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

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

#51

Post by fudged71 » Sun, Apr 21, 2013, 9:23 PM UTC

sitharus wrote: post #21

_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 have to agree, the photos all looked undersaturated and flat. Good enough for your average holiday snap I suppose, but nothing compared to what a good photographer can get with a DSLR.

A good photographer can do amazing work with whichever camera they are given, under the right circumstances (in the following case, a fully controlled studio fashion shoot) http://fstoppers.com/iphone

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

#52

Post by fudged71 » Sun, Apr 21, 2013, 9:43 PM UTC

jerryr wrote: post #37

liotier wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of those picture beg for some basic color balance... But that is usually a post-processing move.

Hey, do you happen to know of any authoritative tutorials or references for color balance? Exposure gets a ton of attention, but I only ever seem to find mechanical posts on color--like step-by-step instructions on using Photoshop's color tools, but without explanation of what you're trying to achieve. I think I have a terrible understanding of color balance and I'd like to improve it.

Ken Rockwell says "It's not hard, just use what looks good"[1], but to a colorblind photographer such as myself, that's not as easy as it sounds!

I do all my WB in post production. For this reason, it helps a lot to have a calibrated monitor and to shoot in the RAW format (WB isn't 'baked in' to the image, unlike JPEG, so you have far more control).

It also helps to have a reference point in your image. Either someone wearing a white article of clothing, or you can use a grey card held up in an extra shot.

White balance is used to correct the overall color in the photo such that color cast is removed so that neutral tones (white/grey/black) from the scene (or at least the focal point) appear to be neutral in the image. This increases the contrast between colors in the image--which can reveal details that couldn't be seen--and also makes the photo appear more realistic.

[1] http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/changewhitebalance.htm

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

#53

Post by pbhjpbhj » Sun, Apr 21, 2013, 10:38 PM UTC

Connaissance wrote: post #48

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?".

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

But that's the authors point, or so it seems to me. That the majority of people can't see it. If you're showing your pics as a non pro to a pro then they'll probably find them terrible even if you used a large-format Hasselbad.

My interpretation is that it's about the essence of the image in most cases and not the actual technical detail of the image. The images we capture as novices are aide-memoires primarily and in the main. To a non-photog it rarely matters if the dynamic range is poor or there's a little aberration or a slight lack of focus or a bit of extra noise.

That said I often bemoan the lack of a faster camera, better flash, adjustable aperture, better lens ...

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

#54

Post by ycombobreaker » Sun, Apr 21, 2013, 11:32 PM UTC

mortenjorck wrote: post #8

dllu wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's too bad that many neophytes of photography tend to use the HDR term for oversaturated and exaggerated pictures that were probably not taken with multiple exposures to begin with.

HDR is, in effect, like Auto-Tune. Used as it was intended, it can improve your results, but with the correction turned up beyond a natural degree, can give a highly artificial effect of its own (which has been overused).

> HDR is, in effect, like Auto-Tune

The difference between these two is that HDR is a technique designed to work around the limitations of the transfer medium: our eyes perceive more dynamic range than our cameras. Properly-done HDR should be closer to reality than the LDR image.

Auto-Tune, OTOH, is creating a new effect, "fixing" the original singing. The recording fidelity itself is plenty high enough.

Binaural recording is similar to HDR, too. Used properly, it will produce a stereo effect which should match what a local (human) listener would have heard. Used improperly, it's just stereo recordings.

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

#55

Post by bsenftner » Mon, Apr 22, 2013, 12:00 AM UTC

My point here is really only of interest to hackers-who-hack-with-images: mobiles suck; Get any, ANY DSLR for your imagery.

When you want to do anything with the photos other than look at them, a mobile phone camera is a complete joke. Today, people use photos for a lot more than pretty pictures to illustrate link-bait.

Imagery for 2D & 3D textures is one, and a growing use is 3d reconstruction. (Disclosure: I develop 3d reconstruction technology.)

Images taken with the lowest entry DSLR are an order of magnitude higher quality in almost every measure than the highest quality, most expensive mobile phone camera. The greater quality translates into higher precision information recovery from its photos. The difference is the size of the lens and the greater information it captures - information beneath our perceptions, but not beyond trained and plain-old human-written algorithms' perceptions.

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

#56

Post by rdl » Mon, Apr 22, 2013, 1:03 AM UTC

sitharus wrote: post #20

iharris wrote: post #3

I would say that a DSLR is useful for taking nice-looking photos in more challenging situations than a phone can (places with poor lighting, fast movement, or where depth-of-field or magnification are important). It's depressing that a lot of amateurs use a $700 DSLR on AUTO to take pictures of their lunch though.

A DSLR on auto is a sad thing to behold. I'm an amateur photographer. My DSLR is almost 7 years old now and my iPhone can keep up with it as a point-and-shoot, but nothing on the iPhone can compare to setting up the shot properly. Switching lenses for the situation is also really handy. The dynamic range in the photos is much better from the DSLR as well.

I use aperture or shutter priority a LOT, and don't feel bad about it, particularly in environments with rapidly changing lighting.

Until fairly recently, you couldn't get an APS-C or FF sensor with fast glass without D-SLR (or M4/3, which is essentially the same concept), so I have no problem with using it on auto mode for snapshots, too.

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

#57

Post by fudged71 » Mon, Apr 22, 2013, 3:46 AM UTC

nemo wrote: post #49

fudged71 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'll be impressed when cellphone cameras can provide apps with their full RAW image information, global shutter (rather than rolling shutter) functionality and compatibility with wireless external flashes, and apps getting advanced enough to match the functionality available in Photoshop Camera RAW (distortion correction, advanced noise reduction, recovering shadows and highlights, etc).

I'll be impressed with DSLRs when they have advanced post-processing and connectivity. Image stacking, noise reduction and sharpening based on computer vision, OCR, light field technology for focussing and 3D, NFC, WiFi Direct

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

#58

Post by manicdee » Mon, Apr 22, 2013, 6:47 AM UTC

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…

Strobe & Speedlight are to flash what Kleenex are to facial tissues: they are brand names which have become used in some circles as universal names.

Some people will discriminate between "strobe" and "flash" based on cycle times and power source, e.g.: a "strobe" will be a mains-powered flash system that can keep flashing as fast as you can trigger the shutter while a "flash" will be a camera-mounted, battery-powered thing that takes several seconds to recharge.

But in the specific example above, the author is using strobe as a synonym to flash.

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

#59

Post by manicdee » Mon, Apr 22, 2013, 7:01 AM UTC

jbeda wrote: post #6

I don't agree with this. While you might not need a DSLR, you can easily do better than the camera in your phone. I recently completed a family trip and left my Canon 5D mark III at home. Instead I took the pocketable Sony RX100. It created some beautiful images and didn't get in the way on the family trip. It also did worlds better than the camera built in to my or my wife's phone. Here is an image direct from the c…

I agree with the author of the original piece: a good camera phone is often better than a DSLR since you are more likely to have the camera phone with you when you want to take a picture.

The most important part of using any camera to take pictures is balancing composition to the technical limitations of the camera. Poor composition will kill the photograph regardless of how amazing your camera is.

If you're ever seeing something beautiful and wishing you brought a "real" camera with you while you actively ignore the camera phone in your pocket, you are engaging in the belief that it's the camera that takes the pictures.

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

#60

Post by shaydoc » Mon, Apr 22, 2013, 7:16 PM UTC

tuxidomasx wrote: post #36

shaydoc wrote: post #29

You can pick up used DSLR's really cheaply these days, may aswell have one, might fuel an interest in finding out about Av & Tv modes, and white balance...plus lens' are what really make the big difference....I mean a canon EF 85mm 1.2 is gonna take a hell of a shot.... DSLR's take wonderful photographs, they are not comparable to a phone camera. Sure if you are taking snaps, I can sort of relate to the point, but do…

DO you have any recommendations of online resources for getting started with amateur photography, specifically using DSLRs?

I do indeed, I think its hard to look past www.kenrockwell.com

I also recommend the series of digital photography books by Scott kelby, I started with him, was actually this one I found some if very useful: http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Digital-Photography-Book-Pt/dp/0...