The camera is not important, a good photograph has everything to do with the person behind the camera. It amazes me that photos by Ansel 70 years ago are still unmatched by today's photographers, even with all the advances in technology.
The camera is not important, a good photograph has everything to do with the person behind the camera. It amazes me that photos by Ansel 70 years ago are still unmatched by today's photographers, even with all the advances in technology.
What a joke, I couldn't disagree more.
For practicality sake ...sure.
But come on folks, it's a phone.
If you're serious about photography use a proper camera.
(Annie Leibovitz does....really)
I think people know that. But Tiger Woods doesnt play with cheap clubs just because he is the most naturally gifted golfer in the world. I'm not suggesting that photography should be competitive. But, I think there is nothing wrong with wanting to use a better camera that offers more flexibility.
Ansel Adams work is awesome. But, I think its incorrect to say that its still unmatched.
I think people know that. But Tiger Woods doesnt play with cheap clubs just because he is the most naturally gifted golfer in the world. I'm not suggesting that photography should be competitive. But, I think there is nothing wrong with wanting to use a better camera that offers more flexibility.
Ansel Adams work is awesome. But, I think its incorrect to say that its still unmatched.
Also, just checked out some of your photos. Very impressive, keep up the good work!
What a joke, I couldn't disagree more.
For practicality sake ...sure.
But come on folks, it's a phone.
If you're serious about photography use a proper camera.
(Annie Leibovitz does....really)
The camera is not important, a good photograph has everything to do with the person behind the camera. It amazes me that photos by Ansel 70 years ago are still unmatched by today's photographers, even with all the advances in technology.
Edit: And if you're proffesional you shoulden't buy a point and shoot camera anyways![]()
What a joke, I couldn't disagree more.
For practicality sake ...sure.
But come on folks, it's a phone.
If you're serious about photography use a proper camera.
(Annie Leibovitz does....really)
People are doing amazing photographic things today that were unheard of during Ansel's days.
What a joke, I couldn't disagree more.
For practicality sake ...sure.
But come on folks, it's a phone.
If you're serious about photography use a proper camera.
(Annie Leibovitz does....really)
Its not the camera, its the photographer. Pictures 150 years ago were essentially taken with a box with a hole in it. And those guys got some amazing photographs. If you find your iphone photos lacking, its you, not the equipment.
----------
Really? The basic concepts of composition, lighting, and focus control are the same now as they were then. I've seen some great modern landscape work, but it could have been captured with any camera.
If the "unheard of" stuff you're talking about is done in post-production, then that's more digital design, not photography. Even Ansel did a lot in the darkroom, but it was still only altering the lighting of the scene.
If person has no artistic eye, it doesn't matter what camera is being used. I've seen some amazing photographs taken with plastic, one-time-use cameras and iPhones, then saw some "fugliness" being done with DSLR.
As for iPhone's popularity is no wonder it's the most popular camera on Flickr.
It's the same debate as blu-ray versus streaming. It doesn't matter which is better. It matters which is readily available/convenient.
It appears Leibovitz is a firm believer in the theory that the best camera in the world is the one you have with you.
A lot of what’s frightening/uncomfortable to people about the iPhone 4S camera being SO good—and in significant ways much better* than an SLR—is an ego/identity thing, I think.
Being a “pro” and using tools/methods other people don’t feels good. I feel good that I hand-code web sites, while someone else uses a template! So I can understand this emotion. Same if you’re not a paid pro, but like the sense of owning “stuff” that sets you above/apart from other people.
I don't mean to be pedantic, but the iPhone is a smartphone not a camera. It's £500 and for that price you could get a great camera.
I can't believe you think she's recommending this camera to professional photographers lol.What a joke, I couldn't disagree more.
For practicality sake ...sure.
But come on folks, it's a phone.
If you're serious about photography use a proper camera.
(Annie Leibovitz does....really)
This is absolutely the case. I've owned a number of "really nice" P&S cameras over the years, most of them Canon Powershot and ELPH series. But the camera's not always with me.
My take on this is if you're planning on going somewhere memorable, take your P&S. If you're out n about, of course the best camera is the one on you, in this case the iPhone. The smartphone is a long ways away from replacing the P&S.
Recently returned to Europe with a friend and he took iPhone pictures, I took Elph 300 pictures. Which ones turned out better?And lugging around such a small P&S is not a burden at all.