Smartphones are everywhere

[trendland]

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)


View attachment 211277

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


View attachment 211278

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


View attachment 211283


'Money Mouth' (Candid)


View attachment 211280


'Multitasking' - IR flash (Candid)


View attachment 211281


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


View attachment 211282


IR Flash (Candid)


View attachment 211284


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


View attachment 211285


IR Flash Hollywood, CA (Candid)


View attachment 211287

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.)

Well slackercrurster - before I realy noticed your post (I just replied to macfred) I used the term :

"content for xxx Clients" - now I be confronted with your "photographs" - so let me just ask :
Would you state that this red points - wich you used to pixel adult content (buy the way what a term "adult content" ) - are "easthetic" ?

with regards ....

 

[removed account4]

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

maybe
but i know there are some weekly papers ( professional ? )
that use their reporter with their phone.. and it works

the p/s camera and reporter replace a lot of photographers
and the phone is really no different..
not only professional camera operators
but professional photography ..
a lot of stock photos and image found on the internet
and used on the internet are via phone no doubt ..

these anti cellphone arguments are from the 1890s

 

[OptiKen]

No matter what tool you use, it's still the one taking the picture that matters. Great photographs have been made with 8x10 field cameras, Leica 35mms, Kodak Instamatics, and even Quaker Oats boxes made into pinhole cameras
Phone cameras are great tools in the right hands/eyes.

 

[Chan Tran]

I have an IPhone. Didn't have to pay for it and it came with full service that is unlimited data and wifi hotspot for free. Can't complain.

 

[Helinophoto]

maybe
but i know there are some weekly papers ( professional ? )
that use their reporter with their phone.. and it works

the p/s camera and reporter replace a lot of photographers
and the phone is really no different..
not only professional camera operators
but professional photography ..
a lot of stock photos and image found on the internet
and used on the internet are via phone no doubt ..

these anti cellphone arguments are from the 1890s

My point was that the compacts didn't kill professional photography during the film-only era and the phones/compacts will not kill professional photography now either.

Many photojournalists use their phones to document and send images back to the news-desk, because it's a matter of time, but from much of what you can see regarding that line of photography, it's often not much to shout hooray about in regards to actual quality (not just technical, but as photography as well).

There is a place for phones, no doubt, but it will not replace professional photography with other, more suited gear.

 

[markjwyatt]

My point was that the compacts didn't kill professional photography during the film-only era and the phones/compacts will not kill professional photography now either.

Many photojournalists use their phones to document and send images back to the news-desk, because it's a matter of time, but from much of what you can see regarding that line of photography, it's often not much to shout hooray about in regards to actual quality (not just technical, but as photography as well).

There is a place for phones, no doubt, but it will not replace professional photography with other, more suited gear.

People have been saying that for decades, and for decades technology has put more professionals out of business. There will always be some professionals, and a fewer proportion of them will be able to make a living in photography. At least that is the trend that I see. Technology does replace some professionals, but not all of them. The trend could change, but it is not clear to me how at this point.

 

[removed account4]

My point was that the compacts didn't kill professional photography during the film-only era and the phones/compacts will not kill professional photography now either.

Many photojournalists use their phones to document and send images back to the news-desk, because it's a matter of time, but from much of what you can see regarding that line of photography, it's often not much to shout hooray about in regards to actual quality (not just technical, but as photography as well).

There is a place for phones, no doubt, but it will not replace professional photography with other, more suited gear.

i realize that and agree with you
the best camera is the one you have with you ... !

 

[Lee Rust]

For me the main thing is how quickly and completely the smartphone has transformed audio/visual technology, interpersonal communications and personal information management. All within the historical blink of an eye.

It's pretty awesome, and a little bit scary. The long-term effects on our brains and on our cultures are only just beginning to manifest themselves.

 

[Helinophoto]

People have been saying that for decades, and for decades technology has put more professionals out of business. There will always be some professionals, and a fewer proportion of them will be able to make a living in photography. At least that is the trend that I see. Technology does replace some professionals, but not all of them. The trend could change, but it is not clear to me how at this point.

In terms of digital, I can see that it was a big trend for private schools to churn out massive amounts of photographers, at least here, there were way too many photographers for the marked for a good while.

That seemed to have quieted down a lot.

In terms of joe-the-photographer, I believe there will always be a marked for jobs, as long as the proof is in the pudding (the pictures and ability to deliver).

Technology cannot make someone a good photographer, but a good photographer with a keen eye, can use a variety of gear and tech and get results that stand above the rest (indeed even with phones).

Most of the youngsters that went to these photography schools 6 years ago are doing completely different things now, many realized that there is a difference between having fun and trying to 'git gud' make a living out of the same thing.

Coincidentally, the highest paid and grossing photographer in my country shoots mainly on film and makes prints.

 

[dmr]

 

[c41]

As someone with kids in school, I can say that every concert, every assembly, every school event I've attended has been marred by morons holding their mobile phones in the air in front of all the other parents.
I gave up trying to photograph my kids participating in these events and just try and enjoy the moment, or what I can see of it anyway.
I'm not suggesting that mobile phones are specifically to blame for that, just that their ubiquity means that the lowest common denominator applies and it is low, really low.

 

[Helios 1984]

 

[dmr]

Good one, Helios!

 

[NedL]

well done Helios.

 

[faberryman]

As someone with kids in school, I can say that every concert, every assembly, every school event I've attended has been marred by morons holding their mobile phones in the air in front of all the other parents.

Use to be video cameras.

 

[Arklatexian]

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.

Yes, on them and in use at every opportunity, no matter what. Mine has made me very fluent in using every curse-word in the English language, that I know and a few German ones that I have learned, and that is just to turn the xxxx thing on. I have all (too many) cameras now and all I need a "smart" phone for is for phone calls and it takes me longer to do that than a "land" phone ever did. I know it is a lack of knowledge on my part but can't they make a device that just makes "PHONE CALLS" for people who don't need or want all the other crap?......Regards!

 

[Helios 1984]

Use to be video cameras.

Today's kids will never know.

 

[faberryman]

Mine looked just like that except it was bright yellow. Couldn't miss me.

 

[Eric Rose]

I love my smartphone and the photos I take with it.

 

[c41]

Today's kids will never know.

Video cameras were never, at least where I grew up, what I would describe as ubiquitous.

I'd have them down as more of a 'there's always one' sort of tool, where the one person takes up position centre stage to capture the magic ruining the moment for everyone else.
We could all at least kinda still see what we came to see.

The mobile phone thing is a sea of morons, arms held high, like so many of the images in the linked article, totally obscuring what it is we are all trying to watch.
Who gave everyone a camera dammit.

 

[Helios 1984]

Video cameras were never, at least where I grew up, what I would describe as ubiquitous.

I'd have them down as more of a 'there's always one' sort of tool, where the one person takes up position centre stage to capture the magic ruining the moment for everyone else.
We could all at least kinda still see what we came to see.

The mobile phone thing is a sea of morons, arms held high, like so many of the images in the linked article, totally obscuring what it is we are all trying to watch.
Who gave everyone a camera dammit.

This doesn't irritate me as much as the "Zombies" walking slowly on the sidewalk and who pays no attention to their surrounding.
How many of them have I seen crossing the street without looking out for traffic? Darwinism at its best.

 

[markjwyatt]

Yep. Brilliant.

 

[markjwyatt]

Use to be video cameras.

No offense to Japanese (who let's say have an enthusiasm for technology, and are today's leaders in much of the highest technology), but I remember in the 1980s I would see tour bus pull up and Japanese would come out each practically holding a video camera in one hand and an SLR in the other. Somehow I managed to bypass the video era without getting pulled in (I did play with 8 mm and super 8 as a teenager though, maybe that was enough for me). VHS or beta, 8mm digital tape? Nah, none of it; though my Fuji XT-2 was the talk of the town for 4k for a while. I did try it for about 30 seconds, and that was about it since buying the XT-2 ( about 7 mos.).

 

[c41]

This doesn't irritate me as much as the "Zombies" walking slowly on the sidewalk and who pays no attention to their surrounding.
How many of them have I seen crossing the street without looking out for traffic? Darwinism at its best.

LOL. I call them JAZWAPs - just another zombie with a phone.

 

[Lee Rust]

It is seldom that you ever see a zombie with a newspaper.