« Of Photographers, Writers and Trademarks | Main | Sony NEX-6 Review: Conclusion, Part I »

Wednesday, 03 April 2013

Comments

There also seems to be a sense of "good enough quality." Publications may not need to demand the highest ultimate quality because they don't think consumers are demanding it and it makes no difference.

For instance this article:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/04/monarch-in-the-middle/309270/

It's a big discussion with and in-depth report on King Abdullah of Jordan. As soon as I turned the page in the physical magazine, I was struck by how that lead photo on the web article is not critically sharp at all on a 1/2 page spread in the magazine. Like immediately obvious. Someone spent days with the King and that's the photograph they chose to run? Strange.

So manipulation is okay for photojournalism as long as its automated?

Hiya!

> *Except us. We'll use good-quality point-and-shoots or better,
> thanks.

Thanks for that. It's not often I can honestly type LOL.

I've had this conversation with so many people lately. My defense is that Nick is a pro and as a pro can make most any tool work for him. Also, it helps that he knows how to light a scene. He's also using a KinoFlo Diva Light that costs more than most people's DSLR. So maybe the montra should change from "Buy the best lens you can afford" to "Buy the best lights you can afford".

Must say on my iPhone his digital original looks better than the NYT print versus.

And yes, I do in fact have the Sunday page one analogue version for direct comparison. I even subscribe to the analogue Sunday-only. A family tradition of slow reading over coffee every week.

What's the saying? The best camera is the one you have with you. Or it's the photographer and not his kit?

Clearly Nick's got the chops. I suspect he doesn't get hung up on pixel peeping either. Analogue print form can be quite forgiving of 3-6 MB images.

Now where's my damn D300s 36MP replacement!

Hmzzzzz,

Dunno, the light he's using looks more expensive then the iPhone....I guess no one put a M16 against his head in order to use an iPhone, that was an artistic choise. Along the lines of Mr. Burnett firing at mr. Gore with a 15 dollar Holga...well and that proves a simple statement....

Leica, scheica, it not about the camera.....

Greets, Ed.

Good day for iPhoneography!

Swell, the dumbing down of America/the world continues. Why bother with excellences when mediocrity will do.

Watch the movie "Idiocracy". Scary but. ... Just sayin

Thanks for the footnote. Yet another good reason to be a regular reader of your wonderful site.

(How about a merchandise t-shirt for TOP, stating "Pro photographers just use their iPhones like "everybody"* else" on the front and "*Except us. We'll use good-quality point-and-shoots or better, thanks." in small type on the back?)

I for one am pleased to see this. I remember a few years ago reading a story about a NYT photographer getting on a plane to go to some mid-western city and shooting a photo with a 4x5 that was printed in the paper smaller than 4x5.What a waste of resources were my thoughts.

It's the photographer and not the equipment!!!

When I studied Mechanical Engineering from 1988-1992, all students had their own PC at home, as well as a (pirated) copy of AutoCAD - the market-leading CAD/drawing software at the time. There was, however, a rule at the University that students were obliged to use ink and paper for all technical drawings before the 7th semester. The reasoning ?? I quote: "You can only learn the art of Technical Drawing by using ink and paper". I see traces of this kind of old-think in this discussion, as well.

As for the portrait of the Baseball player, I have seen the DSLR images that he also took at the same session, and the facial expression is this photograph is by far the best of the bunch. So it's simply a very good portrait, I find.

And people have been sepia toning pictures for centuries, haven't they ??

Soeren

At some point, though, it becomes an affectation, like those TV correspondents who do their reports on nanny-cams -- from a television studio.

Two Points: Firstly, it's a damn good portrait that holds up well for a small newspaper print or internet display. Secondly, the quality of cell phone and P&S cameras is getting steadily better--much better. The same is true of more "serious" cameras, but less "serious" ones will suffice much of the time. Now excuse me while I go hug my RX1.

What bugs me is the wall of media hype that comes with using Instagram, the breathless media frenzy proffering the illusion that the medium and method is what makes an image, not the photographer.

I know that I am stating the obvious, but much of our culture is driven by a search for novelty.

So, in a sea of slick high end DSLR photography, a lower tech looking iPhone picture really stands out.

Then everyone starts running after the low tech iPhone look, until it saturates the media and the pendulum swings another direction.

Being trendy is hard work.

It's really fun to watch, unless you are trying to make a living at it...

Cheers.

I gave up criticising the people who believe they can make great pictures with a mobile phone long ago. I don't want people to call me "narrow-minded" and "arrogant" anymore. Anyway, who cares? As a commenter implied before, we live under the dictatorship of mediocrity. Why fight it if it's irreversible? Photography isn't an art anymore, so why should I pretend it still is? And why do I allow myself to bother with image quality when the sole purpose of photography is to share cheerful pictures on Facebook?
Now a professional photographer endorses the iPhone for photojournalism. I guess it's time I sold my equipment and bought an iPhone too. And I must not forget to wear a stupid smile on my face when I'm taking pictures with my brand new iPhone.
Instagram will be next on my wishlist. Oh well...

I'm fine with everything but those rounded corners, and boy are they just plain pointy stick to the eyes ugly on the printed page. And just when the web design world had finally gotten over it's infatuation with rounded corners. Photo is fine but the layout with all that whitespace looks like USA Today back when it launched with it's "my weekly reader with more pictures" format.

Did I mention that the corners attract the eye but not in a good way?

Nice copy of William Cupon's 1980 Baseball cards and Social Studies series, but everybody loves baseball player portraits

Stephen Paulson

Stephen Paulson, principal bassoonist of the San Francisco Symphony 1982

Oh, that's my photo not Bill Cupon's

I think it's fantastic. I love my iPhone and use it more than my other gear. It's the one camera I always have with me.

Horses for courses, right?

Iphone and now ipod is the best things happened to photography in the digital era.

The comments to this entry are closed.