Login    Register
User Information
Username:
Password:
We are a free and open
community, all are welcome.
Click here to Register
Sponsored
Who is online

In total there are 84 users online :: 4 registered, 0 hidden and 80 guests


Most users ever online was 155 on Mon Aug 15, 2016 1:40 am

Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] based on users active over the past 5 minutes

The Team
Administrators
Global Moderators
global_moderators.png CS

A short lesson in photography

All non-spudgun related discussion goes here such as projects, theories, serious questions, etc. All "off-topic" posts (aka useless posting, determined by moderators) will be removed.
Sponsored 
  • Author
    Message

Unread postAuthor: rcman50166 » Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:03 pm

I made my point very brief but it over all sums up my opinion with cell phone cameras. I find photography a hobby. The highest quality sometimes isn't even enough. Cell phones have always fallen short of this category. If you are taking a picture, why not do it to the best of your ability. It's understandable that if the photo you are trying to get is time sensitive and you do not have a proper camera, that a cell phone is the only way to capture the moment. However, if you want to have a good memory of the event/subject you plan to see in the near future, it is a good investment to put your coat down, grab your camera, then go. It does not matter the quality of your phone or how high the resolution is, a phone is a phone and its primary purpose it to make calls. A camera is designed and built to take acceptable quality photos, if not good, and even designed to make it convenient for any user. No one will ever bring up any point that makes a cell phone an acceptable tool of photography. Ever.
  • 0

Image
User avatar
rcman50166
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 697
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 7:11 pm
Location: Bethel, CT
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: MrCrowley » Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:13 pm

No one will ever bring up any point that makes a cell phone an acceptable tool of photography. Ever.

Same can be said about any camera under $1000 with a lens under $1000. A professional photographer will say the same about your camera. Photography is a professional business, a $300 camera isn't going to cut it in that business.

This is a Spudgun forum, not a photographers forum. The line can be drawn at a decent 2MP phone camera (assuming the photo is taken well). It's only a matter of time before phones catch up anyway, see the Samsung SCH-B600 10MP camera phone which claims the same quality of a 10MP digital camera.
  • 0

User avatar
MrCrowley
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 10207
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:42 pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Country: New Zealand (nz)
Reputation: 4

Unread postAuthor: rp181 » Tue Nov 17, 2009 7:01 pm

crowley: That looks like a camera that has a phone....

Most cameras have lenses, and in the current time, there is no way to substitute that in a small space. digital only gets you so far.

their is a multilevel lense, that reflects back onto its self to mimic a larger lens, but thats still in development.


Edited by jrrdw.
  • 0

User avatar
rp181
Brigadier General
Brigadier General
 
Posts: 1090
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:47 pm
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: MrCrowley » Tue Nov 17, 2009 7:02 pm

That looks like a camera that has a phone

Still within the definition of a camera phone :wink:
  • 0

User avatar
MrCrowley
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 10207
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:42 pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Country: New Zealand (nz)
Reputation: 4

Unread postAuthor: Ragnarok » Tue Nov 17, 2009 7:03 pm

rcman50166 wrote:However, if you want to have a good memory of the event/subject you plan to see in the near future, it is a good investment to put your coat down, grab your camera, then go.

Unfortunately, that's still far from a guarantee of the photos you want coming out.

There's a whole heap of photos I tried to take on the trip to the Severn Valley Railway steam gala that came out appallingly. (See this ITWOST post for some that came out reasonably).

I rather wish I'd left RAW photography on, because it turns out I would have had the memory and I would have been able to recover a few of the bad photos back to a passable quality.
  • 0

Does that thing kinda look like a big cat to you?
User avatar
Ragnarok
Chief of Staff
Chief of Staff
 
Posts: 5339
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 8:23 am
Location: The UK
Reputation: 8

Unread postAuthor: ramses » Tue Nov 17, 2009 7:05 pm

rcman50166 wrote:No one will ever bring up any point that makes a cell phone an acceptable tool of photography. Ever.



but I just did.


Image
  • 0

POLAND_SPUD wrote:even if there was no link I'd know it's a bot because of female name :D
User avatar
ramses
Major General
Major General
 
Posts: 1679
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 6:50 pm
Reputation: 3

Unread postAuthor: Ragnarok » Tue Nov 17, 2009 7:20 pm

Ah heck, I've been resisting so far, but if phones and phone technology are the subject of discussion, I feel I have to drop this link in here...

What ho!
  • 0

Does that thing kinda look like a big cat to you?
User avatar
Ragnarok
Chief of Staff
Chief of Staff
 
Posts: 5339
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 8:23 am
Location: The UK
Reputation: 8

Sponsored

Sponsor
 


Unread postAuthor: psycix » Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:09 am

ramses wrote:the sensor actually does impact photo quality. The larger it is, the bigger each pixel is, therefor the more light it captures. so less noise!

Actually, the size of the lens determines how much light gets in, not the size of the sensor.

Most older cell phones produce crap pictures, and that's why most people have a problem with cell phone pictures. Most cell phone pictures are really crap because they are taken with an old phone AND because those people do not make the effort to adjust the settings.

But the latest camera-phones can be better then average digital cameras.
My girlfriend owns the Sony Ericsson C905. It produces (way) better pictures then her Kodak Easyshare camera, especially when I operate it.
  • 0

Till the day I'm dieing, I'll keep them spuddies flying, 'cause I can!

Spudfiles steam group, join!
User avatar
psycix
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 3684
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 7:12 am
Location: The Netherlands
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: rcman50166 » Wed Nov 18, 2009 9:33 am

Lol well Kodak is poison in the photography world. They used to be good back in the days of 35mm film however.

Also I don't think "light" is the term you want to use for determining the quality of a photo sensor. Many things determine how much let get to the final image. Photo sensor is one, aperture is another, exposure is another and lens size is the last thing.
  • 0

Image
User avatar
rcman50166
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 697
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 7:11 pm
Location: Bethel, CT
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: psycix » Wed Nov 18, 2009 9:47 am

The chip that processes the data from the sensor also plays a role in image quality.
  • 0

Till the day I'm dieing, I'll keep them spuddies flying, 'cause I can!

Spudfiles steam group, join!
User avatar
psycix
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 3684
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 7:12 am
Location: The Netherlands
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: jimmy101 » Wed Nov 18, 2009 11:10 am

rcman50166 wrote:Lol well Kodak is poison in the photography world. They used to be good back in the days of 35mm film however.

Also I don't think "light" is the term you want to use for determining the quality of a photo sensor. Many things determine how much let get to the final image. Photo sensor is one, aperture is another, exposure is another and lens size is the last thing.

Lens size limits aperture. Obviously you can't have an aperture greater than the diameter of the lens.

But usually a photographer doesn't want to be shooting anywhere near a lens's maximum aperture.

I believe the vast majority of phone cameras have a fixed aperture. Only the most recent phones have started to have a variable aperture. That means you have no control over depth of field. Furthermore, you are stuck with whatever aperture the designed thought was best. If the designer was going for usability in low light (i.e., indoor without flash) then they probably used a large fixed aperture. That is not conducive to taking good photos.

The small size of the CCD in a cell phone camera makes the required size of the lens pretty small. A high quality lens for that size sensor is a lot cheaper than it would be for a 35mm (or larger) format camera. Still, even though the lens should be cheaper, I suspect most phone cameras are using crappy plastic lenses that cost about a buck. It doesn't matter what technology you put behind that cheapo lens, your photos are not going to be very good.

Throw in a big greasy finger smudge on that tiny lens and it is not surprising that most phone-camera shots are pretty bad.
  • 0

Image

jimmy101
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 3128
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:48 am
Location: Greenwood, Indiana
Country: United States (us)
Reputation: 7

Unread postAuthor: MrCrowley » Wed Nov 18, 2009 3:30 pm

I believe the vast majority of phone cameras have a fixed aperture. Only the most recent phones have started to have a variable aperture. That means you have no control over depth of field. Furthermore, you are stuck with whatever aperture the designed thought was best. If the designer was going for usability in low light (i.e., indoor without flash) then they probably used a large fixed aperture. That is not conducive to taking good photos.

My phone isn't even close to top of the line, SE K770i, and it has multiple settings for different depths of field (landscape, focus on background), indoors with flash, indoors without flash, outdoors with flash, outdoors without flash, night with flash, night without flash, beach/snow with flash, beach/snow without flash etc

This phone was released in 2007...I think some people are living in the past when they think of cellphone pictures.
  • 0

User avatar
MrCrowley
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 10207
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:42 pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Country: New Zealand (nz)
Reputation: 4

Unread postAuthor: rcman50166 » Wed Nov 18, 2009 3:48 pm

I'm not sure I get it. Does your phone have a flash? :lol:
  • 0

Image
User avatar
rcman50166
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 697
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 7:11 pm
Location: Bethel, CT
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: MrCrowley » Wed Nov 18, 2009 3:58 pm

rcman50166 wrote:I'm not sure I get it. Does your phone have a flash? :lol:

LED flash, yeah.

edit: Took this with my cellphone, no adjustments, everything on auto, no flash or light and facebook has even cropped it and compressed it...you can still read it:
Image
  • 0

User avatar
MrCrowley
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 10207
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:42 pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Country: New Zealand (nz)
Reputation: 4

Unread postAuthor: Biopyro » Thu Nov 19, 2009 7:10 am

Camera phones may not be the best cameras, but they're more than adequate for our purposes if they're relatively up to date. They can capture a crisp, clear image with plenty of detail, which makes them more than good enough for someone who can't carry a dedicated camera and phone 24/7.
I think what is really needed to get good photos is knowledge of how your equipment works.

If you are taking a picture, why not do it to the best of your ability.

I agree entirely, unless by best of your ability you mean spending $150+ on a decent camera. While the best quality isn't enough for semi-professional hobbyists, it's fine for us :D.
  • 0

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
Biopyro
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 656
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 5:32 am
Location: UK
Reputation: 0

PreviousNext

Return to Non-Spudgun Related Discussion

Who is online

Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Yahoo [Bot]

Reputation System ©'