Smartphones are everywhere

I don’t have a smartphone but a small cellular telephone with a prepay card.

 

A camera that is both relatively small and easy to operate is what the masses want, and have always wanted. The smartphone gives them precisely that. Before phone cameras, most people were using consumer pocket cameras or disposable cameras for their photographic needs. However, smartphones are even more convenient because the phones can be used for all sorts of things - make calls, connect to the internet, and utilize countless apps. It is a device many people have on them at all times.

 

My wife and my daughter talked me into buying a smartphone a few month ago. I got one with a prepay card - it lives in the desk drawer now ...

 

Well, the positive thing for people doing actual photography, is that smartphones will never be able to compete with proper gear.

Thusly, there will still be a marked for working photographers, no matter how many meagpixles they cram into these small sensors, behind those tiny lenses.

 

Famous last words.

 

i think it is great.
now, if we as a people would learn how to edit it would be even better.

not sure why it matters if the images in the article are or arn't taken with a cellphone.
they'd be just as good as with a regular camera...

 

Opposite is also true.
Regular cameras can't compete with mobile phones. If you are capable of using them as almost everyone.
My work phone has f1.7 lens and I have no time, no interest to use regular camera to take image and send it by email.
Or take license tag, serial number picture and enlarge it on the screen of the same phone. It also works on pills, to read the labels.
So, even if you are retired it is never late to learn and use the image taking equipment.
I'm using old iPhone panoramic image taking function as geo tagging tool to have location where I'm taking images on film.
Images even from old phone are OK for 4x6 prints. To me here is no need of backup camera on travel anymore, because phones are now capable of OK image taking.

 

With single-function cameras?

 

I have an iPhone. Very useful for keeping up with my 4 yr old grandson since pictures of him jumping off a high diving board, proudly holding his own violin, actually getting a sound from a trumpet at a children’s music fair, are seen in almost real time....not masterpieces of photography but instant communication that my wife and I enjoy. For a permanent image on a negative I always carry my trusty Minox...much smaller than an iPhone. Of course, more capable but also rather small Olympus xa or Rollei 35 gives better results.
After unwittingly deleting digital pics with touch of wrong button several yrs ago, I use film for permanence and reserve digital still and video, while more convenient, for projects that can be repeated if necessary.
For what they are capable of, smartphones are great.

 

I always use mine to take pictures when I disassemble a lens or a camera, also for cars & appliances part numbers or to take pictures of business hours sign boards. Yesterday, I took a picture of 110 Fuji cartridge and used Yandex.com to translate the Japanese text "Please wind up until the 11/12 mark after shooting" It's a wonderful tool.

 

But these were.

https://petapixel.com/2018/07/19/these-are-the-best-iphone-photos-of-2018/

I wish I could take photographs as good on my big camera with big lenses.

 

Me too. Smartphone is too pricey for my budget. I pay $85 a year at Walmart for prepaid phone. I think smartphone is $60 a month. I have thousands of minutes that have carried over year to year. Seldom use it.

I wills send you in some smartphone pix of mine. I have to censor one of them first.

Hard not to shoot people without phone in their hand. You just got make do and get interesting shots. The article had some great photos in it.

 

Yes, agreed. I'd buy one if I ever hit the lotto. But my few $$ go to photography and have nothing to spare.

 

Yes, they both have their purposes.

 

A commendable resolve, you have my respect.

I used an iPhone 3GS without data plan from 2011 to 2017, a friend gave it to me in exchange for a pair of winter boots. I was pretty much doing the same thing I'm doing nowby leeching WiFi from Tim Horton, Walmart & the Gym.

 

Here are a few of my smartphone pix. I'm making a number of books on this subject. But smartphone pix are just a few of the hundreds of social doc projects I am doing. So smartphone pix are no big deal to me. If I see someone pointing I shoot it...someone yawning I shoot it...someone kissing I shoot it...someone with a phone I shoot it...lady in a hijab I shoot it...etc and etc. Have lots of projects and you will always have something to shoot on the street.​

If any photo violates policy, just remove it...you wont find pix like this on The Atlantic.


Selection from 'Women are Beautiful...Beyond Snapshot Aesthetics' project aka 'Pucker Up' - IR flash - Hollywood Blvd (Candid)




'Sad Buskers' - IR flash (Candid...No one wants to pay them $5 for a photo of their boobies.)




'Getting His Money's Worth from the Pole Dancer' (Candid)





'Money Mouth' (Candid)





'Multitasking' - IR flash (Candid)





'Pinky' The Grove, L.A. (Candid)





IR Flash (Candid)





Selection from 'The Americans...60 years after Frank' project (Candid)





IR Flash Hollywood, CA (Candid)




I got a lot more of them. I also had one of a guy getting oral sex on the side of a road with cars driving by and a smartphone in the corner. But didn't want to push things. Social doc photography has no limits. If it has a human in it and is legal to shoot...you shoot it. (If it is of decent interest.)

 

That's my number one use of my smartphone camera. I also use it to take a picture of where my car is parked in a large parking garage, other people's business cards, location scouting, or pretty much any other memory related task. It automatically logs time and location, which is often helpful.

It's also my primary camera for family photos. 99% of my family photos just wind up being posted online to social media, and then forgotten and eventually lost. That's actually very handy. Grandparents want to see 100's of pictures of grandkids doing the most mundane things. Wasting time with finding higher quality equipment and money making archival quality prints isn't doing anyone any favors. Your kid's kids and grandkids won't care to see 10,000 photos of their parents/grandparents. 100, maybe. But there's no need to keep everything for posterity. Just a small sample is all anyone needs. Trust me, you'll make everyone a lot happier if you curate your junk so when you pass on, you don't leave your love one's the chore of digging through your crap, looking for stuff worth keeping. They'll get frustrated, give up, and just throw it all away. Smartphones are a great device for real-time curation as you already know in advance that if you're okay with photographing it on your smartphone, you don't need to pass it on to future generations.

Those tiny lenses are also great for taking photos through small eyepieces. It's not something most people do, but if you ever want to photograph through a telescope, microscope, or even a camera's viewfinder, and don't want to spend big bucks on a high end setup, the tiny lenses on a smartphone do a great job.

 

Not really.
Mobile phones are replacing the compact snaps.

No one would cover their own wedding with a phone, nobody will take an official portrait with a bloddy phone

Not going the digital/analog debate here, just stating that no matter what gadgets people seem to have, they always hire someone (with actual knowledge) to take the "really good shots" or important events.

A professional would never rely on a phone to get the job done.

Sure, a good photographer can make great shots with just about any camera, but there are (actual physical) limitations to these cameras that makes them ill suited for actual work.

 

The smart phone is a great street camera. No one notices it or pays attention to it. Point a Mamiya C330f at someone and you have lost the candid feel. Point an iPhone- no even notices. Still I prefer "single purpose cameras" for street or anything else due to the greater flexiblity and larger image (sensor/film) size (and related optical effects).

 

I use my IR flash to see in the dark. When it is too dark to see, I take a photo of it to see what is going on!

 

And blind hoodlums who are trying harm you or swing your camera in a bola fashion to defend yourself. Can hardly do that with a flimsy cellphone.

 

I love my smart phone, but I very rarely take pictures with it.

 

Well it may not be as drastic as that,bvy, but in my experience you are right in that for the vast majority of people they can compete with proper cameras . Prior to Smartphones there probably were some who might have bought a proper camera but very few now.

At my grandchild's birthday party only my son had a proper digital camera and only because he had been given it as a present a few years ago. All the rest of friends and relatives were simply pointing their Smartphones at the kids and taking stills and small pieces of video with a slim and easy to carry piece of equipment that went into their pockets or handbags while my son lugged around a proper cumbersome and heavy camera. If the party hadn't have been at home I doubt that he would have bothered either. When he, the wife and kids are away anywhere it is the ubiquitous Smartphone he uses.

pentaxuser

 

There is nothing to say against to photograph with an smartphone - believe me macfred.

But of course there is sometimes much to say against people who shot with smartphones and feel like a photographer !

In special cases it is the same with real photographers who feel like photographers using professional
equipment earning much money with Photography but they aren't photographers....!

So to me there is no difference between a 21 years old "Ansel Adams" from upper East side with a 1000bucks phone and a 54 years old "Ansel Adams" shooting web content for xxx - Clients !

But that I-Phone isn't responcible for that modern idiots!

with regards