OT: How to take AMAZING pictures with cellphone cameras

[cadence90]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pink

And the Google Pixel is SRAM

That's strike #1 against it; bad enough.

Strikes #2 and #3 against it, which seal the no-vote, are that it is promoted by this guy, who has taken over the "most annoying shill on TV" title from the Chevy dude....




.
.

[Mr. Pink]

Oh man, I am totally with you on that one. I just want to hit him on the head with a hammer. Or, better yet, make him ride a bicycle with no helmet near some college town where all the kids are using his product and driving.

But, I'm very much thinking of the pixel. Totally integrated into the Android world, and excellent camera.

[MikeD]

Originally Posted by Anarchist

See, to me those pictures look way over processed. They don’t look real.

That was my impression. Impressive, vivid colors but over exaggerated.

[sonicCows]

The biggest problem I have with the Samsung camera lenses is that they have so much optical distortion. I'm sure any phone camera will have this (as they all have small sensors and wide lenses) but at least Apple seems to do better with their distortion correction algorithms.

[VTR1000SP2]

Originally Posted by palincss

No, there's no image visible there.

Let's try this again

https://www.dropbox.com/s/i65kstwimu...9.51.jpg?raw=1

[palincss]

Originally Posted by VTR1000SP2

Let's try this again

https://www.dropbox.com/s/i65kstwimu...9.51.jpg?raw=1

Lovely!

[thwart]

Originally Posted by palincss

Lovely!

I'd have to agree. Not too many folks would believe that was shot with an iPhone...

[Tony T]

Originally Posted by cadence90

…this guy, who has taken over the "most annoying shill on TV" title from the Chevy dude….

Don't forget the "Dell Dude"

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by cadence90

That's strike #1 against it; bad enough.

Strikes #2 and #3 against it, which seal the no-vote, are that it is promoted by this guy, who has taken over the "most annoying shill on TV" title from the Chevy dude....




.
.

This guy isn't a 'phone guy' either but is way more annoying, IMHO..was with verizon too..in the category of annoying TV ad people.

[MikeD]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pink

Well, I've been around the biz all my previous life too, but let's put it back in our pants.



That said, heh, the phone designers could easily design a little sliding door as a lens protector. Easy. But, I guess, it doesn't fulfill the sleek, cool aesthetic that the public seems to want. Gotta be cool and sleek, right? Now, as far as putting a UV filter or something on the lens, yeah, I've seen it thousands of times. Its being lazy. It's not as though filters are immune to prints and grime. Its just a transparent lens cap for most. And, I don't care how good they are, you're also introducing another element of lesser quality in front of your 700 dollar or so chunk of finely ground Japanese optics. As you say, why? It's like going to Walmart for tires to put on your ten grand road bike.



And phone camera lenses are garbage.



Oh well, happy pix. Peace out.

Do you have proof that phone lenses are junk? They may be small, but the iPhone lens is far from being junk. I will admit having a large lens and a zoom lens is advantageous, but for a point and shoot camera, my phone is fine. I almost never take a blurry or poorly exposed shot. I rarely take my good camera with me. If I had a super high resolution computer monitor, maybe I would see a quality difference.

[Anarchist]

Originally Posted by VTR1000SP2

Let's try this again

https://www.dropbox.com/s/i65kstwimu...9.51.jpg?raw=1

Wow!

....

[Mr. Pink]

Originally Posted by MikeD

Do you have proof that phone lenses are junk? They may be small, but the iPhone lens is far from being junk. I will admit having a large lens and a zoom lens is advantageous, but for a point and shoot camera, my phone is fine. I almost never take a blurry or poorly exposed shot. I rarely take my good camera with me. If I had a super high resolution computer monitor, maybe I would see a quality difference.

Look. Let's just compare. Here's my everyday lens on my Fujis. http://www.fujifilm.com/products/dig...28_4_r_lm_ois/ A well respected hunk of glass, but, nothing special. It's literally a handful (in size and weight). Now, look at your phone. Try to find the lens. Oh, there it is, but, as somebody said, that's just the cover! That's it. It's a tiny thing in there, covered with grime at the window. Now, I may be a little old school, but, physics are physics, and I'm pretty trusting that my lens is better than whatever is inside even the glorified IPhone whatever. (Boy, does Apple survive on hype since Jobs died)

Hey, I'm no Luddite. I shoot with my phone, too. I used to spin vinyl through tube amps into electrostatic speakers way back, but, now I Spotify through Bluetooth. But, lets get real here. These devices can capture a nice snap that looks good on a phone or on the Internet, but, try printing them on paper to any sort of decent size, and, you'll see how toy like they really are. I guess that's the point. All of these billions of images being created almost daily will never be seen beyond small screens, and then vanish into the ether. Print is almost dead, so, I guess we can get away with phone pictures. Me, I print images up to 16x20 on my own printer, (which isn't even all that big), so, I need quality input. Fortunately, the camera companies are still alive after the great carnage of losing their bread and butter point and shoots, and still advancing the technology of digital capture for an affordable price. Who knows in five to ten years, though.

[Mr. Pink]

Originally Posted by oldpotatoe

This guy isn't a 'phone guy' either but is way more annoying, IMHO..was with verizon too..in the category of annoying TV ad people.

To the firing squad wall, I'll add that incredibly annoying and nebbishy TD Ameritrade guy.

[eBAUMANN]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pink

Me, I print images up to 16x20 on my own printer, (which isn't even all that big), so, I need quality input.

You are in an EXTREME minority here, and I think you know that.

Even most die-hard "photographers" dont print themselves anymore, as the expense of a quality printer and the ink/paper to feed it just isnt worth it for the infrequency most people (even photogs) are printing stuff these days.
Far easier/cheaper to outsource to a quality print service (WHCC, Adorama, im sure their are more those are just the ones I use) and the results are as good or better than what you could do yourself at home.

And even then, I would LOVE to see side by side prints (of a reasonable dimension, like 11x14/12x18) from a fuji x-series cam next to a pic out of the pixel 2, the same scene, shot and processed as identically as possible...
Ya know what, im gonna do just that! for science!? Heh.
I have a pixel on the way and an xpro2/canon 1d4 to stack up against it.
I would even bet that at a larger size, say 16x20/24, the differences would would hard to notice from 5ft away.

So stay tuned! or something...ill probably forget, but maybe not!

[Mr. Pink]

Originally Posted by eBAUMANN

You are in an EXTREME minority here, and I think you know that.

Even most die-hard "photographers" dont print themselves anymore, as the expense of a quality printer and the ink/paper to feed it just isnt worth it for the infrequency most people (even photogs) are printing stuff these days.
Far easier/cheaper to outsource to a quality print service (WHCC, Adorama, im sure their are more those are just the ones I use) and the results are as good or better than what you could do yourself at home.

And even then, I would LOVE to see side by side prints (of a reasonable dimension, like 11x14/12x18) from a fuji x-series cam next to a pic out of the pixel 2, the same scene, shot and processed as identically as possible...
Ya know what, im gonna do just that! for science!? Heh.
I have a pixel on the way and an xpro2/canon 1d4 to stack up against it.
I would even bet that at a larger size, say 16x20/24, the differences would would hard to notice from 5ft away.

So stay tuned! or something...ill probably forget, but maybe not!

Quality is not a result from a popularity contest.

And, it's going to have to be bigger than 11x14. And closer than five feet. Really? Five feet? Ahem.