Or how about just posting up any of his own photos, to prove his point(s)?
People who shoot photos with their lens hood on backwards
- Thread starter Bungle73
- Start date
Or how about just posting up any of his own photos, to prove his point(s)?
This conversation is descending into farce,it really is. Do you not actually know the difference between a phone's fixed lens and the infinite variety of DSLR lenses one can choose from?
There's nothing wrong with my "tone". What you have in this thread is a bunch of people arguing one thing, then denying they were ever arguing that at all, then thinking they've got one over on me by posting a bunch of crappy pictures, then start to argue the same thing they were arguing in the first place, and that they were earlier denying arguing. It's pathetic, it really is.I have to admit I can't manage reading the entirety of Bungle73's posts any more. The "ner ner ner" tone and lack of self awareness is just overwhelming.
Either you all are yanking my chain, or you are bunch of complete idiots. Which is it?
I already posted three of my pictures, but I have no idea what "point" you expect me to "prove" with any shot I have taken?
Corax
Luke 5:16
It's not you Bungle73, it's everyone else.
This conversation is descending into farce,it really is. Do you not actually know the difference between a phone's fixed lens and the infinite variety of DSLR lenses one can choose from?
There's nothing wrong with my "tone". What you have in this thread is a bunch of people arguing one thing, then denying they were ever arguing that at all, then thinking they've got one over on me by posting a bunch of crappy pictures, then start to argue the same thing they were arguing in the first place, and that they were earlier denying arguing. It's pathetic, it really is.
Either you all are yanking my chain, or you are bunch of complete idiots. Which is it?
editor
hiraethified
Let's talk about the National Geographic, because it is all about fantastic photography.
It's been described as "home to some of the highest-quality photojournalism in the world," and is "recognized for its book-like quality and its standard of photography" [--], so we can rest assured that anything that makes it in there is of the highest quality with no compromises in photographic quality. You'd agree on that wouldn't you?
Vintage Paw
dead stare and computer glare
This conversation is descending into farce,it really is. Do you not actually know the difference between a phone's fixed lens and the infinite variety of DSLR lenses one can choose from?
Oh honey.
Oh yeah, and I forgot that classic about how "I'm changing the goal posts" when either a) I produce that facts of what I'm saying, or b) I shoot someone quite legitimately down in flames who thought they had me "had".
Go and put the arguments you're putting forward here on a proper photographer forum, and see how far you get. Go on, I dare you.
Except, several people have come in and basically said what I've bee saying all along.
Go and put the arguments you're putting forward here on a proper photographer forum, and see how far you get. Go on, I dare you.
So, are you, or are you or are you not arguing that a phone camera can equal a DSLR in all areas? Yes or no?
Corax
Luke 5:16
They've not received the same responses as you. Why is that?
The goalposts have been moved so many times that it's hard to say what I want you to prove at this stage but I'll start with the OP... Show me why one of your pictures is better than one taken with the lens hood reversed.
Then show me some of the pictures you've had printed and we'll compare them to the images that editor is going to post that were taken with phones.
QueenOfGoths
Fuck you Dave!
We are all, obviously, on drugs
Corax
Luke 5:16
I'm using my lens hood as a roach.We are all, obviously, on drugs
I'm using a roach as a lens hood for my S4
editor
hiraethified
Ah, you're back to making stuff up. How tedious. I have never, ever made such a claim or argued for anything even remotely like the above, so why try and make stuff up when it's clear you'll be caught out?
Anyway, about National Geographic. Are you going to answer my questions concerning the quality of photography required or do those goalposts need shifting elsewhere for a while longer?
Vintage Paw
dead stare and computer glare
Any fule know National Geographic are a bunch of fly-by-night cowboys, ed.
You don't even know what the "goalposts" are so you have no idea whether they have been "moved" or not, which they haven't. I was quite clear in what I wanted, and that would have been obvious to anyone with even basic knowledge of photography. And you don't as you have shown.
Why do they have to be "my" images?
That explains everything. There is a video I saw with a practical demonstration, but I cannot find it.
Vintage Paw
dead stare and computer glare
Is this your most successful thread so far, Bungle old chap?
neonwilderness
What would Badgers do?
Cowboys ed, they're a bunch of cowboysAny fule know National Geographic are a bunch of fly-by-night cowboys, ed.
Corax
Luke 5:16
Perhaps you missed this question also.
I can't see a definitive answer coming any time soon but I'm dying to see the images... These suspenders are fookin' killing me!
I'm pretty sure that nobody but you knows where the goalposts are at this stage
Because I want you to shoot yourself in the foot by proving that better pictures can be taken with a camera phone than you're capable of taking with your all singing, all dancing DSLR
Honestly you are flip-flopping here more than a very flippy floppy thing. If you are not arguing that when why every time I state how DSLRs are superior do you keep going about "Oh, X person had a phone picture published in X magazine!"? Show me where I said you can't get a good image out of a phone? I said that no where. What I actually said is that a DSLR is technological superior and more versatile. And these are exactly the points you keep arguing against. I also said a pro's MAIN camera will always be a DSLR. Did I say they would never use a phone? I did not. In fact I said many, many posts ago that Mike Browne (the guy you were completely disrespectful about) uses one.
You know how ever much you use that phrase it doesn't make it true you know.
Please tell me how stating that DSLRs are superior, and then given the ways that they are superior is "moving the goalposts"?
Also, tell me shooting down in flames the pathetic pictures posted earlier is "moving the goalposts"?
Bungle73 You deserve all the chain pulling that you have received on here. Go back over the thread from the beginning and read it all again to see where you went wrong.
And do that on a computer - not a phone.
And do that on a computer - not a phone.
.
.
.
You have no idea what you were supposed to be searching for do you? First posting a bunch of pictures with no info at all on camera or settings and that are not full size is beyond useless.
That's not a low light shot. With all those buildings lit up it's practically like broad daylight. Also, what ISO was used? You don't know do you? It was probably a really high one that gives noise galore. The tiny sensor in a camera phone is just not capable of producing high quality low noise low light shots.
I just don't believe that was done on a phone....at least not without some kind attached lens. There is no phone out there that comes stock with a lens capable of taking a picture like that. Phones come with wide angle lenses and you'd never be able to hold the phone close enough to take shot like that.
I meant a close up of something far away with a long focal length. Any old camera can take a shot like that.
Honestly, this one's the funniest of the bunch. I can't believe you were serious when you posted it. I mean something like this:
Again, nice try, but no cigar. Try doing something like this on phone:
You do realise that close-up shots always have an inherent shallow DoF don't you? You don't you do, because you thought you were being clever by posting that.
No moving of goalposts...?
You, sir, are deluded!
editor
hiraethified
Actually, you said this:
So why do you think he'd never use one on a job? Is it not good enough for professional work?
Is that a fact? Are they that crap then?
Oh really? So if they're as awful as you claim, then there'd be no chance of prestigious magazines using them, right?
Vintage Paw
dead stare and computer glare
I can sense ed's just absolutely bloody desperate to share the link of some really amazing phone shots in Nat. Geographic.
Someone please, for the love of god, throw him a bone
Someone please, for the love of god, throw him a bone
LOL! That's a completely different person!Oh hold on Bungle73 , Ten seconds Googling shows you're talking bollocks about this Mike Brown bloke too. He was using camera phones on assignment as far back as 201.
The only person arguing for or against that point is you.
Your arguments make as much sense as arguing that the paint brushes used by Turner weren't as good as the brushes available today, ergo, his paintings can't be as good as a modern painting.
editor
hiraethified
Yet it still rubbishes your claim that a pro wouldn't use a smartphone on assignment! You get pwned without even trying these days.LOL! That's a completely different person!
Poor old Bungle - grandmothers and eggs come to mind. Sorry if that was a bit unkind.
neonwilderness
What would Badgers do?
That's quite a good set of photos. However they probably don't look great at 1:1 so don't countOh hold on Bungle73 , Ten seconds Googling shows you're talking bollocks about this Mike Brown bloke too. He was using camera phones on assignment as far back as 201.
Similar threads
