People who shoot photos with their lens hood on backwards

[Bungle73]

are you a dslr expert bungle? - i only ask as you bought your first dslr just 6 months ago. and only got into photography 18 months before that. http://500px.com/GrahamWest/about

No, and I never claimed to be. But I do know what they are capable of, why people buy them, and how they are superior to cameras with tiny sensors.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

And assuming that any dSLR is better than a new smartphone isn't too clever either..

Yes, it would be totally a dumbass assumption. Good thing no one has said any such thing so far, apart from your mentioning in the quoted post.

 

[fuck seals]

No, and I never claimed to be. But I do know what they are capable of, why people buy them, and how they are superior to cameras with tiny sensors.

fast learner. i like that.

 

[editor]

In an article about taking pictures with a phone.................

http://www.friends-arc.com/national-geographic

Here's his quote from that very article. Once again, it destroys your clueless arguments:

I've used a lot of smartphones, but the Nokia Lumia 1020 is extraordinary. There's never been anything like it. Until now, I could only get images like this using a professional DSLR camera."

 

[editor]

Yes, it would be totally a dumbass assumption. Good thing no one has said any such thing so far, apart from your mentioning in the quoted post.

Er, yes they have.

 

[editor]

No, and I never claimed to be. But I do know what they are capable of, why people buy them, and how they are superior to cameras with tiny sensors.

But you've never used either professionally, yet still presume to tell those who have that they're wrong? Way to go!

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

...

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Er, yes it can. The Lumia 1020 offers "manual control for exposure time – from one sixteen-thousandth of a second (1/16000s) up to four seconds." [--]

Oh, and ND filters for long exposure? Yep, that's very possible too. [--]

View attachment 50399

I think the photo Bungle posted has been messed with in pp, but in any event the quality of the two photos is very different.

 

[editor]

You missed out the words that are supposed to underline whatever point it is that you're making,

 

[Bungle73]

But you've never used either professionally, yet still presume to tell those who have that they're wrong? Way to go!

Why the hell do I need to have used them "professionally" do know what the differences are? I know what they are.

It really is amazing to me that someone who claims to know about photography has spent 24 pages trying to argue that no one needs a DSLR any more because phones do everything and have comparable image quality.

 

[editor]

It really is amazing to me that someone who claims to know about photography has spent 24 pages trying to argue that no one needs a DSLR any more because phones do everything and have comparable image quality.

So you'll have no problem producing at least one post where I make such a claim, yes?

 

[Bungle73]

So you'll have no problem producing at least one post where I make such a claim, yes?

Oh, so people do need DSLRs then? You admit it at last?

 

[fractionMan]

lol

 

[editor]

Oh, so people do need DSLRs then? You admit it at last?

Just the one quote will do fine, thanks.

 

[Bungle73]

Just the one quote will do fine, thanks.

This whole thread is one big quote. Your endless posts about how "phones are as good as DSLRs" because a few photos have "been in NG".

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

], 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?

I'm afraid not.

The Pyramids at Giza in the smoky light of evening. Three camels and their riders in the foreground.

"The famous National Geographic cover," Rowell said. "The Pyramids were moved in relation to the camel riders to make room for the logo. Originally the cover was to be a picture of mine of a Tibetan boy. They kicked it off because the Chinese Embassy objected. The Chinese said they wouldn't let National Geographic writers and photographers into Tibet again if they ran that picture on the cover. It was already at the printer's. When they decided to yank mine out, they needed an instant replacement. They chose this picture, which was a horizontal. In making it a vertical they reset the riders."

http://museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/photo_database/image/the_case_of_the_moving_pyramids/


Manipulated photo from Nat. Geog.

http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/378-National-Geographic-and-Fauxtography.html

 

[Bungle73]

Tell me, Ed, if you're so convinced that camera phones are the bee's knees why do you own a mirrorless camera?

 

[discokermit]

Oh, so people do need DSLRs then? You admit it at last?

thinking about it, if it's quality of image that's important, wouldn't you be using medium format?

 

[editor]

I'm afraid not.

http://museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/photo_database/image/the_case_of_the_moving_pyramids/

That story is from 1982, ffs, and it's got bugger all to do with the photographic quality argument either. Oh well.

 

[editor]

Tell me, Ed, if you're so convinced that camera phones are the bee's knees why do you own a mirrorless camera?

It's getting a bit boring listening to you posting up your mad lies now. Please stop. Thanks.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

That story is from 1982, ffs, and it's got bugger all to do with the photographic quality argument either. Oh well.

What can one say about photographic quality when the image has been made for all intents and purposes, by a computer?

Are these quality photos?

 

[fishfinger]

What can one say about photographic quality when the image has been made for all intents and purposes, by a computer?

Are these quality photos?

Those are quality photo manipulations. They are no more "made by a computer", than a photograph is "made by a camera". Both require a creative talent to produce good results.

 

[editor]

What can one say about photographic quality when the image has been made for all intents and purposes, by a computer?

Computers don't make photos that like, Johnny. I'm not even sure what convoluted point it is you're trying to make here, but it seems to have little to do with the discussion.

What is under discussion is whether a smartphone can be used to produce work of a high enough quality to be used professionally and at a high level, and the answer to that is - under some circumstances - most definitely, and I've produced ample evidence of that happening. I've even sold a smartphone photo myself.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

. I've even sold a smartphone photo myself.

Have you sold any film or digital camera photos? How many?

 

[editor]

Incidentally, the Lumia image used in NG wasn't just across on page - it formed part of a three page gatefold shot.

During the trip, Alvarez used the phone to shoot a wide, 16:9 image of Lizard Rock in Moab, Utah with the Lumia 1020. The wide-angle image, which is cropped down to approximately 38MP, is being used as a three-page gatefold shot in the current issue of National Geographic, to help celebrate the magazine's 125th anniversary.

Photo by Stephen Alvarez, shot with Nokia Lumia 1020
"The feedback I got from my photo editors at National Geographic was just great. They said: 'We can't believe this came from a smart phone, because the resolution is so huge.' If you told me last year that I was going to shoot an image with a phone that would appear as a gatefold in a magazine, I would have thought you were crazy. But we did it."

http://www.imaging-resource.com/new...kia-lumia-1020-smartphone-national-geographic

 

[editor]

Have you sold any film or digital camera photos? How many?

I think you should go back and read what's been discussed in this thread before firing off any more random questions.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I think you should go back and read what's been discussed in this thread before firing off any more random questions.

Is there some reason for not answering it?

I suppose you wouldn't want to make a big deal of it if the answer is 'none'.

 

[Dr_Herbz]

Check out the noise in these shite photographs...

Not even fit for the recycle bin...

 

[discokermit]

Is there some reason for not answering it?

I suppose you wouldn't want to make a big deal of it if the answer is 'none'.

he sold that one of the thatcher death party to that tory paper.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

he sold that one of the thatcher death party to that tory paper.

What did he take the photo with though?