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

Tamara · Jun 4, 2015

jnanian said:
i agree, the best camera is the one you might have with you, and since a lot of people in modern/western internet ready, "me-based" (i)Society for the most part have a phone with them
they have a camera with them too so they can make snapshots, exactly what a box camera, instamatic, folder, pocket strut, hawkeye,&c were, snapshot cameras ..
the OP's original complaint i dont' think was that a cellphone shouldn't be used for snapshots
but the thread sort of morphed into the idea that a cellphone cameras have dumbed-down photography and made the mediocre OK, and celebrated it ... most of photography has already been mediocre
and it has been celebrated for decades, probably since the original brownies were sold by george eastman in the 1880s.

I blogged about it once...

I do think that a piece of exposed film is a thing that is different in kind to an electronically-recorded image, but it's not a value judgment. A cave painting and a fossil footprint are both records of a mammoth, and both are wondrous, but are different.

(FWIW, I was pedaling around my neighborhood today with both an A-1 and a Rebel XTi, taking pictures of ducks and turtles on the canal. Had a lot of fun with both of them. )

removed account4 · Jun 4, 2015

Tamara said:
I blogged about it once...

I do think that a piece of exposed film is a thing that is different in kind to an electronically-recorded image, but it's not a value judgment. A cave painting and a fossil footprint are both records of a mammoth, and both are wondrous, but are different.

(FWIW, I was pedaling around my neighborhood today with both an A-1 and a Rebel XTi, taking pictures of ducks and turtles on the canal. Had a lot of fun with both of them. )

nice blog entry

my brother got a disc camera when we were kids
and our irish setter bit it and put teeth marks on it, did the same to my racketball racket .
he chewed up everything in the house, professional journals
encyclopedias dictionaries and bibles. we used to say he was well read, exercised
and liked to take pictures

i agree developed film is an artifact, a physical one and sometimes a thing of beauty.
while the electronic version of that can be made it is a 3rd generation one
and has been modified from the raw energy /light that made it possible.

i went to a wake recently and we re-photographed some of the photographs on the memory board ..
quick, easy and they came out OK .. certainly as good as a P/s camera, better than my pentax110
and i wasn't about to bring a film camera and set lights up at 45º angles to do copy work ...

no ducks around here, but i have taken some photos dslr pix of the flight of turkeys that live behind our house,
and a few years ago saw someone chasing birds down the street making either a d-video or burst snappies
of the flight in her neighborhood, it was convenient and kind of funny.

DREW WILEY · Jun 4, 2015

I thought photography was all about getting away from obnoxious hordes of people glued to these noisy battery-dependent gadgets. They should just genetically engineer human DNA to have these devices grown inside the brain automatically. There doesn't seem to be much use for real brain cells anymore anyway. And as far as fossils and cave paintings go, no digitital photographer yet has displayed an inkling of cave painter talent. Maybe took the time to actually look at things, esp wildlife, and in cases made those ancient critters look more real and animated than any stupid cellphone video sequence, or any Fauxtoshop enhancement. Yeah, that was technology too, because pigments and
fire and brushes were all involved. But at least the technology didn't become a parasite in the process. I don't personally try to convert anyone to view camera or even film work. But there have been cases when people traveling with me asked to look at a composed image
on the groundglass, or later saw the print, and ended up throwing out their digital cameras, or gave them to some relative. A device never
actually sees anything. Only your eyes and mind do. And a few years just looking through a groundglass, whether you ever trip the shutter
itself, will probably teach you more about photography than taking 50,000 frames with a digital machine gun.

eddie · Jun 4, 2015

DREW WILEY said:
... no digitital photographer yet has displayed an inkling of cave painter talent.

This is an incredibly absurd statement. There are a lot of digital photographers doing excellent work.

DREW WILEY said:
A device never actually sees anything. Only your eyes and mind do.

This contradicts your previous statement, unless we are to infer that people with digital equipment have no eyes or minds. That would be one hell of a pompous assertion.

removed account4 · Jun 4, 2015

DREW WILEY said:
I thought photography was all about getting away from obnoxious hordes of people glued to these noisy battery-dependent gadgets. They should just genetically engineer human DNA to have these devices grown inside the brain automatically. There doesn't seem to be much use for real brain cells anymore anyway. And as far as fossils and cave paintings go, no digitital photographer yet has displayed an inkling of cave painter talent. Maybe took the time to actually look at things, esp wildlife, and in cases made those ancient critters look more real and animated than any stupid cellphone video sequence, or any Fauxtoshop enhancement. Yeah, that was technology too, because pigments and
fire and brushes were all involved. But at least the technology didn't become a parasite in the process. I don't personally try to convert anyone to view camera or even film work. But there have been cases when people traveling with me asked to look at a composed image
on the groundglass, or later saw the print, and ended up throwing out their digital cameras, or gave them to some relative. A device never
actually sees anything. Only your eyes and mind do. And a few years just looking through a groundglass, whether you ever trip the shutter
itself, will probably teach you more about photography than taking 50,000 frames with a digital machine gun.

hi drew

i hate to say it but i don't think using a large format camera will teach more about photography than making 50,000 images with anything
a disc camera, box camera, 35mm, cellphone, dslr &c ...

the practice of using whatever it is you are using is what makes you better, not the fact that the ground glass is nice to look at, the image is upside down
there are more things to forget, one is more of a spectacle using it, or it costs 15$ a pop for film and processing if you use a lab ( and are using 4x5 sheets, and more like $40/pop if you use 8x10 )
just because it takes time to compose and one is worried about wasting 15$ or 40$ doesn't mean it makes one better .. and just because negative is bigger doesn't make the end product better.
it just means the person has a bigger camera and more money to spend on film and processing if they do color photography, nothing more nothing less.

i know what you are saying, but i don't agree with any of it ..

Tamara · Jun 4, 2015

DREW WILEY said:
But there have been cases when people traveling with me asked to look at a composed image
on the groundglass, or later saw the print, and ended up throwing out their digital cameras...

Pics or it didn't happen.

(I'm just here for the popcorn now, since we've veered so deep into the weeds.)

blansky · Jun 4, 2015

I'm just happy that Drew is able to change the world, one person at a time.

And all he needs is his trusty, although bulky camera.

Does he actually take/make any pictures, or is all that's needed is to merely show up.

Ken Nadvornick · Jun 4, 2015

Tamara said:
Pics or it didn't happen.

analoguey · Jun 4, 2015

These type of discussions normalizes the mediocrity of discussions on Apug.

Discuss.

moose10101 · Jun 4, 2015

blansky said:
Does he actually take/make any pictures, or is all that's needed is to merely show up.

He did say:

" And a few years just looking through a groundglass, whether you ever trip the shutter itself".

pbromaghin · Jun 5, 2015

I dunno, Drew. I love your posts because I agree with a lot of what you say. But zero gallery uploads?

Tamara · Jun 5, 2015

pbromaghin said:
I dunno, Drew. I love your posts because I agree with a lot of what you say. But zero gallery uploads?

I don't care about his landscapes; I want to see pics of d*g*t*l cameras hitting trash cans. I want provenance. Else I think he may have been... exaggerating ...to make a point.

Theo Sulphate · Jun 5, 2015

DREW WILEY said:
...
But there have been cases when people traveling with me asked to look at a composed image on the groundglass, or later saw the print...

I'll give a tip of my virtual hat to anyone who takes the time to show others, especially kids, something like a large format camera - they may never get the chance again and you never know if it will be a life-changing event.

As a little kid, my introduction to photography came directly from being fascinated by the television cameras on the Steve Allen show. My lifelong interest and involvement in languages came from an oddly written note from a Jr. High classmate.

I wonder how many people became interested in photography as a result of seeing a Polaroid photo develop in less than a minute.

gzinsel · Jun 5, 2015

The perception of many people in the masses is the I phone 6 has great image quality. If pressed on the topic of digital, quality, image they could care less. And as far as the Manufacturer of the iPhone 6 is concerned, "it doesn't matter" as long as "its selling".

If "its" part of the "new", people love to give it a chance and "buy it".

My post here is stating the obvious, But its the "not so obvious" that everyone is thinking/writing about.

tomfrh · Jun 5, 2015

Those iphone 6 billboards have a small disclaimer that says something like "optimized for large format".

Does anyone know what they did?

Paul Verizzo · Jun 5, 2015

DREW WILEY said:
I thought photography was all about getting away from obnoxious hordes of people glued to these noisy battery-dependent gadgets. They should just genetically engineer human DNA to have these devices grown inside the brain automatically. There doesn't seem to be much use for real brain cells anymore anyway. And as far as fossils and cave paintings go, no digitital photographer yet has displayed an inkling of cave painter talent. Maybe took the time to actually look at things, esp wildlife, and in cases made those ancient critters look more real and animated than any stupid cellphone video sequence, or any Fauxtoshop enhancement. Yeah, that was technology too, because pigments and
fire and brushes were all involved. But at least the technology didn't become a parasite in the process. I don't personally try to convert anyone to view camera or even film work. But there have been cases when people traveling with me asked to look at a composed image
on the groundglass, or later saw the print, and ended up throwing out their digital cameras, or gave them to some relative. A device never
actually sees anything. Only your eyes and mind do. And a few years just looking through a groundglass, whether you ever trip the shutter
itself, will probably teach you more about photography than taking 50,000 frames with a digital machine gun.

Yesterday's Snob Post.

Why does photography attract this type of "thinking." Sure, there' plenty of negative things that can be said about digital photography, whether in a phone or camera, but to summarily dismiss EVERYthing having to do with it is asthmatic. You know, "Sniff...." nose in the air.

removedacct1 · Jun 5, 2015

DREW WILEY said:
I thought photography was all about getting away from obnoxious hordes of people glued to these noisy battery-dependent gadgets. They should just genetically engineer human DNA to have these devices grown inside the brain automatically. There doesn't seem to be much use for real brain cells anymore anyway. And as far as fossils and cave paintings go, no digitital photographer yet has displayed an inkling of cave painter talent. Maybe took the time to actually look at things, esp wildlife, and in cases made those ancient critters look more real and animated than any stupid cellphone video sequence, or any Fauxtoshop enhancement. Yeah, that was technology too, because pigments and
fire and brushes were all involved. But at least the technology didn't become a parasite in the process. I don't personally try to convert anyone to view camera or even film work. But there have been cases when people traveling with me asked to look at a composed image
on the groundglass, or later saw the print, and ended up throwing out their digital cameras, or gave them to some relative. A device never
actually sees anything. Only your eyes and mind do. And a few years just looking through a groundglass, whether you ever trip the shutter
itself, will probably teach you more about photography than taking 50,000 frames with a digital machine gun.

This is such a pile of you-know-what. A photographer can learn to "see" creatively whether they employ analog or digital tools. Obviously in this community there is a heavy bias towards the analog, and that's fine, but to suggest that film technology is the only way to learn how to make a photograph is absurd. And by stating that "a device never actually sees anything" you're contradicting everything preceding it, since all camera technologies are just "devices". It's this kind of baloneyism that I find most discouraging here on APUG.

By by the way, Drew - where are all these magnificent photos you brag about having made?! Not a single image of yours to be found here. Hmmmm..... Maybe, as you've suggested, all you do is stare at the ground glass and never trip the shutter?

moose10101 · Jun 5, 2015

paulbarden said:
This is such a pile of you-know-what. A photographer can learn to "see" creatively whether they employ analog or digital tools. Obviously in this community there is a heavy bias towards the analog, and that's fine, but to suggest that film technology is the only way to learn how to make a photograph is absurd. And by stating that "a device never actually sees anything" you're contradicting everything preceding it, since all camera technologies are just "devices". It's this kind of baloneyism that I find most discouraging here on APUG.

By by the way, Drew - where are all these magnificent photos you brag about having made?! Not a single image of yours to be found here. Hmmmm..... Maybe, as you've suggested, all you do is stare at the ground glass and never trip the shutter?

Wouldn't it be a lot cheaper and less strenuous to just walk around making a rectangle shape with your fingers and staring through it? Oh, wait, that's digital. Never mind.

michr · Jun 5, 2015

Sure, a cellphone is great for snapshots, and like you say the box camera and its derivatives were sold on the idea of easy photography for the masses, and that cellphone fills that niche almost perfectly.

I personally wouldn't use a cellphone as serious camera unless it had control over exposure settings and offered the ability to get some kind of RAW file out of the camera. But its a fact that one could use it for photography. People use pinhole cameras, literally a box with a hole in it, to produce photographs, why not something more sophisticated?

The fact is, some people work very hard to justify their brand of photographic practice as the "one true way", and make arguments asserting genuineness and authenticity that don't hold up. I don't see why the category of photography can't be more inclusive to include basically anything where the photographer has had an idea in mind when taking the photograph (not that an idea on its own is sufficient to make a good photograph).

An 8x10 camera, or whatever, is like a really large canvas. A large canvas doesn't make you a better painter, it just means you can afford more material. These cameras come with a set of tripod holes which limit the kinds of ideas that can be explored. There are realms of human experience, intimate and spontaneous moments, which dragging this big elephant in the room destroys. One cannot assert that genuine photography always, by default, excludes these things. An 8x10 camera is a toy for a person with the means to play with one. Its only good for pictures of mountains and trees or if you're posing someone in the studio, otherwise it's an albatross.

removedacct1 · Jun 5, 2015

moose10101 said:
Wouldn't it be a lot cheaper and less strenuous to just walk around making a rectangle shape with your fingers and staring through it? Oh, wait, that's digital. Never mind.

removedacct1 · Jun 5, 2015

michr said:
A large canvas doesn't make you a better painter, it just means you can afford more material.

+1

flavio81 · Jun 5, 2015

tomfrh said:
Those iphone 6 billboards have a small disclaimer that says something like "optimized for large format".

Does anyone know what they did?

Most likely, and I can almost bet on this, they used one of those (software) applications that enlarge the size of a digital image by using fractals to detect edges/detail and maintaining it on enlargement, avoiding pixellation or softening of said edges.

Example: http://www.imaging-resource.com/SOFT/GF/FIGURE3.jpg

What i would call "CHEATING"

DREW WILEY · Jun 5, 2015

You can't stop a rhinoceros with a BB gun. But talk comes cheap.

eddie · Jun 5, 2015

DREW WILEY said:
...talk comes cheap.

I think that's the crux of the responses to your posts.

DREW WILEY · Jun 5, 2015

If you can't figure that one out, you've never owned anything but a BB gun.

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

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency