I found this today on the Twitter and found it FASCINATING. :). Not the article - that's mostly reviews of apps that have been out for some time or that are really popular (I actually had them all).
What is more interesting here is the spirited debate in the comments section, about the merits of cell phone photography, iPhoneography, etc. There are a lot of feelings in there, and some good points too. :). I thought this one would be good for some of my iPhone comrades-in-arms (@sdpace, @hmgphotos, @dieter, @peterdegraaff).
I don't like the debates either. I love how people saying using an iphone isn't photography. OK, so can I say using a DSLR that cost less than $3000 isn't photography? It's kind of ridiculous. There's incredibly sh*tty "photography" done with EVERY camera in existence, so to rule out iPhone's as not being real photography is kind of silly.
Naturally, if I was to show up to a race event (what I do pro), I would laugh at anybody using an iPhone to photograph the event. In fact, most of those time at larger events people will have their press passes taken away if they're not using at least an SLR. It's to keep the snapshooters from taking passes away from the people who are really there for a reason. I can understand that, because gear DOES matter in many areas of photography (a shocking opinion to hold on this website, I know!).
I love my iPhone, mostly because I have it on me 100% of the time. I use to carry a small DSLR all the time, but I was sick of the heavy purse, and personally I hate point and shoot cameras. Yes, most "lomo" photography sucks, but honestly, I think that's the whole point of it... I was in a fine art photography program, and most of the point is to take "crappy" photos and apply some uber deep meaning to them. That's the joy of art, you can pass anything off as art. I've seen it done so much with a DSLR, not sure what's so wrong about doing it with an iPhone!
And I feel funny writing this reply, because I seriously have about $20k in slr bodies sitting in front of me, along with my iPhone. I'm all over the place with my photography, but maybe that's the fun in it? People let themselves get pigeon holed too much and worry too much about what photography is.
@hmgphotos Yes, yes, yes! I shoot on DSLRs, film SLRs, Holgas, vintage mech cameras, TLRs, toy vending machine cameras, an iPhone, you name it. I would never show up to a portrait shoot with only a Holga, and I wouldn't take my 'big' SLR to a day at the water park.
Mr. "iPhone photographers are pathetic" needs to dizzy things up and have a little fun, IMO. Someone needs to send him a Danbo. :)
Photography is photography no matter what equipment is used. It's still photography. The dslr has revolutionalized photography and put it into the hands of everyone, young and old. There are no longer boundries which make photography only for those who are professionals (one who gets paid). What we use to take a picture is only a piece of equipment, nothing more. It is the final product that dictates it's worth. So whether you use a pin-hole camera or the latest iPhone, it's doesn't matter one bit. The end product is still a photograph.
@hmgphotos@beautifulthing@dmortega Can I just copy and past your responses? I'm frazzled. And have a deadline. But tempted to wax lyrical nonetheless. Still, I'm only going to repeat what you've already said, and in more words and with rather less sly humour. I'll check back later though. No doubt someone will pop up to play devil's advocate and we can all beat up on them together ;)
p.s. I don't think you can use an iPhone for perspective-controlled architecture photography either. Perhaps we can start a list?
I love taking photos with iPhone, and particularly delight in the randomness of Hipstamatic. Let's face it iPhoneography will become high art. Look at what Hockney did for the fax, or a Warhol for making movies. Dali revelled in the eye, but today would have delighted in the digital sensor and the phone. Twenty years ago I raced to buy the first digital camera produced by Apple. What a revelation! What a shape! At art parties, at the time many photographic artists, to whom I predicted that digital would take over from film, in their snobbishness told my that it would never happen. True photography would only ever exist as a real art form in film. Too bad they also condemned taking it with a Polaroid picture.
This week I have been playing my Olympus PEN taking multiple shots and using HDR software to amaze myself. But the question remains - is it Not an SLR if one isn't looking directly though the lens but instead at he imag on the sensor. Enjoying photo forge incidentally.
@peterdegraaff Isn't Photoforge the best? :) You make some really good points too, particularly about the conversation re: film vs digital and how it compares to the conversation re: digital vs iPhoneography. It sort of feels like, is deja vu the word I want?
Whoa, slow down folks. This is sort of what I meant by both sides.
Film v. Digital is not the same argument as camera phone v. DSLR.
Digital sensors are improving all the time, phones are benefiting from this. Thing is whatever technology can be applied to a mobile phone camera can be applied to a DSLR. It is the same technology improving both, but bigger cameras have room for bigger sensors.
Bigger sensor = better potential. The same photo taken by the same photographer will be better with a DSLR than an iPhone.
Can the camera in your mobile allow you to take amazing photos? Yes.
Can you take complete crap photos despite expensive gear? Yes.
The photographer is the most important part of the equation, yes. Just the same, you'll not likely see professionals ditching their DSLRs anytime soon and it is not just snobbery or ego.
The art part of the equation is a separate discussion, it truly is.
@lilbudhha It is both about poesis (art) and techne (both technique and tools). We know it is a chair because we have an idea of what a chair is. We might see a chair as a chair as a chair, and know it is a chair because it exists. It is an idea that exists in being. Similarly we have an idea of a camera. Is a camera, a camera, or is it something else merely because it is a DSLR or in a phone or a micro 4/3rds? The point that I was making is that being also acknowledges what is becoming. Tools change. Techne does not stay static and is reflected in art. The proof is that many professional photographers are working to emulate the lo-fi, hipstamatic, and vintage looks. Even applications such as Aperture and Lightroom have hundreds of presets that can be downloaded as plugs-in to emulate the phonography look. Professionals are able to use a wide variety of tools and techniques, and this is becoming more apparent across web, zines, and in media. There is of course possibly a difference between being a technician and artist!
wonderful summary. One thing I feel is worth elaborating on though is that photography is the art of balancing compromises. The technical aspects of photography include numerous compromises that are fundamental to optical systems and the physics of light. Even when these can be overcome in theory, you have to deal with practical matters of time, size, weight, cost and so on. In my view, photography is art, technique and compromise, and therein lie the creative choices that define you as a photographer. I actually enjoy the challenge of trying to be creative and get the most out of limited equipment. Ultimately, using an SLR, a phone, or a point-and-shoot, or a large format camera, a pinhole box or a Holga just creates a set of constraints around which you need to make your creative choices. Of course, if those constraints prevent you from making the pictures you want to make you have to use different gear! @beautifulthing@hmgphotos@lilbudhha
I have been a facebooker for yonks, but have been quiet lately. Lots of photos in my albums over a number of years. https://www.facebook.com/peterdegraaff
@peterdegraaff
I am not certain we are saying different things, exactly. The tool is secondary to the result. Perhaps I am being overly pedantic. Here is the point in a nutshell: You can emulate low fi with a DSLR, you cannot emulate hi fi with a mobile.
In the end, use what you want, the end product will speak for itself.
To say one needs a DSLR to create a great photograph is wrong.
But to say a mobile is equal tp a DSLR is also wrong.
As @dieter points out, each tool has its own pluses and minuses. Pick the tool you wish for the result you wish.
As to technician or artist? That is a false dichotomy.
@beautifulthing Have downloaded disposable and am game. If you want to friend on fb will give it a go. Perhaps we could divide up roll, invite others to join, set a theme or play tags, or just let it happen.
@lilbudhha Just had a nice experience. Took some Hipstamatic images to be printed as 8x10 inch prints. Came out beautifully. The printers could not believe that photos had been shot on an iPhone and not a DSLR. Blew up beautifully and colors came out splendidly, without any after processing. Some of those printed I have pasted below, but most were posted in my albums during November.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
Better is subordinate to what you wish to achieve.
Naturally, if I was to show up to a race event (what I do pro), I would laugh at anybody using an iPhone to photograph the event. In fact, most of those time at larger events people will have their press passes taken away if they're not using at least an SLR. It's to keep the snapshooters from taking passes away from the people who are really there for a reason. I can understand that, because gear DOES matter in many areas of photography (a shocking opinion to hold on this website, I know!).
I love my iPhone, mostly because I have it on me 100% of the time. I use to carry a small DSLR all the time, but I was sick of the heavy purse, and personally I hate point and shoot cameras. Yes, most "lomo" photography sucks, but honestly, I think that's the whole point of it... I was in a fine art photography program, and most of the point is to take "crappy" photos and apply some uber deep meaning to them. That's the joy of art, you can pass anything off as art. I've seen it done so much with a DSLR, not sure what's so wrong about doing it with an iPhone!
And I feel funny writing this reply, because I seriously have about $20k in slr bodies sitting in front of me, along with my iPhone. I'm all over the place with my photography, but maybe that's the fun in it? People let themselves get pigeon holed too much and worry too much about what photography is.
Mr. "iPhone photographers are pathetic" needs to dizzy things up and have a little fun, IMO. Someone needs to send him a Danbo. :)
p.s. I don't think you can use an iPhone for perspective-controlled architecture photography either. Perhaps we can start a list?
Oh, by the way - this? Not a photograph:
I love taking photos with iPhone, and particularly delight in the randomness of Hipstamatic. Let's face it iPhoneography will become high art. Look at what Hockney did for the fax, or a Warhol for making movies. Dali revelled in the eye, but today would have delighted in the digital sensor and the phone. Twenty years ago I raced to buy the first digital camera produced by Apple. What a revelation! What a shape! At art parties, at the time many photographic artists, to whom I predicted that digital would take over from film, in their snobbishness told my that it would never happen. True photography would only ever exist as a real art form in film. Too bad they also condemned taking it with a Polaroid picture.
This week I have been playing my Olympus PEN taking multiple shots and using HDR software to amaze myself. But the question remains - is it Not an SLR if one isn't looking directly though the lens but instead at he imag on the sensor. Enjoying photo forge incidentally.
Film v. Digital is not the same argument as camera phone v. DSLR.
Digital sensors are improving all the time, phones are benefiting from this. Thing is whatever technology can be applied to a mobile phone camera can be applied to a DSLR. It is the same technology improving both, but bigger cameras have room for bigger sensors.
Bigger sensor = better potential. The same photo taken by the same photographer will be better with a DSLR than an iPhone.
Can the camera in your mobile allow you to take amazing photos? Yes.
Can you take complete crap photos despite expensive gear? Yes.
The photographer is the most important part of the equation, yes. Just the same, you'll not likely see professionals ditching their DSLRs anytime soon and it is not just snobbery or ego.
The art part of the equation is a separate discussion, it truly is.
@lilbudhha It is both about poesis (art) and techne (both technique and tools). We know it is a chair because we have an idea of what a chair is. We might see a chair as a chair as a chair, and know it is a chair because it exists. It is an idea that exists in being. Similarly we have an idea of a camera. Is a camera, a camera, or is it something else merely because it is a DSLR or in a phone or a micro 4/3rds? The point that I was making is that being also acknowledges what is becoming. Tools change. Techne does not stay static and is reflected in art. The proof is that many professional photographers are working to emulate the lo-fi, hipstamatic, and vintage looks. Even applications such as Aperture and Lightroom have hundreds of presets that can be downloaded as plugs-in to emulate the phonography look. Professionals are able to use a wide variety of tools and techniques, and this is becoming more apparent across web, zines, and in media. There is of course possibly a difference between being a technician and artist!
Hi Peter,
wonderful summary. One thing I feel is worth elaborating on though is that photography is the art of balancing compromises. The technical aspects of photography include numerous compromises that are fundamental to optical systems and the physics of light. Even when these can be overcome in theory, you have to deal with practical matters of time, size, weight, cost and so on. In my view, photography is art, technique and compromise, and therein lie the creative choices that define you as a photographer. I actually enjoy the challenge of trying to be creative and get the most out of limited equipment. Ultimately, using an SLR, a phone, or a point-and-shoot, or a large format camera, a pinhole box or a Holga just creates a set of constraints around which you need to make your creative choices. Of course, if those constraints prevent you from making the pictures you want to make you have to use different gear! @beautifulthing @hmgphotos @lilbudhha
Gonna start tagging photos with phoneography
I am not certain we are saying different things, exactly. The tool is secondary to the result. Perhaps I am being overly pedantic. Here is the point in a nutshell: You can emulate low fi with a DSLR, you cannot emulate hi fi with a mobile.
In the end, use what you want, the end product will speak for itself.
To say one needs a DSLR to create a great photograph is wrong.
But to say a mobile is equal tp a DSLR is also wrong.
As @dieter points out, each tool has its own pluses and minuses. Pick the tool you wish for the result you wish.
As to technician or artist? That is a false dichotomy.
@lilbudhha Just had a nice experience. Took some Hipstamatic images to be printed as 8x10 inch prints. Came out beautifully. The printers could not believe that photos had been shot on an iPhone and not a DSLR. Blew up beautifully and colors came out splendidly, without any after processing. Some of those printed I have pasted below, but most were posted in my albums during November.
Those are indeed lovely.