Are you talking about image quality? Great IQ does not necessarily means that it's a great photo.
Do you need DSLR to become photographer
- Thread starter superkiev
- Start date
Are you talking about image quality? Great IQ does not necessarily means that it's a great photo.
OoStarDustoO
New Member
I already mentioned, with the same person behind the camera, one shot using DSLR and one shot using camera phone, the DSLR gives a better photo.
edutilos-
Senior Member
Guys, guys..
Blanket statements are easily defeated.
Here's an example - let's say, the view you want is obscured by a fine chain link fence. Your DSLR lens will never be able to get it OOF.. But the small little pathetic bad condemned lens on your camera phone just MIGHT fit through and squeeze out that view that you want, without those ugly circular things appearing in your photograph. It's happened to me before.
There are exceptions to every "rule".
Who cares? Whatever does the job for you, when you need it, is the best camera. If you don't have a DSLR, a camera phone will do. If you can't shoot what you want with a DSLR , a camera phone will do. If you just feel like shooting with your camera phone and the composition is great, maybe you won't make any large prints with the outcome, but it will still be a good enough photo honestly, never mind about the pixel peepers.
We should spend more time shooting and making pictures instead of sitting around talking about Ferraris versus Toyota la, what driver la, what chef la, what knife la.. I'm sick and tired of these dead horse analogies, also guilty of using them too. At the end of the day, a good photo taken by a camera phone by a bad photographer who got lucky is still a good photo. A bad photo taken by a DSLR by a photographer that is usually good and just had a bad day is.. you guessed it, a bad photo.
No one learns or benefits from theorycraft on the net. That's for sure though. You can parrot all the "correct" statements and insist that DSLR photos are better with the same photographer... It doesn't make you a better photographer, just a better debater on the net. Which counts for zilch in life, actually.
Cheers.
Last edited:
OoStarDustoO
New Member
Guys, guys..
Blanket statements are easily defeated.
Here's an example - let's say, the view you want is obscured by a fine chain link fence. Your DSLR lens will never be able to get it OOF.. But the small little pathetic bad condemned lens on your camera phone just MIGHT fit through and squeeze out that view that you want, without those ugly circular things appearing in your photograph. It's happened to me before.
There are exceptions to every "rule".
Who cares? Whatever does the job for you, when you need it, is the best camera. If you don't have a DSLR, a camera phone will do. If you can't shoot what you want with a DSLR , a camera phone will do. If you just feel like shooting with your camera phone and the composition is great, maybe you won't make any large prints with the outcome, but it will still be a good enough photo honestly, never mind about the pixel peepers.
We should spend more time shooting and making pictures instead of sitting around talking about Ferraris versus Toyota la, what driver la, what chef la, what knife la.. I'm sick and tired of these dead horse analogies, also guilty of using them too. At the end of the day, a good photo taken by a camera phone by a bad photographer who got lucky is still a good photo. A bad photo taken by a DSLR by a photographer that is usually good and just had a bad day is.. you guessed it, a bad photo.
No one learns or benefits from theorycraft on the net. That's for sure though. You can parrot all the "correct" statements and insist that DSLR photos are better with the same photographer... It doesn't make you a better photographer, just a better debater on the net. Which counts for zilch in life, actually.
Cheers.
I think you missed my point. this statement is made with the condition that under the same condition, with all factors and conditions exactly 100% the same, same physical environment, same angle, same focal length, same everything, and you just switch the camera, one using camera phone and one using DSLR, the DSLR gives a better photo.
The example you gave is not the same as my example.
I am not talking about how a camera phone can defeat a DSLR or DSLR defeating a camera phone. I agree that camera phone can take good pictures. Hope you understand what am i talking about.
Last edited:
rhino123
Senior Member
The fact is... a tool is designed for a purpose and that is why the tool is around. Of course people can keep singing that it is the person behind the tool that matters most, and it is true. However if that person is not using that tool, rather was using another equipment that is basically not meant for the job, he/she might still get the task done excellently, but it take much more effort.
For example, you need to dig a seven feet deep trench, and you have a choice of a tea spoon and a shovel. Of course most people would go for the shovel. But can the teaspoon do the same job? Of course it can... you just need more time and effort. Same here, a good pro photographer can capture amazing shots with low end camera or mobile phone camera, but given a choice, I would believe most would still go for their Nikon, Canon, Sony, Pentax and whatever DSLR or mirrorless interchangeable lens systems... why? It is easier to get the same or desirable results.
And sometime... in fact most of the time, these pro photographers needed to blow up their picture... and there is a different between a good 36MP photo to a 5MP photo... and there is a different between a Nokia 1020 - 41MP (more like 39MP) photo when fully blown to a Nikon/ Sony 36MP photo at 100% crop.
Another example would be, you can have a 600mm or 800mm lens that could take photo of lions in the Safari in a more or less safe distance, or you can use your 18-55mm kit lens or better still, your mobile phone camera and take the more or less same photo, by creeping closer to the lion and risk being mauled to death to take the photo. (I am not that courageous and so I would take the 800mm lens any day).
For example, you need to dig a seven feet deep trench, and you have a choice of a tea spoon and a shovel. Of course most people would go for the shovel. But can the teaspoon do the same job? Of course it can... you just need more time and effort. Same here, a good pro photographer can capture amazing shots with low end camera or mobile phone camera, but given a choice, I would believe most would still go for their Nikon, Canon, Sony, Pentax and whatever DSLR or mirrorless interchangeable lens systems... why? It is easier to get the same or desirable results.
And sometime... in fact most of the time, these pro photographers needed to blow up their picture... and there is a different between a good 36MP photo to a 5MP photo... and there is a different between a Nokia 1020 - 41MP (more like 39MP) photo when fully blown to a Nikon/ Sony 36MP photo at 100% crop.
Another example would be, you can have a 600mm or 800mm lens that could take photo of lions in the Safari in a more or less safe distance, or you can use your 18-55mm kit lens or better still, your mobile phone camera and take the more or less same photo, by creeping closer to the lion and risk being mauled to death to take the photo. (I am not that courageous and so I would take the 800mm lens any day).
Last edited:
I guess what OoStarDustoO is trying to say some effect can be done by dslr rather then a phone camera or a PnS. Eg: A milky water look ? As edutilos and rhino123 was trying to say: a good composition is depend on he/she behind the camera , not by what camera he/she is using. Hope I get it right xD
Last edited:
Technically you are correct. The FF sensor and the lens will produce better results than the tiny sensor in the phone and the uncontrollable jpg compression in the phone.
But on the other hand (and here I agree with rhino123 and edutilos-) the IQ is less relevant than what is assumed by many. I recall a phrase I read here somewhere about "a sharp image of a blur concept versus a blur image of a sharp concept"
I sell stock photos,
the photo buyers don't look what is inside the photographers's camera bags,
they are looking for the content of the photos,
once they found what they want, they just buy, they don't care who you are or what you use.
I just pick the right tools to make my jobs to easier.
if you can understand this, good for you.
if you don't, that is fine, doesn't really matters, just remember to make yourself happy.
the photo buyers don't look what is inside the photographers's camera bags,
they are looking for the content of the photos,
once they found what they want, they just buy, they don't care who you are or what you use.
I just pick the right tools to make my jobs to easier.
if you can understand this, good for you.
if you don't, that is fine, doesn't really matters, just remember to make yourself happy.
MechaEd
Member
This. You get the right tool to get the shot that you need. Be it DSLR, MILC, MILCs that look like DSLR, Digital RF, camera phone.
Just make sure you are always shooting to improve and make great pictures.
Last edited:
edutilos-
Senior Member
Nah, I'm just saying that certain situations will not allow you to use a DSLR, so it is not a given that a DSLR is always going to be superior, because it may not get you the shot. More expensive and advanced doesn't mean can use all the time.
Less talk, more understanding.. That is the way to go.
OoStarDustoO
New Member
Nah, I'm just saying that certain situations will not allow you to use a DSLR, so it is not a given that a DSLR is always going to be superior, because it may not get you the shot. More expensive and advanced doesn't mean can use all the time.
Less talk, more understanding.. That is the way to go.
Don't understand about this argument as there is none to begin with.
No one is talking about the end product - the photo, but the technical aspect.
A 20 megapixel sensor gives a better resolution than a 12 megapixal photo and it's a technical fact.
A full frame sensor gives a better quality photo than a mobile phone sensor and it's a technical fact.
There can be no dispute on this, like 1 plus 1 equals 2.
But NO ONE is saying that DSLR can ALWAYS take a better photo than camera handphone, so there is no argument to begin with.
Better photo is NOT the same as a better photo quality.
For those who still don't understand and still choose to harp on this, then the argument is against the air.
I rest my case. What i wish for Year 2014? World Peace! *waves hand and smile*
edutilos-
Senior Member
Anything you say. Obviously you are so caught up being "correct" that you don't even bother to think about my points. Half your post is about whether you are right or not, and that whatever you say is absolutely correct, no argument to begin with, you are the rule and the law and the One. :bsmilie:
1. To talk about photo quality, you need to have a photo in the first place. Having no photo is equivalent to zero photo quality. If you can't even use a DSLR to shoot a particular photo (and I have already given examples where this is the case, similar situation, similar photographer, ceteris paribus), you can talk all you want about sensor and image quality, the tool doesn't fit the job. Got no end product want to talk about image quality? Got no food to eat, want to talk about food quality? :bsmilie:
2. 20 megapixel output from one of those brandless camera (or even a mobile phone) versus 12 megapixel DSLR, are you sure higher megapixel means better resolution? Seems like you are contradicting yourself.. (I suppose you will write another long long post to explain why you are not) :think: So which is a technical fact? Both are? 1+1 = 3 and the world explodes? :bsmilie:
Just pointing out that blanket statements are to be avoided.
If it makes you happy, you are right lor. Not interested in winning any arguments in the Internet, just wonder why you are taking it so personally and posting again and again when I'm not interested in engaging you. You win! I unofficially proclaim you the most technically sound person in Clubsnap, and declare that people who don't understand you should be eradicated. Since I'm apparently one of them, I will proceed to self-destruct after this post. Happy?
Cheers.
Last edited:
OoStarDustoO
New Member
Anything you say.
1. Having a photo means you have a photo to have photo quality. Having no photo is equivalent to zero photo quality. Can take photo better, or cannot take photo better (be it in terms of IMAGE QUALITY, or the sense of the word BETTER)?
2. 20 megapixel output from one of those brandless camera (or even a mobile phone) versus 12 megapixel DSLR, are you sure higher megapixel means better resolution? Seems like you are contradicting yourself.. (I suppose you will write another long long post to explain why you are not) :think: So which is a technical fact? Both are? 1+1 = 3 and the world explodes? :bsmilie:
Just pointing out that blanket statements are to be avoided.
If it makes you happy, you are right lor. Not interested in winning any arguments in the Internet, just wonder why you are taking it so personally and posting again and again when I'm not interested in engaging you. You win! I unofficially proclaim you the most technically sound person in Clubsnap, and declare that people who don't understand you should be eradicated. Happy?
Cheers! =)
one eye jack
Senior Member
I'm not taking sides but a little zen is needed.What is the sound of one hand clapping?
Man by nature does not exist in isolation,he has the environment(nature) and the society/community
to relate to,if not you know where he'll end up.
In this reality you based your reality on your 5 senses to make things real.So your 5 senses are
your REFERENCE.Similarly the output of a camera is based on a set of technical criteria which is
based on impersonal objectivity but what makes a photo good is based upon how the picture evokes
the experience of the viewer and resonates with his emotions so it is based on a different set of
references.So really we are talking about different references.
In the old days photography is about capturing reality and truth.That is correct exposure,
composition and perspective.Now with digital technology people seem to loose touch with reality.
Take a look at tv trailers and local dramas.Do you notice the type of lighting or digital manipulation of the images with are not based on reality?
Here are some examples:
In trailers,I suspect by young digital media graduates,colour balance is played around with such
that the trend now is high key photography like selling whitening facial cream and tooth paste.
Plenty of white or light background,some are well done like Colgate tooth paste.Or saturated colours
but I think the main motivation is capturing interest or eyeballs.This is even translated into
our local dramas albeit to look different from conventional video cameras and to stand out of the
competition.
What is most painful to watch is the bad colour balance of our camera dor and golden horse award winner feature film Ilo Ilo.What's most embarrassing is during acceptance speech the director behaved
like a new starlet and prolonged his speech 2 times when his allotted time was over pleading that
the award ceremony is time overrun anyway.
Now the current mediacorp ch.8 drama made for 50th anniversary of TV.Notice the colour tint when
Computer graphics of old Singapore times are superimposed?.This is because they are using cheaper video editing software than what Hollywood studios are using.Do you see such colour tints in Jussicac Park or Titanic for that matter? It's because the computer graphics generated are inferior quality so they have to blend and tint images with the real actors video footage to make it visually acceptable. I know this is off topic but can you see the dilemma? Want to do but no budget?
Man by nature does not exist in isolation,he has the environment(nature) and the society/community
to relate to,if not you know where he'll end up.
In this reality you based your reality on your 5 senses to make things real.So your 5 senses are
your REFERENCE.Similarly the output of a camera is based on a set of technical criteria which is
based on impersonal objectivity but what makes a photo good is based upon how the picture evokes
the experience of the viewer and resonates with his emotions so it is based on a different set of
references.So really we are talking about different references.
In the old days photography is about capturing reality and truth.That is correct exposure,
composition and perspective.Now with digital technology people seem to loose touch with reality.
Take a look at tv trailers and local dramas.Do you notice the type of lighting or digital manipulation of the images with are not based on reality?
Here are some examples:
In trailers,I suspect by young digital media graduates,colour balance is played around with such
that the trend now is high key photography like selling whitening facial cream and tooth paste.
Plenty of white or light background,some are well done like Colgate tooth paste.Or saturated colours
but I think the main motivation is capturing interest or eyeballs.This is even translated into
our local dramas albeit to look different from conventional video cameras and to stand out of the
competition.
What is most painful to watch is the bad colour balance of our camera dor and golden horse award winner feature film Ilo Ilo.What's most embarrassing is during acceptance speech the director behaved
like a new starlet and prolonged his speech 2 times when his allotted time was over pleading that
the award ceremony is time overrun anyway.
Now the current mediacorp ch.8 drama made for 50th anniversary of TV.Notice the colour tint when
Computer graphics of old Singapore times are superimposed?.This is because they are using cheaper video editing software than what Hollywood studios are using.Do you see such colour tints in Jussicac Park or Titanic for that matter? It's because the computer graphics generated are inferior quality so they have to blend and tint images with the real actors video footage to make it visually acceptable. I know this is off topic but can you see the dilemma? Want to do but no budget?
Last edited:
edutilos-
Senior Member
one eye jack - Apologies if this is a silly question, as I have not much knowledge of film or the industry. Is it always necessary to do a proper color balance? It is quite popular these days to do cross-processed tones for portraits, etc, or even landscapes, so I was wondering if that is not catching on in the film industry. Not that Ilo Ilo necessarily requires that treatment of course.
no, you don't need a DSLR to become a photographer. most photos posted on flickr are taken by iphone.
at the same time, most photos taken by professional photographers (e.g. press, sports, wedding, fashion) are taken by DSLR.
so, i would say that a DSLR or system camera gives more choices to a photographer in terms of handling, features, lenses, flash/strobes etc
but it does not mean that great photos can't be taken with simpler and more compact cameras.
understand the limitations of your equipment and you can maximize their potential to shoot good photos.
ultimately, shoot with the camera you feel most comfortable with, and the one that you are most likely to want to carry around
to get your best shots.
at the same time, most photos taken by professional photographers (e.g. press, sports, wedding, fashion) are taken by DSLR.
so, i would say that a DSLR or system camera gives more choices to a photographer in terms of handling, features, lenses, flash/strobes etc
but it does not mean that great photos can't be taken with simpler and more compact cameras.
understand the limitations of your equipment and you can maximize their potential to shoot good photos.
ultimately, shoot with the camera you feel most comfortable with, and the one that you are most likely to want to carry around
to get your best shots.
one eye jack
Senior Member
Wow so that's what it is,"cross processing" so I looked it up and no it's not a silly question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_processing
http://www.digital-photography-tips.net/wedding-photography-cross-processing.html
Cross processing originated during film days when photographers mistakenly developed
colour film in colour slides chemicals or vice versa and that resulted in saturated colours
and high contrast.So in digital software this effect can be simulated.How can it be called artistic
if every mother's son copy the style.It's just a copout for not being creative enough and I think wedding couples are short changed years later when the fad is no longer popular.Bad colour is bad colour.
But it's not for same reasons in video industry because the current video cameras give colours that
are saturated and etched,not pleasing to the eyes hence the cross processing to cover up the weakness.Look at the Korean dramas either they are using the latest cameras or I can be fooled that
they shot it on film.The Taiwanese are also catching up with the Koreans but mediacorp don't give a hoot but profit.But to be fair the culprits of cross processing are committed by video companies that take on some of mediacorp production as it is mandated by law that a certain percentage of dramas and documentaries are allocated to these independent media companies to share the pie so to speak and perhaps generate an alternative competition to mediacorp albeit sponsored by media authority of Singapore.
As for colour balance I mean white balance for eg. if shot under florescent lighting there is a greenish tint as in most low budget movies because they cannot spend on extra lighting(using the existing lighting of the location) and they think they can get away with it but the pros will shake their heads.The reason why computer generated graphics has that brown or green tint is because the software that make the cg is low grade so they have to tint the footage of real actors to blend in.You see it in a lot of Hong Kong historical films but some films they use the same software that Hollywood studios use when they have the budget.
Although holywood movies are shot in digital,film is still the gold standard so I don't think there
will not likely be a best cinephotography award given to a cross processed movie.They have to maintain standards of excellence.BTW there was a short segment during golden horse awards where
some past winners were interviewed and it was cross processed or whitened just like commercials.:bigeyes:
BTW this is another instance of you having a lively discussion on your pet topic.I know you mean well but I think you invest some emotion doing it.I for one like your logical and rational take on things.It shows your passion which may not be appreciated by others.
I see you in Pentax sub forum too as I own an old KX but have not used it much since I got it.
Last edited:
Similar threads
