On the perception of image quality and the 'Shot on Iphone 6' campaign

[gzinsel]

well, all i can say is this: I hope smartphones take over digital and put DSLR's co.'s out of business. I think those who shoot digital SLR's will have two options: film, and smart phones. I think the former will win. you will see more digi's convert back and come home. smartphones, is just over the top "do nothing brain drain slop"

 

[Prof_Pixel]

well, all i can say is this: I hope smartphones take over digital and put DSLR's co.'s out of business. I think those who shoot digital SLR's will have two options: film, and smart phones. I think the former will win. you will see more digi's convert back and come home. smartphones, is just over the top "do nothing brain drain slop"

Sorry, but there will be no putting the genie back in the bottle. The cameras in smart phones will continue to get better and new, smaller mirrorless cameras will replace larger DSLRs.

 

[RobC]

Sorry, but there will be no putting the genie back in the bottle. The cameras in smart phones will continue to get better and new, smaller mirrorless cameras will replace larger DSLRs.

As smart phone cameras get better the nikons and canons of this world will lose sales and dslrs will become increasingly niche and more expensive. i.e. The preserve of pros and prosumers with deep pockets only.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

As smart phone cameras get better the nikons and canons of this world will lose sales and dslrs will become increasingly niche and more expensive. i.e. The preserve of pros and prosumers with deep pockets only.

You're right. And the those digital shooters might have to wait 2 years instead of 1 year for the price to drop by 80%!

 

[analoguey]

What I think has consequences, beyond this particular campaign, is that the 'good enough' becomes 'as good as it gets'.

Indeed.
The normalisation of mediocrity. Well that's one of the effects of saying ' the phone or camera will do everything for you, Just Point and shoot! '

PS As others have said, you expressed yourself quite well. As a fellow non -native English speaker, it didn't seem to me like it was a Foreign tongue to you.

But don't forget a pro can take ANY camera and make a "decent" picture. Their ad campaign is like any photo ad. Faking out people into thinking they can take pictures like the pro shots they use in their ads.

The other side of the "you *have* to use only x type of camera /lighting /gear" argument is the one that goes
"use whatever and you'll be able to sneak in great/ 'decent' images (without breaking a sweat) ".

Neither stance, imho is good to advance the cause of better photography.
There's a reason a sledgehammer isn't used to open up small devices or a small screwdriver to break open a large stone.
(early morning, pre-coffee analogy)

 

[removed account4]

how does the apple ad normalizing mediocrity ? the images are advertising a product ... and the images look beautiful.

so it is OK for nikon or canon or pentax, minolta ( and others ) to advertise + promote their products like this for generations
but apple does it and they are promoting mediocre photography ...

people on this website are very funny how bias they are ...

 

[Patrick Robert James]

As I get older I fall under the "I'll do what I want and you do what you want" category. If you don't know how good something can be, that isn't my problem. I have actually used an IPhone in a project I did, and it was a 2 MP IPhone 3. I guess I know what I am doing so it isn't really fair, but the pictures were pretty dang good, and they were specific to what the IPhone camera was able to do but I can't show them here of course.

The funny thing about this thread is you don't see a chef going on the internet and complaining that people who eat at McDonalds don't understand quality. Duh. It isn't about quality. It is about convenience. The camera in a phone is convenient and to the overwhelming majority of people that is all that matters. And to be real, the phones in cameras have gotten pretty dang good, although I can't tell you how many crappy phone photos and videos I have received in my email of my brother's family, but even though they are crappy, I love to get them. Some things in life are more important than an esoteric label.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

As I get older I fall under the "I'll do what I want and you do what you want" category. If you don't know how good something can be, that isn't my problem.

Very well put.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

If you don't know how good something can be, that isn't my problem.

That should be leased as a signature line, and classified as required reading for all.



Thing is, with but two obvious exceptions no matter where one falls on the random distribution (bell) curve, good is always going to be one step to the right, and bad one step to the left. And if there happen to be two steps separating two individuals, what's good for the person on the left is always going to be bad for the person on the right.

The key to a successful interaction between two people is to recognize which of those two individuals you are...

Ken

 

[MattKing]

Around our way, this advertising program is putting the images on the side of bus stop shelters.

So they are about six feet high, and can be observed from quite close.

They are impressive - but I don't think they are directed toward the people who are looking for quality the way most of us are.

I think they are directed toward the people who are tired of crappy cel phone photos, and want better quality.

I think they are advocating quality, and are only problematic if they are representing the results as being the best there is.

The thread is a good one, and a particularly good first one.

But upon reading it, I cannot help but think about the cover photo for Walter Isaacson's biography of Steve Jobs - shot of course, on 4x5 film. Wikipedia has some info on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs_(book)

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

But upon reading it, I cannot help but think about the cover photo for Walter Isaacson's biography of Steve Jobs - shot of course, on 4x5 film. Wikipedia has some info on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs_(book)

"If you look at that shot, you can see the intensity. It was my intention that by looking at him, that you knew this guy was smart."



Ken

 

[removed account4]

As I get older I fall under the "I'll do what I want and you do what you want" category. If you don't know how good something can be, that isn't my problem. I have actually used an IPhone in a project I did, and it was a 2 MP IPhone 3. I guess I know what I am doing so it isn't really fair, but the pictures were pretty dang good, and they were specific to what the IPhone camera was able to do but I can't show them here of course.

The funny thing about this thread is you don't see a chef going on the internet and complaining that people who eat at McDonalds don't understand quality. Duh. It isn't about quality. It is about convenience. The camera in a phone is convenient and to the overwhelming majority of people that is all that matters. And to be real, the phones in cameras have gotten pretty dang good, although I can't tell you how many crappy phone photos and videos I have received in my email of my brother's family, but even though they are crappy, I love to get them. Some things in life are more important than an esoteric label.

hi patrick robert james:

i see what you mean about if you don't know what good is, than anything can seem good ..

but ... there seem to be plenty of people who know what is good, and think that the results from that camera are is good, and fun, and creative &c.
certainly as good as a p/s which is what people are using the phone instead of ..
LOL and plenty of those folks ( pros, amatuers who wish they were pros, and pro-sumers and the "clueless" ) tell people how good the results are from a cellphone cam &c
... the only folks i have ever heard incessantly scream those images / technology sucks &c ...
are people from this website who have a chip on their shoulder, for whatever reason .. ( and there could be a million reasons from my local mom and pop minilab went out of business
to digital ruined my business ) or maybe they are closet digital users / evangelists on other websites using a different user name and saying otherwise will blow their cover
or something else going on .. ( or they just don't care and are more negative than neutral )
and still others who think that anyimage made with film using a traditional process is better, hands down than a cellphone image ...
there are plenty of crappy tinypes, silver gelatin ferrotypes, ambrotypes, silver prints plainotypes cyanotypes ... the list is long ( i can't list them all )

its too bad more people just can't say "whatever" .. and move on .. ( as you seemed to have done )

 

[removedacct1]

Any technology that prompts people to adopt it as part of their creative tool kit is fine by me.

 

[analoguey]

how does the apple ad normalizing mediocrity ? the images are advertising a product ... and the images look beautiful.

so it is OK for nikon or canon or pentax, minolta ( and others ) to advertise + promote their products like this for generations
but apple does it and they are promoting mediocre photography ...

people on this website are very funny how bias they are ...

Did you miss the part where I wrote ' phone or camera ' ?

 

[removed account4]

Did you miss the part where I wrote ' phone or camera ' ?

since it was a thread regarding Iphones i thour you were suggesting camera or phone as a cameraphone, sorry for my misunderstanding ...
but feel free to use what i said to have to do with p/s cameras
anything that has an "auto" function or low-tech equipment with a fixed speed/aperture ( film or digital), pinhole, hand made &c ...

it is unfortunate that so many people think you need the latest and greatest of anything to make successful images or
make "good" photographs. i have seen some astounding images made with junk cameras, "toy" cameras,
cellphones ... that are heads and shoulders above things used by people with giant egos and expensive ( or large format ) gear
or 'alternative" processes ...

 

[Alan Klein]

I have a Samsung Galaxy S4. Like most tools, it has its place. It shoots pretty good shots off the cuff. It's always there when I don't have another camera. It has given me some interesting pictures. I'll let others decide the quality. The biggest problems are its inability to see the screen in bright light, ergonomics are terrible - hard to hold and shoot and compose. Not good in dark lighted areas, weak flash, etc. But often better than nothing. https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/tags/s4/

 

[cuthbert]

Indeed.
The normalisation of mediocrity. Well that's one of the effects of saying ' the phone or camera will do everything for you, Just Point and shoot! '

PS As others have said, you expressed yourself quite well. As a fellow non -native English speaker, it didn't seem to me like it was a Foreign tongue to you.




The other side of the "you *have* to use only x type of camera /lighting /gear" argument is the one that goes
"use whatever and you'll be able to sneak in great/ 'decent' images (without breaking a sweat) ".

Neither stance, imho is good to advance the cause of better photography.
There's a reason a sledgehammer isn't used to open up small devices or a small screwdriver to break open a large stone.
(early morning, pre-coffee analogy)

I agree with this post, IMO the problem is not digital phones or digital cameras per se, actually some of them in good hands make good shots, but that they flattered everything down....you can see this not just with photography, but ESPECIALLY with cinema and music.

Good music (rock, pop, classical, whatever...) is pratically extinct and right now even famous bands like Metallica make crappy records because they are already meant to be heard with ipods etc... (The sound of St.Anger was atrocious) and in cinemas we just see CGI crapfests like Transformers and Avengers, while once upon a time, not long time ago (the 80s) they were making beautiful films with practical FX.

For photography, once upon a time developing film was expensive but in every family there was a camera and the owner studied a little bit to get decent pics of the children, friends etc...now you just have to go on facebook and see the horrors that are downloaded there every minute.

 

[removed account4]

hi cuthbert

i agree with your post but not that digital cameras/ ps/ iphoto ads have anything to do with flattering or dumbing down of the "arts" ...
there are still great movies, tv, music, artwork ( photography, painting, film, sculpture, architecture &c ) but you have to look for it ..
i was born in the 1960s and opened my eyes in the 70s and 80s .. and i hate to say it, but it was a desert then as much as it is a desert now ...
unless you call the dukes of hazzard, the beverly hillbillys, the love boat, you light up my life, or grizzley adams, earthquake or towering inferno "good"

with regards to metallca and other bands who make crappy recordings made because they are being heard on iPods ,,, that isn't the fault of ipods, itunes or MP3 technology but THEIR-own fault
that they don't make recordings in a way they sound best ... heck, i owned a cutting lathe that made 33rpm masters and an armload of blank lacquor plates it isn't like they are hard to find ..
( i wasn't a record company) .. plenty of people have this sort of stuff ( heck its on ebay being sold ) and i am sure if metalica or anyone else wanted to seek this stuff out, or a full fledged recording studio
that works with vinyl .. they could easily find it ...

like with everything your own mileage might vary from the sticker

 

[cuthbert]

Perhaps I didn't make mself clear: most of the albums that are made today are produced, mixed and mastered in a way to be ipod friedly so the sound is compressed and plain ugly, while the sound of classic albums from the 60s to the early 90s still sounds fresh regardless of the media (LP or CD).

For the movies, in 1982 you have ET, Blade Runner, Conan the Barbarian, The Thing...I don't even remember how many unforgettable films happened that year, until the mid 90s going to the theatres was an experience, now not anymore, the only good movie I've seen this year is the Mad Max remake that is still made old school (real chases etc...) instead of CGI and you SEE the difference.

 

[georg16nik]

.......
there are still great movies, tv, music, artwork ( photography, painting, film, sculpture, architecture &c ) but you have to look for it ..
i was born in the 1960s and opened my eyes in the 70s and 80s .. and i hate to say it, but it was a desert then as much as it is a desert now ...
unless you call the dukes of hazzard, the beverly hillbillys, the love boat, you light up my life, or grizzley adams, earthquake or towering inferno "good"

.....

Let's just pretend for a second that outside the US, cinematography does not exist... so that we make this short and simple..

jnanian, for a person who opened his eyes in the 70s and 80s, you've listed some junk but omitted cinematographic achievements like “Midnight Cowboy”, “Star Wars”, “Saturday Night Fever”, “Patton”, “One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest”, “Network”, “Mean Streets”, “Manhattan”, “Little Big Man”, “The Last Picture Show”, “Jaws”, “The Godfather I & II”, “The French Connection”, “Eraserhead”, “Enter the Dragon”, “Dog Day Afternoon”, “Deliverance”, “Scarface”, “The Deer Hunter”, “The Conversation”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, “Chinatown”, “The Black Stallion”, “Apocalypse Now”, “Alien”, “Tootsie”, “The Terminator”, “Stand and Deliver”, “The Right Stuff”, “Indiana Jones franchise”, “Raging Bull”, “Hoosiers”, “Serpico”.. and many others..

In the last 10 years its mostly junk.

I will omit my music notes, since I see you are likely clueless about music production and distribution - then and now, and the impact of it.
What's ironic is that the same fruit company that spits the iPhone, is one of the entities responsible for the dumbification of the music production and distribution as a whole.

Yet, you still argue how cool the iPhone is an how digital imagery is OK, and the billboards are fine.
It's a free world, brother.
and thanks for the fish.

 

[removed account4]

Perhaps I didn't make mself clear: most of the albums that are made today are produced, mixed and mastered in a way to be ipod friedly so the sound is compressed and plain ugly, while the sound of classic albums from the 60s to the early 90s still sounds fresh regardless of the media (LP or CD).

For the movies, in 1982 you have ET, Blade Runner, Conan the Barbarian, The Thing...I don't even remember how many unforgettable films happened that year, until the mid 90s going to the theatres was an experience, now not anymore, the only good movie I've seen this year is the Mad Max remake that is still made old school (real chases etc...) instead of CGI and you SEE the difference.

i don't disagree some of those movies were great, but for every great movie there are terrible ones, like CHUD, grease !+2, zapped, ... i suppose 300 ( made only a few years ago ) was terrible, or the old boy trilogy, or ipman ?
like with everything there is good and bad .. ( i never said it was all bad, i said like now sometimes you have to search to find the good )

it was my understanding you could still buy vinyl and vinyl was still being made for people who wanted to be distributed that way
https://www.google.com/search?clien...still+being+produced+on+vinyl&rls=en&tbm=shop
maybe these are all old or used ? i know it certainly isn't mainstream but suggesting a band with as much pull as metalica can't tell their record company they want to release a vinyl album
is kind of strange, seeing indie bands with no pull can do it ( maybe i am wrong ? )

==

goeg:

yes, i do like billboards ( i made one a national landmark ),
and i do like some digital photography,
and i don't care if someone uses a cellphone ...
i am not sure what the problem is ...
because i acknowledge that in the 70s and 80s
there were terrible tv shows and movies made ?
the doomsday machine, or journey back to oz, the wiz
time walker, the my little pony series, or caddyshackII, the big bus ...
i never said there were no good movies in those years but unlike you i suppose
i admit there was utter crud being made .. (mst3k presents terrible movies all the time)

are you going to tell me tiffany and debbie gibson were great musicians because they were from the 80s ?

but seeing you are doing your best to insult me by calling me
a billboard lovin, iphone lovin, digital camera lovin idiot,
maybe i can add a few more insults to your list ..
lets see ... brewed emulsions from scratch, and was coating dry plates in the 80s,
part owner of an art gallery, not having "daycare" raise my kids, ride a 3speed bike
i cook, and would rather have a man ray solarize photograph any day over ansel adam's work ..

 

[georg16nik]

jnanian, my main point is that the iPhone is a product by Apple, one of the entities responsible for and benefiting from the perversion of the industries related to music, motion pictures production, distribution; same for photography, print, books etc.

You can pull their product out of the context and praise the shots popping out of it as much as you wish - won't change the fact that it's digital imagery, a passe for mediocrity etc. and the complete antithesis to film photography and it's siblings.

 

[removed account4]

jnanian, my main point is that the iPhone is a product by Apple, one of the entities responsible for and benefiting from the perversion of the industries related to music, motion pictures production, distribution; same for photography, print, books etc.

You can pull their product out of the context and praise the shots popping out of it as much as you wish - won't change the fact that it's digital imagery, a passe for mediocrity etc. and the complete antithesis to film photography and it's siblings.

sorry

kodak invented digital photography, and unless things have changed in the past few years,
they are still being paid for the technology in every cellphone ... maybe you need to direct your anger at more than just apple ..
they are not making every movie being produced, they are not making every television show being produced and they are not making every album being made ...
while you claim digital photography is the mediocrity of now, i think most of everything is mediocrity and it has been that way for a long long long time.
just because it is analog does not give it carte blanche as to being good, most of the analog and digital images i see around me every day are terrible,
just like most of everything else, food, art, architecture ... junk .. but what i have suggested is just because it is from now does not mean it is all junk ...
feel free to continue to attack me for having an open mind, i really appreciate it ...


Colonel Blimp: sorry for polluting your thread !

 

[gzhuang]

Flatbed scanned 35mm film only equals about 4MP with a P&S.

Just shoot Ektar/Ektachrome/Ilford, get ANR glass/glass mounts and scan at 2400dpi (TIFF). You're good to go.

 

[gzinsel]

It is my sincere hope everybody buys an iPhone. i think Digital \should be easy/breezy. take whenever, send whenever. I hope I phones take over the Digital Market for image capture.