Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: tintoreto on May 04, 2018, 07:24:32 pm
-
40MP is normaly the equipment with higher end cameras. But now there is another way to have 40mp in RAW... I have used the lastest Smart PHONE... take a look at:
https://spark.adobe.com/page/26B3fGEBSXFBj/
If you like to have the PSD of one of them let me know...
-
40MP is normaly the equipment with higher end cameras. But now there is another way to have 40mp in RAW... I have used the lastest Smart PHONE... take a look at:
https://spark.adobe.com/page/26B3fGEBSXFBj/
If you like to have the PSD of one of them let me know...
Huawei P20 Pro?
I think this is going to be the standard for 2019
Edmund
-
Hi,
I don't know what 1MP JPEG images say about 40 MP of image information, sorry.
Best regards
Erik
40MP is normaly the equipment with higher end cameras. But now there is another way to have 40mp in RAW... I have used the lastest Smart PHONE... take a look at:
https://spark.adobe.com/page/26B3fGEBSXFBj/
If you like to have the PSD of one of them let me know...
-
Huawei P20 Pro?
I think this is going to be the standard for 2019
Edmund
Yes Huawei P20 Pro...
-
Hi,
I don't know what 1MP JPEG images say about 40 MP of image information, sorry.
Best regards
Erik
You can download an original RAW file from the images here:
https://workupload.com/file/WYt9d38
the rest is photoshop...
-
Thanks for providing the raw. After looking at the raw in Capture One and Photoshop ACR...
Pretty good raw for a 40mp phone.
Terrible raw when compared to ~40mp small-format SLRs.
Not worth comparing to medium format.
I'm a big believer in technology and man kinds ability to overcome pesky problems (e.g. the physics of super small pixel wells as we understand them today). One day camera phones (or whatever replaces camera phones) will produce raw files that compete with the best medium-format camera of today. But that day is still many years away.
Until then we will continue to see some phone companies produce "high resolution" models to get headlines and to sell to users who assume more pixels means a better camera. Personally, I'm very glad Apple is not doing that and is focused on producing the best overall camera in their phone rather than the one with the highest number of pixels.
-
From an amateur photographer's point of view, I don't care how many pixels are squeezed into a phone, the ergonomics still stink.
From a medical point of view, existing phones are quite good at capturing images through conventional microscopes, and some ingenious people have crafted inexpensive microscope-level magnification optics that slip onto a phone and allow inspection of blood smears. Combined with portable solar collectors, these low-voltage phones ought to be useful for field medics in remote developing world locations (eg. spot and speciate malaria organisms within red cells, ID ova and parasites in stool smears, etc). Solar panels, phones, and drones (specimen and drug transport to/from hospital centers) have the capacity to assist bush medics.
-
Kind of interesting yet relatively pointless. I guess it would probably be handy for the "digital zoom" feature on phones but 40 MP images taken through a cheap lens and tiny sensor doesn't seem like anything I would ever want.
If I have to deal with those large files, I want nice optics and big sensors to make it worthwhile.
-
Kind of interesting yet relatively pointless. I guess it would probably be handy for the "digital zoom" feature on phones but 40 MP images taken through a cheap lens and tiny sensor doesn't seem like anything I would ever want.
If I have to deal with those large files, I want nice optics and big sensors to make it worthwhile.
Unfortunately this phone compares quite well in image quality with a cutting edge dSLR - the 5Ds - in good light.
I suspect that with a decent lighting setup the phone might also work well for some types of product and catalog photography, and possibly school or group photographs where the reduced depth of field of medium format is a hindrance rather than an advantage.
https://petapixel.com/2018/04/20/huawei-p20-pro-vs-canon-5ds-r-im-stunned/
Edmund
-
Unfortunately this phone compares quite well in image quality with a cutting edge dSLR - the 5Ds - in good light.
Crazy times we are living in! 8)
-
Kind of interesting yet relatively pointless. I guess it would probably be handy for the "digital zoom" feature on phones but 40 MP images taken through a cheap lens and tiny sensor doesn't seem like anything I would ever want.
If I have to deal with those large files, I want nice optics and big sensors to make it worthwhile.
Matte, making blanket statements like this are really pointless. You are making many invalid assumptions. Until you actually compare picture quality either through pixel peeping, or prints, save the comments to yourself.
In the field of computational photography, all the R&D is taking place for phone type cameras. Incredible gaines have taken place in the last few years. I personally have compared the files from a 3-year-old 20 MP phone (MotoX Pure) with my Nikon D800E, and the results are quite sobering! Under good lighting conditions, it would be hard to tell large 30" prints apart from an IQ perspective.
-
Like the Google Pixel in its day, the Huawei phone seems to be a generational jump, rather than a simple incremental update.
I don't know what Apple are going to do for their flagships next year, but I suspect they too will shoehorn 3 lenses or a real optical zoom into their hardware - or accept to be called also-rans.
Edmund
-
There is no such thing as a perfect camera! We all have our personal preferences for the way we photograph. Ultimately it boils down to what we had with us when we made the picture. The convenience of phones is unmistakable. Digital photography has so quickly surpassed what Eastman Kodak was trying to perfect for over a hundred years. The new age of photography is truly remarkable!
-
Matte, making blanket statements like this are really pointless. You are making many invalid assumptions. Until you actually compare picture quality either through pixel peeping, or prints, save the comments to yourself.
In the field of computational photography, all the R&D is taking place for phone type cameras. Incredible gaines have taken place in the last few years. I personally have compared the files from a 3-year-old 20 MP phone (MotoX Pure) with my Nikon D800E, and the results are quite sobering! Under good lighting conditions, it would be hard to tell large 30" prints apart from an IQ perspective.
I look forward to your peeping and printing insights then.
-
I don't know what Apple are going to do for their flagships next year, but I suspect they too will shoehorn 3 lenses or a real optical zoom into their hardware - or accept to be called also-rans.
I would expect Apple to be more disruptive than that. More megapixels or a zoom lens are so out of touch with the modern world. The next big thing is computational photography and it is already present in the iPhone X selfie camera.
-
How easy to lose sight of what photography actually is.
Or medium format, for that matter.
Rob
-
incorrigible this forum is! or simply a passtime?
Remember the pixel race regarding big gear? There was a momentum when, finaly, more and more voices spoke out against this obsessive number's leeway.
I thought it was gone forever; that MF, DSLR and mirrorlesses combined reached enough MPx to keep the crowd heavily busy on higher interests such as monitor calibration and picture profiles.
Nope...the race had just been transfered to cell phone.
Well, to be completly fair it restarted in motion picture a few years ago...and won't stop until everything reaches 8k.
The golden years of legendary Lu-La wars MF vs DSRL, irremediably ending with a Michael "topic closed" to stop the rampage after several and unsuccessful attempts of temperance...I miss that buzz. Lu-La has been a bit too quiet and grey since then and Doug hasn't been shaken so he sank in a dangerous comfort zone.
But I'm happy to see that "the big circus" (given nickname to the F1 races) will now be, ladys and gentlemen, Cell phones vs MF. Prepare weapons.
-
How easy to lose sight of what photography actually is.
Or medium format, for that matter.
Rob
Rob,
This is the beginning of small-sensor computational photography, not the end.
And in fact stand-alone non-connected cameras seem to be going the way of film, with 99% of the world's pictures now being made on phones.
Maybe you never used dSLRS? There were a few small ones, and then some experiments and special models based on Kodak backs, and then there was the Nikon D1 and the Canon 1D and then the spectacular 1Ds which by using a fullframe sensor made a camera which is basically still current. Tethered Phase backs stuck on the back of a mechanical Hassy made superb pictures even back then, but it was those first Nikons and Canons which anybody with a laptop could use that changed the photography world.
In this sense, it looks like the phones are now the first mass-produced items of a new type of multiple-sensor high-compute photo tech, which can eg. overlay images for more rez and DR, assemble 3D models from motion capture, and compute depth maps and extract subjects from the background.
The phones show us how we will be able to do 3D photoshop retouching -change a nose shape here, a foot position there, all the way to dropping a different model into a background, or even putting a computed model into that background - exactly like car photographers are doing today, in a very specialised way. But they will also soon be able to load the model of the person up on the net - or retrieve it on the fly.
Rob, the phones are THE MOST ADVANCED COMPUTERS a normal person can buy, and the camera modules are the most expensive single item on the phone bill-of-materials because THE PHONE IS THE CAMERA WHICH ALL THE KIDS USE.
The electronics revolution brought us the Autofocus motor-driven auto-exposure film SLR, then the PC revolution brought us electronic imaging, but that was just the first chapter of the camera's evolution. The current chapter is being written by phone tech.
The phones aren't "comparable" to dSLRs, they have decisively moved ahead of them, in the same way a Nikon D1 had moved resolutely beyond the F4. Image quality is not yet there but the all-round capabilities are becoming much greater.
I was in the park yesterday with my kid. Next to me on the bench a pretty and heavily made-up au pair in a dress spent twenty minutes tossing her hair, and capturing her face with her phone. She didn't need a photographer, nor even a camera. If I were snarky I'd say that all she really needed in life was herself. Selfies have become a major obsession, and it's all due to the phone.
Edmund
-
I was in the park yesterday with my kid. Next to me on the bench a pretty and heavily made-up au pair in a dress spent twenty minutes tossing her hair, and capturing her face with her phone. She didn't need a photographer, nor even a camera. If I were snarky I'd say that all she really needed in life was herself. Selfies have become a major obsession, and it's all due to the phone.
Edmund
And so is plastic surgery, or at least the feeling that you need it, so you'll look good in that selfie taken with a much wider lens then any good professional would know not to use when capturing portraits.
Saw a couple of articles recently siting that plastic surgeons are needing to explain to people that the way they look in selfies is not how they really look, due to the wide angle lenses in cell phones.
-
And so is plastic surgery, or at least the feeling that you need it, so you'll look good in that selfie taken with a much wider lens then any good professional would know not to use when capturing portraits.
Saw a couple of articles recently siting that plastic surgeons are needing to explain to people that the way they look in selfies is not how they really look, due to the wide angle lenses in cell phones.
I don't think anyone above the age of 20 can understand this new general obsession about appearance in *images* except maybe actors.
I was in a phone shop, looking at their first sample of iPhone X. So I took a picture of the hovering saleswoman with the chained phone, and she asked me to delete it. I said "you do it", handed her the phone and asked her to take a picture of me. She took the picture, looked at it, made a grimace of disgust, and told me ironically "a real advertisement". What can I say, it was a true feeling, she didn't think *I* was exceptionally ugly, she just thought my *picture* was unacceptably ugly, unacceptable to the point that it was necessary to make this known to me lest I commit the social sin of sending out pictures of my face.
I'm sure FredJean will give us a briefing on semiotics of face retouching in the internet age.
Edmund
-
Hi,
Output media has changed, too. In old time we had prints, 16"x20" was large in film camera time. Or we had slides and projected. Now days I may make like 15-20 prints a year. I am still projecting images, now at 4K. But most of us don't print large or project, but publish on Facebook or in best of cases SmugMug. 5K is perfectly good enough for that and I would think that. Smaller formats like 4/3 are pretty good for that, too.
What cell phones lack are zoom lenses and tripods.
There has always been a tendency to smaller systems. Speed Graphic, Leica and Medium format film. Smaller formats are cheaper to buy, easier to carry and will mostly yield better results because of the wider DoF. The wide public doesn't care about 'bokeh'.
Best regards
Erik
Rob,
This is the beginning of small-sensor computational photography, not the end.
And in fact stand-alone non-connected cameras seem to be going the way of film, with 99% of the world's pictures now being made on phones.
Maybe you never used dSLRS? There were a few small ones, and then some experiments and special models based on Kodak backs, and then there was the Nikon D1 and the Canon 1D and then the spectacular 1Ds which by using a fullframe sensor made a camera which is basically still current. Tethered Phase backs stuck on the back of a mechanical Hassy made superb pictures even back then, but it was those first Nikons and Canons which anybody with a laptop could use that changed the photography world.
In this sense, it looks like the phones are now the first mass-produced items of a new type of multiple-sensor high-compute photo tech, which can eg. overlay images for more rez and DR, assemble 3D models from motion capture, and compute depth maps and extract subjects from the background.
The phones show us how we will be able to do 3D photoshop retouching -change a nose shape here, a foot position there, all the way to dropping a different model into a background, or even putting a computed model into that background - exactly like car photographers are doing today, in a very specialised way. But they will also soon be able to load the model of the person up on the net - or retrieve it on the fly.
Rob, the phones are THE MOST ADVANCED COMPUTERS a normal person can buy, and the camera modules are the most expensive single item on the phone bill-of-materials because THE PHONE IS THE CAMERA WHICH ALL THE KIDS USE.
The electronics revolution brought us the Autofocus motor-driven auto-exposure film SLR, then the PC revolution brought us electronic imaging, but that was just the first chapter of the camera's evolution. The current chapter is being written by phone tech.
The phones aren't "comparable" to dSLRs, they have decisively moved ahead of them, in the same way a Nikon D1 had moved resolutely beyond the F4. Image quality is not yet there but the all-round capabilities are becoming much greater.
I was in the park yesterday with my kid. Next to me on the bench a pretty and heavily made-up au pair in a dress spent twenty minutes tossing her hair, and capturing her face with her phone. She didn't need a photographer, nor even a camera. If I were snarky I'd say that all she really needed in life was herself. Selfies have become a major obsession, and it's all due to the phone.
Edmund
-
And so is plastic surgery, or at least the feeling that you need it, so you'll look good in that selfie taken with a much wider lens then any good professional would know not to use when capturing portraits.
Saw a couple of articles recently siting that plastic surgeons are needing to explain to people that the way they look in selfies is not how they really look, due to the wide angle lenses in cell phones.
In his interview with Alan Yentob for the BBC, Klein asks the videographer shooting him sitting in the back seat of a cab from the front passenger seat, if he's using a wide-angle lens: on being told yes, he remarks: I'll look great!
I never used shorter than 135mm on head shots on 135 format film; on the 6x6 I used 150mm because there wasn't a 'blad 180mm when I was buying. Before, I'd been using 180mm on a Mamiya TLR and the length was perfect... Pity about the hellish parallax solution they provided.
-
And so is plastic surgery, or at least the feeling that you need it, so you'll look good in that selfie taken with a much wider lens then any good professional would know not to use when capturing portraits.
Except that new cell phone cameras are able to produce a depth map, so the picture is also a 3D scan of the face. With that info, it is trivial to change the perspective by software. It is also trivial to change the lights and shadows and even to "improve" the features of the face... all without the use of plastic surgery and in real time for video calls.
-
Rob,
This is the beginning of small-sensor computational photography, not the end.
And in fact stand-alone non-connected cameras seem to be going the way of film, with 99% of the world's pictures now being made on phones.
Maybe you never used dSLRS? There were a few small ones, and then some experiments and special models based on Kodak backs, and then there was the Nikon D1 and the Canon 1D and then the spectacular 1Ds which by using a fullframe sensor made a camera which is basically still current. Tethered Phase backs stuck on the back of a mechanical Hassy made superb pictures even back then, but it was those first Nikons and Canons which anybody with a laptop could use that changed the photography world.
In this sense, it looks like the phones are now the first mass-produced items of a new type of multiple-sensor high-compute photo tech, which can eg. overlay images for more rez and DR, assemble 3D models from motion capture, and compute depth maps and extract subjects from the background.
The phones show us how we will be able to do 3D photoshop retouching -change a nose shape here, a foot position there, all the way to dropping a different model into a background, or even putting a computed model into that background - exactly like car photographers are doing today, in a very specialised way. But they will also soon be able to load the model of the person up on the net - or retrieve it on the fly.
Rob, the phones are THE MOST ADVANCED COMPUTERS a normal person can buy, and the camera modules are the most expensive single item on the phone bill-of-materials because THE PHONE IS THE CAMERA WHICH ALL THE KIDS USE.
The electronics revolution brought us the Autofocus motor-driven auto-exposure film SLR, then the PC revolution brought us electronic imaging, but that was just the first chapter of the camera's evolution. The current chapter is being written by phone tech.
The phones aren't "comparable" to dSLRs, they have decisively moved ahead of them, in the same way a Nikon D1 had moved resolutely beyond the F4. Image quality is not yet there but the all-round capabilities are becoming much greater.
I was in the park yesterday with my kid. Next to me on the bench a pretty and heavily made-up au pair in a dress spent twenty minutes tossing her hair, and capturing her face with her phone. She didn't need a photographer, nor even a camera. If I were snarky I'd say that all she really needed in life was herself. Selfies have become a major obsession, and it's all due to the phone.
Edmund
That, and when the photo industry produced 10 millions SLRs, the phone industry produces 2 billions smartphones:
This is what the history of camera sales looks like with smartphones included (https://petapixel.com/2015/04/09/this-is-what-the-history-of-camera-sales-looks-like-with-smartphones-included/)
Edit: link corrected
-
Of course a great image can be taken with a phone. Just like a great book can be written on a cell phone. I’m sure it happens occasionally but it remains rare, awkward and clumsy and is usually done to prove a point.
-
I have also made shots in a Art Gallery. All pictures are made with this smartphone:
https://spark.adobe.com/page/kSKOX0UX8uX0U/
-
I have also made shots in a Art Gallery. All pictures are made with this smartphone:
https://spark.adobe.com/page/kSKOX0UX8uX0U/
Bacon! One of my fav.
Great pictures can be taken by a phone. And there are many good stuff out there shooted with phones.
The thing is that the phone is always with us, the real camera no.
I don't see it as a competitor but a complement. Maybe Bruce Gilden had use a cellphone in the streets of NY if he'd been born nowdays and feeded the Magnum Instagram.
For people not involved into imagery, it's all they'll ever need and it's the bigger market.
-
Selfies have become a major obsession, and it's all due to the phone.
Edmund
Selfies + smartphones + social media = narcissism pandemic
-
Selfies + smartphones + social media = narcissism pandemic
I'm not so sure.
Rather do I see a massive attack of social insecurity, with people terrified of being left "out of the loop", as it were. Personally, I see a loop more as symbolic of the noose.
I suppose it might be argued that yes, it could be a form of reverse narcissism, with a dominant ego replaced by an anxious one.
Perhaps it's an affliction of the young. I think older people might have had the time to take stock, measure their lives against some idea of a yardstick, and come to the realisation that they are no better than, and probably just as bad as their neighbours. At eight minutes past ten in the morning, this seems extremely likely.
A saving grace could be that the selfie allows a form of portraiture in circumstances where no other models are available.
Rob
-
Selfies + smartphones + social media = narcissism pandemic
It seems that for those of a certain generation LuLa is but an acceptable form of social media.
;-)
-
I'm not so sure.
Rather do I see a massive attack of social insecurity, with people terrified of being left "out of the loop", as it were. Personally, I see a loop more as symbolic of the noose.
I suppose it might be argued that yes, it could be a form of reverse narcissism, with a dominant ego replaced by an anxious one.
Perhaps it's an affliction of the young. I think older people might have had the time to take stock, measure their lives against some idea of a yardstick, and come to the realisation that they are no better than, and probably just as bad as their neighbours. At eight minutes past ten in the morning, this seems extremely likely.
A saving grace could be that the selfie allows a form of portraiture in circumstances where no other models are available.
Rob
Rob, the ego is always dominant and narcissist by definition. Nothing changed since the cavemen since the ego is insecure.
Warhol predicted the 15mn of fame for everyone's societies while FB and cellphones didn't exist yet.
But he knew it by investigating the idiosyncracie of post-industrial's societies.
Give a caveman a phone and you'll quickly see selfies next to the killed mammouth, war trophees, how to make proper fire,
My cave is better than yours...it's all about fetishes, social status, conditionned beleifs and adquired cultural codes, competition and appearances, needs, desires, lacks, fears and all the opposites.
It's only a question of available tools at one point of the "timeline" but the very same collective ego remains.
The phone didn't change anything and it goes with social network. They are linked.
-
Hi,
The link you posted does not work.
Try this one: https://petapixel.com/2015/04/09/this-is-what-the-history-of-camera-sales-looks-like-with-smartphones-included/
Smart girls carry smart phones because they are really useful. Yes, they also make pictures and they can easily share those images.
Smart phones pretty well do what the Leica did in the 60-es, f/8 and be there photography.
What smart phones lack is big telefoto lenses and high ISO capability. Obviously, they don't have 100 million high quality pixels.
Now, I am not a smart gal, just an old guy. So, I carry 33 lb of equipment on planned walks. I shoot around 7000 images a year and print something like 25 of those.
Best regards
Erik
That, and when the photo industry produced 10 millions SLRs, the phone industry produces 2 billions smartphones:
This is what the history of camera sales looks like with smartphones included (http://"https://petapixel.com/2015/04/09/this-is-what-the-history-of-camera-sales-looks-like-with-smartphones-included/")
-
I'm not a smart girl with a smart phone either, but I'm married to a smart girl who owns and uses a smart phone. I have to admit owning one - a smart phone - is a very smart move.
-
I'm not a smart girl with a smart phone either, but I'm married to a smart girl who owns and uses a smart phone. I have to admit owning one - a smart phone - is a very smart move.
I know you didn't want to say it publicly, but let's both admit it: our smart girls were always better than any set of smart 'phones.
Hell, mine - girl not 'phone - even kept me looking smart!
:-)
-
Rob, the ego is always dominant and narcissist by definition. Nothing changed since the cavemen since the ego is insecure.
Warhol predicted the 15mn of fame for everyone's societies while FB and cellphones didn't exist yet.
But he knew it by investigating the idiosyncracie of post-industrial's societies.
Give a caveman a phone and you'll quickly see selfies next to the killed mammouth, war trophees, how to make proper fire,
My cave is better than yours...it's all about fetishes, social status, conditionned beleifs and adquired cultural codes, competition and appearances, needs, desires, lacks, fears and all the opposites.
It's only a question of available tools at one point of the "timeline" but the very same collective ego remains.
The phone didn't change anything and it goes with social network. They are linked.
I think folks credit our Andy with too much wisdom. He was not the first smart ass on Earth, and script writers had been doing much better as a matter of routine since movies began; let's not even bother going back as far as Shakespeare. The one-liner has been a staple of spoken art since, yeah, the first cavie's grunt indicated he fancied Miss Cavie next door.
But yeah, he was good at marketing and media manipulation (Andy was, I don't know about Flint).
Rob
-
I know you didn't want to say it publicly, but let's both admit it: our smart girls were always better than any set of smart 'phones.
Hell, mine - girl not 'phone - even kept me looking smart!
:-)
Of course.
But put one of these smart phones in the hands of a very smart girl and the result is I've no need for one - phone, that is, not girl.
-
Of course.
But put one of these smart phones in the hands of a very smart girl and the result is I've no need for one - phone, that is, not girl.
Ah, Keith, if needs were able to solve themselves!
But my own smarty lies dormant most of the time - intentionally - because I'm smart enough to know that it serves me best as an emergency thing when I need its services. I hate the very thought that anyone could interrupt me at any old time they felt like it. Not that I'm doing anything much that would be ruined by interruption, of course, but I like to control the gates! Being one of the few things left within my control, I cling to that semblance of authority wth unnatural relish.
:-)
-
Hi,
I am actually quiet serious. My experience is a bit that guys are more oriented towards technology while dolls are more oriented towards results and things that actually work. That said, let's look at real world scenario...
I just had lunch with two colleagues and we go back to office...
- My male colleague sees some interesting insect, picks up his Android phone and shoots a picture.
- My female colleague picks up some point and shoot from one of her pockets and takes a picture. In the other pocket she has an Android phone and an iPhone.
- Me, I don't know how to use my Android phone anyway. Also, I have no tripod. So i don't get any picture.
- Just to add, that story is for real. We are all nerds. My male colleague would not touch anything that is not open source.
- My female colleague is really an artist, but she is also a computer nerd and she likes half eaten apples.
- Me, I am an old fashioned photographer.
So, in the end, I was the only one not getting an image of that insect.
But, I sort of think that female photographers often care more about getting the images while males often want to use the best gear but get no images...
Just to say, all of us are software engineers, working with simulating nuclear power plants
Best regards
Erik
Ah, Keith, if needs were able to solve themselves!
But my own smarty lies dormant most of the time - intentionally - because I'm smart enough to know that it serves me best as an emergency thing when I need its services. I hate the very thought that anyone could interrupt me at any old time they felt like it. Not that I'm doing anything much that would be ruined by interruption, of course, but I like to control the gates! Being one of the few things left within my control, I cling to that semblance of authority wth unnatural relish.
:-)
-
Selfies + smartphones + social media = narcissism pandemic
I don't think any of this has changed. Last century, all cameras already had a self-timer for selfies. People were showing around prints of themselves in front of well known vistas. People passed arounds pictures of their kids and pets for their relatives to admire. And if you did not admire enough, you lost a friend.
Now, they "unfriend" you on facebook, is that different?
-
Hi,
I am actually quiet serious. My experience is a bit that guys are more oriented towards technology while dolls are more oriented towards results and things that actually work. That said, let's look at real world scenario...
I just had lunch with two colleagues and we go back to office...
- My male colleague sees some interesting insect, picks up his Android phone and shoots a picture.
- My female colleague picks up some point and shoot from one of her pockets and takes a picture. In the other pocket she has an Android phone and an iPhone.
- Me, I don't know how to use my Android phone anyway. Also, I have no tripod. So i don't get any picture.
- Just to add, that story is for real. We are all nerds. My male colleague would not touch anything that is not open source.
- My female colleague is really an artist, but she is also a computer nerd and she likes half eaten apples.
- Me, I am an old fashioned photographer.
So, in the end, I was the only one not getting an image of that insect.
But, I sort of think that female photographers often care more about getting the images while males often want to use the best gear but get no images...
Just to say, all of us are software engineers, working with simulating nuclear power plants
Best regards
Erik
Erik, so am I.
If it wasn't for the fact that my own very smart girl owned and used a smart phone that we rely on for so many thoroughly useful applications then I'd find myself in the position of having to buy and use one myself. Quite frankly we'd be up sh1t creek without a paddle if we didn't have one.
-
Erik, so am I.
If it wasn't for the fact that my own very smart girl owned and used a smart phone that we rely on for so many thoroughly useful applications then I'd find myself in the position of having to buy and use one myself. Quite frankly we'd be up sh1t creek without a paddle if we didn't have one.
So if I understand: you shoot a smart Leica and your very smart girl is also your really smart secretary?! (having her the privilege to deal with both you and the smart phone). It's a smart diva position! Keith, you're so posh: what is the most sophisticated thing a man could own nowdays? Owning the right not carrying a smartphone - but a Leica M instead - (actually, Morissey does not have one, phone... Too vulgar for him). Some girls are bigger than others ;D
-
So if I understand: you shoot a smart Leica and your very smart girl is also your really smart secretary?! (having her the privilege to deal with both you and the smart phone). It's a smart diva position! Keith, you're so posh: what is the most sophisticated thing a man could own nowdays? Owning the right not carrying a smartphone - but a Leica M instead - (actually, Morissey does not have one, phone... Too vulgar for him). Some girls are bigger than others ;D
Ah, Fred, you make me sound so much smarter than I actually am. The reality is my very smart girl is smart enough to insist I carry a simple 'fone' just in case I'm not smart enough to keep out of trouble. Unfortunately I'm not smart enough to remember how to use the bloody thing!
;-)
-
I have a recurring dream.
In this, I am in a fix: usually I don't know where I left the car or where my wife is, and we need to connect by 'phone. I take the thing out of my pocket and it resembles no 'phone I have owned. It looks more like a Weston exposure meter and I have no idea how to dial a number. On other occasions the thing looks like a small transistor radio the kids used to have, and dialing a number is just as impossible.
I suspect that this is a reflection of my basic dislike, mistrust of technology which I can't understand and have no desire to understand.
;-(
[ Would :-.( be Cindy Crawford on a bad day?]
-
Rob,
Maybe it would be more fun to discuss some other sort of dream, but we won't go there since they also probably involve your wife ;)
Edmund
I have a recurring dream.
In this, I am in a fix: usually I don't know where I left the car or where my wife is, and we need to connect by 'phone. I take the thing out of my pocket and it resembles no 'phone I have owned. It looks more like a Weston exposure meter and I have no idea how to dial a number. On other occasions the thing looks like a small transistor radio the kids used to have, and dialing a number is just as impossible.
I suspect that this is a reflection of my basic dislike, mistrust of technology which I can't understand and have no desire to understand.
;-(
[ Would :-.( be Cindy Cawford on a bad day?]
-
Rob,
Maybe it would be more fun to discuss some other sort of dream, but we won't go there since they also probably involve your wife ;)
Edmund
Not really, Edmund, my dreams these days seem to be confined to forms, manifestations of various emergencies. That's the type that I recall, at any rate.
Either way, they don't amount to a post, nor even that hill of American beans.
:-(
-
Hi, I too am what we like to call ourselves: an old guy with a nikon 800e + heavy zeiss lenses + one of those "i" phones which I use as a phone only, why? because that is all I know what to do with it.
I will get to the point now: this thread has had me laughing out loud "with" all of you guys.
thanks gentlemen
Larry.
-
Hi,
Looking at some of this discussions fills me with sadness. It may seem that some of us think that ladies belong in front of the camera.
My view is a bit different, there is a lot of female photographers who are quite good at taking great images, what photography actually should be about.
In many cases, lady photographers care about the images rather than the tools used to capture the image. I would argue that is a good thing.
Best regards
Erik
I'm not a smart girl with a smart phone either, but I'm married to a smart girl who owns and uses a smart phone. I have to admit owning one - a smart phone - is a very smart move.
-
Here a macro example of the P20-pro - by hand - no flash. But for a macro you have to be patient... ;)
(http://up.picr.de/32759791zv.jpg)
-
Here a macro example of the P20-pro - by hand - no flash. But for a macro you have to be patient... ;)
(http://up.picr.de/32759791zv.jpg)
Where's the other eye?
Edmund
-
Where's the other eye?
Edmund
Maybe too bright and sunny... 8)