Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

You do not need a DSLR to take nice looking photos, your phone will suffice

b.sricola.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 61 posts

Re: You do not need a DSLR to take nice looking photos, your phone will suffice

#41

Post by mortenjorck »

aaronbrethorst wrote: post #34

A couple more tips: * Creating a strong photograph is far less dependent upon what you're shooting with and more about what you're shooting. Instead of spending your cash on a Mark III or a Leica, take a photography crash course at your local photo school (Seattle people: http://pcnw.org ) (see: times square and the bread) * Don't be afraid to strobe your subject in the daytime. For example, in the second photo, I wo…

That is a spot-on example of HDR used as a scalpel and not a hammer. To the viewer, it just looks natural, even though a normal shot of that scene would likely have a washed-out Space Needle or dimmed-out skyline behind.

Re: You do not need a DSLR to take nice looking photos, your phone will suffice

#42

Post by ak217 »

aaronbrethorst wrote: post #34

A couple more tips: * Creating a strong photograph is far less dependent upon what you're shooting with and more about what you're shooting. Instead of spending your cash on a Mark III or a Leica, take a photography crash course at your local photo school (Seattle people: http://pcnw.org ) (see: times square and the bread) * Don't be afraid to strobe your subject in the daytime. For example, in the second photo, I wo…

My turn to ask the stupid questions :)

1. When you say strobed, do you mean simply flash? Is a built-in flash adequate for the technique you describe? (I usually don't carry my real flash around in the daytime, since it's so bulky.) How do you find the right exposure with the flash? I ask because whenever I try to use flash in the daytime, my shot gets blown out and sometimes adding -2 or -3 EC helps, but sometimes it doesn't.

2. For HDR, do I understand correctly that any HDR technique still requires multiple exposures and therefore some kind of tripod and a still subject? (I suppose I could wing it without a tripod if I find a way to set the camera down and have it fire off 3 shots, auto-bracketed?)

Re: You do not need a DSLR to take nice looking photos, your phone will suffice

#43

Post by nemo »

_pferreir_ wrote: post #16

> Why burden yourself with such a bulky device, not to mention the cost of it, when your good old phone can take just as good photos. This is false. Any DSLR can do better than the author's examples. These are not "nice photos", I am sorry. I would be hypocritical if I said otherwise. OK, I get it, you can take pretty nice shots with your phone, but you cannot compare it to what a DSLR can provide. Not to mention tha…

I'd say that the photos were nice. Not great, not outstanding, not attention grabbing, not technically excellent, but nice. Phones are fine for getting photos that are good enough, and if that's all you want buying equipment that's expensive and has a learning curve might not be for you. But if you do use the more expensive equipment and learn to use it you can produce some outstanding, attention grabbing, technically excellent photography. It's all about what your goals are and using the right tool for the goal.

Re: You do not need a DSLR to take nice looking photos, your phone will suffice

#44

Post by fudged71 »

mortenjorck wrote: post #32
Xcelerate wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but the author is probably right as far as his current photography skills go. I don't think he'd stand to gain much from a higher-end camera at this point. Yikes! Kind of harsh, don't you think? (I am not the author.)

You caught me before my ninja edit! That was too harsh and I've changed it.

Don't feel too bad about it. While I understand what the post is trying to say, the way he says it is pretty ignorant to photography in general, and even makes some poor suggestions and sweeping generalizations.

I've been there--a few years ago--with a point and shoot camera, taking what I thought were better photos than the pros. If I'd gotten a DSLR at that time, I wouldn't know what to do with it. But as I got more and more interested in photography, I started to understand the complexity and limitations, and moved up to a DSLR. Yes, I started on Auto mode and as I learned more features I used them more.

Yes, the lines between photographic technology are blurring. I've taken some incredible photos with my Note II (same phone as him, and far better quality than his), but I've also been extremely limited in many situations. He's only taking wide angle still scenes, which doesn't take much skill or technical ability. There are far more situations in which a cellphone can't even compare.

He says "Why burden yourself with such a bulky device, not to mention the cost of it, when your good old phone can take just as good photos." In reality, the Note II cost more than my DSLR ($700 vs $600), and the bulk of it is not just for ergonomics but also to keep it steady and shake-free.

Re: You do not need a DSLR to take nice looking photos, your phone will suffice

#45

Post by k-mcgrady »

The biggest problem I have with my phone camera is that it only works well on close shots. Take a picture of anything more than 5-10m away and it looks terrible. I'm no photographer and only ever used 'decent' point and shoots (£100-150) with an optical zoom. I sold mine when I got the iPhone 5 but I'm considering getting a POS again.

Re: You do not need a DSLR to take nice looking photos, your phone will suffice

#46

Post by fudged71 »

blhack wrote: post #24

Some of you are missing the point here. There are people who buy dslr cameras to take snapshots, and they do it because they think this will magically make their photos better. And then these cameras never leave automatic mode, and never have the kit lens removed. The point is that you don't need an expensive camera to take perfectly good shots [for most applications]

First of all, the Galaxy Note II is more expensive than many entry-level DSLRs. We're really just talking about tradeoffs here.

>they do it because they think this will magically make their photos better

Truth is... DSLRs and cameras in general are becoming magical.

My girlfriends dad just came bak from Africa with a point-and -shoot, and I was convinced that several of his photos were stolen from National Geographic. These were not average snaps.

My dad just came back from Dubai, and not only was he amazed at the lowlight performance of the camera (yes, on Auto), but the camera was also cropping portraits by itself (sony's Auto Portrait setting), taking out the skill of composition. Instead of spending hours stitching his photos into a panorama, he was able to do it on the fly. And he could take incredible lowlight HD movies without changing any settings. Intelligent Auto settings also detect what scenes you're shooting and can do some pretty advanced settings to make your shot look professional.

Re: You do not need a DSLR to take nice looking photos, your phone will suffice

#47

Post by nemo »

ak217 wrote: post #42
aaronbrethorst wrote: post #34

A couple more tips: * Creating a strong photograph is far less dependent upon what you're shooting with and more about what you're shooting. Instead of spending your cash on a Mark III or a Leica, take a photography crash course at your local photo school (Seattle people: http://pcnw.org ) (see: times square and the bread) * Don't be afraid to strobe your subject in the daytime. For example, in the second photo, I wo…

My turn to ask the stupid questions :) 1. When you say strobed, do you mean simply flash? Is a built-in flash adequate for the technique you describe? (I usually don't carry my real flash around in the daytime, since it's so bulky.) How do you find the right exposure with the flash? I ask because whenever I try to use flash in the daytime, my shot gets blown out and sometimes adding -2 or -3 EC helps, but sometimes i…

I think they mean fill flash, which can help a lot. You can use a built in flash for that, if you look up "fill flash" tutorials you can find info. appropriate to your camera. I use a speedlight for fill flash, since I tend to shoot things that are a ways off, but the built in works well enough for close subjects.

True HDR is bracketing shots with different exposures, so the camera and subject need to be still. It requires a tripod for best results, though I've set the camera down on a flat surface and used a remote to do HDR. Without a tripod it's very limiting since you have way less control on where the camera can be placed.

Re: You do not need a DSLR to take nice looking photos, your phone will suffice

#48

Post by Connaissance »

This article is the best illustration possible of the saying: "You don't know what you don't know".

Eg, the author's pics are pretty awful but he doesn't have the eye to see it.

A while back, I was setting up a shot and trying different approaches for several minutes with my DSLR. A friend laughed at me, whipped out his phone, took a pic, and showed me an awful picture saying "See? What's taking you so long?".

Re: You do not need a DSLR to take nice looking photos, your phone will suffice

#49

Post by nemo »

fudged71 wrote: post #46
blhack wrote: post #24

Some of you are missing the point here. There are people who buy dslr cameras to take snapshots, and they do it because they think this will magically make their photos better. And then these cameras never leave automatic mode, and never have the kit lens removed. The point is that you don't need an expensive camera to take perfectly good shots [for most applications]

First of all, the Galaxy Note II is more expensive than many entry-level DSLRs. We're really just talking about tradeoffs here. >they do it because they think this will magically make their photos better Truth is... DSLRs and cameras in general are becoming magical. My girlfriends dad just came bak from Africa with a point-and -shoot, and I was convinced that several of his photos were stolen from National Geographic…

That's true, camera tech. is steadily improving to the point that a DSLR left on auto can do some impressive work behind the scenes. A modern DSLR has a lot of amazing tech for low light handling, autofocus, setting the white point/color fidelity, vibration reduction, and other things that a camera of the past wouldn't have handled well, and kit lenses tend to be darn good general purpose zoom lenses.
Post reply on HN