Phone camera why not?

Gremlin said:
Try standing on Worthing pier in a bright sunny days with amazing cloud formations and you haven't bought your camera with you
Click to expand...
And try not to drop the slippery thing into the sea. Phones are not ergonomically designed for photography, they are thin, slippy and impossible to use with one hand. None of the ones I've owned have a button on the side on which you can use your index finger in 'real' camera style -- although I'm not saying they don't exist. I just can't use them for photography apart from the occasion pet dog picture or video capture.
 
Gremlin said:
My main gripe with phone cameras is not having a view finder.
Try standing on Worthing pier in a bright sunny days with amazing cloud formations and you haven't bought your camera with you
So you decide to take some phone pics and you can't see the screen as no shade available
I know a lot of the new cameras have the flip out LCD screens but it's not something I ever use
Click to expand...
Again this depends on the phone. Almost all modern mid-range and above phones have OLED displays capable of over 1000 nits of brightness, and are perfectly legible on a sunny day. I've not found bright day visibility to be an issue for many years.
ShinySideUp said:
And try not to drop the slippery thing into the sea. Phones are not ergonomically designed for photography, they are thin, slippy and impossible to use with one hand. None of the ones I've owned have a button on the side on which you can use your index finger in 'real' camera style -- although I'm not saying they don't exist. I just can't use them for photography apart from the occasion pet dog picture or video capture.
Click to expand...
Certainly on Android pretty much any phone allows you to use the volume buttons to take a photo. Right where your index finger sits holding the phone in landscape orientation. The slippery-ness is easily fixed with a case. All Android phones allow you to open the camera without unlocking the phone by double-pressing the power button, and you can also set iPhones up to do something similar. Only one hand needed.
 
iPhones also allow you to use the volume buttons as a shutter, even the volume button on wired earphones.
 
Nod said:
A phone that could get anywhere close to giving the results that my old RX100ii would cost a hell of a lot more than the camera's worth today!
Click to expand...
For work, nikon Z8.
For travel, i usually use my EM1 MK2 with 10-25mm F1.7. feel more comfortable if traveling to somewhere full of thieves :)
if short trip, just Pen F + 15mm F1.7 + Pixel 7 Pro :)
 
ancient_mariner said:
I wonder if, in our replies, we have assumed too much understanding?

While photography is simple enough, at least apparently, there are a lot of much more complex factors involved than people imagine which all contribute to the way a finished image looks. So using a film emulator with a digital photo may make something that sort-of looks a bit like a film photo, but just using the software in the camera or phone will make a poor job at best. And a big part of all those fantastic monochrome and colour pictures you have seen created on film was down to hand printing the image.

There's another factor too that your question to Dale almost touches upon - the issue of focal length and sensor size.

So when Dale mentioned 600mm and 400mm, were you aware he was talking about lenses. The lenses we use profoundly affect how our pictures look, and it's not just magnification of distant objects or wide angles fitting a lot in, but it's also the actual choice of lens and the aperture we choose (the size of the hole light shines through). On top of that, the physical size of the sensor or film that we focus the light on also makes a difference.

A phone has a tiny sensor, and this affects how a phone picture looks. While it's possible to fake the behaviour of a larger sensor and different lens type in software, it will usually look like a fake - like the film emulators.

In my case, I choose certain lenses and camera types because they give the image a sense of depth, like you can almost step into the picture.

This is 'why not' a phone camera.
Click to expand...
I agree that most emulator software at the moment still looks fake. What are your thoughts on using AI for creating more realistic effects? And do you think that in the future phones with heavy post processing will be almost indistinguishable from authentic cameras photos?
 
camerajamie said:
I agree that most emulator software at the moment still looks fake. What are your thoughts on using AI for creating more realistic effects? And do you think that in the future phones with heavy post processing will be almost indistinguishable from authentic cameras photos?
Click to expand...
Horrid ai phone photos are already ‘good enough’ for most people.

There’s a chance that they’ll one day improve to the point they’ll be ‘good enough’ for photographers too.

But heres an important distinction - they’re not photographs. That might not matter to most people. It might not matter to you. But it does matter to ‘photographers’ and that’s key to this audience.
 
Phil V said:
Horrid ai phone photos are already ‘good enough’ for most people.

There’s a chance that they’ll one day improve to the point they’ll be ‘good enough’ for photographers too.

But heres an important distinction - they’re not photographs. That might not matter to most people. It might not matter to you. But it does matter to ‘photographers’ and that’s key to this audience.
Click to expand...
Could you not argue that about digital photos in general? They aren't photographs because they aren't brought to life from a light sensitive film they are just a digital interpretation of light
 
Phil V said:
Horrid ai phone photos are already ‘good enough’ for most people.

There’s a chance that they’ll one day improve to the point they’ll be ‘good enough’ for photographers too.

But heres an important distinction - they’re not photographs. That might not matter to most people. It might not matter to you. But it does matter to ‘photographers’ and that’s key to this audience.
Click to expand...
I would bet that you would struggle to tell the difference between an image taken on a film camera and an AI which uses style image transfer to emulates film
 
camerajamie said:
I agree that most emulator software at the moment still looks fake. What are your thoughts on using AI for creating more realistic effects? And do you think that in the future phones with heavy post processing will be almost indistinguishable from authentic cameras photos?
Click to expand...
As has already been said - it all depends on the image being captured.
The small form factor of a camera phone means it will always be at a disadvantage over an interchangeable lens camera which can use a much larger sensor, and physically larger lenses.

As sensor resolutions increase, there may be a time when 'digital zoom' is able to provide images of more distant objects which are still of sufficient resolution to appear high quality for 'normal viewing', similarly for low light situations - but at the same time, those same improvements will be increasing the capabilities of larger sensor devices - and it becomes a question of "how good is good enough" - for many, the camera phone has already reached that point for the sort of photos they want to take.
 
camerajamie said:
Could you not argue that about digital photos in general? They aren't photographs because they aren't brought to life from a light sensitive film they are just a digital interpretation of light
Click to expand...
It's a question of the act of creating a photo - for a lot of people on this forum, there is a pleasure from knowing they crafted an image from their selection of scene, time, light, lens choice, aperture, post processing, etc. - rather than simply clicked a button and had an AI make all those decisions.
 
Phil V said:
Horrid ai phone photos are already ‘good enough’ for most people.

There’s a chance that they’ll one day improve to the point they’ll be ‘good enough’ for photographers too.

But heres an important distinction - they’re not photographs. That might not matter to most people. It might not matter to you. But it does matter to ‘photographers’ and that’s key to this audience.
Click to expand...
So is a digital image that has been edited in software not a photograph? Is a Raw file from my Fuji XT4 a photograph, but the minute I touch a single slider in LR it isn't? What about film photographs that have been edited on the physical negative by dodging and burning for example? Are they not a photograph now? Where do you draw the line?

The hate for phone cameras here is laughable. They are a tool, the same as any other camera. People who know what they are doing can create fantastic images with them, the same as any other camera. I'm a photographer and I've taken many phone images that I'm very happy with.
 
camerajamie said:
I agree that most emulator software at the moment still looks fake. What are your thoughts on using AI for creating more realistic effects? And do you think that in the future phones with heavy post processing will be almost indistinguishable from authentic cameras photos?
Click to expand...

It's an interesting question, but when phone camera images are already more than good enough for 99% of users it's hard to imagine why a phone maker would invest the R&D cost except as a loss leader.

Outside of the phone AI already produces images that can be hard to tell from some kinds of photos. In the end I suspect the value of a photo will increasingly come from its origin (we already somewhat see this, with pictures from the right individuals getting praised when the same image from an unknown would be ignored) rather than the image itself, much like 'art' has done for a long time.
 
camerajamie said:
Could you not argue that about digital photos in general? They aren't photographs because they aren't brought to life from a light sensitive film they are just a digital interpretation of light
Click to expand...
A film image is just a chemical interpretation of light. It's not an accurate record, as the film stock, the way it is exposed and the way it is developed will all have a massive effect on the final image. The same scene shot on Ilford Delta, Kodak Portra and Fuji Velvia would look wildly different in each image.
 
RichardC27 said:
The hate for phone cameras here is laughable.
Click to expand...

It's not exactly hate, but the old saw about when all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail is true. They are a tool, but by their nature not a good one for image creation. Yes, they take a certain kind of picture easily and are convenient to carry, but tend to reduce, rather than increase creative input from the photographer. Sure you can shoot raw with some, edit in mobile lightroom etc, but the hardware limitations are always there.
 
ancient_mariner said:
but the hardware limitations are always there.
Click to expand...
Isn't that part of the fun? Its fun to create good images with poor hardware. And they are getting pretty good now, whether through increased sensor sizes, multiple lenses and better controls. They are a long way from the low resolution point and shoot cameras they were a few years ago.
 
dan00001 said:
How many photos taken on a mobile phone have won the Pulitzer Prize?
Click to expand...
Oddly specific but I have no idea. I bet many Pulitzer Prize winning photographers take great images with their phones though
 
Who can alter shutter speed or aperture quicker, mobile phone or dslr?
 
camerajamie said:
Could you not argue that about digital photos in general? They aren't photographs because they aren't brought to life from a light sensitive film they are just a digital interpretation of light
Click to expand...
No

They are created by an electronic device capturing light in exactly the same way that a light sensitive film captures light.
 
RichardC27 said:
Oddly specific but I have no idea. I bet many Pulitzer Prize winning photographers take great images with their phones though
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone is arguing that a good photo can't be taken on a mobile phone, and a photo taken on a mobile phone could certainly win the Pulitzer Prize, I have no doubt.

What would a phone camera need to do for everyone to get rid of their expensive camera and just use a phone camera?

For me it would have to be a DSLR with a speaker and microphone and a slot to place a sim card. And I wouldn't even want it, because 1. I don't mind carrying a mobile phone, they are relatively small and light, and 2. Who want's to be disturbed when taking a photo.
 
camerajamie said:
I would bet that you would struggle to tell the difference between an image taken on a film camera and an AI which uses style image transfer to emulates film
Click to expand...
You’re wrong objectively.

There’s lots of ‘can you spot AI’ nonsense in this thread.

I’ll turn your assertion round 180 degrees.

At work we have a photo sharing group; the other day I posted an image of my grandson.

The first comment reads … Very nice mate! 135mm?


If you want to be happy with crappy AI images, feel free. The vast majority of people are. :)

But the clue to why you’re not going to convince the rest of ‘us’ is right at the top of the page. We’re photographers:)

This is becoming the equivalent of me writing into Horse and Hound to tell them they’re wrong cos motorbikes are better :)
 
Last edited:
RichardC27 said:
So is a digital image that has been edited in software not a photograph? Is a Raw file from my Fuji XT4 a photograph, but the minute I touch a single slider in LR it isn't? What about film photographs that have been edited on the physical negative by dodging and burning for example? Are they not a photograph now? Where do you draw the line?

The hate for phone cameras here is laughable. They are a tool, the same as any other camera. People who know what they are doing can create fantastic images with them, the same as any other camera. I'm a photographer and I've taken many phone images that I'm very happy with.
Click to expand...
There’s no ‘hate for phone cameras’ and I find your assertion that there is to be laughable*.

The premise of the thread is ‘why aren’t phone cameras good enough to replace actual cameras’.

And that’s been answered many times, but it appears that some people aren’t interested in the actual answers but instead want to get involved in some sort of Mac v pc debate.

*the closest you’ll find are people who don’t like their phone camera ergonomically or their output. That’s hardly ‘hate’.
 
RichardC27 said:
Isn't that part of the fun? Its fun to create good images with poor hardware. And they are getting pretty good now, whether through increased sensor sizes, multiple lenses and better controls. They are a long way from the low resolution point and shoot cameras they were a few years ago.
Click to expand...
Yes.

And no one is suggesting the fun isn’t there, or that phones can’t be used to take pictures. I still use my phone to take pics nearly every day and my camera only a couple of times a month

And still the answer to the original question is.

For a phone to replace ‘my’ camera, it needs a bigger sensor, interchangeable lenses and better ergonomics (including a viewfinder).

That’s a million miles away from ‘hate’ ;)
 
Last edited:
These types of question tend to go round in circles because there's a lot of personal choice involved in the answer,

But a dedicated camera takes a better photograph than a mobile phone, and that is a fact, not an opinion.

I'm sure Ansel Adams could take a better photo on a mobile phone than many of us could on the best of cameras, but he could take an even better photo on the best camera than he could a mobile phone.
 
RichardC27 said:
So is a digital image that has been edited in software not a photograph? Is a Raw file from my Fuji XT4 a photograph, but the minute I touch a single slider in LR it isn't? What about film photographs that have been edited on the physical negative by dodging and burning for example? Are they not a photograph now? Where do you draw the line?

The hate for phone cameras here is laughable. They are a tool, the same as any other camera. People who know what they are doing can create fantastic images with them, the same as any other camera. I'm a photographer and I've taken many phone images that I'm very happy with.
Click to expand...

I look upon the 'digital manipulation' or the 'dodging and burning' things like this:

When I look at a scene, my eye is constantly moving and doesn't pick up the whole scene in one go. In a higher contrast situation, my iris opens and closes, my eyeball moves from one part of the subject to another; if the light is very bright, I can even hold my hand up to shield my eye and improve how I see a subject. All I am doing with the above DM and D&M is making the scene match what my eye sees. If you could freeze your eye at one moment in time, there would be parts of a scene you couldn't see because they were too bright or too dark, but that's not what happens. So, you see, the 'manipulated' photograph is merely catching that moment in time and freezing it in a manner that the eye can see all at once. Even taking a picture in B&W is not a problem as regards 'realism' since in low light even the human eye only sees in monochrome.

Where this eye/photo-manipulation analogy breaks down is when software is used to make the picture appear to be something other than what was shot with the camera, something that the eye could not see. The removing of people and objects from images for example -- this is something I hate as to me, it is no longer 'real'. I'd like to think that I've never changed a picture so much that it wouldn't have been possible for the eye to see it in real life. It is why, although I have a lightroom subscription, I have never used Photoshop, I have only used Lightroom as a darkroom.

As for the second sentence above, I too have used a phone camera, but it's just there so I use it for quick snaps of shopping lists written on my whiteboard, or pictures of one of my dogs squirming upside down on the bed; if phones didn't have cameras, I really wouldn't care.
 
Last edited:
dan00001 said:
But a dedicated camera takes a better photograph than a mobile phone, and that is a fact, not an opinion.
Click to expand...
That claim cannot possibly be a fact, because there are many different reasons for creating photographs and many different purposes for which photographs are used.

As a consequence the use of the words "better" and "worse" about a photograph are both inappropriate, because you would have to qualify the purpose of a particular photograph, which particular photograph you are comparing it to and the criteria you are applying in your assessment.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
That claim cannot possibly be a fact, because there are many different reasons for creating photographs and many different purposes for which photographs are used.

As a consequence the use of the words "better" and "worse" about a photograph are both inappropriate, because you would have to qualify the purpose of a particular photograph, which particular photograph you are comparing it to and the criteria you are applying in your assessment.
Click to expand...
It is fact. It doesn't matter the reason for taking a photo, nor the purpose the photo is used, a dedicated camera will take a better photo than any mobile phone currently on the market.
 
dan00001 said:
I don't think anyone is arguing that a good photo can't be taken on a mobile phone, and a photo taken on a mobile phone could certainly win the Pulitzer Prize, I have no doubt.

What would a phone camera need to do for everyone to get rid of their expensive camera and just use a phone camera?

For me it would have to be a DSLR with a speaker and microphone and a slot to place a sim card. And I wouldn't even want it, because 1. I don't mind carrying a mobile phone, they are relatively small and light, and 2. Who want's to be disturbed when taking a photo.
Click to expand...
For me it would have to be able to take photos of birds in flights and very small insects very well. I hope it happens one day!
 
I did show a friend a photo on my phone that I had taken with my camera and she said,, "Mobile phones are so good at photography now."
One thing that annoys me about mobiles is that panoramic photos look so bad.
 
dan00001 said:
It is fact. It doesn't matter the reason for taking a photo, nor the purpose the photo is used, a dedicated camera will take a better photo than any mobile phone currently on the market.
Click to expand...
But it does depend on how you define 'better'. Better in a technical sense, perhaps. But there is more to a photograph than that.
 
dan00001 said:
It is fact. It doesn't matter the reason for taking a photo, nor the purpose the photo is used, a dedicated camera will take a better photo than any mobile phone currently on the market.
Click to expand...
That entirely depends on the situation and the skill level of the person taking the photo. I could take a better photo with my phone than my wife could with her Fuji XT100.
 
RichardC27 said:
That entirely depends on the situation and the skill level of the person taking the photo. I could take a better photo with my phone than my wife could with her Fuji XT100.
Click to expand...

"I'm sure Ansel Adams could take a better photo on a mobile phone than many of us could on the best of cameras, but he could take an even better photo on the best camera than he could a mobile phone."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top