Large file format - necessary ?

Large *sensor* format, surely? The raw images that come out of contemporary mobile phones aren't small. (Even the 10-bit HEICs aren't *particularly* small).

Would I still use my now 15-and-16-year-old DSLRs for a shoot? Of course. The ten year old (oh god, this is true) Sony A7II? Yes. I still contemplate a 44x33 camera every now and then. 

But I do use iPhone photos in my work; there are some iPhone contributions on my current portfolio.

Edited by Unfocussed Mike

FWIW I will say again that enlargement factor never quite goes away. Yesterday I was in the Photography Centre at the V&A, which everyone should visit at least once**. I stood staring at Mrs Cameron's portrait of Herschel. Even though it is a very soft image, there is something about the 1:1 factor (it's a contact print) that makes it incredibly vital. Next to it was an extraordinary carbon print of some flowers from the same era.

Enlargement factor may or may not be an issue with current iPhone photos with modest prints. I do not feel they are actually particularly sharp, in a certain way; there is front-to-back sharpness that stems from an inherently large circle of confusion, but within that, focus sharpness is missing.***

Though they are certainly sharp enough for large-ish prints. 

But all things being equal, and putting aside a wider range of optical choices, a well-photographed image from a DSLR or current mirrorless is going to have qualities a well-photographed shot by the same photographer of the same subject using a phone does not. And this is not just about pixel size, or circle of confusion etc.: there are some complex perceptual issues clouding the whole business of enlargement, some of which stem from optics choices. (Why *do* large contact prints feel the way they do? Why do large format wide angle photos so often feel a little less wide? etc.)

Maybe computational photography will blur the boundary of this, too. 

** There are Fox-Talbot contact prints on display at the moment

*** I am not one to talk about focus sharpness, though it does still matter with soft focus lenses.

Edited by Unfocussed Mike

We are at a point when a new smart phone in the hands of a kid can produce images better than a hobbyist photographer with a dslr in many situations. My 2p.

indemnity said

We are at a point when a new smart phone in the hands of a kid can produce images better than a hobbyist photographer with a dslr in many situations. My 2p.

Absolutely. But I think this has something to do with a change in culture, as a result of which I find myself on an unpopular hill in these here parts.

Photographers here tend to think there is a continuous decline in skill among other photographers. People who've had to work in a darkroom think iPhones make things easy, people who've shot transparency think digital camera previews make exposure too easy, etc.; everyone thinks face detect autofocus is cheating, even people who like it.

What is happening that older photographers don't tend to recognise is a massive, massive expansion in visual literacy. Younger people don't just have the first 100, 120 years of normalised photography to work through and be influenced by: they have more like 160-180. And almost all photos ever taken were taken in the last five years. They are influenced by *everything*. And they see and make instinctive, rapid connections we cannot see or make.

It has got a lot easier for new photographers to take photos. But visual literacy among older photographers is not keeping pace.

Edited by Unfocussed Mike

Unfocussed Mike said

indemnity said

We are at a point when a new smart phone in the hands of a kid can produce images better than a hobbyist photographer with a dslr in many situations. My 2p.

[snip]

It has got a lot easier for new photographers to take photos. But visual literacy among older photographers is not keeping pace.

Indeed I often wonder if the relative tailing-off of newer, younger members here is simply that at some semi-subconscious level they don't really identify with a lot of the work here on a visual literacy level. Perhaps almost all of what we do, even the things people think are modern edgy, is just old.

Edited by Unfocussed Mike

Unfocussed Mike said

indemnity said

We are at a point when a new smart phone in the hands of a kid can produce images better than a hobbyist photographer with a dslr in many situations. My 2p.

Absolutely. But I think this has something to do with a change in culture, as a result of which I find myself on an unpopular hill in these here parts.

Photographers here tend to think there is a continuous decline in skill among other photographers. People who've had to work in a darkroom think iPhones make things easy, people who've shot transparency think digital camera previews make exposure too easy, etc.; everyone thinks face detect autofocus is cheating, even people who like it.

What is happening that older photographers don't tend to recognise is a massive, massive expansion in visual literacy. Younger people don't just have the first 100, 120 years of normalised photography to work through and be influenced by: they have more like 160-180. And almost all photos ever taken were taken in the last five years. They are influenced by *everything*. And they see and make instinctive, rapid connections we cannot see or make.

It has got a lot easier for new photographers to take photos. But visual literacy among older photographers is not keeping pace.

Edited by Unfocussed Mike

It's what a phone can do and what you have to do with a camera to get anywhere near comparable images. The general population are looking at the resultant image and this can be achieved easily using a phone. Modern phones assess the subject matter recognise and calculate what needs to be done and produces the image. They perform well up to about 3200 iso above which point the images fall apart by comparison. These new phones are armed with 1 inch sensors and various focal length lenses giving hitherto unheard of quality imagery. They effectively take a multi exposure image and combine instantly providing something the average person with a camera has no hope of matching. The game has changed so much.

Edited by indemnity

Thom Hogan has used his pulpit the last 10 years to shout to any camera manufacturer reading his well-thought out blogs that building efficient and effective communication/upload facilities into cameras ought to be a key development for them. This seems to have been completely ignored.  And my take on it is that the ship has now well and truly sailed.

It has long been the case that many pictures might be taken by many cameras, and that for a well-lit simple subject that might even be most, now.

I've just taken some photos of an America's Cup race. Not with a cellphone.

The large file and so on:-

For running and cycling and triathlon races the "large" sensor seems likely to be good although having it in a box designed for accurately pointing it may be more important.

But the size of file turns out not to be. We turn it down to medium or even small. That's enough for the size of print or screen photo we provide.

For one race in the dark, at night, in snow, under dark clouds rather than the full moon's light, I'm fairly sure the bigger sensor sites mattered, and the camera smoothing blocks of them together into big pixels also.

I don't think there are any techniques used in camera phones* which could not/will not be used in dedicated cameras, including linking them to the cellular data network and supporting conversations.

And then there Hubble and Webb and so on

* Phone is probably due for discarding, in favour of terminal, or link, or something.

YorVikIng the R7 and Canon do that quite well.

We used to think that we would have a battery pack powering our various personal gadgets, building a battery into each of them is a result of technology changes, although it might not be permanent, similarly giving each device a high-powered radio might be supplanted by efficient connectivity, even with cables(!)

Most of the pictures taken have been very recently, but does that hold for the unique** pictures, the stunningly good ones, the important ones, and the ones which will be remembered in another century or dug up by our successors as xenoarchaeology?

** For reasonable values of unique

Hate trying to get decent photos on my phone. The supposed 50 MP images I can take on my camera would be twice as big as on my Fuji but quality just isn't there. I hate the lack of control and that awful shutter lag similar to a 20 year old compact. Not found a decent camera on a phone yet. I don't want to spend £1000+ on a phone just to get what is considered a good camera on a phone. That's more than my camera. More than my laptop.

ClickMore 📷 said

Hate trying to get decent photos on my phone. The supposed 50 MP images I can take on my camera would be twice as big as on my Fuji but quality just isn't there. I hate the lack of control and that awful shutter lag similar to a 20 year old compact. Not found a decent camera on a phone yet. I don't want to spend £1000+ on a phone just to get what is considered a good camera on a phone. That's more than my camera. More than my laptop.

Shutter lag is really an issue (even with things like the Fjorden grip). Phone manufacturers are getting slightly better at this, but some of it is just unfixable without an entirely separate camera hardware subsystem.

I use my phone camera a lot for working through ideas, or for memorialising stuff, or just for the whole thing of sending-a-cool-photo-from-where-I-am-right-now to a friend, as a kind of low-key communication.

But I also use it to collect textures and (in good light) colours.

I was at an early evening gig in a bar with good light the other week -- a formerly commercial space with a battered concrete floor. Thanks to the levelling sensor in the phone I took a bunch of dead-level, overlapping photos of the floor, which I can stitch together to make a very high-resolution texture. The newer iPhones with their higher-res macro cameras would be even better for this. 

I collect colour combinations for website work, too. Phones are just about unparalleled as digital notebooks and scrapbooks.

Mobile phones like the iPhone 15Pro Max like I have do definitely have great carry anywhere cameras but they simply don’t have the versatility of a mirrorless camera. Try taking pictures of a Goldfinch on a branch even six feet away and see how good the image is when you’ve cropped in. The bokeh is totally different in portraits and again less versatility in many situations. 
Sorry as it stands I’m not giving up the Canon R5 and its RF lenses. 
 

I heard somebody say Fancy cameras are toys for photographers.

Personally  I cant use my own phone for Photos I find it frustrating. I would like to see Phones be able to connect to Studio Equipment!  it would be nice if your Phone also acted as a wireless trigger where you could do a Studio Photosoot with full lighting.

Professional working photographers likely to use some old beat up set of cameras until they die and wont purchase anything new unless they can explain to their accountant how the new kit will earn more money thant their existing kit.

Hobby Photographers.........They want the fancy new stuff bells whistles and spent uncessery money on the geat and keeps the camera industrty alive, Lads in their middle age possibly have their mortage paid off, kids raised settleing in for retirement might have spare money to spend on hot young wan's that will take their clothes off and pose for them in their garage/cold studio. Keeps the models employeed and the camera companies churning out tweaks to the technologies every year with newer versions of cameras.

Average person looking at photos online nowadays dont care what Camera was used and probably dont pay too much attention to any one image as they constantly swipe and scroll.

Big sensors, High megapixel count!   I LOVE this.  I'm obsessed with details, I love being able to capture an insane amount of detail in an image and zoom in and examine every aspect of a photo.
Being able to zoom into a persons skin pore from across the room just because you can!   I like the ability of of the camera being able to capture such detail even if your never see it after you process your image and somebody looks at it on a phone.    I also love that I can take a full lenght shot and crop in to do a shoulder shot and still maintain enough detail in the image for it to look great.

I also do Macro.  In the days of 24mp sensors if taking macro shots outside, in natrual daylight you could do 1:1 possibly 2:1 and get some shots using natural light with very shallow depth of field and needing to open up your apature and do hand stacks. People used to mistake depth of field and field of view so used to go for smaller sensors.  With the ;arger  60mp sensors and 5axis stabilastion now you could possibly shoot at lower magnifcations from further away from your subject and get more depth of field and you can crop in tighter and retain more detail than you would if you were trying to crop in using a 24mp sensor.     

~B

Edited by Bullets

Edited by Bullets

Bullets said

Personally  I cant use my own phone for Photos I find it frustrating. I would like to see Phones be able to connect to Studio Equipment!  it would be nice if your Phone also acted as a wireless trigger where you could do a Studio Photosoot with full lighting.

This kit kinda-sorta exists, but it's the app and phone hardware side of it that is the puzzle. There was a Godox slave flash that worked with iPhones and some Android phones and could trigger studio lights, but since phone cameras cannot reliably be synchronised at that level of granularity, they ditched it.

Unfocussed Mike said

Bullets said

Personally  I cant use my own phone for Photos I find it frustrating. I would like to see Phones be able to connect to Studio Equipment!  it would be nice if your Phone also acted as a wireless trigger where you could do a Studio Photosoot with full lighting.

This kit kinda-sorta exists, but it's the app and phone hardware side of it that is the puzzle. There was a Godox slave flash that worked with iPhones and some Android phones and could trigger studio lights, but since phone cameras cannot reliably be synchronised at that level of granularity, they ditched it.

I remember seeing something similar for the Smart Phones the Godox A1?? perhaps where it connected with the phone and acted like a tiny flash but then I think you could only optically trigger your main lights.

EDIT: article on it

https://www.diyphotography.net/godox-has-killed-off-its-a1-bluetooth-smartphone-flash-trigger/

~B

Edited by Bullets

Edited by Bullets