Photography can be art or just capturing that "Kodak" moment. I agree, if your goal is to create art, don't like your equipment stop you but I wouldn't exactly concur that soccer moms or others alike shouldn't be toying around with DSLRs even on auto. If they want to capture their kids in action, the higher frames per second will help along with more flexibility in capturing low light images.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Fashion Photo Shoot Conducted Using iPhone 3GS
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Photography can be art or just capturing that "Kodak" moment. I agree, if your goal is to create art, don't like your equipment stop you but I wouldn't exactly concur that soccer moms or others alike shouldn't be toying around with DSLRs even on auto. If they want to capture their kids in action, the higher frames per second will help along with more flexibility in capturing low light images.
Photoshop is not photography.
Film rules. And when you shoot with instant films, you only get one chance to make art with each shutter click.
Film rules. And when you shoot with instant films, you only get one chance to make art with each shutter click.
Easy there you might get all the 8 megapix phone camera people up in roar over this comment. Specs are everything!
And for the record I agree with this statement completely.
Of all the specs "megapixelage" is now officially one of the most pointless. Do you really think those cellphones can resolve a full 8MP with those tiny sensors? Or that any old 12MP P&S can out-resolve a Nikon D3 (Nikon's flagship FF cam), because I know that the D3 can't resolve a full 13MP.
What is the difference between taking a shot with a digital camera and applying filters to give it the look in the photos you attached? Would you really be able to tell the difference?
Yes, I would be able to tell the difference.
But if someone wants to "fake it" like that, more power to them. Just dont be one of those people who get offended when their photo is deleted from a Flickr FILM ONLY group.
Since any fake ive ever seen looks more like this:
I think its easy for anyone to spot.
I know that my instant shots only exist as single prints and cant be reproduced. And I also know that I didnt need to run filters to get them to look like that.
People pay 3x the amount for instant films with odd/unique colors and unpredictable results than the same format film thats truer to life.
That's great that you like taking film pictures. Film does not automatically make any given picture better or worse than digital though. Just different.
It doesn't matter if you take your picture using film or digital it is still photography, and trying to say it isn't is simply being closed minded.
I was merely pointing out the point YOU and I both share...that its not the equipment that makes the photo. Its the photo itself which does that.
By using instant films, and no im not averse to digital which I also shoot, you just dont get a chance to make it how you want like you can with RAW files and digital.
Its not better by any means, its different. And if anything my real point was decent photos can come from total Sh** cameras, which most polaroids are when compared to any decent PnS today.
You sound like a kid who just found film and is trying to rebel against digital because it's the 'cool' thing to do.
What do different films do? What do different dark room techniques do? What are the purpose of negatives?
While I'm not a fan of heavily photoshopped images, you can 'fake' many effects with film in the same way you can digitally via photoshop. simply choosing different type of film, burning/dodging, cross processing, creating multiple copies through negatives, etc, etc. what's more, you can scan film prints and still process them through photoshop.
aside from the fact that instant film is hard to come by (and now ungodly expensive), photos that come from instant film are hardly on par with any professional print regardless of film/digital. it's fun for snapshots, not photographs.
What do different films do? What do different dark room techniques do? What are the purpose of negatives?
While I'm not a fan of heavily photoshopped images, you can 'fake' many effects with film in the same way you can digitally via photoshop. simply choosing different type of film, burning/dodging, cross processing, creating multiple copies through negatives, etc, etc. what's more, you can scan film prints and still process them through photoshop.
aside from the fact that instant film is hard to come by (and now ungodly expensive), photos that come from instant film are hardly on par with any professional print regardless of film/digital. it's fun for snapshots, not photographs.
I'm a photographer, videographer, graphic designer, and general hack, but I think "art" is overrated. I know a lot of art-snobs, and I hear plenty of arguments about "real art," if one believes such a thing exists.
A lot of things are not meant to be art (no matter what my colleagues think), but rather are just chance creations that look cool. I know I feel that way about some of my own creations, so it can't be unique in the world.
The argument that film is more authentic as art over digital is as tired as the poor chumps thousands of years ago that argued over painting versus sculpture. Or maybe even earlier... when it was stacking rocks in a nifty pile versus spitting chewed up flower petals over their hand placed on a rock to leave an outline.
Art is. It just is. None of it pleases all, and it's all worth what someone will pay to take it from you.
A lot of things are not meant to be art (no matter what my colleagues think), but rather are just chance creations that look cool. I know I feel that way about some of my own creations, so it can't be unique in the world.
The argument that film is more authentic as art over digital is as tired as the poor chumps thousands of years ago that argued over painting versus sculpture. Or maybe even earlier... when it was stacking rocks in a nifty pile versus spitting chewed up flower petals over their hand placed on a rock to leave an outline.
Art is. It just is. None of it pleases all, and it's all worth what someone will pay to take it from you.
try it without post-production in photoshop and let's see how well you do. 
you sound like someone who never studied art history/theory. art is an extension of the artist's perception. there's a massive difference between art and craft, and you seem to be confusing the two.
you sound like someone who never studied art history/theory. art is an extension of the artist's perception. there's a massive difference between art and craft, and you seem to be confusing the two.
I studied the history, but not the theory. And perhaps I'm just an idiot, but this is exactly what I'm talking about. Some stuff is made as art, other stuff is not. Now, if you want to draw a line between the things I make, and say THIS is art and THIS is craft, that's fine. Some call my junk art, when I did not intend it as such. Extension of my perception... what isn't? When I speak, I'm extending my perception, am I not? Is every word I say (and type) art?
I'm not sold.
Yeah, I talked to Lee yesterday and he was working to keep their servers up.
try it without post-production in photoshop and let's see how well you do.
If you watch the video I believe both the pre/post images are shown at the end. BTW, all images out of shoots of this type are PSed in post-production regardless of the camera used.
And you missed the point entirely.
But good one-liner, you got it in there at just the right time.
But - as some others said before - this is hardly relevant to most users of a cellphone (or p&s) camera.
A studio is build to be an optimized place for phtographs. The subject will take (and keep) any position the photographer wants. There is enough times to repeat many times if anything is less than perfect. The light is ideal.
But Imagine a 3GS vs. dSLR comparison at sports or wildlife photography. The 3GS simply does not have that f/2.8 stabilized telephoto lens. Maybe you won't see anything on the display in bright sunlight, or you will miss that that top athlete crossing the line because of display/shutter lag? Or maybe that $50,000 shot is out of focus because the AF is to slow or not precise enough? No second chance! With a 3GS or a p&s that uses a display as a viewfinder you will be out of battery just when that historic goal happens in the last minute of extra time...
Yes, Jon doe will not take photos at the olympic games. But taking pictures of the kids or the dog playing in the garden is not much different....
Or low light....
Christian
To who? I am sorry but if you go to any store that sells camera minus the pro shops, all the sell and all they push is megapixels.
I for one never said they could and if you read the first part of my comment it was sarcasm amid at a group of people who think megapixels are the end all be all.
Just because the salesmen at the camera store are trying to sell that to you doesn't make it important. Sure, it's important to the marketers, but to anyone who cares about their photos, it's utterly pointless. That's not to say that I want to go back to using 3MP cameras, but now with 10+MP becoming the norm, I don't think that'll ever happen.
A pro can make good pics with almost any gear if there's good light conditions, but this isn't in any way comparable to almost any real world scenario. 3Gs' cam just bites the dust with the lighting anything but perfect and no I don't carry lighting equipment worth several thousands of dollars with me everywhere I go. Like someone said it before, just because someone who takes pictures for it's living can make that camera work, I don't think many of us can. Anyways this is just a publicity stunt. There's no reason to use a phone if you have all that equipment set up. The phone cam is just the weakest link in the setup and will hinder the photographer and make the results worse than they should be.
But still 12 mpix cams in mobile phones like Nokia N8, Samsung Pixon12 and SE Satio are the best ATM. Those 12 megapixels don't make them the highest in image quality, but the parts in them do (lenses, sensors, etc). The cutting edge cam modules right now just happen to have 12 MP sensors (and no, iP4's cam ain't as good, more like average). And I don't mean every phone with high MP count is good, just look at some HTC's 8MP cams, but the best ones still are 8 and 12 MP snappers.
But still 12 mpix cams in mobile phones like Nokia N8, Samsung Pixon12 and SE Satio are the best ATM. Those 12 megapixels don't make them the highest in image quality, but the parts in them do (lenses, sensors, etc). The cutting edge cam modules right now just happen to have 12 MP sensors (and no, iP4's cam ain't as good, more like average). And I don't mean every phone with high MP count is good, just look at some HTC's 8MP cams, but the best ones still are 8 and 12 MP snappers.
Exactly. One of the biggest differences between shooting with a camera phone and even an entry-level DSLR is the DSLR's ability to take better shots across a range of conditions. Photography is about lighting, and perfect light can make up for a lack of quality in the camera. Try taking a good shot with a camera phone in low light and see how it turns out.
I'm not saying that camera phones can't produce cool, artistic photographs on such occasions. But when they do, it's usually the result of serendipity.
He still used extremely expensive lighting and sets, and the photos were more than just touched up.