Switch to English Language Passer en langue franÁaise Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,295   Posts: 1,535,637   Online: 1114
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 39
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    235
    Quote Originally Posted by Sirius Glass View Post
    Result: A crappy low resolution image.
    Hysterical!

    Actually, the funny part is the pretension shown on this thread. At least one of the above posters gets that joke.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    local
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,142
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    1
    i don't know about crappy photographs,
    stephen schaub makes some beautiful images

    one could draw the parallel between getting a low-fi / plastic, holga,
    meniscus, or lens baby lens and using it on a "nice" body ...


    the tripod is kind of funny though ...

  3. #13
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,093
    Quote Originally Posted by MaximusM3 View Post
    So, what's the difference? Both are crappy images and the film guy actually spent more money since he's buying rolls at probably $4 per and blowing through it like water.
    While working at Kodak, I took a class on the "Image Quality Chain". In the class, rule number one is only improve the weakest link of the chain, improving any other link in the chain will not make an appreciable difference.

    Basically we are saying the same thing. My point though was to explain the humor to billbretz et al whom did not see the humor.
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    235
    Quote Originally Posted by Sirius Glass View Post
    My point though was to explain the humor to billbretz et al whom did not see the humor.
    I think you know I understood the point of the "humor."

    What you don't realize is that a lot of folks make a lot of pictures with cell phones, happily enjoying the results. Lots of folks will find fun, interesting, artistic, maybe even meaningful ways to use these laughable products.

    And we can debate whether the resolution is "crappy." Frankly, for a lot of uses, it is quite good.

    Real world: I work as a photojournalist for a newspaper/online news resource. We are trying to stay relevant and employed. One way to do that is immediacy. The tools being discussed here can help me stay relevant. It is especially helpful considering a lot of that "high quality optical equipment" is already in the trunk of my car.

    Yeah, I can use that. Nothing funny about that. Laugh if you like, I call it working.

  5. #15
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,093
    bill,

    I find digital imaging good for six situations:
    1. Journalism: When the boss want the images before the image was taken.
    2. Weddings: The Brides want the digitial images of the wedding before the wedding has taken place.
    3. Posting images for eBay.
    4. Posting images of mechanical problems on line when one needs help fast.
    5. Infrared photography: Ever since the demise of HIE, digital does infrared imaging better.
    6. Remote sensing: Example, Voyager I's and Voyager II's image collection at Jupiter and Saturn.
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    235
    One last thing from me (we hope!)... Sorry to the OP and other posters for steering this thread awry... the image of a 300 on an iPhone is comical on its face, I agree. I know I have been dissuaded from participating in forums because of strongly negative reactions to some things I've offered, so, I hope I haven't been too much of a killjoy.

  7. #17
    brent8927's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Oak Park, IL
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    274
    Images
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by billbretz View Post
    One last thing from me (we hope!)... Sorry to the OP and other posters for steering this thread awry... the image of a 300 on an iPhone is comical on its face, I agree. I know I have been dissuaded from participating in forums because of strongly negative reactions to some things I've offered, so, I hope I haven't been too much of a killjoy.
    I think you actually made a good point. Personally what I found funny was the excessiveness--the 300 on the Berlebach tripod, etc. It just seems to defeat the entire advantage that a cell-phone camera has--ease of portability. I think cell phone cameras and point-and-shoots are great for that--the best camera is the one you have with you, and I know when I was shooting 4x5, I only brought that with me when I was intending to go shoot some photos. Personally I don't have a iPhone or pocket point-and-shoot, but I would because I can't always have my Hasselblad with me, and frankly, sometimes it'd be nice to have a spontaneous photo of my wife and I when we go out. Sure the quality of an iPhone isn't up to par with Zeiss, Rodekstock, Schneider, etc., but it's good enough.

    So, I'm totally in favor of people having fun with this--if people are willing to pay for the equipment, and it gets them excited about photography, I'm completely in favor. But I certainly still find many of the photos hilarious!!!
    In the name of God, stop a moment, close your work, look around you. ~LEO TOLSTOY

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Live Free or Die
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,377
    Images
    88
    I do like the part about "they donít need to know anything about photography or lighting to take great pictures...".
    The little keyring kit I understand, but if you're going to carry a 300 tele, an slr body doesn't add much to the kit vs. the phone.

  9. #19
    kminov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Sofia,Bulgaria
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    33
    While you are absolutely right, it takes more than a good eye (although the eye being indispensable) to make a good photo. Besides you are comparing analog liths with digi something. While the analog liths are 1:1 or close to what the lenses see the digi is something like 25:1, and everything like tones and grays are also 25:1. Or worse. The whole concept is senile, the little digi sensor could never possibly use those lens as they were meant to be used.


    Quote Originally Posted by MaximusM3 View Post
    I don't know if that stands. It would imply that low resolution means a crappy image, which couldn't be father from the truth. If that was so, then loads of grainy film images or lith prints would fall under that realm. There are PLENTY of crappy images on film, being spit out with equipment worth thousands, sharp and of the highest resolution.

    I draw this:

    Take a low speed, high resolution film of relatively low cost
    Spend LOTS of money to buy high quality optical equipment
    Result: a crappy high resolution image

    So, what's the difference? Both are crappy images and the film guy actually spent more money since he's buying rolls at probably $4 per and blowing through it like water.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    local
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,142
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by bdial View Post
    I do like the part about "they donít need to know anything about photography or lighting to take great pictures...".
    The little keyring kit I understand, but if you're going to carry a 300 tele, an slr body doesn't add much to the kit vs. the phone.

    the thing that i think is funny about that statement is the absolute truth in it !
    before people become "serious" photographers they take some of their best photographs
    they have no knowledge of fstops, lighting technical BS &c, they are free to point and press ...
    when people have all that "stuff" on their mind they no longer have an invisible barrier between
    their camera and them, they have all the tech-stuff working as a barrier.

    i hope these funny little lenses on people's phones make a difference in their images!
    silver magnets, trickle tanks sold
    artwork often times sold for charity
    PM me for details

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  ó   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin