The Happier Photographer

Written by Oskar Ojala

I have taken close to 10,000 photographs on my various smartphones, mostly with the most recent ones since they have had the best photographic capabilities. Some time ago I shot and edited an image with a phone every day a year. I even printed few. That taught me a few things, and I now think I'm pretty decent at phone photography.

That said, I'm not taking as many photos with my phone as I used to. The first reason is ergonomics: the speed of the controls and the phone is not satisfactory for action photography, which leaves one big potential subject area of phone photography—kids—lacking.

The second reason is image quality, namely the rendering of certain colors and gradations and the rendering of fine detail. If the subject greatly benefits from pleasant rendering of certain colors or needs fine detail, the phone is no longer satisfactory.

I had a moment where I realized where my limit with phone photography was. I was sitting in a café opposite my son, and he had a good expression. My camera in my bag and my phone were next to me, so I took a shot with the phone. The colors where wholly unsatisfactory, a garish rendition. Out comes the camera, a bit of waiting, and I got the shot I wanted. I realized that if I don't put in the effort to get the shot that I want, I'm not going to be satisfied with the photo. The harsh gradation, color that is slightly off and lack of detail in the phone photo will bother me every time, and I'll be kicking myself for not having a "real" camera handy.

So I make a point of not trying to make the phone do things it's not very good at, and I'm a happier photographer.

Oskar

TOP reader Oskar Ojala is an amateur photographer living in Helsinki, Finland. He started photography in the early '00s with film and has since embraced digital, focusing on photography of people, nature and city views. With a day job in software, he follows the latest developments but tries to avoid too much focus on tech in photography.

Original contents copyright 2019 by Oskar Ojala. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Amazon.com • Amazon UK • Amazon Canada
Amazon Germany • B&H Photo • Adorama

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Jeff Kott: "Thanks for this! I really like the camera in my iPhone Xs, except ever since the iPhone 6 I've found iPhone photos' skin tones to be oversaturated and too biased toward yellow/orange. This is the main reason I use my 'real' cameras so much."

Fred Haynes: "I’m old, eighty-three, and I don’t have a smartphone, but even though I see great pictures from them that my wife takes, and my brother-in-law as well (he and his wife visited Paris only carrying a smartphone), I still can’t bring myself to accept a phone for photography! I liked Oskar’s post, because his analysis of smartphone photography sort of reinforces my point of view. Probably not a good thing, since I should try to remain open-minded. Sigh!!"

Mike replies: I think you're pretty darned open-minded, Fred, considering your first serious camera was a Nikon S2 bought new! (As you commented once.)

Rich: "Working in the corporate world where there are very few 'creative' types and a suit and tie is the dress code, having a camera slung over one’s shoulder would be viewed as unprofessional and possibly a security risk. However sometimes the views from the upper floors of the steel and glass edifices are magnificent and using a smartphone camera allows me to make pictures that I wouldn’t normally be able to. Everyone thinks I’m just checking my emails."

Rob Allen: "On the flip side of the coin, I absolutely love the camera in my iPhone Xs and feel that it gets me photos that I am very happy with. Its ergonomics are very different from my A7 and X-T3 but that doesn’t make it unusable or uncomfortable for me. The knack is to not try and use it like a traditional camera! I use mine in portrait orientation 99% of the time and arguably, it’s easier to hold and take photos in this orientation than a DSLR that doesn’t have a vertical grip.It also has a fantastic (and large screen) for composition. I don’t use it for situations where it’s not suitable in the same way that I wouldn’t use a roadster to transport heavy goods, but when you’re within its wheelhouse, you get good photos and it’s not uncomfortable to take them.

"I’m just a programmer who takes photos as his hobby to have fun outdoors and am certainly not an expert at this."

Steve Jacob: "I think smartphones lend themselves well to a particular type of journalistic 'decisive moment' kind of photography. I have seen a lot of phone images that HCB would have been proud of, and some even had the vintage B&W look courtesy of art filters. I am impressed by anyone who can master a great composition of a great moment. It's something I never mastered, but it does not demand large prints or amazing technical quality. It requires planning, timing and imagination. Perhaps HCB would have used a smartphone? I think many of his spiritual successors already do."

Mike replies: I've long wondered whether the smartphone is the true successor, or not the successor but the current equivalent of, the original Barnack-camera (pre-M3) Leicas. And, as I often remind people, Leicas were scorned for years by many photographers as being unserious and insufficient for taking good photographs—just like smartphones are today. That said, I'd trade a tooth for an A7R IV*.

*Of course, if it were actually possible to trade teeth for cameras, I'd be as toothless as a gypsy tinker already.

Comments

[Mike J.]

What impressed me about Oskar's account is that he shot 10,000 and did a PAD project for a year with his smartphones. That kind of thorough familiarity removes the emotion and prejudice (since we were discussing that) from one's eventual judgements and conclusions, IMO.

[Stan B.]

Exactly why I take the GR everywhere, no regrets of "if only I had a real camera."

[c.d.embrey]

My eight (8) megapixel Canon 20D produced files that printed double truck (two pages wide) in magazines! We have become spoiled by the surfeit of (mega)pixels now available.

[David L.]

For bright daylight my iPhone does well, especially for low res use in social media. For low light, forget it. Excess noise and lost detail are too hard to wrangle in software.

[JG]

To my eyes and ears, claiming to be a photographer and using an iPhone is about the same as declaring yourself an audiophile and listening to .mp3s.

[But how about calling yourself a music lover and listening to MP3's? Could be entirely justified, or don't you agree?

Especially when you consider the number of composers and conductors and professional musicians who aren't picky about sound quality. I remember one classical composer who was a visiting lecturer at Dartmouth in the '70s. He said he listened to symphonic records using an old "suitcase" stereo, because it enabled him to listen to 33 1/3 rpm records at 78 rpm! He said it helped him hear and understand the structure of the music better. --Mike]

[Christer]

Oskar, for you comment to be relevant, you should state what phone you used for the unsatisfactory picture of your son.

[Steve Higgins]

My phone (Android) won't let me use the camera unless I give it access to my contacts list and microphone. So I don't use it for photography.

[TC]

It's usually much simpler for me to take a shot with my camera than with my phone. My camera is always on my shoulder, always on, but my phone, unless I happen to be looking at a message or looking something up (in which case I'm not really engaged enough with the world around me to notice photographs), is in my pocket or in my bag. And even if it's in my hand, I have to open the camera app...too much fuss. My dedicated camera, however, is ready. That's what I go to. If I want to share whatever it is immediately, I'll then take my phone out to take a shot.

That's just me though.

That said, I see no point in even differentiating mobile photography from camera photography, or even film photography from digital photography. They're all just cameras. Boxes with holes (says the guy with two separate IG accounts for mobile and camera photography, lol).

[JG]

But how about calling yourself a music lover and listening to MP3's? Could be entirely justified, or don't you agree?

Actually, I don't agree. That's because I can only experience music by listening to it, hence the quality of the sound is an integral part of my experience and enjoyment.

Similarly, I can only appreciate a photo by looking at it and image quality is an integral part of my experience and enjoyment of that, too.

Unfortunately for me, my ability to separate the message from its medium isn't very good. I can't easily ignore technical flaws or fill in gaps where information is missing.

Which doesn't mean I'm unable to enjoy music or photography in the absence of ultimate fidelity to the original(s) from which these reproductions are drawn, only that -- for me -- there's a minimum threshold of fidelity that first must be met and as they exist today, .mp3s and cellphone photos are rarely able to clear that bar.

[Gerard Geradts]

Are people fascinated by the Mona Lisa because of the IQ?
Did people in 1965 go wild by (I cant get no) Satisfaction because of the quality of the sound?
I know I dont and didnt.
IQ is only one of the various components that define if and how good a photo is.

[JG]

Are people fascinated by the Mona Lisa because of the IQ?

Probably not, but paintings are not photographs.

Did people in 1965 go wild by (I cant get no) Satisfaction because of the quality of the sound?

Probably not, but they really didn't have any alternative, because even the best sound quality possible those days was pretty dismal compared to what became technically possible over the following decades.

Also, high fidelity isn't necessarily a pre-requisite to enjoy rock or other music that originates with electronic instruments and has been heavily processed by the time it reaches the ears of its fans.

This is very much different from when non-amplified, acoustical instruments are used and their characteristic sounds have a real-world reference that is widely known to (and appreciated by) its listeners.

I know I dont and didnt.

As the saying goes, YMMV! Hey, I enjoy listening to, say, grungy death metal on occasion as much as the next guy and I accept its generally crappy sound quality is a large part of its appeal.

But when I'm listening to Shostakovitch's Seventh Symphony or vintage acoustic jazz, crappy sound quality gets in the way of my enjoyment instead of enhancing it.

And while it's possible to degrade sound and/or image quality by processing it, it's not possible to improve it by doing the same. If low-res .mp3s and .jpgs captured by cellphone cameras are good enough for the hoi polloi, then everyone will ultimately suffer as the bar will have been lowered, not raised, thanks to advancing technology, which isn't how this process is supposed to work.

IQ is only one of the various components that define if and how good a photo is.

Sure, but only so long as crappy IQ is an intentional choice made by the photographer, not an inevitable result imposed upon them by using a camera that's been dumbed-down enough to fit inside a cellphone.

Don't get me wrong, as I'm no Luddite. I believe there's definitely a place for cellphone photography in today's world. It's just that I don't see it as a replacement for the cameras that many of us have come to know and love, that's all.

Alas, once a critical mass is achieved in the market, the dumbed-down version of whatever will become the only version available. As one who enjoys using manual transmissions in a car, I am all too keenly aware of this marketplace reality... 8^(