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 64 users online :: 4 registered, 0 hidden and 60 guests


Most users ever online was 218 on Wed Dec 07, 2016 6:58 pm

Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], MSNbot Media, 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: jimmy101 » Thu Nov 19, 2009 1:28 pm

MrCrowley wrote: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.

Probably :!:

Still, some of what you describe can be done with a variable shutter speed. Only the depth of field stuff requires a variable aperture.

Any phone with a flash probably is "high end", or at least, it's more advanced than the majority of phone cameras.

Looking at the phone camera photos you see in various places on the web the quality is almost universally poor. It may well be that most of that crappy quality is from the user not knowing what they are doing, smudges on the lens, ...
  • 0

Image

jimmy101
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 3130
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:48 am
Location: Greenwood, Indiana
Country: United States (us)
Reputation: 7

Unread postAuthor: MrCrowley » Thu Nov 19, 2009 4:17 pm

Just want to clarify that when I said "I think some people are living in the past when they think of cellphone pictures", it wasn't directed at you but a general statement. :)
  • 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: POLAND_SPUD » Thu Nov 19, 2009 5:02 pm

I don't like to take the camera with me all the time.. it makes everything more complicated and time consuming...

and I've seen some pretty good pics taken with a phone... acctually, the one I've got now takes better pics and videos than my sister's camera...
  • 0

Children are the future

unless we stop them now
User avatar
POLAND_SPUD
Chief of Staff
Chief of Staff
 
Posts: 5405
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:43 pm
Country: Israel (il)
Reputation: 10

Unread postAuthor: psycix » Fri Nov 20, 2009 6:40 am

Go cell phone camera's! :D

Assuming that the photographer uses a modern cell phone, capable of making good pictures, the reason most cell phone pictures are bad is because of this:

People taking a quick snap (crap pics):
10% camera, 90% phone
People spending a lot of time trying to make the best picture (good pics):
90% camera, 10% phone

It's not the cell phones that ruin the pictures, its the way people take the pictures.
It is the selection of device versus the intended use that makes cell phone pictures have a bad name.
  • 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 » Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:33 am

psycix wrote:Go cell phone camera's! :D

Assuming that the photographer uses a modern cell phone


There are no such things as photographers who use cell phones.
  • 0

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

Unread postAuthor: Technician1002 » Fri Nov 20, 2009 11:15 am

Two areas where most cell phones fail as well as most point and shoot cameras is zoom and macro. Image stabilization is found on better cameras.

All photos except the cellphone camera shot was shot with a 2.1 megapixel camera.
  • 0

Attachments
t-shirt_blazergame-range.jpg
Cellphone shot at the blazer game from the 300 level.
Launch.JPG
Camera photo taken handheld from the 300 section at the same event (my camera)

Zoom and solid state lens gyro gave nice sharp photo. Most point and shoots can't do this.
piston rings.jpg
Macro shot sharp and clear with flash.
piston rings.jpg (29.92 KiB) Viewed 314 times
blimp.JPG
Zoomed out photo to show where I was sitting in the 300 section.
User avatar
Technician1002
Chief of Staff
Chief of Staff
 
Posts: 5190
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 11:10 am
Reputation: 14

Unread postAuthor: rcman50166 » Sat Nov 21, 2009 4:37 pm

This is where I love my camera. It is a point and shoot but will out class an entry level DSLR in macro and zoom.
  • 0

Attachments
IMG_5394.JPG
I guarentee you this is far as macro goes. The quarter in the photo is sitting on the lens! That fingerprint and dust is also on the lens.
IMG_5398.JPG
This is a photo with 0x zoom.
IMG_5397.JPG
The leaf in this photo is at the top of the tree in the highlighted part of the last photo. This is at 80x zoom
Image
User avatar
rcman50166
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 697
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 7:11 pm
Location: Bethel, CT
Reputation: 0

Sponsored

Sponsor
 


Unread postAuthor: ramses » Sat Nov 21, 2009 8:00 pm

what camera do you have rcman? and they do make extension rings for slr's for better macro.
  • 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: rcman50166 » Sat Nov 21, 2009 9:02 pm

I have a Canon SX10 IS. And what do you mean better? You cannot get closer than the subject sitting on the lens
  • 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 » Sat Nov 21, 2009 9:10 pm

Okay that first picture is quite something :P
  • 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: ramses » Sat Nov 21, 2009 10:52 pm

better for dslrs, not better than on top of the lens. that was unclear.

do you use chdk?
  • 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: rcman50166 » Sat Nov 21, 2009 11:03 pm

I don't believe so seeing as I don't know what that is. Unless it is some sort of acronym I'm not aware of.
  • 0

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

Unread postAuthor: Ragnarok » Sun Nov 22, 2009 10:50 am

CHDK - very useful little firmware "upgrade" that unlocks a lot of features on Canon cameras. Fine control over shutter speed, aperture, focus distance and more.
  • 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: rcman50166 » Sun Nov 22, 2009 1:13 pm

Oh I've read about that. My camera has the next generation of image sensor that does not have a hack for it....yet. But I would be hesitant to do that to my camera. I quite like the way it's set up now and I would hate to mess it up and have to explain to Canon that I was hacking their camera.
  • 0

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

Unread postAuthor: ramses » Sun Nov 22, 2009 1:53 pm

it is completely temporary. It is completely gone once you pull out the memory card. That said, I suppose you could manage to damage the hardware by overloading it through hacked software. But it doesn't matter, as CHDK is currently unavailable for your camera.
  • 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

PreviousNext

Return to Non-Spudgun Related Discussion

Who is online

Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], MSNbot Media, Yahoo [Bot]

Reputation System ©'