Author Topic: Cameras are too good!?? (Read 1493 times)

leaf · « **on:** December 01, 2011, 05:47 »

I find camera 'add-ons' this or this sorta funny

Why do we need good or fancy cameras on our phones if we are just going to put a 'grunge' filter on top of it to essentially reduce the quality of the picture. I understand editing a certain look afterwards, but altering the original photo seems backwards. Maybe I'm turning old??

etienjones · « **Reply #1 on:** December 01, 2011, 07:13 »

Quote from: leaf on December 01, 2011, 05:47

I find camera 'add-ons' this or this sorta funny

Why do we need good or fancy cameras on our phones if we are just going to put a 'grunge' filter on top of it to essentially reduce the quality of the picture. I understand editing a certain look afterwards, but altering the original photo seems backwards. Maybe I'm turning old??

Maybe that is so, or at least from a different generation. My teenage son doesn't give a flying fxxx if the photo is of high quality as long as it looks cooooool.

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #2 on:** December 01, 2011, 07:21 »

The fact is mobile phones cameras are not good in first place, despite resolution in megapixels, due to tiny low quality lens. So pictures only look cool on an equally tiny phone display - with the help of a bit of oversaturation and excessive brightness - but not cool at all when seen on a normal computer screen.

I found it funny that not just teen-agers but even some of the best microstock photographers - probably travelling with 5 kg of dSLR and accessories - twitted ugly mobile phone pictures from the Berlin event.

Let's abolish mobile phones.

cuppacoffee · « **Reply #3 on:** December 01, 2011, 07:54 »

It's an "art" thing. There is a cult that that loves the "krappy camera" look. It's been around a long time. There has even been an annual international contest appropriately called the Krappy Camera Contest and Exhibition, somewhat prestigious, for the most "artistic" image taken by a toy, plastic, sub-par, cheap camera (film) that has been run by the Soho Photo Gallery in New York since 1992 (I was a past winner). They state, " We will be searching for extraordinary photographs produced with cameras with lousy lenses." They accept primarily photos taken with a Holga or Diana which are toy plastic cameras with plastic lenses, a Fuji Instax or Ansco, Kodak Brownie or perhaps a pinhole camera. Some digital camera images are allowed if they are modified with a sub-par lens. It's all about the lens. It's a segment of photography that has a lot of followers and today new photographers want the same results quickly without film, which is frankly hard to find and to get processed. Darkrooms are not as accessible these days. Google holga to start and you will get a lot of interesting info. Here are the winners of the last contest - http://www.sohophoto.com/kk13_winners_gallery/index.html

maigi · « **Reply #4 on:** December 01, 2011, 08:15 »

I think it's great.

It's for the kids and helps them to retain their and keep alive creativity and have fun with photography.
But it's true - as long they don't try to print them out large. I think this would be important to teach to kids that different tools have different purpose. Like you can't screw in the screw with your hammer, your need a screwdriver. If you are very skillful then technically you could manage to do it, but the results are not nice and they don't last. The same is taking pictures with your smartphone for prints.
But using different gadgets to show your creativity to your pals, it's just fun, I think.

Duh, and why not for adults as well.

jbarber873 · « **Reply #5 on:** December 01, 2011, 09:48 »

The point of an image for commercial use is to get someone to look at it. When all the images are uniformly "perfect", with no mystery or abstraction, anything that is "wrong" will stand out. Which means it will accomplish it's purpose. Back in the 90's, the reaction to perfect models in perfect backgrounds was to use regular looking people in tacky settings with flash on camera lighting. The images broke out of the clutter. The same with selective focus instead of front to back sharpness. When i was in school ( long ago! ), the rage was to process ektachrome in c41 chemicals along with dektol. The images were remarkable. They made you look. The good news for microstock is that this will always be a niche, and by the time it becomes mainstream, even the reviewers will think it looks "correct". Just look at all the teenage "executives" with a 3 day growth of beard images around now.

rubyroo · « **Reply #6 on:** December 01, 2011, 10:05 »

I think some of those shots are beautiful.

I have a close relative who is a Fine Arts photographer, and I could easily put some of these into his magnificent portfolio. Some of them would fit right in.

It rather makes me miss the world outside of the tight limitations of microstock.

Smiling Jack · « **Reply #7 on:** December 01, 2011, 10:31 »

I am with leaf-I must be getting old. OMG -I am old!
Smiling Jack

stormchaser · « **Reply #8 on:** December 01, 2011, 11:15 »

Someone asked me the other day if there was a DSLR with Instagram on it. I kid you not. Nuff said.

lagereek · « **Reply #9 on:** December 01, 2011, 11:35 »

Even worse! using the highest-res cams, best optics, etc and then some people here will down-size! mind you thats the noobs and crettins.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #10 on:** December 01, 2011, 11:51 »

Quote from: lagereek on December 01, 2011, 11:35

Even worse! using the highest-res cams, best optics, etc and then some people here will down-size! mind you thats the noobs and crettins.

Except SS will pay you the same for 5MP as they will for 50MP and DT will actually pay you extra for sales if you downsize to 12MP so they can upsize it as a TIFF.

sharpshot · « **Reply #11 on:** December 01, 2011, 12:52 »

Sometimes its nice to have some fun and not have to spend time fiddling with filters in photoshop. Most people don't own photoshop and a lot probably just take photos and upload them straight from the camera. They would probably laugh at us spending time recreating the effects they can achieve in camera.

michaeldb · « **Reply #12 on:** December 01, 2011, 12:59 »

Quote from: sharpshot on December 01, 2011, 12:52

Sometimes its nice to have some fun and not have to spend time fiddling with filters in photoshop. Most people don't own photoshop and a lot probably just take photos and upload them straight from the camera. They would probably laugh at us spending time recreating the effects they can achieve in camera.

Yeah they look like kind of fun gadgets. But then I am not really a photographer and I am old.

Something I was wondering about yesterday: If I can take a photo with my phone, why can't I make a phone call with my camera?

donding · « **Reply #13 on:** December 01, 2011, 13:31 »

Quote from: cuppacoffee on December 01, 2011, 07:54

It's an "art" thing. There is a cult that that loves the "krappy camera" look. It's been around a long time. There has even been an annual international contest appropriately called the Krappy Camera Contest and Exhibition, somewhat prestigious, for the most "artistic" image taken by a toy, plastic, sub-par, cheap camera (film) that has been run by the Soho Photo Gallery in New York since 1992 (I was a past winner). They state, " We will be searching for extraordinary photographs produced with cameras with lousy lenses." They accept primarily photos taken with a Holga or Diana which are toy plastic cameras with plastic lenses, a Fuji Instax or Ansco, Kodak Brownie or perhaps a pinhole camera. Some digital camera images are allowed if they are modified with a sub-par lens. It's all about the lens. It's a segment of photography that has a lot of followers and today new photographers want the same results quickly without film, which is frankly hard to find and to get processed. Darkrooms are not as accessible these days. Google holga to start and you will get a lot of interesting info. Here are the winners of the last contest - http://www.sohophoto.com/kk13_winners_gallery/index.html

I thought some of those photos were rather interesting just on composition alone regardless of the quality of the lens.

lagereek · « **Reply #14 on:** December 01, 2011, 14:01 »

Me, I always shoot in raw, PS for the parameters, even using the small color-checkers. Striving for quality. This is a must when doing dayrate photography for ad-agencies, etc, and its fun.
In the old days, it was Velvia and further back even Kodachrome-25. That was the days, the days when most pics fetched over 1000 bucks. We all became rich.