPone.jpg]

And for even more fun:

"An ad campaign shot entirely on a mobile phone camera? Well, Sony Ericsson -- claiming to be the first -- has done it, using the C905, ostensibly to prove what an awesome (8.1-megapixel) camera it boasts. The results can be found exclusively in December's issue of FHM..."

[attachment=17383:sony.jpg]
« Last Edit: October 20, 2009, 10:31:40 PM by slobodan56 » Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
daws
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 270


« Reply #30 on: October 20, 2009, 08:07:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
In effect, Boyle and Smith ended the profession of photography; an eight-year-old child can pull out a personal cell phone, point it, and capture an image superior to anything professional photographers can do with armloads of paraphernalia and hours in the darkroom.
If they can, then why have they not?

Where are the eight-year-old-child-cell-phone gallery shows, the eight-year-old-child-cell-phone advert accounts, the eight-year-old-child-cell-phone sports shots, the eight-year-old-child-cell-phone wedding albums?

If pigs can fly, why have they not done so and escaped becoming bacon?
Logged
Chris Pollock
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 213


« Reply #31 on: October 20, 2009, 11:13:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: slobodan56
I think it would be helpful for Mr. Pollock to check the meaning of hyperbole.... and yes, in that sense (ie., abstract and hyperbolic), the quoted author is absolutely right. It would be also fair to assume that Bob Park was contrasting digital photography with film-based one, in which case his sentence makes even more sense.
Show me the evidence that it was intended as hyperbole. It was stated as if it were a simple fact. Even as hyperbole it makes no sense - he's effectively saying that low quality equipment in the hands of a child is better than high quality equipment in the hands of a professional.

Quote from: slobodan56
And just for the fun of it:

"...iPhone photo... of the crash into New York’s Hudson River... The picture appeared on the front of Janis’ hometown Sarasota Herald Tribune today, as well as at least 21 others — including the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Sun-Times, the Orlando Sentinel, the Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, the Kansas City Star, the San Diego Union Tribune, the San Franscisco Chronicle and the Charlotte Observer.
What's you're point? Sure, if nothing else is available a phone camera may be better than no camera at all. I never denied that. How does this photo prove that a cell phone camera will consistently take superior photos to the best professional equipment?
Logged
Chris Pollock
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 213


« Reply #32 on: October 21, 2009, 05:55:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: slobodan56
"An ad campaign shot entirely on a mobile phone camera? Well, Sony Ericsson -- claiming to be the first -- has done it, using the C905, ostensibly to prove what an awesome (8.1-megapixel) camera it boasts. The results can be found exclusively in December's issue of FHM..."
No doubt the ad campaign is an impressive achievement for a cell phone. However, I'd be willing to bet that it was done carefully by expert photographers working under optimum lighting conditions, with cooperative models. I very much doubt that it was done by a few 8 year olds who just pointed, shot, and hoped for the best. I'd also be very much surprised if professional equipment were unable to do at least as good a job.
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 6291


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #33 on: October 21, 2009, 02:03:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Chris Pollock
Show me the evidence that it was intended as hyperbole. It was stated as if it were a simple fact. ...
Well... given that you appear to be no stranger to hyperboles (i.e., the very title of your thread is a hyperbole in itself - "least informed comment ever on digital photography")... can you show us some evidence that you intended it as hyperbole? If you didn't (intended it as hyperbole), then you stated it as a simple fact, right? Can you show us then some evidence that it was indeed the least informed comment ever on digital photography? Since I doubt you can prove it, then you either "... offer[ed] an opinion on a subject you know little about..." or you indeed meant it as a hyperbole.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Chris Pollock
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 213


« Reply #34 on: October 22, 2009, 03:41:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: slobodan56
Well... given that you appear to be no stranger to hyperboles (i.e., the very title of your thread is a hyperbole in itself - "least informed comment ever on digital photography")... can you show us some evidence that you intended it as hyperbole? If you didn't (intended it as hyperbole), then you stated it as a simple fact, right? Can you show us then some evidence that it was indeed the least informed comment ever on digital photography? Since I doubt you can prove it, then you either "... offer[ed] an opinion on a subject you know little about..." or you indeed meant it as a hyperbole.
You really need to learn to pay more attention to the finer points of English grammar. I ended the title with a question mark (?), which makes it a question. To someone who can read English, it has roughly the same meaning as "Is this the least informed comment ever on digital photography?" I phrased it as a question because, although I can't recall reading a less informed comment from a serious source, I wouldn't be surprised if someone else finds one. Do you have a less informed comment that you wish to share with us?

Getting back to the original question, please explain how you know that Bob Park meant his comment as hyperbole. Hypothetically, if you wanted to express the same meaning seriously (not as hyperbole) how would you write it?
Logged
Enda Cavanagh
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 577



WWW
« Reply #35 on: November 03, 2009, 04:45:56 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm actually not a real photographer at all. I just have a "herd" of 8 year old kids with mobile camera phones who do all my work for me and I just take all the credit.  
Logged

Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad