OT: How to take AMAZING pictures with cellphone cameras

[weisan]

I used to be involved in photography - landscape, college newspaper staff photographer, bridal studio assistant. photojournalism major etc. It's safe to say that I know more than the average person. However, I have gotten really rusty over the years in part because of the lack of practice, but more importantly, I have lost the interest or the passion. The last time I took photography seriously was with an SLR. Even though I do have a digital Sony SLR, I hardly ever use it. In short, I am way behind in the digital age.

Today, I just "upgraded" our family cell phones to iPhone 7 and iPhone 7+.
I have seen some of the amazing pictures posted by folks here. What's even more amazing to me is when they disclosed that those pictures were taken with a cellphone. I was completely dumbfounded in some occasions and have no idea how that's even possible without some extensive post-production manipulations based on my prior experience or knowledge.

Now, having said that, I would like to learn from some of my pals here how they managed to get the kind of pictures that they did. So, if you don't mind, please share some of your secrets.

Thank you!

[adub]

Download the Snapseed app.

[weisan]

Download the Snapseed app.

On it now...

[azrider]

Samsung camera way better than our 7’s unfortunately

[weisan]

Samsung camera way better than our 7’s unfortunately

I am looking up on the Return Policy now...

[ergott]

Work within the limitations of the platform. You get gobs of depth of field with tiny sensor. Great for landscapes and macro-like shots. I rarely do portraits with my camera, but when I do it's great to have that previously mentions dof and get context rather than isolation. The new portrait mode in phones is an artificial treatment that still can get fooled by the background. It's not a substitute for shallow dof.

My Samsungs have built in HDR processing and I use it for almost every shot. Check settings for "tap screen" to focus. Helps camera figure out what you are doing quicker.

Other than that, the usual taking time for good composition still applies. When my friends hand me their phone they notice the difference. Most people are only a couple footsteps from getting a great pic.

[Mzilliox]

Work within the limitations of the platform. You get gobs of depth of field with tiny sensor. Great for landscapes and macro-like shots. I rarely do portraits with my camera, but when I do it's great to have that previously mentions dof and get context rather than isolation. The new portrait mode in phones is an artificial treatment that still can get fooled by the background. It's not a substitute for shallow dof.

My Samsungs have built in HDR processing and I use it for almost every shot. Check settings for "tap screen" to focus. Helps camera figure out what you are doing quicker.

Other than that, the usual taking time for good composition still applies. When my friends hand me their phone they notice the difference. Most people are only a couple footsteps from getting a great pic.

yup, as you know then, its good eyes that take good pics, cameras are actually all pretty good these days. then some dudes edit after the fact to help out lighting and color saturation, etc.

[oldpotatoe]

I am looking up on the Return Policy now...

Guy that did my bike fits was/is a professional Photographer...own dark room, still does some non digital BUT..he's also quite active on ebay and all his pix are with a iphone6..not even a 7 and his pix are amazing!!....so before you start returning, etc..'way better'...?? I think for most, we don't scratch the complete capabilities of anu cell phone camera..Anybody want to buy a Canon G12? Haven't used it in years..Iphone6+

[gospastic]

Most phone cameras in the past few years will take very good quality pics as long as the light is good. I like to shoot in RAW on my phone to get the most out of the camera. These pics were all taken in RAW with the iPhone.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4449/37847466652_7f7d283b15_c.jpg
https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4453/37168714194_b47bf3a6d2_c.jpg
https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4492/37830117176_476714f0ec_z.jpg
https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4506/37878799201_626136c744_c.jpg
https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4490/37830119696_5aea6509dc_c.jpg
https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4448/37830123456_b0c5dc0a5f_z.jpg
https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4478/37830120346_349136d234_c.jpg

[BikeNY]

I've often wondered this same thing. I didn't know you could shoot raw images on a Iphone! Any other tips are appreciated, especially as I'm coming from a non-photography background.

gospastic, those images are awesome! Did you do any processing on them, or or those the raw images?

[rePhil]

Sorry Weisan.....Slight thread drift. About 10 years ago after retiring from photography, I ran into the former regional manager of a photo chain. I knew the chain was long gone and asked what effect digital camera's had in their demise. He was quick to point out that it wasn't the digital camera, but the cell phone.

My grand daughter is taking a photography class in H.S. When I asked what camera she was going to use she replied they all use their phones. How times have changed.

[gospastic]

Those are all processed to varying degrees. I’m a big fan of Lightroom. I’ve used a few other apps but keep going back to it.

[Mr. Pink]

I'm a recently retired photo retoucher, so, I guess you can say I know digital. Sorry, but, I still can't take phones seriously as cameras, even if they are pretty awesome, because they're so damn hard to use. I don't know about you, but, in any kind of bright light, I can't see s**t on that screen, and, sorry II, you cannot be serious with any phone camera lens, especially since, 99% of the time, it's covered in all sorts of fingerprint grime and stuff. They're great for snaps, certainly handy and convenient, and they've killed the point and shoot market, but, they'll always have limitations.
I'm liking the smaller mirrorless cameras that Japan is releasing these days. I have a Fuji Xe1 that fits in a small fanny pack I bought for it for rides (with a fixed 28mm pancake lens), but that thing is starting to show its age. Sony makes some excellent small cameras with 24 megapixel sensors and zoom lenses that are very portable.

[eBAUMANN]

As a photographer and professional photo retoucher...I have been a proponent of cell phones as cameras for as long as I can remember, based primarily on the basis of "best camera is the one you have with you" mentality.

As much as people make a big deal about megapixels and whatever other whiz-bang killer feature of the year might be...photography, at its core, is about MOMENTS. Which can be captured by any capable camera. The easier the camera is to use, the more likely you are to capture that moment you see in front of you...which is the true brilliance of the phone-camera, they are (for the most part) very very quick (or at least as quick as you are) in the from-pocket-to-photo time trial.

I even went so far as to shoot one of my weekly projects in a senior level college photo class (like 10 years ago) with an iphone 3g...i converted all the images to BW, cropped to 2:3, and NOBODY noticed.

These days, most phones have cameras that are more than enough for 95% of the population (considering most photos will never be viewed on anything other than screens) and for that other 5%, there are a number of high-end phones (apple, google, samsung) with truly impressive cameras worthy of your time/pocket.

Just remember to keep your lens smudge free!
Seriously, it makes an ENORMOUS difference.

[jimcav]

Just remember to keep your lens smudge free! [/B]
Seriously, it makes an ENORMOUS difference.

how do you do that, and since i haven't managed it, what is best/safe way to clean. is a kleenex ok?
jim

[eBAUMANN]

how do you do that, and since i haven't managed it, what is best/safe way to clean. is a kleenex ok?
jim

just give it a quick buff with literally any fabric.
the softer/cleaner/drier the better.
ie - your t shirt ;)

because the lens is so tiny, even a seemingly small smudge (like a finger print) on it will effect the quality of THE ENTIRE IMAGE.
compared to a traditional DSLR, which has a MUCH larger lens, and is capable of collecting quite a few smudges before any noticeable degradation of image quality can be detected.

[eddief]

I was going to wipe it down with a microfiber cloth. I noticed a flaw in the lens and wondered if it was a chip. Instead I found it to be a clear film stuck on the lens. Wonder if it was meant to stay there or if it was put there when new at the factory and meant to be removed when I started to use it. Also wondered how it has been affecting my photos?

how do you do that, and since i haven't managed it, what is best/safe way to clean. is a kleenex ok?
jim

[Mr. Pink]

There's a simple fix to this. Put a small tethered lens cap on that phone. It can be done. Otherwise, it can't be kept clean. Cmon. Would you carry one of your best lenses around in your pocket and toss it around anywhere without a cap on it? Let's not even go near the quality of those lenses. Pretty much a joke, compared to a higher end Nikon/Canon/Sony/Fuji.

[MikeD]

If you want to make a photo look like a modern art painting, try the Prisma app.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171023/c5304b6c01fec4ff810d1342863e9b1f.jpg

[jasonification]

use those grimy fingerprints to do "soft focus" shots! :D

[DRietz]

What apps are people using on their iPhones to take raw photos?

[MattTuck]

yeah, disappointed that there isn't a "sweaty jersey pocket" filter.

[eBAUMANN]

There's a simple fix to this. Put a small tethered lens cap on that phone. It can be done. Otherwise, it can't be kept clean. Cmon. Would you carry one of your best lenses around in your pocket and toss it around anywhere without a cap on it? Let's not even go near the quality of those lenses. Pretty much a joke, compared to a higher end Nikon/Canon/Sony/Fuji.

i put UV filters on my "real camera" lenses and a hood...lens caps come off day 1 and sit in the pelican case at home until i am storing the lenses for some reason.

why?

1) lens caps get lost, easily
2) lens caps get in the way of taking photos, literally
3) having one dangling from your camera on some string = n00b

this statement comes from years of photojournalism/weddings/sports/street shooting, FWIW.

MINOR smudges and scratches and whatever on a UV filter do NOT effect images taken with the lens. they are too close to the lens elements to even register on the sensor in the actual photo.

back to phones though, a quick buff with your shirt is all that is necessary to get the lens COVER (the thing you are buffing is NOT actually a lens element...far as I know) clean enough for a nice clear image.

[MikeD]

What apps are people using on their iPhones to take raw photos?


Procam has a RAW setting.

[Mr. Pink]

i put UV filters on my "real camera" lenses and a hood...lens caps come off day 1 and sit in the pelican case at home until i am storing the lenses for some reason.

why?

1) lens caps get lost, easily
2) lens caps get in the way of taking photos, literally
3) having one dangling from your camera on some string = n00b

this statement comes from years of photojournalism/weddings/sports/street shooting, FWIW.

MINOR smudges and scratches and whatever on a UV filter do NOT effect images taken with the lens. they are too close to the lens elements to even register on the sensor in the actual photo.

back to phones though, a quick buff with your shirt is all that is necessary to get the lens COVER (the thing you are buffing is NOT actually a lens element...far as I know) clean enough for a nice clear image.

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.

[eBAUMANN]

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.

my point is, when it comes down to it, photography is about the CONTENT of the image, not how many pixels there are or how perfectly corner detail is rendered...

ive seen plenty of sh*t photos come out of $25k cameras...sure the image is TECHNICALLY beautiful (from a pixel peeping computer nerd POV) but that is NOT what photography is about...its about what you point that camera at and when you push the shutter...and no camera will be able to tell you how to do that, no matter how clean the lens is ;)

some of the favorite photos i have ever taken came out of a 35mm point and shoot camera. the simplicity and quality of that camera (a t4) was a combo that allowed me to capture moments almost instantly, without screwing around with 6 different dials and buttons (and a lens cap) before I was able to get the shot.

PS - I use high-quality UV filters + hoods for lens lens protection (instead of a cap) - if you are careful with your equipment and keep the filters clean, its a totally viable method and it does not compromise image quality at all.

[weisan]

What’s the proper technique in holding a phone for taking pictures?

[azrider]

etc..'way better'...??

As someone who has researched this I can assure you it is way better. Just google camera iphone vs samsung and you'll see that 'experts' all tout one as being far superior over the other.......but hey, you sound like you're pretty in the know so maybe the 'experts' got it wrong :rolleyes:

the iphone pics listed on this thread are 'ok'................the Samsung pics below are amazing.

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=176670&highlight=camera

https://ergottwheels.smugmug.com/Vacation/Bermuda-2015/i-9QWp8rs/0/X2/BermudaPhoneedits-1-X2.jpg

https://ergottwheels.smugmug.com/Vacation/Bermuda-2015/i-GfHNvSd/0/X3/BermudaPhone-6-X3.jpg

https://ergottwheels.smugmug.com/Vacation/Bermuda-2015/i-fDpnBTh/0/X3/BermudaPhoneedits-5-X3.jpg

[gospastic]

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Tony T]

download the snapseed app.

+1

.

[VTR1000SP2]

I've been told by friends and family (no one happens to be a professional or amateur photographer) that I take great pictures with my iPhone which is an iPhone 6s currently. My only suggestions are to try and keep the phone as still as possible, align your shot with the horizon and always keep that lens clean. I try not to edit my images as much as possible and sometimes it all works out to something like the image I'm sharing below, it's my favorite capture with the phone using the native app and without any editing.

https://photos-6.dropbox.com/t/2/AAB6nQm_9DDqYbFYlb_uOh1X21YXkMIzSqL3jFg1Yn8k0Q/12/103351974/jpeg/32x32/1/_/1/2/2017-01-03%2008.19.51.jpg/ENClhlAY-IMGIAcoBw/SElTV3Ucptl1xuNzJeOo3yXBBJ-WDuGjcfOzGktTL_Y?size=800x600&size_mode=3

[palincss]

So where's the image?

[MikeD]

Samsung camera way better than our 7’s unfortunately


Maybe a bit better but not way better, from reviews I've read. Anyway, I've had two disappointing Samsung phones in the past so I'm not about to go there again.

[azrider]

Maybe a bit better but not way better, from reviews I've read. Anyway, I've had two disappointing Samsung phones in the past so I'm not about to go there again.

If you do make the switch to Apple, I'd wait till the next OS release :mad:

[weisan]

So...er...ahem, please bring this down to a language that I can understand... Apple is Campagnolo...and Samsung is Shimano?

:banana:

[ntb1001]

So...er...ahem, please bring this down to a language that I can understand... Apple is Campagnolo...and Samsung is Shimano?

:banana:To me...

Apple is Campagnolo is Canon, is Hasselblad...all though I almost never use the Hasselbad gear anymore :(


Samsung is Shimano is Nikon




Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk

[Mr. Pink]

So...er...ahem, please bring this down to a language that I can understand... Apple is Campagnolo...and Samsung is Shimano?

:banana:


And the Google Pixel is SRAM

[Vonruden]

As a photographer and professional photo retoucher...I have been a proponent of cell phones as cameras for as long as I can remember, based primarily on the basis of "best camera is the one you have with you" mentality.

As much as people make a big deal about megapixels and whatever other whiz-bang killer feature of the year might be...photography, at its core, is about MOMENTS. Which can be captured by any capable camera. The easier the camera is to use, the more likely you are to capture that moment you see in front of you...which is the true brilliance of the phone-camera, they are (for the most part) very very quick (or at least as quick as you are) in the from-pocket-to-photo time trial.

I even went so far as to shoot one of my weekly projects in a senior level college photo class (like 10 years ago) with an iphone 3g...i converted all the images to BW, cropped to 2:3, and NOBODY noticed.

These days, most phones have cameras that are more than enough for 95% of the population (considering most photos will never be viewed on anything other than screens) and for that other 5%, there are a number of high-end phones (apple, google, samsung) with truly impressive cameras worthy of your time/pocket.

Just remember to keep your lens smudge free!
Seriously, it makes an ENORMOUS difference.

This, being there in the moment. Early morning / golden hour works best for me.

[ergott]

Optical image stabilization is a must for many conditions. I think the latest iPhones have them, but I know Samsung and other android phones have had this feature for a few generations.

[VTR1000SP2]

So where's the image?


Can you not see it?

[Frankwurst]

What’s the proper technique in holding a phone for taking pictures?

Use your hand.:rolleyes:;)Sorry weisan pal I just couldn't help myself.

[cadence90]

One of the USA's leading living photographers, Joel Sternfeld, published his book "iDubai" in 2010...all work done on his iPhone as opposed to his usual 8" x 10" view camera.

iDubai / Joel Sternfeld / Steidl (https://steidl.de/Books/iDubai-0827485758.html)

http://www.ivasfot.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/portada-dubai.jpg
.
.

[zmudshark]

FWIW, my DIL is a pretty good photographer, as is her husband (my son). She just got an iPhone 8, and both are blown away by the pictures. They will soon be selling their Canon DSLR with multiple lenses. No longer see the need.

[Anarchist]

As someone who has researched this I can assure you it is way better. Just google camera iphone vs samsung and you'll see that 'experts' all tout one as being far superior over the other.......but hey, you sound like you're pretty in the know so maybe the 'experts' got it wrong :rolleyes:

the iphone pics listed on this thread are 'ok'................the Samsung pics below are amazing.




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

As said above, 90% of the picture is the framing/ the composition.

Arguing over which phone camera is “way better”is just pointless.

[palincss]

Can you not see it?

No, there's no image visible there.

[cadence90]

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....

http://gaia.adage.com/images/bin/image/x-large/ScreenShot20171018at5.40.44PM.jpg

:rolleyes:
.
.

[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]

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]

No, there's no image visible there.


Let's try this again

https://www.dropbox.com/s/i65kstwimug2kmw/2017-01-03%2008.19.51.jpg?raw=1

[palincss]

Let's try this again

https://www.dropbox.com/s/i65kstwimug2kmw/2017-01-03%2008.19.51.jpg?raw=1

Lovely!

[thwart]

Lovely!

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

[Tony T]

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


Don't forget the "Dell Dude"


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-NILYqtDmFbU/VlNn8BORHxI/AAAAAAAADnU/jDq7vnsKkZo/s320/dellguy1.jpg

[oldpotatoe]

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....

http://gaia.adage.com/images/bin/image/x-large/ScreenShot20171018at5.40.44PM.jpg

:rolleyes:
.
.

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]

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]

Let's try this again

https://www.dropbox.com/s/i65kstwimug2kmw/2017-01-03%2008.19.51.jpg?raw=1

Wow!

....

[Mr. Pink]

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/digital_cameras/x/fujinon_lens_xf18_55mmf28_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]

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]

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]

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.

[eBAUMANN]

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.

Yea I guess maybe you are one of those people who go to museums and look at the artwork from 3" away? ;)

Not sure what you mean about a popularity contest?
If you are somehow suggesting that your at home printing is superior to what is available from a shop like WHCC (the "popular" option?) id LOVE to see some evidence of that.

THAT SAID

Can we take a moment to look at the title of this thread?
"How to take AMAZING pictures with cellphone cameras"

I don't think anyone would argue that a high quality CAMERA will outperform a high quality cameraPHONE in the picture taking department. I would sure as sh*t hope so. The only argument here (at least the only one I'm trying to make) is that cameraPHONES these days are shockingly capable image-capturing devices that are worthy of the pockets of even the most discerning photographers.

Why? Because its hard to carry a CAMERA around with you all the time, and you never know when "that moment" might present itself.
Your cameraPHONE is likely always in your pocket, ready to snap a pic within seconds.
And THAT is the advantage the cameraPHONE truly has over the camera, its always with you.

[eippo1]

Not sure if this has been said before in the thread because I skipped some of the middle pages, but in terms of a point and shoot digital, the current T-O-T-L cell camera has surpassed the $300 pocket cameras of 10 years ago.

Used to be that if I wanted a quality pic and didn't want to lug my dslr around I'd have to still get a decent Elph or something. Then it was a luxury since so many people wouldn't necessarily plunk down $300 to $500 for something decent. Now the thing in most peoples' pockets takes better pictures, is a computer, and is (usually according to your plan) subsidized or loaned so a huge number of people now have the capability to take really nice pictures.

[Mr. Pink]

Yea I guess maybe you are one of those people who go to museums and look at the artwork from 3" away? ;)



yup. Well, not if it's really big. That would be dumb.

[Mr. Pink]

If you are somehow suggesting that your at home printing is superior to what is available from a shop like WHCC (the "popular" option?) id LOVE to see some evidence of that.




Yup. I'm pretty good. Ha, funny thing, we can't do that here, though, right? Funny.

It's not that hard, really, if you have a few thousand bucks and patience. The printing part, I mean. The Photoshop part takes years, though.

[eBAUMANN]

Yup. I'm pretty good. Ha, funny thing, we can't do that here, though, right? Funny.

It's not that hard, really, if you have a few thousand bucks and patience. The printing part, I mean. The Photoshop part takes years, though.

Oh yea, if you want to throw money at something thats a great target haha, thats why I gave it up (like 10 years ago ha), the cost per print was just too high (after dialing stuff in with tests). Maybe its cheaper now?

Anyways, yea I'm in Ps all day every day for work...tens of thousands of images over the past 7 years...and I can't wait to leave it behind! (computers in general...)
For personal stuff, its all Lightroom for the "real" camera shots, or VSCO on the phone.

Photography (IMO) is about the moment, the mood, color/tone and shape.
All of which can be successfully captured by a great range of light sensitive devices - at the end of the day, its not the camera you have that matters, its what you do with it.

[Mr. Pink]

Ansel Adams shifts in his grave.

[gospastic]

Are you guys done arguing yet?

[palincss]

Not sure if this has been said before in the thread because I skipped some of the middle pages, but in terms of a point and shoot digital, the current T-O-T-L cell camera has surpassed the $300 pocket cameras of 10 years ago.

Used to be that if I wanted a quality pic and didn't want to lug my dslr around I'd have to still get a decent Elph or something. Then it was a luxury since so many people wouldn't necessarily plunk down $300 to $500 for something decent. Now the thing in most peoples' pockets takes better pictures, is a computer, and is (usually according to your plan) subsidized or loaned so a huge number of people now have the capability to take really nice pictures.

The limitations aren't technical. I'm surprised nobody's mentioned, the first step towards taking amazing pictures with any sort of camera is to learn something about photographic composition.

[palincss]

photography (imo) is about the moment, the mood, color/tone and shape.
All of which can be successfully captured by a great range of light sensitive devices - at the end of the day, its not the camera you have that matters, its what you do with it.

+1

[weisan]

I would really like to see some awesome pictures taken with a cell phone.
Would you please share with us?

[Tony T]

I would really like to see some awesome pictures taken with a cell phone.
Would you please share with us?

Some basics: https://www.apple.com/iphone/photography-how-to/
Some "best of"
https://iphonephotographyschool.com/best-iphone-photos-2016/
https://petapixel.com/2017/06/27/best-iphone-photos-2017/

[gospastic]

I took this one this morning when I got to work.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4450/37872546506_74f0169771_h.jpg

[weisan]

Thanks for the links Tony pal, great pics.

Go pal, thanks for sharing, what's that structure peeking out behind the buildings?

[ergott]

Some "best of"
https://iphonephotographyschool.com/best-iphone-photos-2016/
https://petapixel.com/2017/06/27/best-iphone-photos-2017/

These are examples of fine photography. They could have achieved the same level of artistry regardless of the phone/camera in their hand.

[cadence90]

.... ..
.

[huck*this]

Snapseed + Samsung Note 8 stylus = LOVE!!

[Anarchist]

...........

[IFRider]

Ansel Adams shifts in his grave.

More accurately, he Tilt-Shifts in his grave ...

[Mr. Pink]

Har har.

He, unfortunately, lived to see the day when art students told him to his face that technique and craft don't matter. But, at least, he was finally pulling in some major bucks for his prints while he was still alive.

[Tony T]

What I find missing from most (if not all) of the photo's posted here is depth of field — a lot of these photo's look too "flat"

[gospastic]

What I find missing from most (if not all) of the photo's posted here is depth of field — a lot of these photo's look too "flat"

Are you saying you expect landscape photography to have background blur?

[ergott]

I think he is referring to the composition, not the depth of field seems flat.

[gospastic]

I think he is referring to the composition, not the depth of field seems flat.


What does that mean?

[eBAUMANN]

He, unfortunately, lived to see the day when art students told him to his face that technique and craft don't matter.

Technique and craft can be demonstrated in many different ways. There are photographic techniques that Ansel could never have pulled off in a million years...does that make them any less valid as an expression of an art form? No. It doesnt. Ansel Adams was a GREAT landscape photographer and a master of the darkroom, period. As legendary as he might be within these 2 disciplines, he is not the god of photography.

Times change, technology changes, the world around us changes. If it didn't, photography wouldn't be have as important as it is. It is a tool for capturing moments, glimpses of our world never to be repeated. To diminish any one dimension of the craft, or any one persons expression of what that craft means to them, is small minded and foolish. IMO.

I think he is referring to the composition, not the depth of field seems flat.

Well, he specifically said that the photos are missing depth of field...so im gonna go ahead and saying yea, he is referring to the lack of depth/dimension in the photos.
Which is hard to disagree with, and obviously a known weakness of most cameraPHONES due to their optics and tiny sensors.
If you want depth in a cameraPHONE picture, you have to get closer, its that simple.

Manufacturers had to pick a fixed focal length (or 2, if you have an iphone 7+) when building the phone and decided to go with a wide angle.
Reasonably choice given what most people use their cameraPHONES for, but wide angles have weaknesses (distortion, [lack of] depth of field, and lens flare...to name a few).
What they do well - landscape and low light (minimizing motion blur due to hand movement)

The key to getting the most out of your cameraPHONE (or any camera for that matter) is to understand its strengths and weaknesses.
Beyond that, knowing how to post-process an image is crucial, just ask our buddy Ansel tilt-shifting in his grave ;)

[ergott]

Literal depth of field is the plane in acceptable focus. That’s something phone cameras have no problem due to their tiny sensor. Everything is in focus.

Figuratively, a lack of depth (flat image) can be described as not having any pop. In my opinion that means there no clear subject or composition directing your eyes around the image. It’s just a capture, nothing more.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[eBAUMANN]

Literal depth of field is the plane in acceptable focus. That’s something phone cameras have no problem due to their tiny sensor. Everything is in focus.

But everything is not always in focus...it depends entirely on the distance between the camera and subject.

He literally said - "What I find missing from most (if not all) of the photo's posted here is depth of field."

I think its safe to say he is referring to a lack of isolation of an individual subject [vs a landscape-type scene]...which is something people seem to attribute to a "good photo."

[gospastic]

It's an empty critique is what it is.

[LouDeeter]

I took this with a cell phone, older iPhone, from a moving ship. Taken off the coast of Newfoundland.

[palincss]

Well, he specifically said that the photos are missing depth of field...so im gonna go ahead and saying yea, he is referring to the lack of depth/dimension in the photos.
Which is hard to disagree with, and obviously a known weakness of most cameraPHONES due to their optics and tiny sensors.
If you want depth in a cameraPHONE picture, you have to get closer, its that simple.



That sounds like a recipe for minimizing depth of field. And yet the complaint said the photos were missing depth of field, not that there was too much of it. I think there seems to be some confusion about the actual meaning of "depth of field" here.

Per the Wikipedia, "In optics, particularly as it relates to film and photography, depth of field (DOF), also called focus range or effective focus range, is the distance between the nearest and farthest objects in a scene that appear acceptably sharp in an image. Although a lens can precisely focus at only one distance at a time, the decrease in sharpness is gradual on each side of the focused distance, so that within the DOF, the unsharpness is imperceptible under normal viewing conditions."

Now if you are saying you can't have a feeling of dimension in a landscape if everything is in sharp focus, then I have to mention Group f/64.

https://whereisharold.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/ansel-adams-snake-river.jpg

Quite a lot of dimensionality here, I'd say.

[MattTuck]

That sounds like a recipe for minimizing depth of field. And yet the complaint said the photos were missing depth of field, not that there was too much of it. I think there seems to be some confusion about the actual meaning of "depth of field" here.

Per the Wikipedia, "In optics, particularly as it relates to film and photography, depth of field (DOF), also called focus range or effective focus range, is the distance between the nearest and farthest objects in a scene that appear acceptably sharp in an image. Although a lens can precisely focus at only one distance at a time, the decrease in sharpness is gradual on each side of the focused distance, so that within the DOF, the unsharpness is imperceptible under normal viewing conditions."

Now if you are saying you can't have a feeling of dimension in a landscape if everything is in sharp focus, then I have to mention Group f/64.

https://whereisharold.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/ansel-adams-snake-river.jpg

Quite a lot of dimensionality here, I'd say.

Looks like you took that with an early iPhone with the sepia filter and bumped up contrast. :cool:

[eBAUMANN]

Yes, I agree, that is the definition.

But can we agree that when MOST PEOPLE talk about a photo having depth or "great DOF" they are usually referring to a narrow plane of focus that isolates a subject in a scene?
I might be wrong here but in my personal experience, that is how MOST people use the term.

That said, yes, a scene with a wide depth of field (like the one displayed above) can certainly have "depth" created by the composition of fore/mid/background elements and the literal distance between them, as well as the through burning/dodging and contrast adjustments made in the darkroom.

[ergott]

I'm not most people. I'm using the term correctly.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[tbike4]

[QUOTE=eBAUMANN;2252084Photography (IMO) is about the moment, the mood, color/tone and shape.
All of which can be successfully captured by a great range of light sensitive devices - at the end of the day, its not the camera you have that matters, its what you do with it.[/QUOTE]

Indeed. And another quote, "Because its hard to carry a CAMERA around with you all the time, and you never know when "that moment" might present itself.*
Your cameraPHONE is likely always in your pocket, ready to snap a pic within seconds.*
And THAT is the advantage the cameraPHONE truly has over the camera, its always with you."

I used an 8x10 camera for years. I loaded a lot of film holders. Then I used a Phase One 50 megapixel camera back. Amazing resolution and costs as much as a nice Mercedes.

The only time I use anything other than my phone is to get a longer lens effect to throw the background out of focus. I don't plan on making large prints so megapixels are not so important. Walking in the woods and having the phone is easy. Snapseed FTW.

[eBAUMANN]

I'm not most people. I'm using the term correctly.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Cool, you do you, I wasn't suggesting you had a sub-par understanding of the terminology by any stretch.
The statement in question however was not made by you, it was made by Tony T. Being a BIKE (not photo) forum, I am assuming that those contributing a quick 2c to this discussion fall into the "most people" designation and interpret their statements accordingly.

I could of course be completely wrong and everyone on here is, in fact, a professional photographer (or likes to think they are) with decades of experience and insight to contribute...AND EVEN THEN, professional photographers are often times a lot like professional bike riders, in that while they might be very good at using the tools in their hands to achieve a certain end, they might not be able to tell you exactly how the camera actually did what it did or why. they "don't know what its called, they just know the sound it makes when it takes a sweet photo..." so to speak.

I say these things only from my own years of personal experience working with/for dozens of professional photographers with a wide range of different specialities.

[palincss]

Yes, I agree, that is the definition.

But can we agree that when MOST PEOPLE talk about a photo having depth or "great DOF" they are usually referring to a narrow plane of focus that isolates a subject in a scene?
I might be wrong here but in my personal experience, that is how MOST people use the term.


No we certainly cannot agree on that, regardless of whether by "great" they mean "large" or "excellent." If that's how people you know use the term, you know people who are clearly using it wrong.

[Anarchist]

So, now we know.

“Hot” topics;

1) Politics
2) Photography
3) Campy/ Shimano

[Ti Designs]

As with most things, I come at this with a different perspective. I was into photography back when cameras had film inside them, I just wasn't sure why. I've gotten into digital photography because I figured out what I had been looking for the last time - understanding how we see. Vision is an amazing process, it's not just what your eyes collect, it's how the brain processes the whole image. What you really see isn't what you think. 15 degrees off center you're legally blind. Color recognition is even narrower than that. Dynamic range is pretty good, at least +/- 4 stops better than the best DSLR's image sensor. You also have two of them, so you collect data on depth. If you think you can recreate that with a simple lens exposing an image sensor for a very short period of time, guess again.

Let's start with attention to detail - something cameras struggle to do. When you look at a scene, your eyes focus on things and bring up detail. It's not a geometric scan, your point of focus moves to points of interest. This is where the off-axis blur comes in, you gain a lot of data from things you focus on, almost none from things you don't. In photography that's done by narrowing the depth of field to make the subject stand out. That's easy to do with a full frame DSLR, using an 85mm f1.2 portrait lens shot wide open. Micro four thirds has an image sensor that's 1/2 of full frame, which gives it a crop factor of 2. That means that the equivalent lens is a 42.5mm, but f1.2 has twice the depth of field, making it harder to blur the surrounding area. A cell phone camera has an image sensor that's a small fraction of the size of a full frame DSLR, it's almost impossible to isolate a subject with depth of field.

Let's move to dynamic range - those histograms that so few people understand. When I walk around during blue hour (the 15 minutes before the sun comes up or after it's gone down, but the sky is still blue - don't know why they call it blue hour...) I see amazing color and light. When I see the pictures that people take I don't see the same thing. The image sensor can't adapt to that kind of dynamic range, so shadows lose all definition or highlights burn out. The photographer's answer to this is called HDR or High Dynamic Range, which is a series of images bracketed. I shoot almost everything this way, 7 images from +3 stops to -3 stops. I have two reasons for this. First, using HDR software I can combine the images into a single image with more dynamic range than the sensor has. Second, noise is random. You know it'll show up in shadows, but you don't know where. With multiple images the HDR software can remove the noise, giving even better detail in the shadows. There are HDR modes with cell phones, but they're really software cheats. If you're taking a 1/60th of a second exposure and you also want 1 stop down, you can take what the image sensor has collected 1/120th of a second into it and store that as an image. It deals with the dynamic range issue, but not the noise.


There are a lot of reasons that cell phone cameras fall short, there's one reason they work. My father was a photographer, when he gave me my first camera he said the secret to great photography is "f8 and be there". This from a man who shot sporting events with a SpeedGraphic... Cell phones have the "be there" part down. It really is half the equation... If I'm at some location, shooting some scene, I know that where I set up the first time isn't going to be the best shot. I'll go to the same location over and over and over, because little changes can make or break the image. If I'm on some location with my tripod and camera set-up, there's probably also 40 other people with cell phones, trying to get the same image (or they just think I'm an idiot). If you assume are photographic instincts are the same (they're not), there's a 40:1 chance that one of the people with the cell phone is in a better spot to get the image. There's also a 100% chance that they're going to get in my way - I really hate that.

Going beyond just being there, shooting with a cell phone somehow gets around privacy issues while real cameras can't. I wanted to show the flow of people walking around in a mall, so I set up my tripod, mounted my camera, used a ND filter to slow the speed down below 1/15th of a second, and got kicked out of the mall by security. I was quick to point out that everybody else there has a camera, and they use them with impunity. I just happen to look like I knew what I was doing, and we can't have that!

If I have one thing against cell phone photography, it's not so much the quality, it's the quantity. If you look around and there are 50 other people with their cell phones out, does the world really need your image? "F8 and be there" has two parts, f8 is in reference to the composition of the image - that's clearly gotten lost somewhere.

Lastly, there's the selfie. I think it says something about our society when the selfie stick is the best selling photography accessory.

[cadence90]

So, now we know.

“Hot” topics;

1) Politics
2) Photography
3) Campy/ Shimano

Yes, and also which topic elicits the most pretension.

:rolleyes:
.
.

[Andy sti]

When I ride my bike I don't bring my dslr but I do have my iphone with me. On just about every one of my 8500 miles this year my phone and therefore my camera has been in my back pocket. That's a ton of time outside and a ton of time for possible "moments." The phone camera just works, it allows me to capture moments/photos of things I would have otherwise missed. Is it the best, no, but it certainly has it's place.

Took this last week on a cold, rainy and sleety cross bike ride. The Deschutes river always looks good.

https://i.imgur.com/YNpm5pt.jpg?1

Summer vacation with some time in Steamboat Springs, CO. Again, out for a ride and didn't have my dslr in my back pocket.

https://i.imgur.com/zBFI5QG.jpg?1

[weisan]

Andy pal, thank you for sharing your pictures. And also other pals who did the same. I am a visual learner, so this helps even more....than a thousand words.

[ergott]

Nice Andy.

That's the difference between a flat image and a well composed landscape photo.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[oldpotatoe]

So, now we know.

“Hot” topics;

1) Politics
2) Photography
3) Campy/ Shimano

No kidding, 100 posts and a-growin!!

[Ttx1]

I would really like to see some awesome pictures taken with a cell phone.
Would you please share with us?

I took this one on today’s ride. IPhone 8+.

Cropped to 16x9, no filter or edit. Quick snap...

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4503/37265332014_d46d0d12c4_k.jpg

[Mzilliox]

this thread has not nearly enough good photos, and very few of bikes. I get lucky now and again, but im not a photographer, i have no idea how cameras work beyond pointing and shooting, but i like to think i know a good scene when one is in front of me

[ergott]

A few I've taken that I like.


https://photos.smugmug.com/Cycling/The-bikes/i-L2s4zmW/0/34e5eb89/XL/20150630_083811-XL.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/Cycling/The-bikes/i-GnVCVTg/0/28ec0dc6/XL/IMG_20150502_101759-XL.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/Cycling/The-bikes/i-s49p6qb/0/993041f1/XL/Professionista-2-3-XL.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/Cycling/The-bikes/i-Ws7QjNb/0/8b6a24e6/X2/IMG_20130729_142104_373-X2.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/Cycling/The-bikes/i-mbwgPn7/0/1daec671/XL/IMG_20160808_200244-XL.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Assorted-Landscapes/i-vXTN6Xt/0/72c146ae/XL/20170819_115536-XL.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Assorted-Landscapes/i-ZZ3HpNq/0/42033db3/XL/20160902_194004-XL.jpg

[weisan]

Very nice ergott pal, thanks for sharing

[MikeD]

The only thing I miss using my iPhone 7 camera over my Panasonic camera is the zoom lens. Just can't get close enough all too often. Take these photos. There are turtles at the end of the irrigation pipe by the water. These birds were a bit too far out in the salt pond. I didn't want to get any closer to that rattlesnake!https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171029/74f720ec76ed087a9381d04e85d9388b.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171029/0dad1c1fdf80ad5b1f0c02c042e7e7f7.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171029/9fabd79fd22ccac6aee3bc6368057ed2.jpg

[msriddle]

What a picture! Get the heck out of there..

[weisan]

Mike pal, can't get close enough? With this, you can.

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0938/1396/products/GoStick-Bluetooth-Camera-Selfie-Stick-_-Tripod-for-Smartphones_1024x1024.jpg?v=1502174310