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.
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.
What I think has consequences, beyond this particular campaign, is that the 'good enough' becomes 'as good as it gets'.
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.
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.
If you don't know how good something can be, that isn't my problem.
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)
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.
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 ' ?
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)
.......
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"
.....
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.
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.
Flatbed scanned 35mm film only equals about 4MP with a P&S.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?