National Geographic Threw Away All Credibility When They Released This Book!!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Aug 13, 2007.

  1. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    George Kerby Guest

    That time of the month, "Rita"?
     
    George Kerby, Aug 14, 2007
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. Few would argue with this.
    Lovely idea, but it just ain't true! Certainly super fine equipment
    doesn't guarantee decent photos, and great photos have been rung from
    crap equipment, but there are limitations that can't be overcome by
    "mind over matter".
     
    John McWilliams, Aug 14, 2007
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    Rich Guest

     
    Rich, Aug 14, 2007
    #43
  4. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    Alfred Molon Guest

    That's a myth. I used to get sharp handheld shots with a camera in that
    position up to 1/15 s (with the Olympus 5050). The body is not
    necessarily stable and if you press the camera against your head it
    moves with it during the exposure.
     
    Alfred Molon, Aug 14, 2007
    #44
  5. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    Alfred Molon Guest

    Hmmm... that image has no exif data. Do camera phones put exif data into
    their images? Any camera phones with RAW?
     
    Alfred Molon, Aug 14, 2007
    #45
  6. Someone should take a top-of-the-line digital slr, in the $4000 + class, and
    build a cell phone into it.......:^)
     
    William Graham, Aug 14, 2007
    #46
  7. Why do we want to view pictures taken by ANYBODY who is TOO LAZY to
    carry a decent camera?

    Apparently, NG doesn't want to view pictures taken by anyone who takes good
    pictures....They only want to view pictures taken by people they commission
    to take the pictures before the pictures are actually taken....They are too
    lazy to bother trying to seperate good pictures from average
    pictures.......This puts their photographs in the same category of tons of
    coal shipped out to Moscow every morning........Ivan's crew shoveled harder
    than anyone else last week, so we'll go with his crew's output this week
    too........It strikes me that they could significantly improive the quality
    of their published photos simply by hiring someone who actually looks at
    photographs and is capable of telling the good ones from the bad
    ones....Like a good photographic critic who is capable of making a decision
    now and then.......
     
    William Graham, Aug 14, 2007
    #47
  8. The new one I just (had to) buy, has a 2 M-pix sensor built in.......
     
    William Graham, Aug 14, 2007
    #48
  9. Well, I'd like to tell you about the lens on mine, but I can't find it......
     
    William Graham, Aug 14, 2007
    #49
  10. When I got my current cell phone I made sure it didn't have a camera built in
    because I thought a camera in a cell phone would be just another useless
    'feature'. Obviously I was wrong.
     
    maxsilverstar, Aug 14, 2007
    #50
  11. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    Paul Furman Guest

    I go through my shoots & cull out the winners... it pisses me off when a
    great shot is not sharp enough to print big. Most often it's because I
    wasn't careful enough with the focus or not holding steady enough but
    often it's because the camera or lens had atrocious blow-outs or flare
    or simply could not deliver for one reason or another. Pretty darn
    frequently because I didn't have a super 900mm stabilized zoom on a
    mega-tripod. It's the same reason for shooting raw: most raw files are
    of no use but in the rare case of a great capture, it's invaluable to
    have the best possible capture to work from.

    But yes, world-class 200x100 jpegs can be made from cameraphones and
    they still look good at 8x5 in print.
     
    Paul Furman, Aug 14, 2007
    #51
  12. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    Paul Furman Guest

    Damn that pisses me off. I'd use my camera phone more but I refuse to
    pay my provider more & it's too much trouble to circumvent the issue.
     
    Paul Furman, Aug 14, 2007
    #52
  13. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    TRoss Guest

    I was just the opposite. My old phone didn't have a camera, and I made
    sure ne new one did. That way I would always have a camera, even when
    I didn't have a camera. Never considered using it until I saw what
    Robert Clark was able to do with one. It's all I plan to shoot this
    weekend.

    TR
     
    TRoss, Aug 14, 2007
    #53
  14. LOL! That's 8 x 5 pixels, yes/??
     
    John McWilliams, Aug 14, 2007
    #54
  15. When I replaced mine about 6 months ago, just about any phone that I saw
    via ATT had a one Meg camera, and many with blue tooth. The latter makes
    downloading relatively easy, and the first two or three custom images I
    did to upload to the phone were sorta fun, but no more.
     
    John McWilliams, Aug 14, 2007
    #55
  16. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    Scott W Guest

    This is simply not true. You might be able to get good photos from a
    cell phone, in a artsy kind of way, but you are going to be greatly
    limited in what you can capture. If you are happy with these limits
    then fine, but I for one don't want to be limited by using a toy camera.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Aug 14, 2007
    #56
  17. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    Paul Furman Guest

    From the link above:

    "The idea was to hit the road for fifty days documenting a trip around
    the United Stated showing the diversity of this country

    The only catch was I had to shoot the whole trip with a camera phone"

    Pretty cool premise IMO, and as you say, not the photog's choice but an
    interesting limitation that he was willing & able to work with.
     
    Paul Furman, Aug 14, 2007
    #57
  18. Because a good photographer selects the right tools for the job. And that
    may just be a camera built into a GSM.

    (Just like handing out pencils is unlikely to produce good writers, cameras
    have been accessible enough in the western world, that increasing the number
    of cameras is unlikely to produce more photographers).
     
    Philip Homburg, Aug 14, 2007
    #58
  19. That's the fun thing: a good photographer takes a low quality camera and
    produces interesting photos. It is then suggested that the low quality
    camera is all you need. But you never know what potential images the
    photographer let go because the camera was not capable enough, or how
    much extra effort was required compared to using a more capable camera.

    But for an artist, artificial limitations (like using rather crude tools)
    may provide interesting new angles to explore.
     
    Philip Homburg, Aug 14, 2007
    #59
  20. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Why? There are photographers who think that using a pin-hole camera is
    the only way to go. There are artists who paint with only a single
    camel hair brush. There are others who use only vertical strokes of
    various lengths and widths to construct fantastic paintings.
    Choosing a limited device to capture your images doesn't make one less
    of a photographer, and publishing a book on that subject hardly degrades
    the stature of NG, or any other company.

    Get down off your high horse, and try to enjoy life, and diversity.

    And, like cameras, not all phone imaging systems are the same.
     
    Ron Hunter, Aug 14, 2007
    #60
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.