Feb Newsletter and Videos

[Barry Beckham]

Open PDF HERE

[Ghulya]

Thanks for info, but please explain me where is write (Photographic Holy Bible?) for a good (perfect?) picture we necessary Bilion of megapixel, when at this time all viewers use a smartphone? In other hand have you possibility on smartphne (Dtp more or less is obsolete, right?) to note difference from: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9...megapixel of difference shoot to shoot? Have you a microscope for eyes? In many case, when i send photos on Getty Images, more it is only 1600 x 1200 pixel...Thanks for reply

Best regards

Ghulya

 

 

[Barry Beckham]

I am sorry, but I didn’t understand much, if any of what you have said. Can you write it again in your own language and I’ll use a translator so I can understand your point.

[Ghulya]

I re-write again no problem: first you said (wrote on Pdf) "more" pixel for "best" photos? Well and what in pixel: 10 20 30 40...500 Magapixel for a perfect pictures? Secondly all people around the world see, watch the "multimedia" content as Jepg on  tiny smartphone diagonal: are you capable to dsitinguish if taken from 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9..bilion megapixel  of a XYZ digital camera? If yes are you eyes a microscope?

Best regards

Ghulya

[Barry Beckham]

Ghulya

I'm still not entirely sure what your point is, but it appears to be, why bother with anything other than Smart Phone Photography. So forgive me if I am answering the wrong question.  All people around the world see, watch the "multimedia" content as Jepg on  tiny smartphone. That's clearly an incorrect statement, because why would so many people choose to use a multi-million pixel camera over a Smart Phone and view their images on 27in monitors or via huge screens via a PC projector. They either know something you don't about photography or they are extremely foolish at wasting all that money on cameras. 

If you're suggesting that any photography above the Smart Phones is a waste of time, because you, or as you suggest, "all people" can't tell the difference then I suggest you stay with that sort of Photography. You have every right to hold that view and you probably can't tell a Hasselblad from an iphone image at 5 inches in length.  Who would want to try and distinguish what camera was used while viewing thumbnails anyway?

Remember too that Smart Phone images are meant to be viewed on the Smart Phone and the internal software of that phone adjusts the image to present it in the best possible way on that Phone. Take that image off the phone for use elsewhere (like a slide show perhaps) and it can be a different story. In the hands of a good photographer and in certain conditions a Smart Phone can turn in pretty good results, but a decent camera in the hands of the same photographer will turn out even better results.

By chance, last night I judged a Photo competition and there were three Smart Phone images entered. Those Smart Phone images stood out from the rest of the images, but for all the wrong reasons. They lacked any vision, inspiration, interest, colour, clarity, or composition.  Other than that they were great :-)

Smart Phone photography is a great advance and I'm sure sometime in the future we'll all use those and nothing else, be we aren't there yet and some of us don't want to view the world through a small letterbox. 

 

 

[Ghulya]

Thanks again. But firstly I start like photographer since1969  Analogic Era: yes exactly half century ago. Secondly all people, see statistics, in the World use night and day smartphone iOS or Androind platform: bilion of users.Consequently all content “multimedia” photo short film, music games search and email sharing is made on smartphone and insignificat share of tablet (from Medieval Latin tabuleta diminutive of tabula). The progress of smartphone is like a  monster. Note for example that  (young) directors use on smartphone Filmic Pro, on Apple tablet iPad LumaFuison* or Affinfinity app as Photoshop for retouche “on the road”. Why? Because Future is here with smartphone: Sic transit gloria mundi.

 

Best regards

Man

 

Ps. Please note I use again an “old” Camedia Olympus C-8080 and C-5050 a perfect tiny camera as Leica style (cameras used to Alex Majoli italian reporter of Magnum Agency**). Four-thirds "old" E1 and E3 or E510 with Zuiko lens. However more my photos, in this time, is make with an other “old” tool named iPhone 4 in reason that I wrote

 

* Fast Video Editing on the iPad Pro with LumaFusion

https://www.cinema5d.com/fast-video-editing-ipad-pro-lumafusion/

** Alex Majoli points and shoots

http://www.robgalbraith.com/multi_page8c1c.html?cid=7-6468-7844

[Lin Evans]

Even though some excellent images have been made with the iPhone, there are still myriad reasons why photographers choose other options - not the least of is that  it's just not possible to do things with a tiny sensor that can be easily accomplished with larger formats. With a tiny sensor it's nearly impossible to blur a background and get the lovely bokeh easily accomplished with a larger sensor and much larger lens. If all you want in your photos is everything in focus all the time, the tiny sensor and lens has its advantage. Otherwise? Not so much.

Then there is the telephoto side for wildlife, etc. Try to get a decent image of the moon with the iPhone or zoom in for a closeup of a bird on a perch, or stop action on a hummingbird. Then there is the very real problem of even being able to see and frame the subject with the sun behind you as is common for many types of photography. It's always rather comical to me when I'm shooting wildlife at sundown such as elk, deer, bears, marmots, coyotes, wolves, etc., to see a small crowd of tourists pointing their phones in the general direction of the subject and moving their phone at arms length back and forth trying desperately to find the subject and knowing full well that their photos will reveal only a distant speck hardly recognizable. Even with my Nokia 808 phone and its 41.3 megapixel sensor, I've found trying to shoot wildlife in general to be nearly an impossible task. What can be done with my NIkon D7200 and Sigma 150-600 mm lens or with my Nikon P9000 shooting at 3000 mm optical is simply not possible with any telephone camera. How about taking multiple frames and stacking? Did you ever try to adjust focus precisely in multiple locations on a tiny macro subject with an iPhone? Hint - it doesn't work and simply is not possible to do.  I always laugh when I see the Facebook ads selling small telescopes to attach to your phone to try to emulate a telephoto lens on a dedicated camera. These ads often depict images captured with real telephoto equipment implying they were taken with the cell phone and the tiny telescope. I was a pioneer in digiscoping, using telescopes as lenses with tiny camera lenses. I still break out my old Nikon CP990 and my very, very expensive Swarovski  scope or my Meade ETX-90 and do a bit of digiscoping for fun, but it takes a rock steady tripod and my wired remote release and lots of luck to even remotely approach what I can do hand-held with my Nikon P9000. Using a telephone with a tripod and a telescope and getting decent results is an exercise in statistics. Perhaps one of ten shots is half-way decent. 

Then when time comes to make generous enlargements, there is rarely any substitute for optical resolution - something just not happening with the iPhone and similar instruments. Blow those images which are beautiful on the tiny screen up to a 40 inch print width and tell me what you see...  Then you will begin to appreciate the difference between a telephone camera and a real camera I suspect...

Best regards,

Lin 

[Ghulya]

Good view point Lin. But I remember, more or less, when in New York the Advertising iPhone 6 was on wall, perfect for capturing attention any person. Dpi or resolution full frame or Hasselblad file 200  400 800 Megapixel or NASA computers farm? No, absolutly because the phisiology human eye at long distance not distinguish MTF lines as a god lens. Human eye is different, for this reason ins't necessary bilion of pixel for a great poster (comunication an emotion). My case I make a "tiny" wall poster adversiting large mt 6 x 3 from a Camedia file Olympus Point&Shoot: wow! Digital is different, too.
Again "resolution"?  Other case: my printed art from service in Milan Italy on Hahnemühle Photo Rag cm 30 x40,  classic format for gallery in Anaolgic Era. Wow! Bingo! Perfect for wall exposition: but pay attention at distance and not nose on photo!
Finaly an description (for a magazine) how to I explain to make a still life at hause with only window light soft: Epson 850Z of 2.1 milion pixel printed in A4 vertical at 220 Dpi offset. Bingo!
In other hand more pixel is a Propaganda of Major brand(y)...
"Whats the use of having a great depth of field if there is not an adequate depth of feeling?” Change depth in megapixel-resolution and quote of Great Eugene Smith, remains same Immortal. My personal point of view in half century experienced, from Analogic to Digital Era.

Regards
Ghulya
 

[David Porter]

Any why is it that many phone photographers always shoot in portrait mode when landscape would be FAR more suitable for the subject and would sit much better when viewing on a monitor or TV set. Do they not realise that you can turn the phone through 90 degrees?

Mickp

[Lin Evans]

Hi Ghulya,

There is certainly lots of marketing and sales propaganda hyping high megapixel cameras and admittedly, the vast majority of people do not need extremely high resolution. I have spent many hours discussing this very subject with world renowned fashion photographer Melvin Sokolsky. Back when Canon released their first professional digital camera, the EOS 1D, Melvin and I both bought them. I used mine to do professional rodeo photography which was then a large part of my work. Melvin used the same 4.2 megapixel camera to shoot fashion for major magazines including many double truck pages. Melvin tells me that the 4.2 megapixel sensor was quite appropriate and never let him down. Many huge billboards have been made with similar cameras because from the normal viewing distance, whether the shots were made with a 100 megapixel sensor or a 4 megapixel sensor is indistinguishable. New York fashion photographer  Stephen Eastwood made some beautiful 70 inch portrait prints of his girlfriend with the lowly 3 megapixel Canon D30 - see image below. The essence is that it takes far fewer pixels to do a head and shoulders portrait with decent definition than a detailed landscape with thousands of trees, leaves, pine needles, etc. 3 megapixels was quite sufficient for these beautiful head and shoulders shots, but would fail miserably in an enlargement of a detailed landscape. It's all a matter of understanding the need (or not) for detail in an image. When I shot gallery art for a living, I often used medium format film because 35mm just wasn't sufficient for the detail the art gallery owners needed. When I bought my first professional digital camera in 1995 (the Kodak DCS 460) the $30,000 I spent was worth every penny. Today, of course that would not be sufficient for many jobs, but in 1995 it was a huge time saving device. The essence is that there is a place for low resolution and a place for high resolution. They both have their own character and value.

Best regards,

Lin

 

[Ghulya]

In medio stat virtus? Ok I agree

Regards

Ghulya

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Barry Beckham]

Mick

because they are not photographers, they are snappers. Those who approach you when your out shooting with your own camera is on a tripod. They thrust their iPhone under your nose and say, What’s wrong with this then? 

‘They are showing a terrible sunset that is just colour and blackness and it’s their slightly less than subtle way of saying. You don’t need that camera, I can do it all with this 

If one is comfortable with the camera being used, why do some think there is a need to continually justifying that use to others. Seems more like lack of confidence to me 

[JudyKay]

I use both.  Each is best at different things. That provides a better range of opportunity.  Just yesterday I was taking some long exposures with my iPhone in heavy snow falling among pines and gazeebos.  My phone provided quite nice images that my DSLR couldn't begin to produce.  The night before I was shooting fireworks.  The DSLR performed stellarly (if that wasn't a word before, it is now).  So, know both tools until you are confident using either, and then use the tool that gets you the image you want.  

 

Further, I do a lot of street photography where I prefer to stay inconspicuous.  Yea, I can stand in shadows, I've smeared black marker haphazardly all over the lens of my 80x200mm which sneaks into crowds, but most of my best shots in tough places have been while "checking email" on my iPhone.  

But then on the other hand again, I was recently in a difficult situation with my DSLR and iPhone (in some un-named, far-flung country) and a herd of police descended, wanting my devices.  They deleted my iPhone pics (the ones that were not hidden in my special folder), but found nothing to worry about on my DSLR.  Why?  It is possible with practice to perfect the technique of swapping out cards in seconds.  One has a lot of random images on it.  The other is slipped into a carefully cut seam of a backpack.  Some people can do that all one-handed while the other hand gesticulates in confusion.

So have a brain and use whatever works best.