So, what about the people who put their lens hoods on backwards, hmm? Well?? What about them? 
People who shoot photos with their lens hood on backwards
- Thread starter Bungle73
- Start date
Sweet FA
✪ Three rounds Lord, in my .44 ✪
There's been some talking at cross porpoises going on though. I think discokermit pointed out (in between being a fucking massive wind up merchant obviously 
) that for a lot (the majority?) of pro work (& I mean all those millions of stock images/agency photos etc), then phone images wouldn't be acceptable. I'm on thin ice here as I know next to fuck all about it but they do want sharp, focussed, massively hi res images don't they? When Bungle73 was talking about comparing 1:1, wasn't he talking about a specific type of pro work? The aesthetics of the commercial photography world that he's talking about and those of newspapers/'art'/can't think what I'm trying to describe here, are poles apart.
) that for a lot (the majority?) of pro work (& I mean all those millions of stock images/agency photos etc), then phone images wouldn't be acceptable. I'm on thin ice here as I know next to fuck all about it but they do want sharp, focussed, massively hi res images don't they? When Bungle73 was talking about comparing 1:1, wasn't he talking about a specific type of pro work? The aesthetics of the commercial photography world that he's talking about and those of newspapers/'art'/can't think what I'm trying to describe here, are poles apart.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I can remember the last time I did an exposure that long/longer - on a beach in Norfolk, trying to get that "foamy" effect on the fairly-rough sea. The best tool for the job in this case was a venerable Praktica B200, because the slowest shutter speed was 40 seconds (longer than most other production cameras at the time it was made.
You mean, perfectly handy for whipping out, when uncasing your SLR or removing it from the bag might make you miss the shot?
Well fancy that!
I think he's actually divorced from reality and has lost all sense of self-awareness.
There are enough straw men in this thread to start a straw man revolution.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
No lens hood, obviously a complete amateur
And using a little Rollei 35mm compact with minimal technical spec, too, rather than his usual Leica.
Fucking know-nothing amateur wanker, innit?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
You're not a real photographer until you can hand hold a 4 second exposure with no camera shake
Image stabilisation is the boon of my dad's photographic life. He can use the Panasonic compact I gave him in spite of having Parkinsons shakes.
I quite like it too, given my advancing decrepitude!
VP wrote:
Wrong again, what people are arguing against is that you are effectively saying that a DSLR is "better" due to spec, equating "good" to "superior technical specification", - literally, that a phone's camera isn't as good because it has an inferior technical specification - whereas "good" is a hell of a lot more to do with the "eye" of the photographer, than it is to do with pixel count or lens. You can take a great picture, a picture good enough to grace the cover of a glossy, on a Box Brownie with a meniscus lens and a choice of two apertures. You can take a great on phone camera. You don't require superior technical specifications, you require an understanding of the limitations of your kit, and the ability to work within them. That's all you need. Anything else is technicist gearhead self-delusion, and self-justification for spending a small fortune on kit.
Steady on VP are you trying to damage the sales of good quality DSLRs (that should be dSLRs really?) If aspiring young photographers who were still learning the basics from YouTube videos didn't splash out on all the expensive kit, that same kit would cost a lot more for the rest of us when we finally scrape together to get the best we can manage to afford. Also I think you are pitching the argument too high there for a tyro to understand.
As for the box brownie story, that was Bert Hardy who in advertising a photograph competition in a magazine(which?) stated that you didn't need anything more sophisticated to take a good picture. The editor took him up on his word and demanded that he proved this by using a box brownie to give an example. The ensuing picture which is well known showed two girls in spotted dresses sitting apparently having a chat on the beach railings at Blackpool. It was a simple bold composition in black and white - as was most of Bert Hardy's work. Later it came out that the two girls weren't just spotted (sorry) in situ but were local models he employed for the shot. Ok not really cheating but he didn't let on at the time. All's fair in photography and publicity.
Later in the '80s I think it was, that photograph was reproduced and used in advertising posters for British Telecom or the Royal Mail or even British Rail (which?) It was made into a poster in black and white but was presented as an inset image about 10 by 8 set on a larger grey rectangle. Those old negatives didn't stand up to much enlargement given the limitations of an uncorrected meniscus lens. Ah yes I remember it well, you wore a dress of...
I have written this without recourse to Google so your mileage may vary.
Après Google
Wrong again, what people are arguing against is that you are effectively saying that a DSLR is "better" due to spec, equating "good" to "superior technical specification", - literally, that a phone's camera isn't as good because it has an inferior technical specification - whereas "good" is a hell of a lot more to do with the "eye" of the photographer, than it is to do with pixel count or lens. You can take a great picture, a picture good enough to grace the cover of a glossy, on a Box Brownie with a meniscus lens and a choice of two apertures. You can take a great on phone camera. You don't require superior technical specifications, you require an understanding of the limitations of your kit, and the ability to work within them. That's all you need. Anything else is technicist gearhead self-delusion, and self-justification for spending a small fortune on kit.
Steady on VP are you trying to damage the sales of good quality DSLRs (that should be dSLRs really?) If aspiring young photographers who were still learning the basics from YouTube videos didn't splash out on all the expensive kit, that same kit would cost a lot more for the rest of us when we finally scrape together to get the best we can manage to afford. Also I think you are pitching the argument too high there for a tyro to understand.
As for the box brownie story, that was Bert Hardy who in advertising a photograph competition in a magazine(which?) stated that you didn't need anything more sophisticated to take a good picture. The editor took him up on his word and demanded that he proved this by using a box brownie to give an example. The ensuing picture which is well known showed two girls in spotted dresses sitting apparently having a chat on the beach railings at Blackpool. It was a simple bold composition in black and white - as was most of Bert Hardy's work. Later it came out that the two girls weren't just spotted (sorry) in situ but were local models he employed for the shot. Ok not really cheating but he didn't let on at the time. All's fair in photography and publicity.
Later in the '80s I think it was, that photograph was reproduced and used in advertising posters for British Telecom or the Royal Mail or even British Rail (which?) It was made into a poster in black and white but was presented as an inset image about 10 by 8 set on a larger grey rectangle. Those old negatives didn't stand up to much enlargement given the limitations of an uncorrected meniscus lens. Ah yes I remember it well, you wore a dress of...
I have written this without recourse to Google so your mileage may vary.
Après Google
Last edited:
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Indeed. We now need to worry about a scarecrow revolution, too, once the straw men find themselves some clothes.
Vintage Paw
dead stare and computer glare
iPhones can too. I expect anything that is capable of an app can do similar.
Grab a gorillapod to keep it steady and you could make something pretty nice, I'd expect.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
What definition of "greatest" are you using?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
They are also referred to as mirrorless cameras you muppet!
Where did I say they weren't, you pustulent goat-cock?
Vintage Paw
dead stare and computer glare
I love a thread that brings us together. <3
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Maybe we should all air our dirty little camera secrets and get it all out in the open.
I admit, I once owned a sony DSC-707
That the one with the night mode, that looked like a spotting scope and a bridge camera had mated?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
So, what about the people who put their lens hoods on backwards, hmm? Well?? What about them?
They're obviously in the "brain-rot" stage of syphilis, and should be pitied.
That, or they're storing them when they're not needed, and don't have neural syphilitic damage at all.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
So, what about the people who put their lens hoods on backwards, hmm? Well?? What about them?
DP
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I admit that scoring excellent kit at decent prices because some gonk has updated to the latest all-singing, all-dancing camera has given me lots of pleasure over the last 10-15 years, but I don't believe that telling people the truth will affect that - gearheads will still be gearheads, and still judge their sexual potency via the cost of their kit.
As for the box brownie story, that was Bert Hardy who in advertising a photograph competition in a magazine(which?) stated that you didn't need anything more sophisticated to take a good picture. The editor took him up on his word and demanded that he proved this by using a box brownie to give an example. The ensuing picture which is well known showed two girls in spotted dresses sitting apparently having a chat on the beach railings at Blackpool. It was a simple bold composition in black and white - as was most of Bert Hardy's work. Later it came out that the two girls weren't just spotted (sorry) in situ but were local models he employed for the shot. Ok not really cheating but he didn't let on at the time. All's fair in photography and publicity.
Later in the '80s I think it was, that photograph was reproduced and used in advertising posters for British Telecom or the Royal Mail or even British Rail (which?) It was made into a poster in black and white but was presented as an inset image about 10 by 8 set on a larger grey rectangle. Those old negatives didn't stand up to much enlargement given the limitations of an uncorrected meniscus lens. Ah yes I remember it well, you wore a dress of...
I have written this without recourse to Google so your mileage may vary.
Après Google
As I recall, the original mag cover was from an inter-negative shot (with yer standard process camera of the time) from the original 6 x 9cm, so would have only been subjected to about 3x physical enlargement - fine for retaining detail without blowing up the grain, whereas a poster...well, it's another kettle of fish, isn't it?
Yes that would be about right. As you say it was Picture Post. The process camera would be there to copy from the standard 35mm film at 24 by 36mm (albeit on cameras with properly corrected lenses - Leicas for example, so would do a decent job of a 60 by 40 mm neg from the Brownie.
Interestingly (for me and perhaps you) if nobody else, Bert Hardy made a full poster size advert from a 35mm negative. It was for the "You're Never Alone with a Strand" cigarette advert. It was withdrawn, not for any problems about a large grainy black and white poster of a man smoking but because the campaign failed to raise sales. The bit about being "Alone" put off the punters.
Last edited:
neonwilderness
What would Badgers do?
I can't remember a more popular thread in photography in recent years
THIRTY pages
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
is this still the thread for putting the boot into Bungle73?THIRTY pages
Not at the moment he has escaped or gone into hiding or something. Do you want to be notified when he returns? It is not much fun trying to interact with Bungle he doesn't get the rules of engagement.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
it's ok, i'll send out the mare street irregulars to find him
Nightmare on Mare Street is that a regular thing or irregular?
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
the council is the nightmare on mare street. the mare street irregulars are tho the modern and real equivalent to conan doyle's fictional baker street irregulars
You are not trying to say that Sherlock Holmes was a fictional character are you? My Great Grandmother knew him quite well according to family legend and there is one of his pipes in the loft.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
when you say "quite well" how well do you mean? are you a holmes?
No I am a Watson.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
What's being discussed is the technical capabilities of phone cameras vs other types of cameras - not the aesthetics of photography.
Similar threads
