"Mobile phones have killed photography"
Discussion
Yes, saw this on BBC. At the risk of sounding like a right old fart, I’d agree.
Mrs.T66 recently went to Venice and I was dismayed to see people having that unique view of the beautiful city from a gondola, and others walking around the city, with a phone in their hand, filming it. Filming everything, in fact, and yet seeing nothing… and probably when watching it back will no doubt not revisit any special memories, as they missed the special memories in the very first place by being stuck behind a screen.
Oh, and don’t get me started on gigs, etc, where you can no longer properly watch a band without seeing an ocean of bright phone screens blocking your view.
The cancer of social media encourages it, I think, whereby everything must be filmed and photographed and posted. Almost as a way of bragging/one-upmanship.
Like hearing music everywhere, it cheapens the art and experience.
There are still proper photographers/artists out there… but there’s just more s
t to sift through before you find their work.
But then, I’m just an old fart.
Mrs.T66 recently went to Venice and I was dismayed to see people having that unique view of the beautiful city from a gondola, and others walking around the city, with a phone in their hand, filming it. Filming everything, in fact, and yet seeing nothing… and probably when watching it back will no doubt not revisit any special memories, as they missed the special memories in the very first place by being stuck behind a screen.
Oh, and don’t get me started on gigs, etc, where you can no longer properly watch a band without seeing an ocean of bright phone screens blocking your view.
The cancer of social media encourages it, I think, whereby everything must be filmed and photographed and posted. Almost as a way of bragging/one-upmanship.
Like hearing music everywhere, it cheapens the art and experience.
There are still proper photographers/artists out there… but there’s just more s
t to sift through before you find their work.But then, I’m just an old fart.
That said I have a Canon DSLR and use my phone for most of my holiday snaps as I can't be arsed lugging the Canon around. Should probably get out of this mindset as I have taken some great photos on it, less so on the phone but even so it can produce some pretty good shots and has HDR that my camera doesn't do (unless carefully post processed). I'm not a social media fiend though.
I totally agree re social media type stuff but IMHO a camera in a phone is still a camera and in the right hands or with the right eye behind it some great images can result.
When digital cameras first appeared it was thought they were a gimmick. Since then we have seen camera phones performance increase in image quality to the extent that if you weren't told a shot was taken with a phone then I doubt you'd be any the wiser.
When digital cameras first appeared it was thought they were a gimmick. Since then we have seen camera phones performance increase in image quality to the extent that if you weren't told a shot was taken with a phone then I doubt you'd be any the wiser.
Took some great photos at my daughters wedding on my phone. These include some panorama shots that the professional photographer couldn't get, said his equipment didn't support that kind of image taking. I purposefully didn't film anything though, as I think you end up watching the event on the screen rather than 'live'.
its true that people were less inclined to be herded into structured group shots by the photographer, but really, who gives a f**k about that kind of image anymore? Its all about the candid shots now.
Perhaps the headline should read 'Mobile phones killing off photographers'....
its true that people were less inclined to be herded into structured group shots by the photographer, but really, who gives a f**k about that kind of image anymore? Its all about the candid shots now.
Perhaps the headline should read 'Mobile phones killing off photographers'....
Own a DSLR and several lenses - deliberately didn't take it on our family holiday this year.
Recently upgraded my phone to the P20 Pro.
I'd say it does an easy 80% of what my camera and lenses does.
Doesn't mean i'm ditching the camera - i'm still trying to justify upgrading it to myself.....
Recently upgraded my phone to the P20 Pro.
I'd say it does an easy 80% of what my camera and lenses does.
Doesn't mean i'm ditching the camera - i'm still trying to justify upgrading it to myself.....
I disagree.
A talented, trained and experienced photographer with state-of-the-art equipment will take photos the like of which the rest of us can only dream of.
Equally, the likes of me will take a better photo with a smartphone than I ever will with a sophisticated SLR because most of what happens does so automatically instead of me being presented with a ton of settings to get wrong and, consequently, fk-up my photos with.
There's no substitute for the former at the sharp end of photography but at the end where the likes of me reside smartphones will result in better amateur photos.
Smartphones haven't killed photography, quite the opposite. In my experience they provide the opportunity to take a shot when you otherwise might not have been carrying a camera. You take more photos and develop more as a photographer as a result.
A talented, trained and experienced photographer with state-of-the-art equipment will take photos the like of which the rest of us can only dream of.
Equally, the likes of me will take a better photo with a smartphone than I ever will with a sophisticated SLR because most of what happens does so automatically instead of me being presented with a ton of settings to get wrong and, consequently, f
k-up my photos with.There's no substitute for the former at the sharp end of photography but at the end where the likes of me reside smartphones will result in better amateur photos.
Smartphones haven't killed photography, quite the opposite. In my experience they provide the opportunity to take a shot when you otherwise might not have been carrying a camera. You take more photos and develop more as a photographer as a result.
He states that photography was invented to produce more accurate images. That's rubbish.
There's a strong argument that all images have been manipulated one way or another. My old 35mm camera would produce an image easily differentiated from one taken with my digital camera. Which is more accurate?
With my last 35mm camera I had filters, umpteen of them, to produce slightly different effects. My enlarger had a filter slide to change the appearance of prints.
It's always been going on. Even photoshopping was nothing new. In the late 40s/early 50s my mother worked at a film studio and an image of an actor, or one of a set, would be shone onto a big ground glass screen and she would eliminate blemishes like pimples, lines, etc.
If this chap suggested that photography has changed, then there's no argument against it. I loved my 6x6. I got a kick from using the cranked handle to wind on after taking a photo as there was a certain anticipation. It used to take minutes to set a shot up. After all, there were only a few images on each roll so everyone had to be spot on. I'd never go back to that now. I might take a dozen images of one shot, bracket the exposure, and try various angles. It is still photography.
There's a strong argument that all images have been manipulated one way or another. My old 35mm camera would produce an image easily differentiated from one taken with my digital camera. Which is more accurate?
With my last 35mm camera I had filters, umpteen of them, to produce slightly different effects. My enlarger had a filter slide to change the appearance of prints.
It's always been going on. Even photoshopping was nothing new. In the late 40s/early 50s my mother worked at a film studio and an image of an actor, or one of a set, would be shone onto a big ground glass screen and she would eliminate blemishes like pimples, lines, etc.
If this chap suggested that photography has changed, then there's no argument against it. I loved my 6x6. I got a kick from using the cranked handle to wind on after taking a photo as there was a certain anticipation. It used to take minutes to set a shot up. After all, there were only a few images on each roll so everyone had to be spot on. I'd never go back to that now. I might take a dozen images of one shot, bracket the exposure, and try various angles. It is still photography.
If you ask yourself whats the difference between a mobile phone camera and a typical DSLR camera - the differences are getting less and less as time goes on. They both have a lens/sensor/image processor and a host of settings. The DSLR steals a march when it comes to lenses, filters and all those physical attachments to supplement great photos.
The way I see it, mobile phones have got so good you could almost call them 'no frills' camera's. I like taking photos and used to have a full DSLR set up but as time went on, I was using it less and less. So much easier to carry a phone around and take reasonable quality photos all of the time.
I do miss the DSLR for certain things though. You can’t beat a nice prime lens for portraits, and I do miss having a quality zoom lens. Mobile phones just don’t give you the full host of tools at your disposal so they are quite limited in that respect.
The way I see it, mobile phones have got so good you could almost call them 'no frills' camera's. I like taking photos and used to have a full DSLR set up but as time went on, I was using it less and less. So much easier to carry a phone around and take reasonable quality photos all of the time.
I do miss the DSLR for certain things though. You can’t beat a nice prime lens for portraits, and I do miss having a quality zoom lens. Mobile phones just don’t give you the full host of tools at your disposal so they are quite limited in that respect.
MitchT said:
I disagree.
A talented, trained and experienced photographer with state-of-the-art equipment will take photos the like of which the rest of us can only dream of.
Equally, the likes of me will take a better photo with a smartphone than I ever will with a sophisticated SLR because most of what happens does so automatically instead of me being presented with a ton of settings to get wrong and, consequently, fk-up my photos with.
There's no substitute for the former at the sharp end of photography but at the end where the likes of me reside smartphones will result in better amateur photos.
Smartphones haven't killed photography, quite the opposite. In my experience they provide the opportunity to take a shot when you otherwise might not have been carrying a camera. You take more photos and develop more as a photographer as a result.
I agree with your last point - people take far more photos now than ever although they are less likely to end up printed. But for the simple purpose of capturing and sharing memories smartphones have created what must be an exponential rise in photo taking.A talented, trained and experienced photographer with state-of-the-art equipment will take photos the like of which the rest of us can only dream of.
Equally, the likes of me will take a better photo with a smartphone than I ever will with a sophisticated SLR because most of what happens does so automatically instead of me being presented with a ton of settings to get wrong and, consequently, f
k-up my photos with.There's no substitute for the former at the sharp end of photography but at the end where the likes of me reside smartphones will result in better amateur photos.
Smartphones haven't killed photography, quite the opposite. In my experience they provide the opportunity to take a shot when you otherwise might not have been carrying a camera. You take more photos and develop more as a photographer as a result.
On the first point I disagree - I always thought you’d have to be very skilled to gain any real value from a professional level DSLR and lens but on the contrary I’ve found such a combination as an amateur to be very approachable and the results are so pleasing they inspire me to take more and more photos for pleasures sake. I take very few with my iPhone 8+ despite it having a reasonable camera. Put a full frame DSLR and fast lens in my hands and I’m just blown away by its capabilities.
MitchT said:
I disagree.
A talented, trained and experienced photographer with state-of-the-art equipment will take photos the like of which the rest of us can only dream of.
Equally, the likes of me will take a better photo with a smartphone than I ever will with a sophisticated SLR because most of what happens does so automatically instead of me being presented with a ton of settings to get wrong and, consequently, fk-up my photos with.
There's no substitute for the former at the sharp end of photography but at the end where the likes of me reside smartphones will result in better amateur photos.
Smartphones haven't killed photography, quite the opposite. In my experience they provide the opportunity to take a shot when you otherwise might not have been carrying a camera. You take more photos and develop more as a photographer as a result.
I agree with much of the above. But would point out that a trained / experienced photographer doesn't need state of the art kit. A basic knowledge of composition and understanding of what makes photography (eg the exposure triangle) will improve the work of all - pro and amateur alike. Experiment and take advice - a mobile phone runs software to make your pics look good. With a DSLR and Photoshop / Lightroom you can learn to enhance your photos.A talented, trained and experienced photographer with state-of-the-art equipment will take photos the like of which the rest of us can only dream of.
Equally, the likes of me will take a better photo with a smartphone than I ever will with a sophisticated SLR because most of what happens does so automatically instead of me being presented with a ton of settings to get wrong and, consequently, f
k-up my photos with.There's no substitute for the former at the sharp end of photography but at the end where the likes of me reside smartphones will result in better amateur photos.
Smartphones haven't killed photography, quite the opposite. In my experience they provide the opportunity to take a shot when you otherwise might not have been carrying a camera. You take more photos and develop more as a photographer as a result.
Also learn how to take your DSLR out of auto - there are loads of youtube tutorials. Above all, just do it!!!!
In a roundabout way, they kind of have.
Phone-cameras are responsible for making photography accessible on a level that society has never known and at a time where taking pictures has almost become societally necessary. Sure, most people are just taking photos of their kids for Facebook, but naturally it has led more people towards DSLRs which themselves have become easier to use. The pool of people who could take "good" (well exposed, sharp) images has increased massively and as a result, the need to pay the few who could do it has dropped. As lots of people want to turn their hobby into a job, the pool of people looking to take on paid commissions has expanded to a point that they are literally fighting over each other to give out free work as an example of what they are capable of. Savvy companies are largely just using the free work offered, using retouchers to regain some consistency where it's necessary.
The end result is that photography has become a commodity, even at a commercial level. Look at the wages for staffed positions if you're ever bored - jobs that were aimed at graduates on 30k 5 years ago are now aimed at juniors on 14k. Freelance rates for your average high street consumer have dropped from 1k/day down to 200/day.
It's not all doom-and-gloom; for those who can provide something that others can't (whether it's creativity, consistency, or other skills) there will always be work and money available. But I'd agree that the rapid technological advancements in phone technology are definitely in some way responsible for the decline of photography as it is seen by most. The truth is that the camera on my phone now is better than the camera I started my photography career with!
Phone-cameras are responsible for making photography accessible on a level that society has never known and at a time where taking pictures has almost become societally necessary. Sure, most people are just taking photos of their kids for Facebook, but naturally it has led more people towards DSLRs which themselves have become easier to use. The pool of people who could take "good" (well exposed, sharp) images has increased massively and as a result, the need to pay the few who could do it has dropped. As lots of people want to turn their hobby into a job, the pool of people looking to take on paid commissions has expanded to a point that they are literally fighting over each other to give out free work as an example of what they are capable of. Savvy companies are largely just using the free work offered, using retouchers to regain some consistency where it's necessary.
The end result is that photography has become a commodity, even at a commercial level. Look at the wages for staffed positions if you're ever bored - jobs that were aimed at graduates on 30k 5 years ago are now aimed at juniors on 14k. Freelance rates for your average high street consumer have dropped from 1k/day down to 200/day.
It's not all doom-and-gloom; for those who can provide something that others can't (whether it's creativity, consistency, or other skills) there will always be work and money available. But I'd agree that the rapid technological advancements in phone technology are definitely in some way responsible for the decline of photography as it is seen by most. The truth is that the camera on my phone now is better than the camera I started my photography career with!
I once ran a mobile phone competition along with some associated workshops.
Was good not talking about the mechanics, most phones at least then you couldn't really change exposure much etc.
So I talked about composition, colours, what works with mobiles and what doesn't. basic fundamental photography without the wkfest of tech.
Worked really well we had some amazing photography, sure the absolute quality wasn't up to dslr but the creativity was
Was good not talking about the mechanics, most phones at least then you couldn't really change exposure much etc.
So I talked about composition, colours, what works with mobiles and what doesn't. basic fundamental photography without the w
kfest of tech.Worked really well we had some amazing photography, sure the absolute quality wasn't up to dslr but the creativity was
Rogue86 said:
In a roundabout way, they kind of have.
Phone-cameras are responsible for making photography accessible on a level that society has never known and at a time where taking pictures has almost become societally necessary. Sure, most people are just taking photos of their kids for Facebook, but naturally it has led more people towards DSLRs which themselves have become easier to use. The pool of people who could take "good" (well exposed, sharp) images has increased massively and as a result, the need to pay the few who could do it has dropped. As lots of people want to turn their hobby into a job, the pool of people looking to take on paid commissions has expanded to a point that they are literally fighting over each other to give out free work as an example of what they are capable of. Savvy companies are largely just using the free work offered, using retouchers to regain some consistency where it's necessary.
The end result is that photography has become a commodity, even at a commercial level. Look at the wages for staffed positions if you're ever bored - jobs that were aimed at graduates on 30k 5 years ago are now aimed at juniors on 14k. Freelance rates for your average high street consumer have dropped from 1k/day down to 200/day.
It's not all doom-and-gloom; for those who can provide something that others can't (whether it's creativity, consistency, or other skills) there will always be work and money available. But I'd agree that the rapid technological advancements in phone technology are definitely in some way responsible for the decline of photography as it is seen by most. The truth is that the camera on my phone now is better than the camera I started my photography career with!
I agree - photography is more "disposable" than in the past - a snap on a phone / camera costs nothing. The photo of a child by its mother is so accessible, and can be viewed on social media in seconds. The child photographed by mum in the home environment is more genuine than a trek to the local studio.Phone-cameras are responsible for making photography accessible on a level that society has never known and at a time where taking pictures has almost become societally necessary. Sure, most people are just taking photos of their kids for Facebook, but naturally it has led more people towards DSLRs which themselves have become easier to use. The pool of people who could take "good" (well exposed, sharp) images has increased massively and as a result, the need to pay the few who could do it has dropped. As lots of people want to turn their hobby into a job, the pool of people looking to take on paid commissions has expanded to a point that they are literally fighting over each other to give out free work as an example of what they are capable of. Savvy companies are largely just using the free work offered, using retouchers to regain some consistency where it's necessary.
The end result is that photography has become a commodity, even at a commercial level. Look at the wages for staffed positions if you're ever bored - jobs that were aimed at graduates on 30k 5 years ago are now aimed at juniors on 14k. Freelance rates for your average high street consumer have dropped from 1k/day down to 200/day.
It's not all doom-and-gloom; for those who can provide something that others can't (whether it's creativity, consistency, or other skills) there will always be work and money available. But I'd agree that the rapid technological advancements in phone technology are definitely in some way responsible for the decline of photography as it is seen by most. The truth is that the camera on my phone now is better than the camera I started my photography career with!
I teach photography in a secondary school. My background is in Fine Art / Painting. I'm a self taught photographer. I teach my students the basics - enough to get a grade at GCSE. They can use school DSLRs to their phones. I also let them use my own camera equipment, including a medium format film camera - a Bronica SQ. Using film teaches them to slow down and think; a valuable exercise.
MitchT said:
I disagree.
A talented, trained and experienced photographer with state-of-the-art equipment will take photos the like of which the rest of us can only dream of.
Equally, the likes of me will take a better photo with a smartphone than I ever will with a sophisticated SLR because most of what happens does so automatically instead of me being presented with a ton of settings to get wrong and, consequently, fk-up my photos with.
There's no substitute for the former at the sharp end of photography but at the end where the likes of me reside smartphones will result in better amateur photos.
Smartphones haven't killed photography, quite the opposite. In my experience they provide the opportunity to take a shot when you otherwise might not have been carrying a camera. You take more photos and develop more as a photographer as a result.
I also disagree. A lot of my paid photography work comes from a private school. The teachers take photos, the pupils take photos, the parents attending events take photos, they have thousands upon thousands of photos available but they still get little old me to come in and do it properly.A talented, trained and experienced photographer with state-of-the-art equipment will take photos the like of which the rest of us can only dream of.
Equally, the likes of me will take a better photo with a smartphone than I ever will with a sophisticated SLR because most of what happens does so automatically instead of me being presented with a ton of settings to get wrong and, consequently, f
k-up my photos with.There's no substitute for the former at the sharp end of photography but at the end where the likes of me reside smartphones will result in better amateur photos.
Smartphones haven't killed photography, quite the opposite. In my experience they provide the opportunity to take a shot when you otherwise might not have been carrying a camera. You take more photos and develop more as a photographer as a result.
My cameras are from 2008, a couple of lenses even older. It's not about modern kit, it's about having the eye for the type of photo that will go straight into the prospectus.
SCEtoAUX said:
I also disagree. A lot of my paid photography work comes from a private school. The teachers take photos, the pupils take photos, the parents attending events take photos, they have thousands upon thousands of photos available but they still get little old me to come in and do it properly.
My cameras are from 2008, a couple of lenses even older. It's not about modern kit, it's about having the eye for the type of photo that will go straight into the prospectus.
You missed something out here - your personality and experience! Emphasis on personality, that's what makes the kids and staff relax in your photos.My cameras are from 2008, a couple of lenses even older. It's not about modern kit, it's about having the eye for the type of photo that will go straight into the prospectus.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff