Unlike Kevin's graceful photos below, there are more modest phone cam shots.
Huawei P20 Pro Monochrome Sensor/PS/Nik ColorEfex
Huawei P20 Pro Monochrome Sensor/PS/Nik ColorEfex
-
Thank You For Visiting... Please Click Here and sign up to contribute
Another Hexham Abbey contribution.
- Thread starter Toby Webster
- Start date
Nice Toby. Phones do a remarkable job especially when helped with a bit of post processing. Just as long as one doesn't expect too much from them.
It's a great location for photography no matter what tools you use. I wouldn't know these were phone shots if you hadn't told us.
Thanks for the comments.
I find the quality of the files from those tiny little plastic phone lenses to be infuriatingly good. I often use my phone set to the monochrome sensor as a sort of polaroid to check the composition and suitability of the scene for B&W before I use up a frame on my MF camera. All too often the 'polaroid' comes out better than the film version, the files are easily comparable with 120 film, with an impressive front to back sharpness due to the small sensor and the built-in stabilisation. I couldn't have used my film camera in these shots at all without a tripod. It's all a bit annoying really. But then the experience of taking and processing phone shots is rather hollow and unsatisfying, whilst getting a successful film frame is far more engaging and satisfying.
I find the quality of the files from those tiny little plastic phone lenses to be infuriatingly good. I often use my phone set to the monochrome sensor as a sort of polaroid to check the composition and suitability of the scene for B&W before I use up a frame on my MF camera. All too often the 'polaroid' comes out better than the film version, the files are easily comparable with 120 film, with an impressive front to back sharpness due to the small sensor and the built-in stabilisation. I couldn't have used my film camera in these shots at all without a tripod. It's all a bit annoying really. But then the experience of taking and processing phone shots is rather hollow and unsatisfying, whilst getting a successful film frame is far more engaging and satisfying.
I agree Chris, particularly if a photographer plays to the phone's strengths. The prevalence of mobile phones makes them almost invisible particularly in cases where the use of a proper camera might draw attention to itself. The portability of the mobile phone can also be advantageous particularly as we get older and cameras hang heavy around our necks. There is much to be said for them in my view. Of course the camera has its place and I agree with the sentiment that a well made picture we have taken care with gives a better sense of achievement. On the other hand, there is nothing more annoying than a poor result from a camera when then a phone pic would have been perfectly adequate.
I don't think they/we are, Chris, bar the slight frustration that all of the investment we make in expensive bodies and lenses seems to be annoyingly easy to at least get close to matching with a plastic lens a couple of millimetres wide and a tiny sensor. The photos from them stand on their own for critique positive or negative.
Yesterday I saw an otter in the River Wear at Durham, probably about 20 metres from me. Only had my phone with me. As well as birds in flight, I can confirm that otters in water 20 metres away are another subject you can't reasonably capture on a mobile phone.
It was lovely to watch though. I think Bruce Barnbaum wrote that "a good memory is better than a bad photo"