Broken Hearted Son...Help please.

[sapporobaby]

"Pro" photographers shot slide film with ISO/ASA of "only" 800 or 1600 for decades and didn't have much trouble.

Yes, newer/higher end/more expensive cameras are more capable, but at the end of the day they're all tools and it's up to the user as to how to effectively utilize them.

This is a dance that goes no where. We'll agree to disagree. I'll shoot at ISO 12800 and you shoot at 1600 and let's see who's photo is usable. Anyway, the OP should Google for that software that let's users read formatted iPhone drives. It even bypasses some security features I think.

By the way, the included image was shot at ISO 12800, f2.8, 1/500 using a 14-24mm Nikon lens.

 

[monokakata]

"Pro" photographers shot slide film with ISO/ASA of "only" 800 or 1600 for decades and didn't have much trouble.

Continuing the hijacking of this poor guy's thread . . .

I shot many rolls of slide film back in the 60s and 70s. True, it was all Kodak, but I don't remember anything faster than Ektachrome ASA 160, which my favorite processor could push a stop to 320. Ah, maybe there was some exotic film stock . . . I sort of remember something.

Anyway, I think you're talking about B/W, no? I routinely shot Tri-X at 800 and 1200, developing in Acufine, sure. And the grain wasn't bad.

Fast lenses were common back in the day. F/2.8 was considered pretty slow for anything longer than 135 or wider than 24. Every Nikkor lens I had inside of 24-135 was F/2.0 or faster, except for the Micro-Nikkor. And these weren't considered exotic lenses at all -- well, maybe the 35 f/1.4 was kind of exotic.

Now you get a kit lens or a decent wide-range zoom and you're looking at F/3.5 or 4 and smaller when you zoom out.

And it seems to me that pairs naturally with the ability to crank up that ISO to whatever works. I like that better than film, because with film you had to make the push-or-don't-push decision for the whole roll. Now we can crank it up for a few shots, back it down again. I was doing that two weeks ago inside some abandoned grain elevators.

On that same shoot I was with one guy who had a 5D2 and brought along a 50, a guy with a D40 and 18-135 kit lens, and me with a D300 (the D800 hasn't come yet) and the 14-24 f/2.8. The 5d2 guy made some beautiful images but he couldn't catch the sense of space with what he brought, no matter how good he was. The D40 guy couldn't make it under low light.

I'll join sapporobaby with a 14-24 shot. The non-vertical verticals are deliberate.

 

[acearchie]

Until they try to go shoot in almost darkness and they need something like a D4 or D3S, then it comes down to the camera no matter how good they are.

Why would a pro go and shoot in complete darkness in a situation that wouldn't be accomplished without a long shutter speed.

I do have a DSLR but sometimes I don't want to carry it around. My phone is always in my pocket.

My dad is a professional photographer and he has some shots on his site with his PRO DSLR and some with an iPhone. For use on the web the difference is negligible.

 

[Ruahrc]

By the way, the included image was shot at ISO 12800, f2.8, 1/500 using a 14-24mm Nikon lens.

Which only goes to show that even the best most expensive gear, when used poorly, can still produce uninteresting and underexposed shots.

Meanwhile, the iPhone is plenty capable of dealing with similar conditions and producing acceptable (or even excellent) results

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hipwelljo/5144702072/in/photostream/

(not my photo as I do not own an iPhone, but just what I found by typing in "bellagio iphone" into google images)

You're right though. This is a debate, like many arguments on the internet, that is going to go nowhere.

 

[acearchie]

Which only goes to show that even the best most expensive gear, when used poorly, can still produce uninteresting and underexposed shots.

Meanwhile, the iPhone is plenty capable of dealing with similar conditions and producing acceptable (or even excellent) results

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hipwelljo/5144702072/in/photostream/

(not my photo as I do not own an iPhone, but just what I found by typing in "bellagio iphone" into google images)

Just to add that this is an iPhone 4 and not the superior optics of the 4s. Fortunately when creating a tiny web image the two images seem fairly matched.

 

[cupcakes2000]

If you can't see the difference between a camera phone and a "real camera" then his statement was lost on you because you have no clue. Stick to automatic mode and a point and shoot.

Sorry?

A camera is a camera. If you want to take a picture then it doesn't matter what it is. You don't need a pro camera to take a good shot.

I am a pro photographer. I don't use automatic. I sometimes use a point and shoot. YOU are the one who has no clue if you think you need a good camera to take a good picture, or if the OP had a 'better' camera he wouldn't have lost his pictures. It's not about the camera.

How many times??????

 

[sapporobaby]

Why would a pro go and shoot in complete darkness in a situation that wouldn't be accomplished without a long shutter speed.

I do have a DSLR but sometimes I don't want to carry it around. My phone is always in my pocket.

My dad is a professional photographer and he has some shots on his site with his PRO DSLR and some with an iPhone. For use on the web the difference is negligible.

Good point, but many photographers like to shoot in other than sunny conditions, thus the need for high ISO sensitivities... I have an iPhone as well but I wouldn't trust any photo that I deemed important to it. I have a J1 for the times when I want a camera but not a full-size dSLR. As for the web, you are spot on with this point...

----------

Which only goes to show that even the best most expensive gear, when used poorly, can still produce uninteresting and underexposed shots.

Meanwhile, the iPhone is plenty capable of dealing with similar conditions and producing acceptable (or even excellent) results

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hipwelljo/5144702072/in/photostream/

(not my photo as I do not own an iPhone, but just what I found by typing in "bellagio iphone" into google images)

You're right though. This is a debate, like many arguments on the internet, that is going to go nowhere.

The only thing similar is the Bellagio fountain. If you notice, and they turned on all of the fountain lights, so as far as the iPhone was conceded it was daytime. Your backhanded complement referring to expensive equipment still does not yield impressive results is moot as well. Just like hearing, image preference is subjective. The point I was trying to make was that equipment does matter in some instances. Oh and one very key point that I must apologize for is that somewhere along the line I must have given you the impression that your opinion matters to me or that I care in the slightest what you say. To clarify... I don't...That should have cleared things up now. I do agree though that it is pointless to continue this, but as you started it, I will let you have the last word as you seem to need it more than I do.

----------

Sorry?

A camera is a camera. If you want to take a picture then it doesn't matter what it is. You don't need a pro camera to take a good shot.

I am a pro photographer. I don't use automatic. I sometimes use a point and shoot. YOU are the one who has no clue if you think you need a good camera to take a good picture, or if the OP had a 'better' camera he wouldn't have lost his pictures. It's not about the camera.

How many times??????

Uhhhh... No, a camera is not a camera is not a camera. If you are a pro photographer then you of all people should know the difference. A Polaroid and a Canon 5D MK III will not be produce the same results with all things being equal and by the same photographer. Quite a bit of photography has to do with skill, composition, etc... but the equipment plays a large part as well. It is an extension of the skill of the photographer. Second, I see you have a comprehension or reading problem because I never said the OP would not have lost his photos had he possessed a better camera. Someone else said this. You're correct... How many times????

----------

All his summer trip pix gone. Here's what he did: Is there any hope of getting them back?


1. plugged in phone to PC.

2. opened up iTunes

3. right-clicked phone in iTunes sidebar

4. chose to restore from back-up (had not backed up vacation pix)

5. picked back-up titled iPhone 4

6. received a pop-up stating that only the contacts, messages, notes, would be affected, and nothing else

7. phone restored from back-up

8. when I checked the phone, I had my contacts back from the previous restore, and my current apps, but only 204 of my 550-600 pictures.

I checked Picasa and there wasn't anything there

I had iCloud enabled

I'm not sure if I had iCloud backup enabled.

Any help, directions to software or experts who can help save his memories would be greatly appreciated.
thank you.

Any of the other "professionals" going to try and help this guy or do you plan to talk about how professional you are? If so, start a thread and extol your virtues...

Found this: http://www.wondershare.com/disk-utility/recover-deleted-photos-from-iphone.html

This too: http://www.iphonephotorecovery.com/

 

[aarond12]

Any of the other "professionals" going to try and help this guy or do you plan to talk about how professional you are? If so, start a thread and extol your virtues...

Thank you for unhijacking this tread. It's worth a try with those applications but since he restored his iPhone, I doubt it's even possible.

 

[glennp]

Any help, directions to software or experts who can help save his memories would be greatly appreciated.
thank you.

Back to the OP - best bet is to check if the PhotoStream was active. If not, get a program like iExplore that will mount the iPhone/iPod Touch like a flash drive on the computer desktop. You can then run a file/photo recovery tool on the drive that may be able to recover any pictures that were not overwritten by the restore.

Maccroplant downloads - look for iExplore (freeware):
http://www.macroplant.com/downloads.php

 

[cupcakes2000]

Uhhhh... No, a camera is not a camera is not a camera. If you are a pro photographer then you of all people should know the difference. A Polaroid and a Canon 5D MK III will not be produce the same results with all things being equal and by the same photographer. Quite a bit of photography has to do with skill, composition, etc... but the equipment plays a large part as well. It is an extension of the skill of the photographer. Second, I see you have a comprehension or reading problem because I never said the OP would not have lost his photos had he possessed a better camera. Someone else said this. You're correct... How many times????

Obviously there is a difference in the technical quality of a better camera, and there for the camera's ability to take a nice shot.
Just because you have one though doesn't mean that you will take a better shot.
Yes you did comment on this thread about lost files, with a sentence that suggested that with a better camera the OP wouldn't have lost his pictures, and he would take better pictures because of it. Neither of these statements are true at all.
It's just a guy (possibly a kid) taking holiday snaps with his phone!
Now I can't help the OP directly, but I can help in suggesting that what you said is in fact untrue, and that a 'real' camera certainly doesn't make you take better pictures.

 

[sapporobaby]

Obviously there is a difference in the technical quality of a better camera, and there for the camera's ability to take a nice shot.
Just because you have one though doesn't mean that you will take a better shot.
Yes you did comment on this thread about lost files, with a sentence that suggested that with a better camera the OP wouldn't have lost his pictures, and he would take better pictures because of it. Neither of these statements are true at all.
It's just a guy (possibly a kid) taking holiday snaps with his phone!
Now I can't help the OP directly, but I can help in suggesting that what you said is in fact untrue, and that a 'real' camera certainly doesn't make you take better pictures.

Check post #11.

 

[driftless]

Since you posted in the Digital Photography section, might I suggest a real camera as well? At least with a real camera you, your son, will be taking better pics and always have a SD card, or other, as back-up.

Wow, sorry to have this thread go off-topic. "Real" camera was a poor wording choice, non-camera phone would have been better. I was merely suggesting that a non-camera phone affords the user back up in terms of an SD card and might not be a bad thing to take along on a trip. It was a suggestion that they may want to think about in a future, a non-camera phone in addition to his son's iPhone. Nothing more. I use my iPhone camera a lot, even when I have a real, errr, non-camera phone with me and I want to email pics on the spot.

 

[sapporobaby]

Wow, sorry to have this thread go off-topic. "Real" camera was a poor wording choice, non-camera phone would have been better. I was merely suggesting that a non-camera phone affords the user back up in terms of an SD card and might not be a bad thing to take along on a trip. Nothing more. I use my iPhone camera a lot, even when I have a real, errr, non-camera phone with me and I want to email pics on the spot.

Your post (#11) was spot on and I did not think you meant it as an offense. I knew where you were going with your post... Anyway....

 

[righteye]

If you can't see the difference between a camera phone and a "real camera" then his statement was lost on you because you have no clue. Stick to automatic mode and a point and shoot.

I think one can safely say that the format/medium is irrelevant, a great image is exactly that,You just need the righteye!
Larger format normally means more data to play with and higher quality can be gained.
At the pro level one may have dual cards in camera 1 as a backup.
I do wish the the iPhone would take an SD card ,would be great to ad GB or back up Data

 

[cupcakes2000]

Check post #11.

Okay, fair enough!