# People who shoot photos with their lens hood on backwards



## Bungle73 (Mar 14, 2014)

Ever since I watched a YT video where someone was explaining about them, and how every time he sees someone with their hood on the wrong way round he wants to go up and tell them I'm seeing it all over the place.  Was up in London yesterday and saw a guy near the British Museum with a DSLR taking pictures - lens hood on back to front. Why? Don't they realise??


----------



## editor (Mar 14, 2014)

You only need the hood affixed if the lighting conditions demand it. If not, putting it around the lens barrel is a handy way to store it.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 14, 2014)

But the camera isn't in storage it's being used.  Also it makes sense to leave the hood on all the time, and in any case it adds protection to the lens.  Leaving it on backwards just makes it look like you you don't know what you're doing.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 14, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> But the camera isn't in storage it's being used.  Also it makes sense to leave the hood on all the time, and in any case it adds protection to the lens.  Leaving it on backwards just makes it look like you you don't know what you're doing.



Who cares what it looks like?


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 14, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Who cares what it looks like?


A lens hood isn't doing anything if it's on backwards.



Notice what he says about leaving the hood on the lens all time.  He also makes a good point that with the hood on backwards you can't access the lens's controls properly.


----------



## Ax^ (Mar 14, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Was up in London yesterday and saw a guy near the British Museum with a DSLR taking pictures - lens hood on back to front. Why?



Because you touch yourself at night


----------



## editor (Mar 14, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> But the camera isn't in storage it's being used.  Also it makes sense to leave the hood on all the time, and in any case it adds protection to the lens.  Leaving it on backwards just makes it look like you you don't know what you're doing.


I'll be sure to passs on your advice to the pros whose knowledge of photography makes you like like a cider addled country bumpkin.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 14, 2014)

editor said:


> I'll be sure to passs on your advice to the pros whose knowledge of photography makes you like like a cider addled country bumpkin.


Where are these "pros" who are walking around taking photos with their lens hoods on backwards?  A true "pro" wouldn't do such a thing.  Did you even bother to view the video I posted and take note of the points made?


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 14, 2014)

Oh, and tell me where anything I said is "wrong"............


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Mar 14, 2014)

There should surely be some sort of law passed as a matter of urgency to deal with this nefarious situation?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 14, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> A lens hood isn't doing anything if it's on backwards.



Its somewhere to store it.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 14, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Its somewhere to store it.


I've already been through that.  The camera isn't being stored, it's being used. Go and watch the video I posted.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 14, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> I've already been through that.  The camera isn't being stored, it's being used. Go and watch the video I posted.



Get a life.


----------



## marty21 (Mar 14, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Where are these "pros" who are walking around taking photos with their lens hoods on backwards?  A true "pro" wouldn't do such a thing.  Did you even bother to view the video I posted and take note of the points made?


 will there be a written test?


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Mar 14, 2014)

Lens hoods can be obtrusive on wide angle zoom lenses. You need to turn it back to front otherwise the lens hood shadow will appear on the focal plane. They are also useful protection for your lens. They are designed to be reversible for a very good reason. Guy in the video is a plonker making a fool of himself.

I always use a rubber lens hood when shooting seriously, but I always use a standard/prime lens at a very small aperture. Lens hoods are extremely useful, but on wide angle shots with a large aperture they interfere - not helpful, so you turn them back to front when out of use.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 14, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Get a life.


You're the one hat needs to "get a life". You're the one that can't come up with any convincing arguments so you decided to bring out the insults.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 14, 2014)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Lens hoods can be obtrusive on wide angle zoom lenses. You need to turn it back to front otherwise the lens hood shadow will appear on the focal plane. They are also useful protection for your lens. They are designed to be reversible for a very good reason. Guy in the video is a plonker making a fool of himself.
> 
> I always use a rubber lens hood when shooting seriously, but I always use a standard/prime lens at a very small aperture. Lens hoods are extremely useful, but on wide angle shots with a large aperture they interfere - not helpful, so you turn them back to front when out of use.


Um, if the hood is appearing in your picture, you're using THE WRONG ONE!

You can't just throw any old hood on a lens.  A hood is designed for a specific lens.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 14, 2014)

> Guy in the video is a plonker making a fool of himself.


What? How?  No he isn't.

Every video on YT about hoods says exactly the same thing.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Mar 14, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Um, if the hood is appearing in your picture, you're using THE WRONG ONE!
> 
> You can't just throw any old hood on a lens.  A hood is designed for a specific lens.



Rubbish.

On a very wide angle, large aperture no lens hood would have any good effect.

The lens hoods which come with a lens are designed for the lens. However, they are always designed to be reversible for a very good reason. You think the manufacturers do that just for a laugh?


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Mar 14, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> What? How?  No he isn't.
> 
> Every video on YT about hoods says exactly the same thing.



You have been sold a lie.

Wake up to it.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 14, 2014)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Rubbish.
> 
> On a very wide angle, large aperture no lens hood would have any good effect.
> 
> The lens hoods which come with a lens are designed for the lens. However, they are always designed to be reversible for a very good reason. You think the manufacturers do that just for a laugh?


So they take up less space in your bag.  Do you think manufacturers expect people to run around using their cameras with the hood the the storage position? Of course they don't.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Mar 14, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> So they take up less space in your bag.  Do you think manufacturers expect people to run around using their cameras with the hood the the storage position? Of course they don't.



Nope.

Space saving is a part of the design. So, why shouldn't people save space whilst shooting if the lens hood is not needed?

On a very wide angle the light is hitting the front element of the lens from every direction - there is no way you can shade the light without interfering with the image.

Try it if you're not prepared to believe us.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 14, 2014)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Space saving is a part of the design.


Why do yo need to "save space" if your camera is out in the open?



> So, why shouldn't people save space whilst shooting if the lens hood is not needed?


Because it leave the lens exposed to damage and dirt. Not to mention one can get stray light at any time.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Mar 14, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Why do yo need to "save space" if your camera is out in the open?
> 
> 
> Because it leave the lens exposed to damage and dirt. Not to mention one can get stray light at any time.



OK. You are right and my 40 years of experience have taught me fuck all. Taught me fuck all. Taught lens designers fuck all. Other photographers can't see the point either. The World of lens hoods was all created just for you to have a laugh.


----------



## neonwilderness (Mar 14, 2014)

I keep mine attached to my lenses all the time, either forwards when in use or backwards when not.  That way I know where it is, so when I need to use it I don't realise that it's sat in another bag at home or something.

I'm clearly an idiot.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 14, 2014)

Stanley Edwards said:


> OK. You are right and my 40 years of experience have taught me fuck all. Taught me fuck all. Taught lens designers fuck all. Other photographers can't see the point either. The World of lens hoods was all created just for you to have a laugh.


What the fuck are you babbling about? What does any of that have to do with the post you quoted?


neonwilderness said:


> I keep mine attached to my lenses all the time, either forwards when in use or backwards when not.  That way I know where it is, so when I need to use it I don't realise that it's sat in another bag at home or something.
> 
> I'm clearly an idiot.


What?


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Mar 14, 2014)

Some people hey?

They are beyond help. Really enjoy the company of people who always continue to learn, but bigots are boring.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Mar 14, 2014)




----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 14, 2014)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Some people hey?
> 
> They are beyond help. Really enjoy the company of people who always continue to learn, but bigots are boring.


What? Are you on drugs or something? Or maybe you should be on some?  In what way has anything I said in this thread made me a "bigot"??  Jesus  people on on this forum are become intolerable.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 14, 2014)

Puddy_Tat said:


>


Oh?  so I'm an "asshole" just because I said people should put their lens hoods on properly? Fuck off.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Mar 14, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> What? Are you on drugs or something? Or maybe you should be on some?  In what way has anything I said in this thread made me a "bigot"??  Jesus  people on on this forum are become intolerable.



You have closed your mind.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Mar 14, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Oh?  so I'm an "asshole" just because I said people should put their lens hoods on properly? Fuck off.



woo


----------



## neonwilderness (Mar 14, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Are you on drugs or something?


That is becoming a catchphrase


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 14, 2014)

neonwilderness said:


> I keep mine attached to my lenses all the time, either forwards when in use or backwards when not.  That way I know where it is, so when I need to use it I don't realise that it's sat in another bag at home or something.
> 
> I'm clearly an idiot.


And what about protection for your lens?


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 14, 2014)

Stanley Edwards said:


> You have closed your mind.


So have you.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Mar 14, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> So have you.



Not at all. I never will - I would sooner die.


----------



## editor (Mar 14, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Oh?  so I'm an "asshole" just because I said people should put their lens hoods on properly? Fuck off.


Sometimes there can be a very good reason for having a lens cap on backwards. If you're using flash for example, or if you've a wide angle lens and it's casting shadows across the lens. Or perhaps if you're using a polariser. Or maybe space is limited. 

But I don't expect you to be able to understand these things.


----------



## editor (Mar 14, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> And what about protection for your lens?


Lens hoods are not primarily designed for lens protection. For many, a UV/skylight filter does that job adequately.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Mar 14, 2014)

neonwilderness said:


> I keep mine attached to my lenses all the time, either forwards when in use or backwards when not.  That way I know where it is, so when I need to use it I don't realise that it's sat in another bag at home or something.
> 
> I'm clearly an idiot.


yeh, you idiot


----------



## neonwilderness (Mar 14, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> And what about protection for your lens?


What if I'd just bought a lens, but not a hood?


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 14, 2014)

editor said:


> Lens hoods are not primarily designed for lens protection.


No, but they do



> For many, a UV/skylight filter does that job adequately.


Ah, UV filters.  I never use a UV filter.  UV filters degrade image quality and they don't provide much protection anyway.  A hood provides protection AND has an actual useful purpose. People are conned into buying UV filters by camera stores when they are not needed for digital photography. People think their lenses are going to be scratched just like that.  They won't.  The glasss used in lenses is very robust.  Look up "Mike Browne" on YT.  In 30 years of being a photographer he has never, ever scratched a lens and he never uses UV filters,  just a lens hood.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Mar 14, 2014)

neonwilderness said:


> What if I'd just bought a lens, but not a hood?


then you'd probably be on drugs...


----------



## editor (Mar 14, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Ah, UV filters.  I never use a UV filter.  UV filters degrade image quality and they don't provide much protection anyway.


So who do you shoot for professionally?

Oh, and remind me to tell all those silly travel professional photographers - you know, the ones that often find a UV filter a handy precaution against dust and abrasive sand  - that they're doing it all wrong.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 14, 2014)

Bungle gets utterly pwned by Stanley Edwards!!!

Oh the shame.


----------



## discokermit (Mar 14, 2014)

hoods are for pussy 'oles. use your hand, if you have to. pussy 'oles.


----------



## discokermit (Mar 14, 2014)

editor said:


> professionally?
> 
> professional photographers


what makes professionals the be all and end all?


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 14, 2014)

editor said:


> So who do you shoot for professionally?
> 
> Oh, and remind me to tell all those silly travel professional photographers - you know, the ones that often find a UV filter a handy precaution against dust and abrasive sand  - that they're doing it all wrong.


A just gave you an example of a professional that never uses one. Most of the pros I've come across on YT do not use one.  In fact I've only found one that does, Gavin Hoey.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 14, 2014)

discokermit said:


> what makes professionals the be all and end all?


Yes let's only take notice of "pros" that agree with what you think, and ignore all the ones that agree with me.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Mar 14, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Yes let's only take notice of "pros" that agree with what you think, and ignore all the ones that agree with me.


if i agree with you, do i get a prize?


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 14, 2014)




----------



## editor (Mar 14, 2014)

discokermit said:


> what makes professionals the be all and end all?


Exactly where did I say that?

However, given that they make a career out of it, I'd imagine the opinions of professional photographers generally hold more sway than those a lippy amateur with little experience or skill.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 14, 2014)

editor said:


> Exactly where did I say that?
> 
> However, given that they make a career out of it, I'd imagine the opinions of professional photographers generally hold more sway than those a lippy amateur with little experience or skill.


Oh FFS. Are you even reading anything I've written.  The guy has been a pro for THIRTY YEARS.  Jesus.


----------



## editor (Mar 14, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


>


yes. And? Did you actually watch that video all the way through or read the comments after?


----------



## editor (Mar 14, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Oh FFS. Are you even reading anything I've written.  The guy has been a pro for THIRTY YEARS.  Jesus.


You're the one insisting that *you* know best.

Professional photographers all have different ways of working, so why don't you express your opinion and tell me what experience you're basing it on?


----------



## paul russell999 (Mar 14, 2014)

The only time I use a lens hood is when it's drizzling - to keep rain off my lens. When it stops raining, I turn the lens hood round until I can be arsed to put it back in my bag. I don't care if this is illegal or not.


----------



## editor (Mar 14, 2014)

paul russell999 said:


> The only time I use a lens hood is when it's drizzling - to keep rain off my lens. When it stop raining, I turn the lens hood round until I can be arsed to put it back in my bag. I don't care if this is illegal or not.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 14, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Where are these "pros" who are walking around taking photos with their lens hoods on backwards?  A true "pro" wouldn't do such a thing.  Did you even bother to view the video I posted and take note of the points made?



Pros usually carry a kit bag, so the lens hood could be kept in there.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 14, 2014)

editor said:


> So who do you shoot for professionally?
> 
> Oh, and remind me to tell all those silly travel professional photographers - you know, the ones that often find a UV filter a handy precaution against dust and abrasive sand  - that they're doing it all wrong.


BUT WHERE ARE THEIR YOUTUBE CHANNELS


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 14, 2014)

editor said:


> You're the one insisting that *you* know best.
> 
> Professional photographers all have different ways of working, so why don't you express your opinion and tell me what experience you're basing it on?


It's a fucking waste of time talking to you. You are completely ignoring all the evidence I've put to you.

A FUCKING PRO PHOTOGRAPHER OF THIRTY YEARS HAS SAYS UV FILTERS ARE USELESS. WHY THE FUCKING HELL ARE YOU SAYING HE IS WRONG?

And yes of course I watched the video - AND YOU CONVENIENTLY IGNORE MIKE BROWNE'S VIDEO. And he agrees with what I've been saying all along. As for the comments, they are either agreeing, or saying that UV filters do not degrade image quality, which is bollocks.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 14, 2014)

paul russell999 said:


> The only time I use a lens hood is when it's drizzling - to keep rain off my lens. When it stops raining, I turn the lens hood round until I can be arsed to put it back in my bag. I don't care if this is illegal or not.


You won't be so flippant when the lens police catch up with you.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 14, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Pros usually carry a kit bag, so the lens hood could be kept in there.


I've no idea wtf you are talking about, or how it relates to the post you quoted?


----------



## neonwilderness (Mar 14, 2014)

paul russell999 said:


> The only time I use a lens hood is when it's drizzling - to keep rain off my lens. When it stops raining, I turn the lens hood round until I can be arsed to put it back in my bag. I don't care if this is illegal or not.


You clearly haven't got any idea what you are doing


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 14, 2014)

editor said:


> You're the one insisting that *you* know best.
> 
> Professional photographers all have different ways of working, so why don't you express your opinion and tell me what experience you're basing it on?


No, you're the one insisting I am 100% wrong about this and then ignoring all the evidence I posted.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 14, 2014)

discokermit said:


> hoods are for pussy 'oles. use your hand, if you have to. pussy 'oles.



I use a newspaper or magazine held over the camera. Sometimes, an umbrella.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 14, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> I've no idea wtf you are talking about, or how it relates to the post you quoted?



It was supportive of your position. Don't assume that everyone is jumping down your throat.


----------



## editor (Mar 14, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> It's a fucking waste of time talking to you. You are completely ignoring all the evidence I've put to you.
> 
> A FUCKING PRO PHOTOGRAPHER OF THIRTY YEARS HAS SAYS UV FILTERS ARE USELESS. WHY THE FUCKING HELL ARE YOU SAYING HE IS WRONG?


Oh, a caps lock hissy fit! When you've calmed down, could you explain why everyone should exclusively listen to the opinion of 'one fucking pro' who I've never heard of?

What about the opinions of other fucking pro photographers?


----------



## neonwilderness (Mar 14, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> It's a fucking waste of time talking to you. You are completely ignoring all the evidence I've put to you.
> 
> A FUCKING PRO PHOTOGRAPHER OF THIRTY YEARS HAS SAYS UV FILTERS ARE USELESS. WHY THE FUCKING HELL ARE YOU SAYING HE IS WRONG?
> 
> And yes of course I watched the video - AND YOU CONVENIENTLY IGNORE MIKE BROWNE'S VIDEO. And he agrees with what I've been saying all along. As for the comments, they are either agreeing, or saying that UV filters do not degrade image quality, which is bollocks.


Are you on drugs?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 14, 2014)

Btw, bungle, it isn't that stupid a question. It gets discussed in lots of photo forums.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/strobist/discuss/72157619301902746/


http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=775868


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 14, 2014)

editor said:


> Oh, a caps lock hissy fit! When you've calmed down, could you explain why everyone should exclusively listen to the opinion of 'one fucking pro' who I've never heard of?
> 
> What about the opinions of other fucking pro photographers?


So, we're only supposed to listen to the opinions of people you've heard of huh? And someone's thirty years of experience counts for nothing, nor that they have one of the most popular and imo best photography tutorial channels on YT?


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 14, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> It was supportive of your position. Don't assume that everyone is jumping down your throat.


Sorry, but I didn't understand what you meant.


----------



## editor (Mar 14, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Btw, bungle, it isn't that stupid a question. It gets discussed in lots of photo forums.
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/groups/strobist/discuss/72157619301902746/
> 
> ...


The question isn't stupid but the way he's shouting about it here sure is.


----------



## paul russell999 (Mar 14, 2014)

What does worry me is people with baseball caps on back to front. Now that is plain wrong.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 14, 2014)

editor said:


> The question isn't stupid but the way he's shouting about it here sure is.


I shout because it's quite apparent that you are picking pieces of what I say and ignoring others, which is VERY frustrating.


----------



## editor (Mar 14, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> So, we're only supposed to listen to the opinions of people you've heard of huh? And someone's thirty years of experience counts for nothing, nor that they have one of the most popular and imo best photography tutorial channels on YT?


Perhaps you missed it when I patiently explained that different photographers have different ways of working. What one individual thinks (who I've never heard of) is neither here nor there. Seeing as you seem to hold such store by the pro bit, have you ever worked professionally as a photographer, by the way?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 14, 2014)

I've also been noticing this reverse hood thing in the past couple of years. I don't recall seeing it before. I say that because I look at other people's cameras. I think it might also be part fad.


----------



## neonwilderness (Mar 14, 2014)

paul russell999 said:


> What does worry me is people with baseball caps on back to front. Now that is plain wrong.


Amateurs


----------



## editor (Mar 14, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> I shout because it's quite apparent that you are picking pieces of what I say and ignoring others, which is VERY frustrating.


So, what about that opinion by another fucking pro photographer? You going to ignore that? Why?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 14, 2014)

paul russell999 said:


> What does worry me is people with baseball caps on back to front. Now that is plain wrong.



To me, seeing a lens hood backwards makes me look at the person the same way I would if their hat was on backwards.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Mar 14, 2014)




----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Mar 14, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> It's a fucking waste of time talking to you. You are completely ignoring all the evidence I've put to you.
> 
> A FUCKING PRO PHOTOGRAPHER OF THIRTY YEARS HAS SAYS UV FILTERS ARE USELESS. WHY THE FUCKING HELL ARE YOU SAYING HE IS WRONG?
> 
> And yes of course I watched the video - AND YOU CONVENIENTLY IGNORE MIKE BROWNE'S VIDEO. And he agrees with what I've been saying all along. As for the comments, they are either agreeing, or saying that UV filters do not degrade image quality, which is bollocks.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 14, 2014)

editor said:


> Perhaps you missed it when I patiently explained that different photographers have different ways of working. What one individual thinks (who I've never heard of) is neither here nor there. Seeing as you seem to hold such store by the pro bit, have you ever worked professionally as a photographer, by the way?


So I say again, we're only supposed to listen to people who a) you've heard of, and b) agree with what you think?  What's you're experience?

A quote from Tony Northrup's book:




			
				Tony Northrup said:
			
		

> Some people will tell you to use a UV filter to protect your lens. Filters reduce the image quality by requiring light to pass through an unnecessary layer, and they can also introduce flaring and vignetting.  The cheap filter will scratch, which night make you think it's saving your lens, but your lens (typically made of glass) is actually pretty scratch-resistant. For those reasons I don't recommend using a UV filter.


----------



## editor (Mar 14, 2014)

Pretty sure this person's doing it wrong.


----------



## Corax (Mar 14, 2014)

The Bungle73 metamorphosis is really weird. Transition from unremarkable longtime occasional poster to consistent and persistent competitor for bolshy pub-wanker of the year in the blink of an eye.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 14, 2014)

editor said:


> So, what about that opinion by another fucking pro photographer? You going to ignore that? Why?


I haven't ignored anything.  You're one claiming I'm some sort of idiot for taking a side. You're the one who doesn't even want to listen to anyone with a counter view, no matter who they are.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 14, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> So I say again, we're only supposed to listen to people who a) you've heard of, and b) agree with what you think?  What's you're experience?
> 
> A quote from Tony Northrup's book:



I swear by my UV filter on my SLR.


----------



## editor (Mar 14, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> So I say again, we're only supposed to listen to people who a) you've heard of, and b) agree with what you think?  What's you're experience?


No, I say listen to as many pros as you can and make up your own mind for what suits you best. And whatever you do, don't listen to just one CAPS LOCK RANTING person who suddenly elevates the opinion of one little known snapper over that of everyone else's, because that clearly would be a very silly way to act.

Oh, wait...


----------



## editor (Mar 14, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> You're one claiming I'm some sort of idiot for taking a side.


That's your problem, right there.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 14, 2014)

editor said:


> No, I say listen to as many pros as you can and make up your own mind for what suits you best. And whatever you do, don't listen to just one CAPS LOCK RANTING person who suddenly elevates the opinion of one little known snapper over that of everyone else's, because that clearly would be a very silly way to act.
> 
> Oh, wait...


One "litter" snapper?  He is a pro of thirty years.  How many more fucking times?

I posted three videos that say UV's are usless.

Tony Northrup says they are useless

Why are being such a HUGE dick about this?



editor said:


> That's your problem, right there.


My problem here is you.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 14, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I swear by my UV filter on my SLR.


Why?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 14, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Why?



Because in certain lighting situations here, the photos seem to look better. Actually, I swore by it. Last summer, I dropped my camera and the filter broke. I said 'fuck' so loud, that everyone within a block of me at Italian Days heard it. I haven't replaced it yet.


----------



## xenon (Mar 14, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> One "litter" snapper?  He is a pro of thirty years.  How many more fucking times?
> 
> I posted three videos that say UV's are usless.
> 
> ...



By Christ you're an obnoxious cunt and a thick one with it. He's clearly saying different pro photographers have different opinions. He hasn't said you're "wrong." Just people have different approaches. Why can't you understand that. Are you ill?


----------



## paul russell999 (Mar 14, 2014)

Who is this Tony Northrup bloke? I just Googled him and his Wikipedia is "In June, 2000, Northrup won the Sexiest Geek Alive contest. Following the contest he made appearances on several TV shows, including Good Morning America, the Montel Williams Show, and To Tell The Truth."


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 14, 2014)

xenon said:


> By Christ you're an obnoxious cunt and a thick one with it. He's clearly saying different pro photographers have different opinions. He hasn't said you're "wrong." Just people have different approaches. Why can't you understand that. Are you ill?


Um, no he isn't.  He is saying I'm "wrong" because I don't have "experience". He is saying Mike Browne is "wrong" because he's never heard of him and is a "little snapper" (what ever the fuck that means), despite the guy having been a pro for 30 years, having a successful photography business and being a professional photography instructer. He has been completely dismissive of everything point I've brought forward to back up my case.


----------



## kittyP (Mar 14, 2014)

I would love to live in a world where everything is so certain and black and white (pun not intended)


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 14, 2014)

paul russell999 said:


> Who is this Tony Northrup bloke? I just Googled him and his Wikipedia is "In June, 2000, Northrup won the Sexiest Geek Alive contest. Following the contest he made appearances on several TV shows, including Good Morning America, the Montel Williams Show, and To Tell The Truth."





> *Award-winning author and photographer Tony Northrup has published more than 30 how-to books and sold more than a million copies around the world. His photos have been featured on magazine covers, book covers, CD covers, TV shows, calendars, and much more. Tony studied photography at the New England School of Photography and the Massachusetts College of Art and Design. He runs a stock and portrait photography business with his family, Chelsea and Madelyn, out of his home studio in Waterford, CT. He shoots travel and nature photography everywhere he goes.*




*http://www.northrupphotography.com/about/*


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 14, 2014)

Oh, and Mike Browne has worked in TV production as well.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 14, 2014)

> *Mike Browne*
> 
> Professional award winning photographer since 1993
> Photography writer DSLR User magazine Professional Photographer Magazine, Photography Monthly Magazine, Professional Photographer Magazine
> ...




http://www.photographycourses.biz/about.html


----------



## marty21 (Mar 14, 2014)

paul russell999 said:


> The only time I use a lens hood is when it's drizzling - to keep rain off my lens. When it stops raining, I turn the lens hood round until I can be arsed to put it back in my bag. I don't care if this is illegal or not.


 you sir are clearly an idiot x


----------



## Enviro (Mar 14, 2014)

paul russell999 said:


> What does worry me is people with baseball caps on back to front. Now that is plain wrong.



If they're not wearing it properly, then presumably they're just storing it for use at a later time? But if the cap is on the head, then surely it is in use, but in the INCORRECT MANNER?!?!


----------



## marty21 (Mar 14, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> So, we're only supposed to listen to the opinions of people you've heard of huh? And someone's thirty years of experience counts for nothing, nor that they have one of the most popular and imo best photography tutorial channels on YT?


 Jimmy Savile was in tv for well over 30 years - should we use him as a template for what is correct?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 14, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Oh FFS. Are you even reading anything I've written.  The guy has been a pro for THIRTY YEARS.  Jesus.


Your mum's been a pro for THIRTY YEARS.


----------



## twentythreedom (Mar 14, 2014)

Yo, Bunglist massive in the area! Wi-wi-wicked...

Troll / knob  Some lols though


----------



## kittyP (Mar 14, 2014)

marty21 said:


> Jimmy Savile was in tv for well over 30 years - should we use him as a template for what is correct?


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 14, 2014)

xenon said:


> By Christ you're an obnoxious cunt and a thick one with it.



 I reckon Bungle is some reinvention of Tobyjug.


----------



## editor (Mar 14, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> I posted three videos that say UV's are usless.


Here's what Kent Weakley (whoever he is) in that poorly recorded video actually said:  "That's not to say it's a bad thing, it's your choice..."


----------



## Corax (Mar 14, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> I reckon Bungle is some reinvention of Tobyjug.


He's been on the boards for ages though IIRC, and never been like this AFAIR until the last couple of days. I wonder if the post earlier asking if he was ill was on the money


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 14, 2014)

Enviro said:


> If they're not wearing it properly, then presumably they're just storing it for use at a later time? But if the cap is on the head, then surely it is in use, but in the INCORRECT MANNER?!?!



It's about the cap's peak. Keep sun out of eyes, maybe rain. So, instead of taking it off when not needed, they turn the peak to the back of the head.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 14, 2014)

Maybe I haven't been keeping up. There seems to be some massive hate-on for this bungle dude that is blossoming on what would otherwise be a pretty innocuous thread.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 14, 2014)

Corax said:


> He's been on the boards for ages though IIRC, and never been like this AFAIR until the last couple of days. I wonder if the post earlier asking if he was ill was on the money



I've only recently clocked him and I love the way he seems to get on absolutely_ everyone's_ tits without seeming to try.

Even xenon called him a cunt!


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 14, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Maybe I haven't been keeping up. There seems to be some massive hate-on for this bungle dude that is blossoming on what would otherwise be a pretty innocuous thread.



Weird innit? That's what I thought at first but if you check out some of the threads he's been on lately they're all Beef Central.

He's got an odd way about him that really tweaks peoples noses!

Given a bit of time he could become a legend.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 14, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Weird innit? That's what I thought at first but if you check out some of the threads he's been on lately they're all Beef Central.
> 
> He's got an odd way about him that really tweaks peoples noses!
> 
> Given a bit of time he could become a legend.


Oh? Which "threads" are those then?  There's only the Amazon thread where someone couldn't take being told they were wrong about something.


----------



## kittyP (Mar 14, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Maybe I haven't been keeping up. There seems to be some massive hate-on for this bungle dude that is blossoming on what would otherwise be a pretty innocuous thread.



It's just that Bungle normally keeps his blazing incredulity to threads about public transport.


----------



## Corax (Mar 14, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Maybe I haven't been keeping up. There seems to be some massive hate-on for this bungle dude that is blossoming on what would otherwise be a pretty innocuous thread.


His liking of your post is a perfect example of why. He's a martyr for truth and straight-talking, and it's *everyone else* that's behaving like an arsehole.


----------



## Corax (Mar 14, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Oh? Which "threads" are those then?  There's only the Amazon thread where someone couldn't take being told they were wrong about something.


QED


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 14, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Oh? Which "threads" are those then?  There's only the Amazon thread where someone couldn't take being told they were wrong about something.



See what I mean?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 14, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> I reckon Bungle is some reinvention of Tobyjug.


just without the wit, charm or depth of knowledge


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 14, 2014)

Corax said:


> His liking of your post is a perfect example of why. He's a martyr for truth and straight-talking, and it's *everyone else* that's behaving like an arsehole.



Going by this thread alone, I'd say he didn't start the beef. Isn't there some sort of rule about not taking beef cross-thread?


----------



## Roadkill (Mar 14, 2014)

kittyP said:


> I would love to live in a world where everything is so certain and black and white (pun not intended)



Makes life colourful, at least.





I'll get me coat.


----------



## editor (Mar 14, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Going by this thread alone, I'd say he didn't start the beef. Isn't there some sort of rule about not taking beef cross-thread?


He's started this thread to basically tell any photographer here that unless they're doing things his way, _they're wrong_. I'd say that's fairly inflammatory myself.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 14, 2014)

editor said:


> He's started this thread to basically tell any photographer here that unless they're doing things his way, _they're wrong_. I'd say that's fairly inflammatory myself.


You're the one coming in here telling me I'm "wrong" and that I don't know what I'm talking about and that the pro photographers I brought up to back me up don't know what they're talking about either because you've "never heard of them" despite their extensive experience and other credentials.

All I did what was start a thread asking why people walk around with their lens hood on backwards, which is silly, and something that has been pointed out by other people too, just like I said in my OP.


----------



## editor (Mar 14, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> You're the one coming in here telling me I'm "wrong" and that I don't know what I'm talking about and that the pro photographers I brought up to back me up don't know what they're talking about either because you've "never heard of them" despite their extensive experience and other credentials.


You are _very wrong indeed_ to base your emphatic statements about photography on the statements of a handful of little-known pro photographers. You couldn't be more wrong, in fact.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 14, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Oh, and Mike Browne has worked in TV production as well.


I just put Mike Browne + UV filter in YT and it threw this up:


For the first 20 seconds he says (and I'm paraphrasing) _"bear in mind what I'm about to say is not necessarily true, it's just my take on it and, my opinion...*I'm not the least bit interested in cameras or camera equipment"*_.

Great start!

at 8:04min he starts to addresses the UV filter conundrum.
at 9:00min "... It's up to you to decide if you need one"

So, seems he's a civil chap and leaves the people to decide for themselves what they use and how they use it.
Maybe you should follow his example.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 14, 2014)

kittyP said:


> It's just that Bungle normally keeps his blazing incredulity to threads about public transport.


you're too kind. i'd have said he generally only bungles threads about public transport. this is afaik a new low for him


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 14, 2014)

editor said:


> You are _very wrong indeed_ to base your emphatic statements about photography on the statements of a handful of little-known pro photographers. You couldn't be more wrong, in fact.


There you go again. Are you reading a fucking thing I have been writing?

Tony Northrup:



> *Award-winning author and photographer Tony Northrup has published more than 30 how-to books and sold more than a million copies around the world. His photos have been featured on magazine covers, book covers, CD covers, TV shows, calendars, and much more. Tony studied photography at the New England School of Photography and the Massachusetts College of Art and Design. He runs a stock and portrait photography business with his family, Chelsea and Madelyn, out of his home studio in Waterford, CT. He shoots travel and nature photography everywhere he goes.*




Mike Browne:



> Professional award winning photographer since 1993
> Photography writer DSLR User magazine Professional Photographer Magazine, Photography Monthly Magazine, Professional Photographer Magazine
> Editorial team member Photo360 magazine
> Fuji Wedding Awards x 2
> ...




You're the one who's causing trouble in this thread.  You're one who keeps poo pooing the people I bring up despite their very impressive credentials.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 14, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> I've only recently clocked him and I love the way he seems to get on absolutely_ everyone's_ tits without seeming to try.
> 
> Even xenon called him a cunt!


xenon tells it like it is


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 14, 2014)

Bungle73 said:
			
		

> You're one who keeps poo pooing the people I gbring up despite their very impressive credentials.


poo pooing? you're the one talking poo


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 14, 2014)

pocketscience said:


> I just put Mike Browne + UV filter in YT and it threw this up:
> 
> 
> For the first 20 seconds he says (and I'm paraphrasing) _"bear in mind what I'm about to say is not necessarily true, it's just my take on it and, my opinion...*I'm not the least bit interested in cameras or camera equipment"*_.
> ...



One.  I'm not sure what you're getting at with the bolded part. He's not some amateur, he's a pro photographer of many years of some standing.

Two.  He says he thinks they're useless, and that's good enough for me......but not for old Eddy over there who's only interested in the opinions of people he's heard of, even if they've got a list of credentials as longs as your arm.


----------



## xenon (Mar 14, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> I've only recently clocked him and I love the way he seems to get on absolutely_ everyone's_ tits without seeming to try.
> 
> Even xenon called him a cunt!



Yeah, it's not that he's wrong. He just comes across as really aggressive knowall about it. He'd have peple on his side when he's been right if he wasn't such a twat about being "right."

It doesn't even get this narky in the Apple vs Windows vs Linux tech threads.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 14, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> One.  I'm not sure what you're getting at with the bolded part.





pocketscience said:


> _"bear in mind what I'm about to say is not necessarily true, it's just my take on it and, my opinion...*I'm not the least bit interested in cameras or camera equipment"*_.
> 
> 
> pocketscience said:
> ...


----------



## Corax (Mar 14, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Going by this thread alone, I'd say he didn't start the beef. Isn't there some sort of rule about not taking beef cross-thread?


It's not his content. It's his manner. That's not cross thread beef, it's his rudeness consistently rubbing people up the wrong way.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 14, 2014)

I haven't been "rude" or "aggressive".  I just cannot stand it when in an argument someone completely ignores the points that have been made like they didn't exist, and poo poos quotes from experts for no good reason whatsoever. That's what's "rude".


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Mar 14, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> I haven't been "rude" or "aggressive".  I just cannot stand it when in an argument someone completely ignores the points that have been made like they didn't exist, and poo poos quotes from experts for no good reason whatsoever. That's what's "rude".



You are stupid. Really stupid.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Mar 14, 2014)

A bun fight about lens hoods! Awesome Urban!


----------



## Buckaroo (Mar 14, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> I haven't been "rude" or "aggressive".  I just cannot stand it when in an argument someone completely ignores the points that have been made like they didn't exist, and poo poos quotes from experts for no good reason whatsoever. That's what's "rude".



Please stop saying poo poo.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 14, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> Please stop saying poo poo.


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pooh-pooh


----------



## Buckaroo (Mar 14, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pooh-pooh



Yeah well say pooh pooh then ffs


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 14, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> Yeah well say pooh pooh then ffs


Well, yeah, I mis-spelt it.


----------



## neonwilderness (Mar 14, 2014)

Mr.Bishie said:


> A bun fight about lens hoods! Awesome Urban!


Stop sitting on the fence


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Mar 14, 2014)




----------



## Buckaroo (Mar 14, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Well, yeah, I mis-spelt it.



you misspelt shit


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 14, 2014)

Mr.Bishie said:


> A bun fight about lens hoods! Awesome Urban!


it's a proud day when we find a new subject to mercilessly pelt someone with shit about  and this is such a day


----------



## weltweit (Mar 14, 2014)

Bloody hell, most popular thread in photography for years!


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 14, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Bloody hell, most popular thread in photography for years!


yeh, everyone likes putting the boot into Bungle73


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Mar 14, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> it's a proud day when we find a new subject to mercilessly pelt someone with shit about  and this is such a day



lol


----------



## Tankus (Mar 14, 2014)

neonwilderness said:


> I keep mine attached to my lenses all the time, either forwards when in use or backwards when not.  That way I know where it is, so when I need to use it I don't realise that it's sat in another bag at home or something.
> 
> I'm clearly an idiot.



Me too  ,at least on my 300 mm  

The hood on that , is 68mm ring and wont fit any of my other lenses ,  it takes up no extra space in the bag backwards , and I leave it on even if I don't use it ....

works for me too , It hasn't occurred to me to look to see if other people do the same thing ? ...but I shall now after reading this thread ! .... these are things that need to be known  .


----------



## weltweit (Mar 14, 2014)

20mm sometimes use a rubber lens hood
50mm, usually don't bother, lens is recessed anyhow
85mm sometimes use the supplied hood but lens is recessed
28-70mm usually use the supplied plastic hood
80-400 use hood when out and about


----------



## paul russell999 (Mar 14, 2014)

Every time I need to know something now, I'm just going to see if Tony Northrup (sexiest geek alive) has made a YouTube video about it. Very useful thread. Thanks.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Mar 14, 2014)

weltweit said:


> 20mm sometimes use a rubber lens hood
> 50mm, usually don't bother, lens is recessed anyhow
> 85mm sometimes use the supplied hood but lens is recessed
> 28-70mm usually use the supplied plastic hood
> 80-400 use hood when out and about



Lens hood pr0n


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 14, 2014)

Mr.Bishie said:


> lol


lol? 

LOL?


----------



## Tankus (Mar 14, 2014)

bloody hell ...I just posted from page 1 without  realising theres another 4 pages of this  ,errr , semantic faux pas ?......... I dont think I can work up the will to go through them .....sorry if I've repeated more than the ones I already have .....


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Mar 14, 2014)

Tankus said:


> bloody hell ...I just posted from page 1 without  realising theres another 4 pages of this  ,errr , semantic faux pas ?......... I dont think I can work up the will to go through them .....sorry if I've repeated more than the ones I already have .....



Read the thread, it's a hoot!


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 14, 2014)

Tankus said:


> bloody hell ...I just posted from page 1 without  realising theres another 4 pages of this  ,errr , semantic faux pas ?......... I dont think I can work up the will to go through them .....sorry if I've repeated more than the ones I already have .....


the executive summary: Bungle73's a muddle-headed wazzock and therefore wrong.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 14, 2014)

editor said:


> He's started this thread to basically tell any photographer here that unless they're doing things his way, _they're wrong_. I'd say that's fairly inflammatory myself.



If that's what he did, it's kind of childish as opposed to inflammatory.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 14, 2014)

Tankus said:


> Me too  ,at least on my 300 mm	.



To me, 300mm lens photography is cheating.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Mar 14, 2014)

stfu Johnny


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 14, 2014)

Mr.Bishie said:


> stfu Johnny


 I thought it was time for a new inflammatory statement.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Mar 14, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I thought it was time for a new inflammatory statement.



You've blown it now.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 14, 2014)

Mr.Bishie said:


> You've blown it now.



What awesome power in these two hunt and peck index fingers.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 14, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> To me, 300mm lens photography is cheating.


good.

next.


----------



## Corax (Mar 14, 2014)

I don't see the point in fancy cameras with optical lenses these days. My phone is 26 megapixels with a x30 zoom.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 14, 2014)

Corax said:


> I don't see the point in fancy cameras with optical lenses these days. My phone is 26 megapixels with a x30 zoom.




...and a tiny tiny sensor.


----------



## editor (Mar 14, 2014)

I just wear a hood and sketch things instead.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 14, 2014)

I wear a baseball cap in the rain, but never backwards. Nowadays around here, the only people with baseball caps backwards, are 14 year olds; or undercover police officers.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 14, 2014)

Corax said:


> I don't see the point in fancy cameras with optical lenses these days. My phone is 26 megapixels with a x30 zoom.


A phone doesn't come anywhere near to equalling the quality of even a budget DSLR, no matter how many megapixels it's got.  Have a look at this website, and compare the sensor size of a phone to any DSLR - the difference is enormous: 
http://cameraimagesensor.com/

Not to mention a DSLR lens outshines the one a phone by about a million times.

Oh and is that "30x zoom" digital, as I suspect it is? Digital zoom gives a completly rubbish picture.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Mar 14, 2014)




----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 14, 2014)

Camera phones are probably more than adequate, though, for the photos that most people want to take: friends at concerts, babies, the dog, the picnic at the beach etc.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 14, 2014)

Corax said:


> I don't see the point in fancy cameras with optical lenses these days. My phone is 26 megapixels with a x30 zoom.


out of curiosity how is it for getting a cop's shoulder numbers from 50 yards?


----------



## editor (Mar 14, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> A phone doesn't come anywhere near to equalling the quality of even a budget DSLR, no matter how many megapixels it's got.  Have a look at this website, and compare the sensor size of a phone to any DSLR - the difference is enormous:
> http://cameraimagesensor.com/
> 
> Not to mention a DSLR lens outshines the one a phone by about a million times.


About a "million times" you say?

http://connect.dpreview.com/post/5533410947/smartphones-versus-dslr-versus-film


----------



## Corax (Mar 14, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> A phone doesn't come anywhere near to equalling the quality of even a budget DSLR, no matter how many megapixels it's got.  Have a look at this website, and compare the sensor size of a phone to any DSLR - the difference is enormous:
> http://cameraimagesensor.com/
> 
> Not to mention a DSLR lens outshines the one a phone by about a million times.
> ...


Brilliant. Just brilliant. I couldn't have done it better had I written it myself


----------



## Corax (Mar 14, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> out of curiosity how is it for getting a cop's shoulder numbers from 50 yards?


They never seem to show up for some reason


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 14, 2014)

editor said:


> About a "million times" you say?
> 
> http://connect.dpreview.com/post/5533410947/smartphones-versus-dslr-versus-film




First off - I question the validity of a lot of online 'reviewing'.

Second: would you give up your Lumix etc in favor of a camera phone?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 14, 2014)

I'd just like to say here that anyone who uses HDR is a wanker. Also, Instagram. And film rules.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 14, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> out of curiosity how is it for getting a cop's shoulder numbers from 50 yards?


It's only on easy mode that they have numbers on their shoulders.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 14, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I'd just like to say here that anyone who uses HDR is a wanker.


I think you're wrong about that.  HDR done wrong is no good. HDR done right can be excellent.

A couple of my best images, both HDR:

http://500px.com/photo/60827690

http://500px.com/photo/60827688


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 14, 2014)

HOW CAN YOU BE SO WRONG

LOOK AT THESE YOUTUBES


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Mar 14, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> I think you're wrong about that.  HDR done wrong is no good. HDR done right can be excellent.
> 
> A couple of my best images, both HDR:
> 
> ...


nice photos to be fair.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 14, 2014)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> nice photos to be fair.


Thanks.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 14, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> HOW CAN YOU BE SO WRONG
> 
> LOOK AT THESE YOUTUBES


Soooooooooooooooooo......just because something is on YT it means it's "no good", huh?  Even when the person in it is an authoritative source? Please.................


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 14, 2014)

I feel quite bad about taking the piss stroke being deliberately abusive now.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 14, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Soooooooooooooooooo......just because something is on YT it means it's "no good", huh?  Even when the person in it is an authoritative source? Please.................


pls change the record


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 14, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I feel quite bad about taking the piss stroke being deliberately abusive now.


Um, don't tell fucking lies.


Pickman's model said:


> pls change the record


Fuck off.  Shit face started in case you didn't notice in post@175.

Jusus.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 14, 2014)

You're the one being abusive. I don't know who the fucking hell you think you are.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Mar 14, 2014)

i'd go to bed if i was you.


----------



## editor (Mar 14, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> First off - I question the validity of a lot of online 'reviewing'.
> 
> Second: would you give up your Lumix etc in favor of a camera phone?


1. That is a very well respected site.

2.You seemed to have pulled that question out of thin air.

I was responding to the daft claim that a dSLR - any one, from any time apparently - is a "million times better" than a camera phone. In fact, in optimum conditions, it can be hard to tell the difference between a high end camera phone (like the new Lumias) and a dSLR unless examined closely. I certainly sometimes can't immediately tell the difference between a daylight landscape taken on my S4 and a LX5.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 14, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Um, don't tell fucking lies.
> 
> Fuck off.  Shit face started in case you didn't notice in post@175.
> 
> Jusus.


more poo poo from you


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 14, 2014)

editor said:


> 1. That is a very well respected site.
> 
> 2.You seemed to have pulled that question out of thin air.
> 
> I was responding to the daft claim that a dSLR - any one, from any time apparently - is a "million times better" than a camera phone. In fact, in optimum conditions, it can be hard to tell the difference between a high end camera phone (like the new Lumias) and a dSLR unless examined closely. I certainly sometimes can't immediately tell the difference between a daylight landscape taken on my S4 and a LX5.


Under "optimal conditions"? In other words a DSLR trumps a phone almost every other time.  How many pros are using camera phones and not DSLRs? None! Why is that? 

Why don't you try getting a shallow DoF effect with a camera phone. Good luck with that.


----------



## cybertect (Mar 14, 2014)

This thread is rather amusing


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Mar 14, 2014)

cybertect said:


> This thread is rather amusing


it's the reverse ferret of all reverse ferrets quite frankly.

but did he keep his power dry?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 14, 2014)

cybertect said:


> This thread is rather amusing


I don't know, he's having some sort of meltdown and I'm feeling bad about poking him during it.


----------



## editor (Mar 14, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> In other words a DSLR trumps a phone almost every other time.  How many pros are using camera phones and not DSLRs? None! Why is that?


Hold on. You can't be this ignorant, can you?

Loads of pros use smartphones (as well as their regular cameras) and loads of smartphone photos have made it into print. Some have even made front covers, including this one taken on an iPhone.







Oh and an entire newspaper in the US switched to iPhones. Here. Learn:  http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/1/43...ire-photography-staff-trains-reporters-iphone


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Mar 14, 2014)

editor said:


> Hold on. You can't be this ignorant, can you?
> 
> Loads of pros use smartphones (as well as their regular cameras) and loads of smartphone photos have made it into print. Some have even made front covers, including this one taken on an iPhone.
> 
> Oh and an entire newspaper in the US switched to iPhones. Here. Learn:  http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/1/43...ire-photography-staff-trains-reporters-iphone


oh jebus, are you on drugs?


----------



## editor (Mar 14, 2014)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> oh jebus, are you on drugs?


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 14, 2014)

editor said:


> Loads of pros use smartphones (as well as their regular cameras)


As well as their regular cameras: exactly.



> and loads of smartphone photos have made it into print. Some have even made front covers, including this one taken on an iPhone.



The guy admits a phone as a lot of imitations.



> Oh and an entire newspaper in the US switched to iPhones. Here. Learn:  http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/1/43...ire-photography-staff-trains-reporters-iphone


Um, that story is not quite what you're making out.  What in fact happened is they sacked all their in-house photographers and gave iPhones to the remaining journlists to take photos.  They are still going to use freelance photographers.


----------



## Corax (Mar 14, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I don't know, he's having some sort of meltdown and I'm feeling bad about poking him during it.


Aye, me too. Seems a genuine possibility that he's ill tbh, so perhaps the pitchforks should be saved for another day.  IMO.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 14, 2014)

Corax said:


> Aye, me too. Seems a genuine possibility that he's ill tbh, so perhaps the pitchforks should be saved for another day.  IMO.


Well, I'm not saying anything about how other people should behave, it just started to feel a bit weird.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 14, 2014)

Mike Browne has an iPhone he takes snaps with - in fact he has a whole video about taking images with one - but do you think he'd use one on a job? I very much doubt it.

Oh, and this guy that you were pooh poohing earlier has what are probably the best, most well explained, photography tutorial videos on the internet. And for free.


----------



## editor (Mar 14, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> The guy admits a phone as a lot of imitations.


But pros are using iPhones for professional work, thus evaporating your 'argument.'


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 14, 2014)

editor said:


> But pros are using iPhones for professional work, thus evaporating your 'argument.'


Alongside DSLRs, which is what I said.

I went to that Time cover guy's website:



> Canon or Nikon?
> Canon for now.
> 
> - from Pop Photo interview- My gear has varied throughout the years, but I usually carry two workhorse DSLRs. Right now it's two Canon 5D Mark IIs. I have a 24-70 that I hardly ever use in my bag as a backup in case everything else blows up, but I use prime lenses. I have a 35mm, a 50mm and a 135mm. Occasionally I'll use a wide angle, like a 20mm or a 24mm, but it depends on the situation. In Haiti, I used a 20mm lens. Lately in Afghanistan, I was just using a 35mm and a 50mm. I also carry a film camera -- usually something that shoots 6x6. It's either a Mamiya 6 or a Holga, which I use to make these long panoramics. Lately I've been using my iPhone quite a bit. That's always around.



http://www.benlowy.com/#/faqs


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 14, 2014)

Photography: it's really just imitating the habits of famous photographers.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Mar 14, 2014)

editor said:


>


i thought that's what we're supposed to post after anyone else's comments after o/p points out the reason for their stupidity?


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 14, 2014)

Ken rockwell has this to say on his "how to spot an amateur page":



> *Hood on backwards*
> 
> If you use a hood, leave it on the lens in the shooting position.
> 
> ...



pfft.  Amateurs.

*runs away*


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 14, 2014)

p.s.  before I lost it, my lens hood was always on backwards.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 14, 2014)

> I use caps that fit over the front of any hoods that I use. No one promotes this, but often a larger cap size will fit in the front of a hood. This is a lot better than having to unscrew a hood each time, and the round cap inside the front of the hood helps keep the hood from getting bangs in a bag.



Sounds like he's using screw on hoods (which are rubbish) and not proper ones that go with the lens, but then this is the guy that tells everyone to shoot JPEG and that RAW is no good.


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 14, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> delete



delete what?


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 14, 2014)

fractionMan said:


> delete what?


I posted something, then changed my mind. Then posted something else, above. ^


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 14, 2014)

Ken rockwell takes photos with an iPhone though.  So what now?

Life can be confusing.


----------



## neonwilderness (Mar 14, 2014)

editor said:


> I was responding to the daft claim that a dSLR - any one, from any time apparently - is a "million times better" than a camera phone. In fact, in optimum conditions, it can be hard to tell the difference between a high end camera phone (like the new Lumias) and a dSLR unless examined closely. I certainly sometimes can't immediately tell the difference between a daylight landscape taken on my S4 and a LX5.


I might even go further and say that the photos from my iphone are sometimes better than those from my 20D (before editing).


----------



## editor (Mar 14, 2014)

fractionMan said:


> Ken rockwell takes photos with an iPhone though.  So what now?
> 
> Life can be confusing.


I've sold a picture taken on my smartphone. Client was perfectly happy. In fact, they never even knew that it wasn't taken on a 'proper'  camera.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 15, 2014)

neonwilderness said:


> I might even go further and say that the photos from my iphone are sometimes better than those from my 20D (before editing).


But the 20D is about a million years old.....well not quite that much, but it is very old.


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 15, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> But the 20D is about a million years old.....well not quite that much, but it is very old.



If you can't take a good photo with that camera, you will never be able to take a good photo.


----------



## editor (Mar 15, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> But the 20D is about a million years old.....well not quite that much, but it is very old.


Running hard to keep up with the goalpost shifting here.


----------



## Corax (Mar 15, 2014)

Well, my smartphone post was intended as a pisstake 'inflammatory' statement, but I guess you learn something every day...


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 15, 2014)

tbf, it's pretty hard to take a good photo with _my_ crappy phone, but totally doable.


----------



## Sweet FA (Mar 15, 2014)

Can we change the photo competition theme to 'lens hoods'? Fucking _hot_ topic.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 15, 2014)

fractionMan said:


> If you can't take a good photo with that camera, you will never be able to take a good photo.


Um, we're talking about image quality. 



editor said:


> Running hard to keep up with the goalpost shifting here.


I haven't moved anything. You're the one that starting bringing up DSLRs from the long and distant past and comparing them to a smartphone released recently.


----------



## neonwilderness (Mar 15, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> But the 20D is about a million years old.....well not quite that much, but it is very old.


It's 10 years old and happens to be the DSLR I use.  I also take photos with an iphone. 

The 20D takes great photos, but in certain situations then the phone is better suited.


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 15, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Um, we're talking about image quality.



The guy who agrees with you about lens hoods has this to say about cameras:



> Pens are all very different, but they have far less to do with what's written than what's written. Would you rather have a $10 check written out to you with a fancy pen, or a $10,000 check written with a BIC ballpoint?


----------



## Sweet FA (Mar 15, 2014)

editor said:


> I've sold a picture taken on my smartphone.


Whatevs. I myself have garnered actual likes on this very website for phone pics. Stick a lens hood on that pal. Whichever way round you like.


----------



## editor (Mar 15, 2014)

Why won't Apple invent a lens hood-shaped iPhone?


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 15, 2014)

There's nowt wrong with camera phones... I took this with a Nokia N95 about 6 or 7 years ago.







I have the original somewhere and the quality was excellent, even back then, and they're much better now.

And Ken Rockwell is a twat.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 15, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> .
> 
> A couple of my best images, both HDR:



You're an HDR man.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 15, 2014)

editor said:


> I've sold a picture taken on my smartphone. Client was perfectly happy. In fact, they never even knew that it wasn't taken on a 'proper'  camera.



How many have you sold that were taken on your 'proper' camera?

A million times more, I bet.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 15, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> There's nowt wrong with camera phones... I took this with a Nokia N95 about 6 or 7 years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Is this supposed to be an example of a high-quality photo?


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 15, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Is this supposed to be an example of a high-quality photo?



No, it's supposed to be a low quality JPG (it's less than 200KB) that was cropped from a higher quality image.
Would you like me to find the original for you, maybe do a signed print and frame it for you?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 15, 2014)

If that's a camera phone photo, I'll stick to my DSLRs and SLRs, thank you very much.  It's not a terrible photo by any means, but the quality of the image isn't high. The quality of a photo is limited by the equipment used to take it.


----------



## editor (Mar 15, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> If that's a camera phone photo, I'll stick to my DSLRs and SLRs, thank you very much.  It's not a terrible photo by any means, but the quality of the image isn't high. The quality of a photo is limited by the equipment used to take it.


This was taken on my S4. I also took a similar picture on my Ricoh GR (which has a dSLR sensor). 

When I was reviewing the photos I chose to publish this one instead of the GR one.

In the right conditions, a good cameraphone will take a picture that will be just about indistinguishable _in normal use _from a dSLR one.


----------



## editor (Mar 15, 2014)

And in case anyone doubts it...


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 15, 2014)

editor said:


> This was taken on my S4. I also took a similar picture on my Ricoh GR (which has a dSLR sensor).
> 
> When I was reviewing the photos I chose to publish this one instead of the GR one.
> 
> ...



I've not denied that passable photos can  be taken on camera phones; and probably photos that would be acceptable as photojournalism. But the only way to compare image quality, would be to take that image on an S4, then the identical image on a Nikon DF, for instance.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 15, 2014)

The image above looks has a sharp focus on the face, but the focus falls off with the newspaper at the bottom of the image. A more complex autofocus system, such as found in a mid level DSLR, would be able to handle both.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 15, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> There's nowt wrong with camera phones


No, but DSLRs are much better cameras all round.


Johnny Canuck3 said:


> You're an HDR man.


Nothing wrong with HDR when used subtly


editor said:


> This was taken on my S4. I also took a similar picture on my Ricoh GR (which has a dSLR sensor).
> 
> When I was reviewing the photos I chose to publish this one instead of the GR one.
> 
> In the right conditions, a good cameraphone will take a picture that will be just about indistinguishable _in normal use _from a dSLR one.


"In the right conditions": exactly.

Now try taking a picture in low light, then try a macro shot, then try taking one of something far away, then a sport's action shot, then a long exposure shot, then try getting a narrow DoF shot.  There's a reason people buy DSLRs.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 15, 2014)

I was initially impressed with the camera on an iPhone. On the phone images look quite good. But import into a PC and examine them large, usually they start to fall down, often there is motion blur and it is only really happy taking images in good light.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 15, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I was initially impressed with the camera on an iPhone. On the phone images look quite good. But import into a PC and examine them large, usually they start to fall down, often there is motion blur and it is only really happy taking images in good light.


What do you expect from a camera that has a sensor about the size of your little finger?


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 15, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I was initially impressed with the camera on an iPhone. On the phone images look quite good. But import into a PC and examine them large, usually they start to fall down, often there is motion blur and it is only really happy taking images in good light.


I was just about to come back and make that point.  It's all very well posting a couple of substantially reduced size images, but let's compare them with a DSLR's at 1:1 and then I'm sure the DSLR's differences would shine through.

There's no doubt about it, modern camera phones make nice snapshot cameras, and are perfectly capable of holding their own against the fast-disappearing point-and-shoots, but they are no match for the capabilities of a DSLR.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 15, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> There's no doubt about it, modern camera phones make nice snapshot cameras, .



Of course there's no doubt; there was just a lot of contrariness on this thread earlier.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 15, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> What do you expect from a camera that has a sensor about the size of your little finger?


I had been told iPhone cameras were good, it was interesting to find out - how good - for myself.


----------



## Sweet FA (Mar 15, 2014)

This thread is comedy gold. "You can take quite good pictures with a phone" "WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT YOU FUCKING AMATEUR? DSLRs ARE MUCH BETTER!" "Yes but phones are much better than they used to be" "OF COURSE DSLRs ARE BETTER, THEY'VE GOT BUTTONS AND HOODS AND FOCUSES" "Are you alright?" "YOU CUUUUUUUUUNT"


----------



## editor (Mar 15, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The image above looks has a sharp focus on the face, but the focus falls off with the newspaper at the bottom of the image. A more complex autofocus system, such as found in a mid level DSLR, would be able to handle both.


Would it really, Johnny? At f2.2?


----------



## editor (Mar 15, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Now try taking a picture in low light, then try a macro shot, then try taking one of something far away, then a sport's action shot, then a long exposure shot, then try getting a narrow DoF shot.  There's a reason people buy DSLRs.


And he's off again!


----------



## marty21 (Mar 15, 2014)

Early contender for thread of the year


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 15, 2014)

editor said:


> And he's off again!


You're the that's "off again".  I made a simple statement, that DSLRs are better than camera phones.....which they are....and you keep coming out with "But my phone takes nice pictures in perfect conditions when there's r in the month so that obviously means DSLRs aren't better at all!"


----------



## editor (Mar 15, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> You're the that's "off again".  I made a simple statement, that DSLRs are better than camera phones.....which they are....and you keep coming out with "But my phone takes nice pictures in perfect conditions when there's r in the month so that obviously means DSLRs aren't better at all!"


You said they were a "million times" better without specifying a shedload of wriggly caveats about specific shooting conditions. You said that smartphones were never used by pros, except an entire newspaper office kitted out their staff with them, and they've graced prestigious front covers. 

Your problem is you're really not very knowledgeable in this subject and make the tragic mistake of making statements without actually knowing the facts first.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 15, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> I made a simple statement, that DSLRs are better than camera phones.....



What people are telling you is that with photography as with many things you have to make trade-offs. If you want a super-dooper sensor, ability to change lenses, etc, etc, then of course a DSLR is going to be the ticket. But if you just want something that takes decent photos in reasonable conditions at the drop of a hat, lugging round a DSLR is going to be a pointless pain in the bollocks and the iPhone in your arse pocket, or a compact, is perfect.


----------



## twentythreedom (Mar 15, 2014)

What have we learned about the people mentioned in the OP? There seems to be very little in this thread actually about them.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 15, 2014)

editor said:


> You said they were a "million times" better without specifying a shedload of wriggly caveats about specific shooting conditions. You said that smartphones were never used by pros, except an entire newspaper office kitted out their staff with them, and they've graced prestigious front covers.
> 
> Your problem is you're really not very knowledgeable in this subject and make the tragic mistake of making statements without actually knowing the facts first.


Actually, I think the problem is that you are now arguing for the sake of it.....either that or you have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Which is it?

First, you're the one bringing caveats into it by concentrating on one particular shooting condition as if that has any relevance to the argument whatsoever.

I just gave you around half a dozen examples of where a DSLR is better, but you're still obsessesed with your one picture taken in perfect conditions.

Did you actually read that article about the newspaper you quoted? As I already pointed out, the reason they are now using iPhone is because they SACKED their in-house photographers.  The people given phones aren't photographers, they're just regular journlists.  They are still going to employ freelance photographers, who presumably will be using DSLRs. So this idea that they've got completely iPhone-only is nonsense.  And it was a cost-cutting measure, nothing more.

And just because a few images from a phone have been on a magazine cover, it in no way at all means a DSLR is not superior. A few images mind you,  taken by someone who is still mainly using DSLRs.


----------



## neonwilderness (Mar 15, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> And just because a few images from a phone have been on a magazine cover, it in no way at all means a DSLR is not superior.


No one is disputing that 

But that's not to say that phones aren't capable of producing decent quality images that can also be used (see editor's example for instance).


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 15, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> What people are telling you is that with photography as with many things you have to make trade-offs. If you want a super-dooper sensor, ability to change lenses, etc, etc, then of course a DSLR is going to be the ticket. But if you just want something that takes decent photos in reasonable conditions, lugging round a DSLR is going to be a pointless pain in the bollocks and the iPhone in your arse pocket, or a compact, is perfect.


Um, that's not the argument being had here.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Mar 15, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Um, that's not the argument being had here.


What is it then? Quick quick! No re-reading!!


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 15, 2014)

5t3IIa said:


> What is it then? Quick quick! No re-reading!!


It is "Is a DSLR technologically superior to a camera phone".


----------



## existentialist (Mar 15, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> I reckon Bungle is some reinvention of Tobyjug.


Well, I guess there was a vacancy there. I look forward to Mr Bungle's entry for the "Boat Happy" competition


----------



## neonwilderness (Mar 15, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> It is "Is a DSLR technologically superior to a camera phone".


I thought we were talking about lens hoods and drugged up idiots who store them on their lenses?


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 15, 2014)

neonwilderness said:


> I thought we were talking about lens hoods and drugged up idiots who store them on their lenses?


That was about a dozen arguments ago.


----------



## editor (Mar 15, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> It is "Is a DSLR technologically superior to a camera phone".


That's not what you claimed in the first place, you deceitful little shit.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 15, 2014)

Corax said:


> I don't see the point in fancy cameras with optical lenses these days. My phone is 26 megapixels with a x30 zoom.


Tsk 

(mind you, he bit, didn't he? )


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 15, 2014)

editor said:


> That's not what you claimed in the first place, you deceitful little shit.


Um, yes it is.  That is exactly what I claimed. And also what we've been arguing about for the past god knows how many pages.

You know someone's lost the argument when a)they start getting abusive, and b) they start claiming that the original argument wasn't the one that were having in the first place, when it clearly was.


----------



## editor (Mar 15, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> A phone doesn't come anywhere near to equalling the quality of even a budget DSLR, no matter how many megapixels it's got.


You really haven't much of a clue when it comes to photography because this a statement from Planet Idiot. That is all.


----------



## editor (Mar 15, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> You know someone's lost the argument when a)they start getting abusive..


Rarely have I self-pwnage so complete as this:


Bungle73 said:


> Um, don't tell fucking lies.
> 
> Fuck off.  Shit face started in case you didn't notice in post@175.



Posted yesterday.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 15, 2014)

editor said:


> You really haven't much of a clue when it comes to photography because this a statement from Planet Idiot. That is all.




I really don't have time for your games any more.

Do this:

Go onto a photography forum - pick any one - and pose this question:

Which is the superior camera, a phone or a DSLR?

Then post the results back here.

Kthxbye.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 15, 2014)

fractionMan said:


> p.s.  before I lost it, my lens hood was always on backwards.


I wonder what Bungle was doing before he lost it?


----------



## existentialist (Mar 15, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> I really don't have time for your games any more.
> 
> Do this:
> 
> ...


What, and do all your legwork for you?

Invariably, when people rise to challenges such as yours and get an answer the challenger doesn't like, all kinds of special pleading ensues - "ah, you went to THAT forum?"; "Oh, well, he WOULD say that"; "well, yes, but those were different circumstances", etc.

Pointless. Almost as pointless, in fact, as the three or four arguments you've managed to have on this thread.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 15, 2014)

My camera club runs competitions which I don't normally enter, but I might try to score a 10 or a win with an image from my iPhone.

I know its limitations, deep dof, only good in good light, prone to motion blur etc, but a limited landscape, or a head and shoulders portrait with a clean background might work.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 15, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Um, that's not the argument being had here.



Well that's precisely the argument you were having here (comparing an S4 to a Ricoh):




			
				Bungle73 said:
			
		

> Now try taking a picture in low light, then try a macro shot, then try taking one of something far away, then a sport's action shot, then a long exposure shot, then try getting a narrow DoF shot. There's a reason people buy DSLRs.



You're arguing that a DSLR is better than a cameraphone in all those situations. The massive, massive, advantage that cameraphones have is portability and therefore useability which kind of fucks your question regarding which is "better".


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 15, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Well that's precisely the argument you were having here (comparing an S4 to a Ricoh):


It's not actually.



> You're arguing that a DSLR is better than a cameraphone in all those situations. The massive, massive, advantage that cameraphones have is portability and therefore useability which kind of fucks your question regarding which is "better".


Um, no it doesn't.  And that is ONE thing, and one thing that someone primarily concerned with image quality - which is what we are talking about here - would not be that concerned with most of the time.

What is the predominant camera type of choice for amateur photographers, and for pros?  It's a DSLR. Case closed.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 15, 2014)




----------



## neonwilderness (Mar 15, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> What is the predominant camera type of choice for amateur photographers, and for pros?  It's a DSLR. Case closed.


Got any facts to back that up with before you declare "case closed"?

Also how are you defining amateur?  Anyone who takes photos that isn't a pro, or something more restrictive that suits your argument?


----------



## neonwilderness (Mar 15, 2014)

existentialist said:


> What, and do all your legwork for you?
> 
> Invariably, when people rise to challenges such as yours and get an answer the challenger doesn't like, all kinds of special pleading ensues - "ah, you went to THAT forum?"; "Oh, well, he WOULD say that"; "well, yes, but those were different circumstances", etc.
> 
> Pointless. Almost as pointless, in fact, as the three or four arguments you've managed to have on this thread.


Careful, you might get reported to Amateur Photography for saying things like that.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 15, 2014)

If photographers are those who take photographs, there are millions of camera phones in the UK now.


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 15, 2014)

DSLRs are crap for making phone calls.  Phones win.  Case closed.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 15, 2014)

neonwilderness said:


> Got any facts to back that up with before you declare "case closed"?
> 
> Also how are you defining amateur?  Anyone who takes photos that isn't a pro, or something more restrictive that suits your argument?


I think it was abundantly clear what I meant. But very well. I mean people who have a serious interest in photography and make a hobby out of it.


----------



## fuck seals (Mar 15, 2014)

Chap's got a problem.  

Consistently starts a thread about a fairly innocuous subject and makes a mild questionable statement about it.  Amazon, the red hanky people, disabled access to trains, et al.  Again & again.

When questioned he retreats to a _you-all-have-an-urban-hive-mind_ position; entrenches his position; exclaims massive disbelief that no-one can see the bleeding obvious; resorts to exaggeration, generalizing from the particular, cries wolf, and a whole bunch of other highly disingenuous tactics to extend the thread's life.

He likes the attention, he likes the persecution

I'm fucking sick of it; it's disruptive, ill-mannered, tedious, and adds nothing to the site.  editor - i petition for a ban.


----------



## neonwilderness (Mar 15, 2014)

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...to-insight-with-david-ward-iphone-photography



> I mentioned the ritual of shooting on 5x4, and what I mean by this is that when you work with that kind of camera there are a series of steps you must engage in to produce an image that's usable. This slows you down. In a way that's a good thing, because it makes you look at your subject so you can't make a quick snap. This can help you see connections you might otherwise have missed. However, one of the things you may miss out on is the more ephemeral moments that present themselves to you. Some events, such as a patch of light or a subject moving quickly, are fleeting and you can miss them while setting up your 5x4.


He clearly hasn't got a clue


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 15, 2014)

Right. After endlessly searching the internet for some kind of poll about this.  I found this:

Question: Will Mobile Phones Eventually Replace DSLRs Completely?

Result: 93.03% NO
			6.97% YES

http://www.diyphotography.net/previous-polls/

There you have it.



fuck seals said:


> Chap's got a problem.
> 
> Consistently starts a thread about a fairly innocuous subject and makes a mild questionable statement about it.  Amazon, the red hanky people, disabled access to trains, et al.  Again & again.
> 
> ...


Who exactly are you? Because I've never heard of you. Do you spend all of your time entering into threads for the pure reason of posting an off-topic pointless and illogical rant?


neonwilderness said:


> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...to-insight-with-david-ward-iphone-photography
> 
> 
> He clearly hasn't got a clue


I fail to see how that in any way invalidates anything I have said.


----------



## neonwilderness (Mar 15, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Right. After endlessly searching the internet for some kind of poll about this.  I found this:


By endless you mean until you found something that suited your argument?  No one has said that phones will completely replace SLRs.


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 15, 2014)

science


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 15, 2014)

neonwilderness said:


> By endless you mean until you found something that suited your argument?




Funny how a source that backs me up is "wrong".  How typical. OK, wise guy, go and find another poll......if you can.


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 15, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Funny how a source that backs me up is "wrong".  How typical. OK, wise guy, got and find another poll......if you can.



nobody on this thread has said "Mobile Phones Eventually Replace DSLRs Completely"


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 15, 2014)

quality bugle once more


----------



## neonwilderness (Mar 15, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Funny how a source that backs me up is "wrong".  How typical. OK, wise guy, go and find another poll......if you can.


I'm not the one making ridiculous claims, but here you go:
http://digital-photography-school.com/77-of-dps-readers-take-a-camera-everywhere-poll-results

According to that amateur photographers carrying a camera phone all the time is on the increase, but DSLRs are on the decrease.  It might be bollocks, I'm sure if I searched endlessly I could find something completely different.


----------



## neonwilderness (Mar 15, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> quality bugle once more


You've been Bungled.


----------



## Corax (Mar 15, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I thought it was time for a new inflammatory statement.


Mine got better results


----------



## existentialist (Mar 15, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Right. After endlessly searching the internet for some kind of poll about this.  I found this:
> 
> Question: Will Mobile Phones Eventually Replace DSLRs Completely?
> 
> ...


 So you now recruit some random internet poll in support of an objective claim.

Are you really this superficial, or are you just playing at being like that for a laugh? (I really hope it is the latter...)


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 15, 2014)

existentialist said:


> So you now recruit some random internet poll in support of an objective claim.
> 
> Are you really this superficial, or are you just playing at being like that for a laugh? (I really hope it is the latter...)


he is that superficial


----------



## existentialist (Mar 15, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> he is that superficial


We're giving him far too much attention, then


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 15, 2014)

neonwilderness said:


> I'm not the one making ridiculous claims, but here you go:
> http://digital-photography-school.com/77-of-dps-readers-take-a-camera-everywhere-poll-results
> 
> According to that amateur photographers carrying a camera phone all the time is on the increase, but DSLRs are on the decrease.  It might be bollocks, I'm sure if I searched endlessly I could find something completely different.


tbh no one is going to carry a dslr all the time. if i'm going out to take pictures i'll often take a bridge camera, i save my dslr for things i want really good pictures of. but i always carry a little lumix with me on the off-chance i'll see something.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 15, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> tbh no one is going to carry a dslr all the time. if i'm going out to take pictures i'll often take a bridge camera, i save my dslr for things i want really good pictures of. but i always carry a little lumix with me on the off-chance i'll see something.


I've got a DSLR-a-like (Fuji S7000). I like it, it takes very good pictures despite the twit behind it (and it doesn't have a lens cover, although I'd put it on backwards after reading this thread if it had, just to reduce Bungle to a frothing rage).

But it eats batteries, which means that I really need to have a couple of sets of AAs on permanent charge, and it's bulky.

Meanwhile, I have a Galaxy S4 in my pocket pretty much all the time. I can charge it up in the car, I have a battery pack for it that lasts forever, and if I see something I want to take a picture of, I can have it out of my pocket, switched on, and in camera mode in seconds, rather than having to unzip the "proper" camera from its bag, switch it on, find out the batteries are on their last legs, swap for a spare set, and put the camera to my eye, only to find the the wildebeest is now in the next county.

And then, when I get home, I have to find my card reader, pull the memory card from the camera, put it into the card reader, copy the files onto the PC, and get them into a directory somewhere before I even think about tagging my friends in them on Facebook.

Meanwhile, as my car arrived outside the house, my mobile has spotted the home WiFi, logged into Dropbox, and is uploading the photos I've taken before I've even got the DSLR out of the boot again.

The photos that the Fuji takes would have to be a *lot* better than anything I could get from the Samsung in order to minimise the inconvenience of using it.

Guess which one tends to get used to take the most photos?


----------



## Belushi (Mar 15, 2014)

Excellent, 10 solid pages of Bungle making a tit of himself again


----------



## existentialist (Mar 15, 2014)

Belushi said:


> Excellent, 10 solid pages of Bungle making a tit of himself again


TBF, people have helped him, albeit mostly by providing him with a sufficiency of rope.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 15, 2014)

neonwilderness said:


> I'm not the one making ridiculous claims, but here you go:
> http://digital-photography-school.com/77-of-dps-readers-take-a-camera-everywhere-poll-results
> 
> According to that amateur photographers carrying a camera phone all the time is on the increase, but DSLRs are on the decrease.  It might be bollocks, I'm sure if I searched endlessly I could find something completely different.


Exactly how does that disprove what I said, that DSLRs are the better cameras??  It doesn't.  In fact if you actually looked at that poll, which you obivously haven't, it shows that far the most carried camera is a DSLR.

But no one....or at least most people....don't carry a DSLR with them 100% of the time anyway.  I suggest you go away and find a poll that says something of relevance.


existentialist said:


> So you now recruit some random internet poll in support of an objective claim.
> 
> Are you really this superficial, or are you just playing at being like that for a laugh? (I really hope it is the latter...)


It's not an "objective" claim. You know nothing about cameras. A DSLR is a superior camera to a phone.  This is a fact. The fact that you people keep arguing about it shows that you know nothing about it.

You know it's funny: I quote experts of some standing to back my case, and they "don't count".  I quote a poll on a photography website to back up another of my points and it's "wrong".  And then you have good old Ed, who keeps trying to wriggle his way out of the argument by brining up completely spurious points.  What ever I do or say, or not matter what evidence I bring to the table I'm always going to be "wrong". It's pathetic.



existentialist said:


> I've got a DSLR-a-like (Fuji S7000). I like it, it takes very good pictures despite the twit behind it (and it doesn't have a lens cover, although I'd put it on backwards after reading this thread if it had, just to reduce Bungle to a frothing rage).
> 
> But it eats batteries, which means that I really need to have a couple of sets of AAs on permanent charge, and it's bulky.
> 
> ...


That's a bridge camera, it's no better than an advanced point-and-shoot. The sensor size is tiny


----------



## twentythreedom (Mar 15, 2014)

..
.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 15, 2014)

> You probably don't need us to tell you that a proper DSLR camera is better than the camera on your smartphone. But if you're curious how much better it is, the folks at Bammo have a (slightly NSFW) video that explains everything you need to know.
> 
> The video's a little over a year old, and uses the iPhone 5 for comparison, but the general points remain true even today. A DSLR can take much better photos in low light, can take much better action shots, and can produce RAW images that are much better for manipulation. The iPhone doesn't suck if you use it right (and the Lumia cameras are even better), but a DSLR still produces noticeably better shots. If you haven't tried out a good DSLR or mirrorless camera before, it's worth knowing that the differences can be huge.



http://lifehacker.com/the-differences-between-a-dslr-and-smartphone-camera-i-1540339341


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 15, 2014)

> Although the DSLR market remains vibrant, we must acknowledge that smartphone cameras offer two advantages: if you already carry a phone, the built-in camera adds no extra weight and it is always at hand. Given the size and weight of DSLRs and lenses, those are big convenience factors.
> 
> Nonetheless, today’s smartphones cannot approach the quality of a DSLR and decent lens. For example, there is simply no way a smartphone could take this photo:
> 
> ...



http://www.zdnet.com/great-debate-have-smartphone-cameras-killed-the-dslr-7000017972/


----------



## 5t3IIa (Mar 15, 2014)

fractionMan said:


> science


Are you on drugs?!


----------



## Corax (Mar 15, 2014)

existentialist said:


> I've got a DSLR-a-like (Fuji S7000). I like it, it takes very good pictures despite the twit behind it (and it doesn't have a lens cover, although I'd put it on backwards after reading this thread if it had, just to reduce Bungle to a frothing rage).
> 
> But it eats batteries, which means that I really need to have a couple of sets of AAs on permanent charge, and it's bulky.
> 
> ...


What do you use to take photos with the S4? Since I got mine I've found it hard to take anything that's not blurry with the native app. Is there one with a bit of image stabilisation?


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 15, 2014)

Corax said:


> What do you use to take photos with the S4? Since I got mine I've found it hard to take anything that's not blurry with the native app. Is there one with a bit of image stabilisation?


It's probably camera shake if you're taking them in low light.  The trouble with phone cameras....or at least in my experience with mine (ie the iPhone) is that that they  don't let you know (or choose) what shutter speed you're using.  Shutter speed is key to eliminating camera shake.


----------



## neonwilderness (Mar 15, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Exactly how does that disprove what I said, that DSLRs are the better cameras??  It doesn't.


No one is disputing that that


----------



## Corax (Mar 15, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> It's pathetic.


What's pathetic is your utter inability to recognise WHY you're receiving the responses you are. It's got stuff all to do with *what* you've been posting and everything to do with *how* you've been posting. Your smug know-it-all narcissistic arrogance reminds me of a spoilt teenage brat; it's depressing to see it in a fully grown adult 

Although it has its comical side as well tbh, so do keep going.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> A lens hood isn't doing anything if it's on backwards.
> 
> 
> 
> Notice what he says about leaving the hood on the lens all time.  He also makes a good point that with the hood on backwards you can't access the lens's controls properly.




TBF, with most coated lenses (except really cheap crap) made in the last 30 years, lens hoods are only necessary for about 5% of outdoor shots.

The point about control access also depends entirely on the physical size of lens and lens hood.  If I leave the lens hood of my Tamron 28-70mm on backwards, it doesn't impinge on any camera controls, although the lens hood on my Tamron 24mm f2.5 would.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 15, 2014)

Corax said:


> What's pathetic is your utter inability to recognise WHY you're receiving the responses you are. It's got stuff all to do with *what* you've been posting and everything to do with *how* you've been posting. Your smug know-it-all narcissistic arrogance reminds me of a spoilt teenage brat; it's depressing to see it in a fully grown adult
> 
> Although it has its comical side as well tbh, so do keep going.


You must be reading a different thread from me.  I'm putting forward logical coherent arguments backed up with evidence, and all I'm seeing in return is "Wah! Wah! You're wrong!  Your experts are no good because I've never heard of them. Wah!"


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 15, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> TBF, with most coated lenses (except really cheap crap) made in the last 30 years, lens hoods are only necessary for about 5% of outdoor shots.
> 
> The point about control access also depends entirely on the physical size of lens and lens hood.  If I leave the lens hood of my Tamron 28-70mm on backwards, it doesn't impinge on any camera controls, although the lens hood on my Tamron 24mm f2.5 would.


Most..all...of the people I'm talking about are using what looks like a standard 18-55 kit lens, or something similar.  Which brings me back to what someone said earlier about extreme wide angle lenses with huge apertures.  That's not the kind of lens these people are using. If you're using that kind of lens you obviously know what you're doing....or should do.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2014)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Rubbish.
> 
> On a very wide angle, large aperture no lens hood would have any good effect.



Yep.  Most manufacturers base their designs on optimum functionality around f5.6-f8, and vignetting and impingement are possible when the lens is wide-open.



> The lens hoods which come with a lens are designed for the lens. However, they are always designed to be reversible for a very good reason. You think the manufacturers do that just for a laugh?



Nope, because it generally makes sense storage-wise, as we both know.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Why do yo need to "save space" if your camera is out in the open?



If you've got 40-50mm of lens hood on the end of 120-150mm of lens, some people will be more prone to bumping their camera into stuff with the lens hood on, rather than off.



> Because it leave the lens exposed to damage and dirt. Not to mention one can get stray light at any time.



Like I said, coated lenses rarely have trouble with stray light (how many pictures have you seen, even snapped by people using film or digi point & shoots, that have lens flare evident? I haven't seen any, except from so-called "lomographers").

Also, lack of a lens hood doesn't leave the lens exposed to dirt.  Lack of a "sacrificial" filter *might* leave the lens surface prone to dirt,, but a lens hood is only there for one reason - to cut stray light in the tiny minority of shooting situations where you might need it.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 15, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> If you've got 40-50mm of lens hood on the end of 120-150mm of lens, some people will be more prone to bumping their camera into stuff with the lens hood on, rather than off.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But that's not the only reason people have them on their lens.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2014)

paul russell999 said:


> The only time I use a lens hood is when it's drizzling - to keep rain off my lens. When it stops raining, I turn the lens hood round until I can be arsed to put it back in my bag. I don't care if this is illegal or not.



Was Judas Priest's "Breakin' the Law" playing in the background when you wrote this?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> So I say again, we're only supposed to listen to people who a) you've heard of, and b) agree with what you think?  What's you're experience?
> 
> A quote from Tony Northrup's book:



One issue with Mr. Northrup: A decent filter, made from optical glass (as all decent filters are - although Mr. Northrup appears to assume that people all use "cheap filters") will have an unnoticable effect on image quality, unless one is using scientific equipment to measure image quality with every shot they take.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Because in certain lighting situations here, the photos seem to look better. Actually, I swore by it. Last summer, I dropped my camera and the filter broke. I said 'fuck' so loud, that everyone within a block of me at Italian Days heard it. I haven't replaced it yet.



A mate has bought B & W UV filters for every lens he owns, although it's a sort of "religious" practice for him, as he was mugged for his Bronica, but the thief dropped it, straight onto the lens.  The B & W filter broke, but the front lens element came out unscathed.  Given that about £15 of expenditure saved him either paying a £120 excess on his camera insurance, or having to spend £350-400 on a new lens, he's fairly committed to this religious practice.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> To me, 300mm lens photography is cheating.



Personally, I quite like cheating with a 400mm lens, because it enables me to be a bigger cheat than with a 300mm lens.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> A phone doesn't come anywhere near to equalling the quality of even a budget DSLR, no matter how many megapixels it's got.  Have a look at this website, and compare the sensor size of a phone to any DSLR - the difference is enormous:
> http://cameraimagesensor.com/
> 
> Not to mention a DSLR lens outshines the one a phone by about a million times.
> ...



Digital zoom uses magnification of the sensor image, rather than mechanical magnification of the image before it arrives at the sensor, so of course it's not going to have quite the same degree of quality.

"Rubbish", though, is in the eye of the beholder.  For some pictures a degree of digital zoom is fine, although if I were using 30x digital zoom, I would do the maths (pixel count divided by amount of zoom) so that I'd know the amount of pixels that would comprise my image, and wouldn't expect miracles.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> ...and a tiny tiny sensor.



Some of them have got comparably-sized sensors (physical dimensions) to decent digi-compacts, although it is fair to say that some have got "fly-speck" sensors.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Photography: it's really just imitating the habits of famous photographers.



For some photographers it also seems to be about buying the same kit as famous photographers in the touching belief that it'll make them better at it, never realising that photography is an art as well as a technical practice.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Sounds like he's using screw on hoods (which are rubbish) and not proper ones that go with the lens, but then this is the guy that tells everyone to shoot JPEG and that RAW is no good.



Um, up until about 25 years ago, most lens hoods provided by manufacturers with their lenses were "screw on" rather than bayonet.

As for JPEG vs RAW, it's horses for courses.  Me, I have those cameras that can do so, set to record both at the same time (my DSLR and my Fuji compact), and the one that can't (an old Nikon 5400 "semi-pro" compact) set to RAW in preference to TIFF or JPEG), but only because RAW has better editing possibilities IMO.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2014)

fractionMan said:


> If you can't take a good photo with that camera, you will never be able to take a good photo.



This is why I like my "old skool" Pentax K100D.  The "limitations" make me think about what I'm doing - I have no-one and nothing to blame but myself if the picture is shite, because you *should* be able to take an excellent picture in most circumstances with a camera with a 6.3 million pixel APS-C sensor.


----------



## Corax (Mar 15, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> For some photographers it also seems to be about buying the same kit as famous photographers in the touching belief that it'll make them better at it, never realising that photography is an art as well as a technical practice.


"Art" my arse. It's just pointing it at stuff and pressing a button FFS.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> If that's a camera phone photo, I'll stick to my DSLRs and SLRs, thank you very much.  It's not a terrible photo by any means, but the quality of the image isn't high. The quality of a photo is limited by the equipment used to take it.



Load of bollocks. Bert Hardy proved all this nearly 70 years ago when he provided his employer with a magazine front page pic taken not with the standard LF press cameras of the time (stuff like Speed Graphics), but with a meniscus-lensed Kodak Brownie.
Equipment quality is just an excuse, unless the difference in quality is profound.  The difference between a phone's camera and an SLR (D or otherwise) isn't profound.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2014)

Corax said:


> "Art" my arse. It's just pointing it at stuff and pressing a button FFS.



It's art when I'm taking nudie pics of your mum.  She told me!


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 15, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> quality bugle once more


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 15, 2014)

editor said:


> Would it really, Johnny? At f2.2?



Is that the only f stop available?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 15, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> For some photographers it also seems to be about buying the same kit as famous photographers in the touching belief that it'll make them better at it,



They're like golfers in that way.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 15, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> The difference between a phone's camera and an SLR (D or otherwise) isn't profound.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> They're like golfers in that way.



Mmm, although better clubs (invariably better-balanced clubs) *can* make a difference for the better by improving your stance, whereas a better camera doesn't lend anything to improvement - if you don't have a decent "eye" for a picture, then a better camera doesn't help.


----------



## Corax (Mar 15, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's art when I'm taking nudie pics of your mum.  She told me!


That was actually just me in a wig. 

I'm not a big man


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 15, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Mmm, although better clubs (invariably better-balanced clubs) *can* make a difference for the better by improving your stance,



Maybe if the clubs have been measured for you; otherwise, it's knowledge that improves stance.

Expensive clubs don't make a bad player into a good one. Not even if they have a famous golf name on the bag.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


>



You appear to base your ideas of "good" and "bad" photography primarily on "the quality of the image".  Your posts lead any rational person to believe that you equate "quality" to resolution and definition, whereas to many photographers/photographic artists, "quality" is about the what your image communicates, not about pixel count.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2014)

Corax said:


> That was actually just me in a wig.
> 
> I'm not a big man



Great tits, though!


----------



## Corax (Mar 15, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Mmm, although better clubs (invariably better-balanced clubs) *can* make a difference for the better by improving your stance


Amazing how much of that's psychological though. You ever see the thing about the putter designed by a 'NASA scientist'?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 15, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> You appear to base your ideas of "good" and "bad" photography primarily on "the quality of the image".



That would be a erroneous conclusion. The more powerful, versatile and exact tool extends the possibilities of expressing oneself via the medium.

Btw, you attempted to move the goalposts, there. The discussion has been about good or bad _cameras_, not good or bad photography. It's very possible to take a good photo on a bad camera, and vice versa.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 15, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Um, up until about 25 years ago, most lens hoods provided by manufacturers with their lenses were "screw on" rather than bayonet.
> 
> As for JPEG vs RAW, it's horses for courses.  Me, I have those cameras that can do so, set to record both at the same time (my DSLR and my Fuji compact), and the one that can't (an old Nikon 5400 "semi-pro" compact) set to RAW in preference to TIFF or JPEG), but only because RAW has better editing possibilities IMO.


But old Mr. Rockwell's opinion is that no one should ever shoot RAW because RAW is "no good", and it requires "tweaking" and "tweaking" is "bad", apparently. Jared Polin has a whole set of videos where he takes Rockwell's opinions on RAW apart. I have nothing against people shooting JPEG if that's what works for them, but personally, I shoot RAW because of the creative control it gives me.


Corax said:


> "Art" my arse. It's just pointing it at stuff and pressing a button FFS.


^Not sure if serious or not. 

Of course it's an art. There's far more to getting a decent photograph than just "pointing at stuff and pressing a button".


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 15, 2014)

Corax said:


> Amazing how much of that's psychological though. You ever see the thing about the putter designed by a 'NASA scientist'?



A very common sight at golf courses is rich assholes pulling up in fancy cars and extracting  bags full of expensive clubs, and then  proceeding to the green and performing like crap.


----------



## twentythreedom (Mar 15, 2014)

Bungle, have you reached any conclusions about the people who put their lens hoods on backwards?


----------



## Corax (Mar 15, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Great tits, though!


Thanks for noticing  x


----------



## Corax (Mar 15, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Of course it's an art. There's far more to getting a decent photograph than just "pointing at stuff and pressing a button".


Yeah, you keep telling yourself that. Virtually anyone can press a button - I'm sure _you_ bend your finger in a particularly clever way though


----------



## fuck seals (Mar 15, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> A very common sight at golf courses is rich assholes pulling up in fancy cars and extracting  bags full of expensive clubs, and then  proceeding to the green and performing like crap.



Guilty as charged m'lud


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 15, 2014)

Corax said:


> Yeah, you keep telling yourself that. Virtually anyone can press a button - I'm sure _you_ bend your finger in a particularly clever way though


If "virtually anyone" can do it, then home come "virtually everyone" isn't an award winning photographer then?  Anyone can pick up a paint brush and smear paint across a canvass, that doesn't mean anyone can create a painting worthy of hanging in the National Gallery.

LOL! Your knowledge of this is obviously zilch and you have no idea what it takes to produce a great photograph. I'm quite sure this is one thing at least that Ed and the others will back me up on.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 15, 2014)

fuck seals said:


> Guilty as charged m'lud



You're not an asshole though?


----------



## fuck seals (Mar 15, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> You're not an asshole though?


Subjective, i suspect, however I vote 'no'


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 15, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> I'm quite sure this is one thing at least that Ed and the others will back me up on.



Don't hold your breath.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 15, 2014)

fuck seals said:


> Subjective, i suspect, however I vote 'no'


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 15, 2014)

Do you think those two pictures I posted earlier was just a case of "pressing a button"?  It wasn't.  It was a case of selecting the correct time to take them, selecting the correct vantage point, selecting the correct framing, selecting the correct focal length, selecting the correct exposure, and then getting the images back on the computer and editing them to look their best.


----------



## twentythreedom (Mar 15, 2014)

*applauds*


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 15, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Do you think those two pictures I posted earlier was just a case of "pressing a button"?  It wasn't.  It was a case of selecting the correct time to take them, selecting the correct vantage point, selecting the correct framing, selecting the correct focal length, selecting the correct exposure, and then getting the images back on the computer and editing them to look their best.


They're great! Which way round did you have the UV filter on?


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 15, 2014)

pocketscience said:


> They're great! Which way round did you have the UV filter on?


On my head.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 15, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Do you think those two pictures I posted earlier was just a case of "pressing a button"?  It wasn't.  It was a case of selecting the correct time to take them, selecting the correct vantage point, selecting the correct framing, selecting the correct focal length, selecting the correct exposure, and then getting the images back on the computer and editing them to look their best.


Oh yeah, I missed out choosing the correct aperture.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 15, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> On my head.


OK, trade secret. I get it ;-)
Anyway, I just noticed in your last post that you say you edit your photos in A COMPUTER 
Dude, any serious photographer that's worth their salt don't do that shit. I doubt very much that you're the professional photographer you claim to be if you need to *edit your shots. 
*


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 15, 2014)

pocketscience said:


> Dude, any serious photographer that's worth their salt don't do that shit.**



Say what?


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 15, 2014)

pocketscience said:


> OK, trade secret. I get it ;-)
> Anyway, I just noticed in your last post that you say you edit your photos in A COMPUTER
> Dude, any serious photographer that's worth their salt don't do that shit. I doubt very much that you're the professional photographer you claim to be if you need to *edit your shots.
> *


Ah, the old "editing photos on a PC is 'cheating'" argument

I didn't claim to be a "professional".  Secondly editing the photo is a key part of photography.  Great photographers have always edited their images.  In the old days they did it in the dark room, and these days they do it in Lightroom.  Do you think Ansel Adams didn't tweak his photos after he took them? He did.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 15, 2014)

A quote from Jared Polin "Photography doesn't end when you push the button, it's only the beginning"....or something like that anyway.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 15, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Say what?


Editing photos... A complete no-no in pro circles 
Think about it... If you're good enough to be a pro then the photos will look great as soon as they hit the sensor in the phone!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 15, 2014)

pocketscience said:


> Editing photos... A complete no-no in pro circles
> Think about it... If you're good enough to be a pro then the photos will look great as soon as they hit the sensor in the phone!



Which brand is that: I have to get me one of them phones!


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 15, 2014)

I can't find "UV" as an option on Instagram. You people are just making this stuff up


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 15, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Ah, the old "editing photos on a PC is 'cheating'" argument
> 
> I didn't claim to be a "professional".  Secondly editing the photo is a key part of photography.  Great photographers have always edited their images.  In the old days they did it in the dark room, and these days they do it in Lightroom.  Do you think Ansel Adams didn't tweak his photos after he took them? He did.


Is he a professional? Which phone does he use to take his pictures... the Lumia does do pretty good shots in dark rooms. Something about the low f number or something.
Never used the Lumia one myself (Nexus 4 user).


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 15, 2014)

pocketscience said:


> Is he a professional?



He's dead now. I think when he was alive, they didn't have telephones.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 15, 2014)

pocketscience said:


> Is he a professional? Which phone does he use to take his pictures... the Lumia does do pretty good shots in dark rooms. Something about the low f number or something.
> Never used the Lumia one myself (Nexus 4 user).


Is that Canon or Nikon?


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 15, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> He's dead now. I think when he was alive, they didn't have telephones.


Sad news. RIP. So he must a used a sepia camara?


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 15, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Is that Canon or Nikon?


Na, a google


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 15, 2014)

pocketscience said:


> Is he a professional? Which phone does he use to take his pictures... the Lumia does do pretty good shots in dark rooms. Something about the low f number or something.
> Never used the Lumia one myself (Nexus 4 user).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansel_Adams


----------



## neonwilderness (Mar 15, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansel_Adams


He's not even using a lens hood


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 15, 2014)

pocketscience said:


> Na, a google


Oh, my dad has a google. It's pretty big so it must take good pictures. Never seen him use a lens hood on it though, the amateur


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 15, 2014)

neonwilderness said:


> He's not even using a lens hood


Old school amateur!
Spot the Motorola Razr v3 in his left hand (Johnny Canuck3 obviously got his dates wrong)


----------



## editor (Mar 15, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Is that the only f stop available?


You can't be this silly, can you?


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 15, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Oh, my dad has a google. It's pretty big so it must take good pictures. Never seen him use a lens hood on it though, the amateur


They're a tidy piece of kit.
I'd always recommend a hood. Don't want to smudge the lens. I roll with one of these:





It'd be a bugger to make phone calls if you had it on the wrong way round though.


----------



## neonwilderness (Mar 15, 2014)

Illegal use of a lens hood


----------



## Corax (Mar 15, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> If "virtually anyone" can do it, then home come "virtually everyone" isn't an award winning photographer then?  Anyone can pick up a paint brush and smear paint across a canvass, that doesn't mean anyone can create a painting worthy of hanging in the National Gallery.
> 
> LOL! Your knowledge of this is obviously zilch and you have no idea what it takes to produce a great photograph. I'm quite sure this is one thing at least that Ed and the others will back me up on.


Wow. This is just _too_ easy


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 15, 2014)

Corax said:


> Wow. This is just _too_ easy


Well you have no idea how many people are of the opinion that doing anything to a photo post-exposure is "cheating".


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 15, 2014)

I think Ansel Adams is so old he would have been using a land line.


----------



## Corax (Mar 15, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Well you have no idea how many people are of the opinion that doing anything to a photo post-exposure is "cheating".


I've got plenty of idea about that as it goes. It's a not infrequent subject of discussion in a lot of places. 

But even then I have zero idea wtf that has to do with anything, especially your rabid response to my pretty obvious piss-take post.


----------



## RoyReed (Mar 15, 2014)

Un-fucking-believable! I think I remember why I stopped going on photography forums.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 15, 2014)

Canon phones are way better than Nikon phones btw.


----------



## marty21 (Mar 15, 2014)

so, I don't own a camera, take pictures on my Samsung Galaxy S4 - which appears to lack a lens hood   but those degenerates who put this hood thingie on backwards , can they still take pictures? can they still take good pictures ?


----------



## twentythreedom (Mar 15, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> Bungle, have you reached any conclusions about the people who put their lens hoods on backwards?



*ahem*

Bungle73


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Mar 15, 2014)

marty21 said:


> so, I don't own a camera, take pictures on my Samsung Galaxy S4 - which appears to lack a lens hood   but those degenerates who put this hood thingie on backwards , can they still take pictures? can they still take good pictures ?


I am one of the hoodless too marty. Let us not hang our heads in shame, let us walk together. Hoodless. And proud!


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 15, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> *ahem*
> 
> Bungle73


I could post my answer, but I don't want to get embroiled in another argument.


----------



## neonwilderness (Mar 15, 2014)

marty21 said:


> so, I don't own a camera, take pictures on my Samsung Galaxy S4 - which appears to lack a lens hood   but those degenerates who put this hood thingie on backwards , can they still take pictures? can they still take good pictures ?





QueenOfGoths said:


> I am one of the hoodless too marty. Let us not hang our heads in shame, let us walk together. Hoodless. And proud!


Amateurs


----------



## twentythreedom (Mar 15, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> I could post my answer, but I don't want to get embroiled in another argument.


What? You start a thread about a specific subject, and now you won't discuss it further or even just offer an opinion?


----------



## marty21 (Mar 15, 2014)

neonwilderness said:


> Amateurs


We are degenerates on drugs


----------



## marty21 (Mar 15, 2014)

QueenOfGoths said:


> I am one of the hoodless too marty. Let us not hang our heads in shame, let us walk together. Hoodless. And proud!


We will lead the revolution , hoodless of the world, will you join us and smash the barricades of the lens hood on backwards dictatorship ?


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Mar 15, 2014)

marty21 said:


> We will lead the revolution , hoodless of the world, will you join us and smash the barricades of the lens hood on backwards dictatorship ?


*WE ARE THE HOODLESS!!*


----------



## Corax (Mar 15, 2014)

Where can I get a hood for my Nokia 5210?


----------



## Corax (Mar 15, 2014)

Dp quotey weirdness


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 15, 2014)

If this sort of drivel gets talked about too much I think we will have to introduce a written test before people can post in the photography forum.


----------



## kittyP (Mar 15, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:
			
		

> There's nowt wrong with camera phones... I took this with a Nokia N95 about 6 or 7 years ago.
> 
> I have the original somewhere and the quality was excellent, even back then, and they're much better now.
> 
> And Ken Rockwell is a twat.



I kept my old Sony Ericsson for ages after people had smart phones because the camera was so good. 
As did Biddlybee I think and for a lot longer than me.


----------



## RoyReed (Mar 15, 2014)

Corax said:


> Where can I get a hood for my Nokia 5210?


I recommend the use of a French flag.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 15, 2014)

I had never heard of a French Flag however I was once told by a professional photographer of the expression "French Lens". It seems that sometimes when making a film a would-be-star demands that they take a short test film of her (it was _her _in the story I heard). The director would shout to the cameraman "Use the French lens". This was code for "don't put any film in the camera.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 15, 2014)

pocketscience said:


> Sad news. RIP. So he must a used a sepia camara?



Yeah, must a.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 15, 2014)

editor said:


> You can't be this silly, can you?



Trying hard to make sense of your f2.2 comment. With a real camera, you can shoot either aperture or shutter priority. Also, with the larger sensor of a real camera, you can shoot at a smaller aperture, and gain greater control over the image clarity and depth of field.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 15, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> ...you people...


'nuff said


----------



## existentialist (Mar 15, 2014)

Corax said:


> What do you use to take photos with the S4? Since I got mine I've found it hard to take anything that's not blurry with the native app. Is there one with a bit of image stabilisation?


No idea. It's purely snaps, and there's no doubt that the best photos it takes are the ones in massively bright light. I vaguely think it might be nice to see if there's a better camera app, but I'm very much in the novice amateur snapster league, so it's not that near the top of my priority list.

I got some nice ones of the step-granddaughter playing with the cat in the garden, shot through the kitchen window today. Those wouldn't have happened if I'd had to do the whole big camera fandango (even if it does turn out that my camera has enabled Bungle to pursue his penis extension fantasies just that bit further).

Ooh, now, there's a point. I wonder how Bungle's obsession with lens hoods might relate to his own self-perception in the trouser department? There could be all _kinds _of metaphors going on there...


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 15, 2014)

existentialist said:


> Ooh, now, there's a point. I wonder how Bungle's obsession with lens hoods might relate to his own self-perception in the trouser department? There could be all _kinds _of metaphors going on there...



Warning: psychology degree has been recently spotted in the area.


----------



## editor (Mar 15, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Trying hard to make sense of your f2.2 comment. With a real camera, you can shoot either aperture or shutter priority.


Guess what? You can do that with the S4 too. Incredible, etc, etc.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 15, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> If "virtually anyone" can do it, then home come "virtually everyone" isn't an award winning photographer then?  Anyone can pick up a paint brush and smear paint across a canvass, that doesn't mean anyone can create a painting worthy of hanging in the National Gallery.
> 
> LOL! Your knowledge of this is obviously zilch and you have no idea what it takes to produce a great photograph. I'm quite sure this is one thing at least that Ed and the others will back me up on.









Bungle bites again


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 15, 2014)

editor said:


> Guess what? You can do that with the S4 too. Incredible, etc, etc.



Takes us back to the original question: why did you choose to use f2.2?


----------



## existentialist (Mar 15, 2014)

marty21 said:


> We are degenerates on drugs


And I bet we bunk the train.


----------



## kittyP (Mar 15, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> Was Judas Priest's "Breakin' the Law" playing in the background when you wrote this?



Whilst also Bevis and Butthead on the TV.


----------



## editor (Mar 15, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Takes us back to the original question: why did you choose to use f2.2?


I didn't. It was the auto setting, and I was happy with its choices.  I think the focus is perfect for the scene. I didn't want the newspaper in focus. If I did I would have switched the settings. 

Any more pointless nitpicking to come, or is that it for a while?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 15, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Takes us back to the original question: why did you choose to use f2.2?


Because he can. The biggest aperture on my current camera is f/2.8.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 15, 2014)

editor said:


> I didn't. It was the auto setting, and I was happy with its choices.  I think the focus is perfect for the scene. I didn't want the newspaper in focus. If I did I would have switched the settings.
> 
> Any more pointless nitpicking to come, or is that it for a while?



I think not. I keep forgetting that you don't do too well with criticism.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 15, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Because he can. The biggest aperture on my current camera is f/2.8.



My little s110 has a 2.0.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 15, 2014)

My Nikkor 50mm f1.8 AF suffers if shooting into the light and stopped down, a lens hood wouldn't shield that. A sort of purple circle shows in the middle of the image. It spoiled a nice shot a couple of years ago so I experimented to see when it occurred, wide open it does not appear, only stopped down.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 15, 2014)

Can anybody spot how many wrongs are happening here....?


----------



## kittyP (Mar 15, 2014)

QueenOfGoths said:
			
		

> I am one of the hoodless too marty. Let us not hang our heads in shame, let us walk together. Hoodless. And proud!



I have a couple of hoods but mostly fabric and one flesh


----------



## kittyP (Mar 15, 2014)

marty21 said:
			
		

> We are degenerates on drugs



Case closed.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 15, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Because he can. The biggest aperture on my current camera is f/2.8.



I recall a discussion - I think you were part of it. I was wanting a camera with an even wider aperture, for night shooting. It was pointed out that with a larger sensor, it was possible to get better image clarity without the need for the really big apertures, because the large sensor is more efficient at capturing the light.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 15, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Can anybody spot how many wrongs are happening here....?



Nice Nikkor lens spoiled by a Canon hood, and other things !!


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 15, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> My little s110 has a 2.0.


Why, I ought ter...


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 15, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Can anybody spot how many wrongs are happening here....?




That thing looks like Robocop.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 15, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I recall a discussion - I think you were part of it. I was wanting a camera with an even wider aperture, for night shooting. It was pointed out that with a larger sensor, it was possible to get better image clarity without the need for the really big apertures, because the large sensor is more efficient at capturing the light.


I generally buy the largest aperture lenses I can afford ....
I have 2 x f1.8 lenses, two f2.8 and a slow long zoom ..
My next thing will enable very high ISO and should extend my low light capabilities.


----------



## neonwilderness (Mar 15, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Can anybody spot how many wrongs are happening here....?


Only a complete amateur would point the flash directly at a subject rather than bouncing/defusing


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 15, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I generally buy the largest aperture lenses I can afford ....
> I have 2 x f1.8 lenses, two f2.8 and a slow long zoom ..
> My next thing will enable very high ISO and should extend my low light capabilities.



Johnny and I were comparing our fixed lens point and shoot cameras. Mine is the Ricoh GR and while its biggest aperture is only f/2.8, its ability to take excellent pictures at high ISO numbers more than makes up for it. It has a CMOS C sensor the same size as a DSLR.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 15, 2014)

Corax said:


> "Art" my arse. It's just pointing it at stuff and pressing a button FFS.


You still need an eye for colour & contrast, composition, and what makes an interesting image.  You also have to be there with your camera at the right moment.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 15, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Johnny and I were comparing our fixed lens point and shoot cameras. Mine is the Ricoh GR and while its biggest aperture is only f/2.8, its ability to take excellent pictures at high ISO numbers more than makes up for it. It has a CMOS C sensor the same size as a DSLR.



It's true, damn you!


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 15, 2014)

neonwilderness said:


> Only a complete amateur would point the flash directly at a subject rather than bouncing/defusing


Press photographers who usually get paid - take lots of pictures with on-camera flash even in broad daylight. To be fair they just want a picture for news purposes not for artistic effects and the flash is doing a fill-in job as well as making sure there is enough light so that nobody has to post process to rescue the image.

Also unless the photographer doubles in a bomb disposal unit, he will be diffusing rather than defusing. 

And yes Johnny I know that it is true that your camera opens up to f/2.


----------



## neonwilderness (Mar 15, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Press photographers who usually get paid - take lots of pictures with on-camera flash even in broad daylight. To be fair they just want a picture for news purposes not for artistic effects and the flash is doing a fill-in job as well as making sure there is enough light so that nobody has to post process to rescue the image.


I may have been being slightly flippant


----------



## Lord Camomile (Mar 15, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Can anybody spot how many wrongs are happening here....?


What we should really be asking is what did they take that photo with


----------



## kittyP (Mar 15, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:
			
		

> Warning: psychology degree has been recently spotted in the area.



To be fair to existentialist I think he has more than just a psychology degree under his belt.


----------



## neonwilderness (Mar 15, 2014)

Lord Camomile said:


> What we should really be asking is what did they take that photo with


And was the lens hood on properly


----------



## weltweit (Mar 15, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Johnny and I were comparing our fixed lens point and shoot cameras. Mine is the Ricoh GR and while its biggest aperture is only f/2.8, its ability to take excellent pictures at high ISO numbers more than makes up for it. It has a CMOS C sensor the same size as a DSLR.


High ISO is next on my list. My 14 odd year old dslr goes to ISO1600 with reasonable IQ, I have a hankering for a Nikon D610 which goes a long way past that


----------



## existentialist (Mar 15, 2014)

kittyP said:


> To be fair to existentialist I think he has more than just a psychology degree under his belt.


I don't tend to read much of what Johnny Canuck writes, because it tends to be drivel, and I prefer not to be tempted to bite. But thanks for the heads-up - looks like the drivel continues unabated


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 15, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> What? You start a thread about a specific subject, and now you won't discuss it further or even just offer an opinion?


Hasn't that discussion already been done to death?


existentialist said:


> 'nuff said





Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I recall a discussion - I think you were part of it. I was wanting a camera with an even wider aperture, for night shooting. It was pointed out that with a larger sensor, it was possible to get better image clarity without the need for the really big apertures, because the large sensor is more efficient at capturing the light.


A larger sensor helps, but so does a wider aperture.  It's one of the reasons people shell out loadsamoney for wide aperture lenses.


Johnny Canuck3 said:


> My little s110 has a 2.0.


But on a compact camera that doesn't mean much.  When you zoom in that f/2.0 becomes what, f/5.6? You're not going to able to achieve the shallow DoF with that you can on a DSLR.


----------



## kittyP (Mar 15, 2014)

Like with so many other urban threads, so much time, effort and face could have been saved if people could just tweek their wording a little. 
"I see your point but I sometimes find this/that/other" rather than "you're wrong and you're a grotesquely ugly freak!"


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 15, 2014)

Other than my 50mm f1.8 all my lenses are fucked.  My f2.8 17-50 has water damage and the zoom is stuck at 17mm.  I lost my kit lens and my 30-70 pentax-f macro is also fucked 

On the body, the prism is full of crap/fluff and the sensor is covered in blobs.

Oh, and my 50-300 is stuck wide open at f 3.5.

I should probably take better care of my kit.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 15, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> But on a compact camera that doesn't mean much.  When you zoom in that f/2.0 becomes what, f/5.6? You're not going to able to achieve the shallow DoF with that you can on a DSLR.



I never zoom. I use it wide angle, at night, with a tripod at that aperture, on long exposure shots.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 15, 2014)

fractionMan said:


> Other than my 50mm f1.8 all my lenses are fucked.  My f2.8 17-50 has water damage and the zoom is stuck at 17mm.  I lost my kit lens and my 30-70 pentax-f is also fucked


What did you do to them?


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 15, 2014)

weltweit said:


> What did you do to them?



Mostly I carried them around in crappy bags in the rain at festivals or similar.  Dropped them maybe.

Or it could be that my film camera fucked them up.  I think the zoom on two have been bust since I played with them on it.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Mar 15, 2014)

neonwilderness said:


> And was the lens hood on properly


And how many megapixels is it packing?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 15, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Johnny and I were comparing our fixed lens point and shoot cameras. Mine is the Ricoh GR and while its biggest aperture is only f/2.8, its ability to take excellent pictures at high ISO numbers more than makes up for it. It has a CMOS C sensor the same size as a DSLR.


I thought that was me. It may have been more than one of us.

The GR has a frickin awesome sensor though. It takes all-around much more pleasing pictures than any other digital I have.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 15, 2014)

fractionMan said:


> Mostly I carried them around in crappy bags in the rain at festivals or similar.  Dropped them maybe.
> 
> Or it could be that my film camera fucked them up.  I think the zoom on two have been bust since I played with them on it.


I was going to say I have been lucky with my lenses. But then I remembered:
1) I bought a Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 with focussing issues at var. apertures, I lost some money there.
2) Then I bought a Nikon 20mm f2.8 AF whose aperture blades stuck together, cost £60 to get it repaired.


----------



## neonwilderness (Mar 15, 2014)

fractionMan said:


> Other than my 50mm f1.8 all my lenses are fucked.  My f2.8 17-50 has water damage and the zoom is stuck at 17mm.  I lost my kit lens and my 30-70 pentax-f is also fucked
> 
> On the body, the prism is full of crap/fluff and the sensor is covered in blobs.
> 
> ...


That ouldn't have happened if you'd used the lens hoods properly 



kittyP said:


> Like with so many other urban threads, so much time, effort and face could have been saved if people could just tweek their wording a little.
> "I see your point but I sometimes find this/that/other" rather than "you're wrong and you're a grotesquely ugly freak!"


No!


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 15, 2014)

Lord Camomile said:


> What we should really be asking is what did they take that photo with


I took it with a camera phone


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 15, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> I took it with a camera phone


And did you edit it with a fancy app? You sinner.


----------



## Corax (Mar 15, 2014)

existentialist said:


> And I bet we bunk the train.


And never join social groups


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 15, 2014)

Corax said:


> And never join social groups


There are, I believe some new social groups that centre around putting lens hoods on the wrong way around. That sounds like fun.


----------



## twentythreedom (Mar 15, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Hasn't that discussion already been done to death?



Evidently not.


----------



## Corax (Mar 15, 2014)

I find myself spending so much time taking photos with my phone that I never get a chance to do the vacuuming any more. Can anyone recommend me a cleaner?


----------



## existentialist (Mar 15, 2014)

Corax said:


> I find myself spending so much time taking photos with my phone that I never get a chance to do the vacuuming any more. Can anyone recommend me a cleaner?


You are a Bad Man


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 15, 2014)

Badman nah put hood on backwards


----------



## editor (Mar 16, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I think not. I keep forgetting that you don't do too well with criticism.


I'm all up for intelligent, considered criticism. So be sure to produce some when you're ready.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 16, 2014)

editor said:


> I'm all up for intelligent, considered criticism. So be sure to produce some when you're ready.



I can't think of a good reason to bother.

p.s. it took you how many hours to come back with that zinger?


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 16, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> And did you edit it with a fancy app? You sinner.



I admit... I cropped it in Photoshop  

It's hard to see but there's also a UV filter hiding under that rearward facing C*non hood and I had voice commands activated on the S4's camera 

I'd better ask Ken Rockwell for some guidance


----------



## kittyP (Mar 16, 2014)

Greebo said:
			
		

> You still need an eye for colour & contrast, composition, and what makes an interesting image.  You also have to be there with your camera at the right moment.



I am still shocked that some wedding photographers, regularly at weddings I have attended, make huge money from doing nothing but getting the whole congregation into a haphazard group, too difficult to wrangle that amount of people so some people are cut off the end coz they are not listening to instructions, or are blocked by a taller person, all with a false smile saying cheese (or worse some other word that photographer thinks is cool/funny), looking stilted and awkward. 
It's, to me unfathomable. 
They still charge a fortune. 

I personally know two people that do wedding photography to fund them being able to pursue it as an art elsewhere, that are amazing. 
You would never know they were there til you see the photos after. 
Natural, artistic, just brilliant.


----------



## kittyP (Mar 16, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:
			
		

> There are, I believe some new social groups that centre around putting lens hoods on the wrong way around. That sounds like fun.



Tories? UKIPs? Anarchists that mummy and daddy fund their whole alternative existence?


----------



## kittyP (Mar 16, 2014)

Watching the Buffy episode where she's trapped in a time loop and spike and clem etc are betting with kittens 

Oops, wrong thread, but maybe you guys could learn something from Buffy the Vampire Slayer


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 16, 2014)

kittyP said:


> I am still shocked that some wedding photographers, regularly at weddings I have attended, make huge money from doing nothing but getting the whole congregation into a haphazard group, too difficult to wrangle that amount of people so some people are cut off the end coz they are not listening to instructions, or are blocked by a taller person, all with a false smile saying cheese (or worse some other word that photographer thinks is cool/funny), looking stilted and awkward.
> It's, to me unfathomable.
> They still charge a fortune.
> 
> ...



I did wedding photography for about 12 months... never again! There wasn't enough money in it to make up for the stress. I have the utmost of respect for anyone who can pull it off but it wasn't for me. Not only are you worrying that a memory card might shit itself, you have the added worry of making sure your hood is the right way round, and making sure you haven't left any UV filters on your lenses, and FFS, don't let anyone see you chimping!... It's a tightrope spud. It's a fuckin' tightrope!


----------



## kittyP (Mar 16, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:
			
		

> I did wedding photography for about 12 months... never again! There wasn't enough money in it to make up for the stress. I have the utmost of respect for anyone who can pull it off but it wasn't for me. Not only are you worrying that a memory card might shit itself, you have the added worry of making sure your hood is the right way round, and making sure you haven't left any UV filters on your lenses, and FFS, don't let anyone see you chimping!... It's a tightrope spud. It's a fuckin' tightrope!





But seriously, the people I know that do it are quite a bit younger than me. 
They realised they had a talent for photography without pursuing it as a career.
It has really taken over their lives.
Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays shooting, the rest of the time in a small room doing all the other stuff involved. 
People get arsy thinking "it's only a few hours", which it is invariably more than but they forget all the editing and trawling through shit photos. Plus covering keeping up to date with good equipment. 

I was going to post more but realised even though I have slept on the sofa, I'm still pissed and can't be arsed


----------



## wiskey (Mar 16, 2014)

kittyP said:


> I am still shocked that some wedding photographers, regularly at weddings I have attended, make huge money from doing nothing but getting the whole congregation into a haphazard group, too difficult to wrangle that amount of people so some people are cut off the end coz they are not listening to instructions, or are blocked by a taller person, all with a false smile saying cheese (or worse some other word that photographer thinks is cool/funny), looking stilted and awkward.
> It's, to me unfathomable.
> They still charge a fortune.
> 
> ...



The last few weddings I've been to have either had free-to-use disposable cameras provided by the bride and groom, or 'all our mates have cameras let's just pool pics at the end', or 'jims quite good with a camera we'll ask him to do it in exchange for cake'.

So I was quite shocked to discover that mates who are getting married in may are paying £1300 for a photographer!

... I shall of course be checking which way round his lens hood is.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 16, 2014)

wiskey said:


> .....
> So I was quite shocked to discover that mates who are getting married in may are paying £1300 for a photographer!
> 
> ... I shall of course be checking which way round his lens hood is.



tsk tsk .. do you know it will be "his" lens hood?


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 16, 2014)

wiskey said:


> ... I shall of course be checking which way round his lens hood is.



That was the deciding factor in my throwing in of the towel. I sometimes forgot to turn the lens hood the correct way around after taking a few snap shots the previous day. I simply couldn't live with myself, charging for professional work when my lens hood was clearly in the direction of that of an amateur... It could have been as catastrophic as dividing by zero if I'd continued.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 16, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> That was the deciding factor in my throwing in of the towel. I sometimes forgot to turn the lens hood the correct way around after taking a few snap shots the previous day. I simply couldn't live with myself, charging for professional work when my lens hood was clearly in the direction of that of an amateur... It could have been as catastrophic as dividing by zero if I'd continued.



Good thing you've moved up to camera phones.


----------



## kittyP (Mar 16, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:
			
		

> That was the deciding factor in my throwing in of the towel. I sometimes forgot to turn the lens hood the correct way around after taking a few snap shots the previous day. I simply couldn't live with myself, charging for professional work when my lens hood was clearly in the direction of that of an amateur... It could have been as catastrophic as dividing by zero if I'd continued.



I'm sure there are specific counsellors that deal with this kind of issue. 
There is no shame in asking for help.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 16, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Good thing you've moved up to camera phones.



Isn't it! I'm hoping that some day I'll progress to Etch a Sketch and be as good as you  



kittyP said:


> I'm sure there are specific counsellors that deal with this kind of issue.
> There is no shame in asking for help.



I tried... but I missed my first appointment when I walked into the road and was hit by a car... Apparently, wearing my hoodie backwards wasn't a great idea.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 16, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Isn't it! I'm hoping that some day I'll progress to Etch a Sketch and be as good as you



I suck with any kind of drawing. That's why I take photos.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Mar 16, 2014)

My some of the 'logic' on this thread mobile phone cameras take better pictures because it is _impossible to put the lens hood on backwards. 

 _


----------



## existentialist (Mar 16, 2014)

I wonder if this whole lens hood thing might make its way into Urbanspeak, like "boat happy" did? And wouldn't Bungle be proud if it did?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Mar 16, 2014)

I can't believe we've made it this far without anyone pointing out that, regardless of the technical considerations, putting lens hoods on backwards just looks _fucking cool_.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 16, 2014)

Cool as Justin Bieber.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Mar 16, 2014)

Y'see, I purposefully didn't post a pic of Bieber as I didn't want to undermine my otherwise completely valid point. So thanks for shining the harsh glare of the Bieber on that flaw in my argument 

(This thread appears to be the third result if you Goggle backwards hood )


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 16, 2014)

The second result involves phimosis.


----------



## Ted Striker (Mar 16, 2014)




----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 16, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> But old Mr. Rockwell's opinion is that no one should ever shoot RAW because RAW is "no good", and it requires "tweaking" and "tweaking" is "bad", apparently. Jared Polin has a whole set of videos where he takes Rockwell's opinions on RAW apart. I have nothing against people shooting JPEG if that's what works for them, but personally, I shoot RAW because of the creative control it gives me.



Rockwell is entitled to his opinion.  Often his opinion is spot-on, but in this case he's ignoring 150 years of darkroom manipulation of negs and prints, all of which counts as "tweaking".
I could see his point if he were talking about massively-altering the original image, but he's obviously not, given the use of the word "tweaking".


----------



## editor (Mar 17, 2014)

DSLR sales are plummeting. Most people now use cameraphones


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 17, 2014)

editor said:


> DSLR sales are plummeting. Most people now use cameraphones


Not surprising, given the growth of smart phones as a social phenomenon.

I don't think it follows, though, that just because a lot of people do something, that that alone makes it a good thing. Most people take in a significant percentage of their daily calories via corn syrup additives in food, and saturated fats.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 17, 2014)

editor said:


> DSLR sales are plummeting. Most people now use cameraphones


Because "most people" just want "a camera".  An enthusiast interested in doing "proper" photography, or a pro, isn't going to purchase a camera phone (for their main work) are they?  They're going to purchase a DSLR.

Edit: Or at least a mirrorless.


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 17, 2014)

"Thanks"


----------



## Greebo (Mar 17, 2014)

editor said:


> DSLR sales are plummeting. Most people now use cameraphones <snip>


I still prefer film for the discipline of it.  As for smart phones, no thanks.  

I prefer keeping my so-cheap-it's-not-worth-nicking PAYG mobile and using a digital compact.  Even if it means carrying two lumps of plastic around instead of one.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 17, 2014)

Greebo said:


> I still prefer film for the discipline of it.  As for smart phones, no thanks.
> 
> I prefer keeping my so-cheap-it's-not-worth-nicking PAYG mobile and using a digital compact.  Even if it means carrying two lumps of plastic around instead of one.



I'm doing the same having recently resurrected my Leica C-Lux 2 which had been sat on a shelf for over a year whilst my iPhone took all the pictures. It's a far better camera that fits into my jeans pocket with ease and I like using it, but smartphones have made us lazy. So I'm making a concerted effort to reduce photography with the phone and increase it with the camera.


----------



## sim667 (Mar 17, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Because "most people" just want "a camera".  An enthusiast interested in doing "proper" photography, or a pro, isn't going to purchase a camera phone (for their main work) are they?  They're going to purchase a DSLR.
> 
> Edit: Or at least a mirrorless.


 
Ugh, someone on my Photography degree handed in camera phone photos as their final, the tutors lapped it up (well the lead tutor did and then overruled the others  )

This was 2005 too so camera phones weren't a patch on what they are now.


----------



## editor (Mar 17, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Because "most people" just want "a camera".  An enthusiast interested in doing "proper" photography, or a pro, isn't going to purchase a camera phone (for their main work) are they?  They're going to purchase a DSLR.
> 
> Edit: Or at least a mirrorless.


Some pros doing proper photography get their smartphones on the covers of prestigious international magazines. I've worked as a pro photographer, and I'd have no problem submitting a photo taken on a smartphone if I thought it was good enough.

But I've already done that anyway, and got paid. As photographers say, the best camera in the world is always the one you have on you.


----------



## editor (Mar 17, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I don't think it follows, though, that just because a lot of people do something, that that alone makes it a good thing.


I don't recall making that argument but it's certainly a good thing if photography becomes more accessible. 


Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Most people take in a significant percentage of their daily calories via corn syrup additives in food, and saturated fats.


Thanks for that


----------



## existentialist (Mar 17, 2014)

editor said:


> Some pros doing proper photography get their smartphones on the covers of prestigious international magazines. I've worked as a pro photographer, and I'd have no problem submitting a photo taken on a smartphone if I thought it was good enough.
> 
> But I've already done that anyway, and got paid. As photographers say, the best camera in the world is always the one you have on you.


Stop messing up Bungle's absolutism with your inconvenient real-life experience and FACTS, editor!


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 17, 2014)

Does anyone have any words of wisdom regarding camera straps? 

I'm worried that people will think I'm an amateur instead of a _serious hobbiest_


----------



## Greebo (Mar 17, 2014)

sim667 said:


> Ugh, someone on my Photography degree handed in camera phone photos as their final <snip>


Lazy!

There was I thinking that a photoraphy degree doesn't just teach you how to work out what makes a decent picture, but also teaches the technicalities of getting it (and turning it into a fixed image) without the camera doing most of the technical side for you.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 17, 2014)

fractionMan said:


> Does anyone have any words of wisdom regarding camera straps?<snip>


Use whatever works for you?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 17, 2014)

fractionMan said:


> Does anyone have any words of wisdom regarding camera straps?
> 
> I'm worried that people will think I'm an amateur instead of a _serious hobbiest_


Oh no, don't go there! That one could run for months.


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 17, 2014)

Greebo said:


> Use whatever works for you?





But how will I be able to tell if someone else is _doing it wrong_?


----------



## Crispy (Mar 17, 2014)

16 pages?!


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 17, 2014)

But how will I be able to tell if someone else is _doing it wrong_?[/QUOTE]
That's easy; if they are doing something different to what you do then they are wrong.


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 17, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> That's easy; if they are doing something different to what you do then they are wrong.



Ah.  That's a relief.


----------



## sim667 (Mar 17, 2014)

Greebo said:


> Lazy!
> 
> There was I thinking that a photoraphy degree doesn't just teach you how to work out what makes a decent picture, but also teaches the technicalities of getting it (and turning it into a fixed image) without the camera doing most of the technical side for you.


 
A lot of photography degrees actually teach you very little about anything technical unless you really push them too, and quite often the lecturers will get the techs to show you as they tend to have a better technical understanding. I did a HND and topped up to a degree, when I joined the degree the top uppers were kind of frowned upon, but when they realised how much I knew about lighting, photoshop and different formats of photography I became golden bollocks.

To put it into perspective, out of 8 people on my HND 4 of us now either work as photographers, or lecture in photography. Out of 30 odd on my degree, 1 does pet portraits and thats it, some of the others are "fine art photographers" which is just a pretentious way of saying "keep it up as a hobby", none of them are selling work.


----------



## Gromit (Mar 17, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> I've already been through that.  The camera isn't being stored, it's being used. Go and watch the video I posted.



The hood is being stored on a camera being used. 

The alternative is removing the hood completely whilst the hood is not being used but the camera is. 

That's how hoods get lost. If its on the camera then you know where the hood is should you need it. If it's not on the camera it's in a drawer somewhere when you need it because you forgot it or didn't think you'd need it when you did.


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 17, 2014)

I fashioned a little chin strap for mine and wear it as a hat when not in use.


----------



## editor (Mar 17, 2014)

Can your photos be pro if they're shot in auto mode?

: )


----------



## Greebo (Mar 17, 2014)

fractionMan said:


> I fashioned a little chin strap for mine and wear it as a hat when not in use.


Pics?


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 17, 2014)

Greebo said:


> Pics?



Unfortunately I can't take photos of it without my hood in place.  It wouldn't be professional.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 17, 2014)

editor said:


> Can your photos be pro if they're shot in auto mode?
> 
> : )


Do you get paid for them?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 17, 2014)

fractionMan said:


> Unfortunately I can't take photos of it without my hood in place.  It wouldn't be professional.


You could take the photo of the hood/hat with your ever-handy mobile phone.

Getoutofthatone


----------



## existentialist (Mar 17, 2014)

Gromit said:


> The hood is being stored on a camera being used.
> 
> The alternative is removing the hood completely whilst the hood is not being used but the camera is.
> 
> That's how hoods get lost. If its on the camera then you know where the hood is should you need it. If it's not on the camera it's in a drawer somewhere when you need it because you forgot it or didn't think you'd need it when you did.


Disclaimer: I've never owned a camera posh enough to even *need* a lens hood (so that will discount my views as far as Bungle is concerned, I am sure).

But I keep thinking - it takes a little effort to design a hood, manufacture a screw thread on it, etc., in such a way that it could be put on backwards. Sure, it's conceivable that it's just a happy accident, but it's equally conceivable, isn't it, that the *hood/lens manufacturer might actually have designed things exactly so that it could be done that way?*

Or would that just be ridiculously naive?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 17, 2014)

I put the hood on backwards, but then put the lens on backwards, so actually the hood is pointing forwards. That's what all the pros do.


----------



## Corax (Mar 17, 2014)

Proper photographers use a box brownie.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 17, 2014)

editor said:


> Some pros doing proper photography get their smartphones on the covers of prestigious international magazines. I've worked as a pro photographer, and I'd have no problem submitting a photo taken on a smartphone if I thought it was good enough.
> 
> But I've already done that anyway, and got paid. As photographers say, the best camera in the world is always the one you have on you.


Ok, have it your way. A phone can do everything a DSLR can do, sensor size makes no difference to image quality, and those of us that bought DSLRs wasted our money...especially those that bought Full Frame DSLRs. What fools, huh. We should have all bought smart phones. 

I'll tell you what, go and ask Gavin Hoey if he wants to swap his 5D Mk II for a smart phone. 

I'd have serious reservations about employing someone who claims to be a	   "pro photographer", yet doesn't understand the fundamental differences between a phone camera and a DSLR; and also one that is so disrespectful towards another extremely experienced photographer who probably knows a hell of a lot more about photography then they do.


----------



## editor (Mar 17, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> I'd have serious reservations about employing someone who claims to be a	   "pro photographer", yet doesn't understand the fundamental differences between a phone camera and a DSLR; and also one that is so disrespectful towards another extremely experienced photographer who probably knows a hell of a lot more about photography then they do.


Have you been hiring many photographers recently, then?


----------



## sim667 (Mar 17, 2014)

Hang on is this seriously the debate thats going on, that phone cameras are a match for DSLR's in the modern day and age?

Jeez.


----------



## editor (Mar 17, 2014)

Corax said:


> Proper photographers use a box brownie.


Proper photographers will get great photos, whatever the camera. 







Here's a mobile phone pic shot by a pro.






And all mobiles are just so unusably shit in low light, aren't they? Oh, wait....


----------



## editor (Mar 17, 2014)

sim667 said:


> Hang on is this seriously the debate thats going on, that phone cameras are a match for DSLR's in the modern day and age?
> 
> Jeez.


You're missing the wilder claims being posted up by Bungle, I'm afraid.

But can a mobile take photos that are good enough for pro use? Oh yes. Most definitely, in the right conditions.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 17, 2014)

editor said:


> Have you been hiring many photographers recently, then?


I wouldn't employ you if I wanted one, that's for sure.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 17, 2014)

sim667 said:


> Hang on is this seriously the debate thats going on, that phone cameras are a match for DSLR's in the modern day and age?
> 
> Jeez.


Yes, that is exactly what Ed is claiming.


----------



## editor (Mar 17, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Yes, that is exactly what Ed is claiming.


Ah, you're back to being a deceitful shit again. Well done!


----------



## editor (Mar 17, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> I wouldn't employ you if I wanted one, that's for sure.


Unlike you, I've actually worked as a pro and continue to make a decent income from my photography, so forgive me if I just guffaw at your feeble attempt at a cuss.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 17, 2014)

editor said:


> Proper photographers will get great photos, whatever the camera.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There you go again: posting a couple of pictures that prove nothin whatsoever. Show me two full size photos of exactly the same thing taken with a phone and with a DSLR, that've can zoom into 1:1 and then we'll talk.


----------



## editor (Mar 17, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> There you go again: posting a couple of pictures that prove nothin whatsoever. Show me two full size photos of exactly the same thing taken with a phone and with a DSLR, that've can zoom into 1:1 and then we'll talk.


Oh pixel peeking. Way to win the argument!


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 17, 2014)

editor said:


> You're missing the wilder claims being posted up by Bungle, I'm afraid.
> 
> But can a mobile take photos that are good enough for pro use? Oh yes. Most definitely, in the right conditions.


What "wider claims"?  All
I've argued is that DSLRs are better than phones, and something you keep denying.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 17, 2014)

editor said:


> Ah, you're back to being a deceitful shit again. Well done!


If anyone's being deceitful here it's you, because that is exactly what you have been arguing.


----------



## editor (Mar 17, 2014)

This low light, hand held shot taken on a Lumia phone is pretty damn good.  Easily the equal of some of the dSLRs I've had in the past for web use.


----------



## editor (Mar 17, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> If anyone's being deceitful here it's you, because that is exactly what you have been arguing.


Can you produce a such a quote please? Thanks!


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 17, 2014)

editor said:


> Can you produce a such a quote please? Thanks!


You're unbelievable. It's what you've been arguing throughout this entire thread. And what you are still arguing with your pointless pictures.

I gave you a long list of how DSLRs have the advantage, but apparently that was "moving the goalposts", as if that statement made any sense what so ever.


----------



## neonwilderness (Mar 17, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> What "wider claims"?  All
> I've argued is that DSLRs are better than phones, and something you keep denying.


You seem to be confusing "phones can produce great images" with "phones are better than DSLRs".  I don't think anyone is claiming the latter


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 17, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> It's what you've been arguing throughout this entire thread. And what you are still arguing with your pointless pictures.



It's really not.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 17, 2014)

neonwilderness said:


> You seem to be confusing "phones can produce great images" with "phones are better than DSLRs".  I don't think anyone is claiming the latter


It's not me that's confused.


----------



## sim667 (Mar 17, 2014)

Just to throw my tuppence in, someone whos good with a camera will get a good photo regardless of what they're taking a photo with. Some of the best photos Ive taken have been with an empty beer can with a hole in it.

But phone cameras will never be a replacement for a good quality camera, they just dont have the ability to reproduce the quality, and will never have the physical shape or size to give you any real control over shutter speed or apertures, as real control over them needs them in their physciality, and by the nature of a camera phone, being predominantly a phone before a camera, means that being pocket sized will always be important.

This isn't even an argument worth having, but in all honesty if i hired a photographer for a decent amount of money and they turned up with nothing but a phone, I'd be telling them to fuck off. That doesnt mean you can't take a great photo with a camera phone, its just that they dont suit a professional purpose.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 17, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> It's not me that's confused.



Nope. It's _everyone_ else.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 17, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Nope. It's _everyone_ else.


Don't be silly. It's exactly what Ed is arguing. And apparently we're not allowed to inspect pictures properly. Hmm I wonder why that is...

The post above yours says everything I am arguing here.


----------



## Gromit (Mar 17, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I put the hood on backwards, but then put the lens on backwards, so actually the hood is pointing forwards. That's what all the pros do.



I use an Australian camera which i use upside-down (as thats the right way up in Australia) takes nice photos but its a pain using photoshop to flip them the right way up for UK consumers.


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 17, 2014)

sim667 said:


> Hang on is this seriously the debate thats going on, that phone cameras are a match for DSLR's in the modern day and age?
> 
> Jeez.



no.  That's the debate bungle has been having with nobody else.


----------



## Gromit (Mar 17, 2014)

editor said:


> Proper photographers will get great photos, whatever the camera.



You still get so many camera snobs. This one website used to compliment me on some great shots. One day someone said wow the quality on that is great, what camera are you using?

Reply: Kodak EasyShare

The compliments stopped coming.

The stupid thing was that the Kodak EasyShare (at that time) had a dynamite lens. One being used in cameras considerably more expensive. They never trumpeted the fact and so people just think pah cheap tourist camera when really it was an exceptional value for money quality camera.


----------



## Gromit (Mar 17, 2014)

DP


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 17, 2014)

fractionMan said:


> no.  That's the debate bungle has been having with nobody else.


I must have imagined all of Ed's posts then....


----------



## Enviro (Mar 17, 2014)

sim667 said:


> ....This isn't even an argument worth having...



Is there any argument worth having where the instigator of the argument insists that they're right and aren't prepared to accept any of the views of other people? Apologies if I have misunderstood this thread, Bungle, but I think this thread would be more appropriately titled "Here ye should come if ye wish to hear that your photography related opinions are incorrect".


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 17, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> I must have imagined all of Ed's posts then....



that's what I thought.

People have argued that you can take good shots with phones.  People have pointed out that some pro shots are made with phones.  Nobody has argued that phones are technically better at taking photos than cameras. 

You will not find a single person on this thread who has said that.  Not one.

What you will find is people saying it's perfectly possible to be a terrible photographer with an expensive camera or a great photographer with a phone camera.


----------



## editor (Mar 17, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> You're unbelievable. It's what you've been arguing throughout this entire thread. And what you are still arguing with your pointless pictures.
> 
> I gave you a long list of how DSLRs have the advantage, but apparently that was "moving the goalposts", as if that statement made any sense what so ever.


Can you produce a quote from me that backs up your claims or not, then? 

I'm not interested in your highly confused 'interpretations' of what you think I may have said, just the facts. Ta.


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 17, 2014)

The reason people are laughing at you Bungle73 is because you're attempting to tell professional photographers they're _doing it wrong_ and you're doing it from an amateur standpoint.

You're like someone shouting really loud advice at a football match.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 17, 2014)

fractionMan said:


> that's what I thought.
> 
> People have argued that you can take good shots with phones.  People have pointed out that some pro shots are made with phones.  Nobody has argued that phones are technically better at taking photos than cameras.
> 
> ...


Bollocks they haven't  it's exactly what Ed's been arguing. I really do not have the time or inclination to argue with a bunch of people who argue one point of view, then deny that's what they said at all while still arguing the same thing. I can't go back and quite because I'm on my phone, but it's plain for all to see what Ed has been posting.


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 17, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Bollocks they haven't  it's exactly what Ed's been arguing. I really do not have the time or inclination to argue with a bunch of people who argue one point of view, then deny that's what they said at all while still arguing the same thing. I can't go back and quite because I'm on my phone, but it's plain for all to see what Ed has been posting.



You obviously think he has, but he really hasn't.

He says so multiple times just above these posts.  He's not arguing that _at all_.

I'm not sure why, when he says "I'm not arguing that at all" you refuse to believe him.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 17, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> It's exactly what Ed is arguing.



No he's not, and neither is anyone else.

He's saying that superb photos can be taken on modern cameraphones and has provided photographic evidence of that.

They may not match up to DSLRs for flexibility after certain levels are surpassed, but millions of users (including some professionals occasionally) are more than happy to produce great pictures at or below those levels and benefit from the hugely increased convenience.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 17, 2014)

fractionMan said:


> The reason people are laughing at you Bungle73 is because you're attempting to tell professional photographers they're _doing it wrong_ and you're doing it from an amateur standpoint.
> 
> You're like someone shouting really loud advice at a football match.


Where are these "professional photographers"?  I haven't seen any here. Only one person who claims to have done "pro" work, yet think a phone can match a DSLR.


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 17, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Where are these "professional photographers"?  I haven't seen any here. Only one person who claims to have done "pro" work, yet think a phone can match a DSLR.



Define professional.  Someone who takes photos for money?  Someone who sells photos to newspapers?


----------



## editor (Mar 17, 2014)

sim667 said:


> Just to throw my tuppence in, someone whos good with a camera will get a good photo regardless of what they're taking a photo with. Some of the best photos Ive taken have been with an empty beer can with a hole in it.
> 
> But phone cameras will never be a replacement for a good quality camera, they just dont have the ability to reproduce the quality, and will never have the physical shape or size to give you any real control over shutter speed or apertures, as real control over them needs them in their physciality, and by the nature of a camera phone, being predominantly a phone before a camera, means that being pocket sized will always be important.


No, of course not, but they _can_ be just as good as a dSLR for some uses in some conditions and come with the added bonus of being far more likely to be carried with you at all times.

Decent phone cameras can take photos that are easily good enough for most professional publishing uses and that's why so many news outlets and magazines are only to happy to use them. I've sold a photo off my S4 and without zooming right in to pixel level it looked every bit as good as something taken on a 'proper' camera.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 17, 2014)

Ok I'm done with this thread for now. I will come back when I can get on my PC and quote the posts Ed is too stupid to remember posting.


----------



## editor (Mar 17, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Ok I'm done with this thread for now. I will come back when I can get on my PC and quote the posts Ed is too stupid to remember posting.


It might be worth you asking yourself why you're the only person on this thread that seems to think I made such a claim.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 17, 2014)

Enviro said:


> Is there any argument worth having where the instigator of the argument insists that they're right and aren't prepared to accept any of the views of other people? Apologies if I have misunderstood this thread, Bungle, but I think this thread would be more appropriately titled "Here ye should come if ye wish to hear that your photography related opinions are incorrect".


That DSLRs are superior to phones is not an "opinion", it's a fact. A fact known by anyone who knows more than a little about photography.


----------



## neonwilderness (Mar 17, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> That DSLRs are superior to phones is not an "opinion", it's a fact. A fact known by anyone who knows more than a little about photography.


It's also fact that no one here is disputing


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 17, 2014)

neonwilderness said:


> It's also fact that no one here is disputing


Of course they haven't. I must have been arguing with myself all this time,....,


----------



## editor (Mar 17, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Of course they haven't. I must have been arguing with myself all this time,....,


Finally, you're making some sense.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 17, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> I must have been arguing with myself all this time,....,



Now you're getting there!


----------



## Gromit (Mar 17, 2014)

Camera phones are superior to DSLRs



neonwilderness said:


> It's also fact that no one here is disputing



How wrong can you get. I just disputed it.
I'm knowingly wrong but I disputed so you are wrong too now.


----------



## neonwilderness (Mar 17, 2014)

Gromit said:


> Camera phones are superior to DSLRs
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I am disputing your dispute, so in fact I am correct


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 17, 2014)

Posted from my Pentax K-x

oh wait.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 17, 2014)

Now that Bungle has gone, lets talk about that Nokia Lumia 1020. I followed editor's link to the site showing the photo series taken in Iceland with that phone. Those images were outstanding for a phone camera. Then I checked out details of the camera. It apparently has a rather larger sensor (although no measurements were given) than one of the Ixus models of compact camera. It seems to have some superior control system for exposure and a button that helps you to hold the camera with one hand while taking pictures. Also there is a special plastic holder that can be added to make the phone feel more like a camera with a grip. Nokia have probably succeeded in making the Lumia 1020 the best phone camera of all.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 17, 2014)

sim667 said:


> Hang on is this seriously the debate thats going on, that phone cameras are a match for DSLR's in the modern day and age?
> 
> Jeez.


No, that's just the straw man that got set up by Bungle in what is starting to look like an increasingly desperate attempt to Be Right At Any Cost.

Including, it would seem, to any credibility he might still have around these parts.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 17, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> It's not me that's confused.


Just *EVERYBODY ELSE*?


----------



## existentialist (Mar 17, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Ok I'm done with this thread for now. I will come back when I can get on my PC and quote the posts Ed is too stupid to remember posting.


Nooooo! Don't go now, just when you're on the verge of winning!


----------



## twentythreedom (Mar 17, 2014)

Fucking hell


----------



## editor (Mar 17, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Now that Bungle has gone, lets talk about that Nokia Lumia 1020. I followed editor's link to the site showing the photo series taken in Norway with that phone. Those images were outstanding for a phone camera. Then I checked out details of the camera. It apparently has a rather large sensor (although no measurements were given) than one of the Ixus models of compact camera. It seems to have some superior control system for exposure and a button that helps you to hold the camera with one hand while taking pictures. Also there is a special plastic holder that can be added to maker the phone feel more like a camera with a grip. Nokia have probably succeeded in making the Lumia 1020 the best phone camera of all.


I had it on trial for a few days and was impressed with the quality. It even has a usable zoom. It's still nowhere as convenient to use as a dedicated camera, but the bolt-on  handgrip makes a huge difference.

It took incredible daylight photos, but the low light ones really impressed me:


----------



## kabbes (Mar 17, 2014)

Amazing thread. 8/10 would recommend


----------



## editor (Mar 17, 2014)

*bookmark


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 17, 2014)

editor said:


> Thanks for that



It was an example of a situation where large numbers of people doing are doing something that isn't necessarily the best.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 17, 2014)

editor said:


> Proper photographers will get great photos, whatever the camera.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Both are nice scenes with not great IQ


----------



## editor (Mar 17, 2014)

Not enough IQ for what, exactly? The top one is easily good enough for most print uses.

I think you're one of those people that is too concerned with macro-examining technical aspects that really aren't of much consideration in the real world.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 17, 2014)

editor said:


> Not enough IQ for what, exactly? The top one is easily good enough for most print uses.
> 
> I think you're one of those people that is too concerned with macro-examining technical aspects that really aren't of much consideration in the real world.



I'd agree that either would probably be perfectly acceptable for journalism work. I've already agreed that camera phone photos can be good enough for an newspaper photo, for instance.

Doesn't change the fact that the quality attainable with a camera phone isn't comparable with that attainable with a good DSLR or SLR.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 17, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Because "most people" just want "a camera".  An enthusiast interested in doing "proper" photography, or a pro, isn't going to purchase a camera phone (for their main work) are they?  They're going to purchase a DSLR.
> 
> Edit: Or at least a mirrorless.



Most people wanting a camera tend to try to match the camera to the purposes for which they use it.  In some cases that'll mean a fixed-lens compact (Roy Reed who posts on here, a pro, mentioned the other day that he habitually carries one - a Fuji F600EXR), for others a CSC (compact system camera, for others an SLR.
*If* a phone's camera is best suited to your needs as a photographer, then you may well wish to purchase one.  It's all about horses for courses, not about features.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 17, 2014)

My local paper needed a head and shoulders shot of me last week. I got someone at work to take one with my iPhone. The paper used it, it was fine. It was only something like a three inch square photo anyway; how much quality do they really need?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 17, 2014)

sim667 said:


> Ugh, someone on my Photography degree handed in camera phone photos as their final, the tutors lapped it up (well the lead tutor did and then overruled the others  )
> 
> This was 2005 too so camera phones weren't a patch on what they are now.



I'm gonna bet they "sold" it to the tutor on the "art" angle.  Something along the lines of "digital lomography".


----------



## editor (Mar 17, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Doesn't change the fact that the quality attainable with a camera phone isn't comparable with that attainable with a good DSLR or SLR.


If shot under favourable conditions, you would find it _very hard indeed _to tell the difference between the output of a good quality camera phone like the Lumia and a regular dSLR on a 10" x 8" print.

And assuming that _any_ dSLR is better than a new smartphone isn't too clever either. This review found that a Canon EOS10D compared very poorly against new phones when it came to image quality:  





> Yes it's comprehensively humbled by modern phones. The iPhone out-shoots it, and the Nokia out-resolves it, all by huge margins.
> http://connect.dpreview.com/post/5533410947/smartphones-versus-dslr-versus-film?page=4



Of course, a dSLR is faster, gives you easier control over settings and performs better for sports/low light etc but in the real world, editors don't give a flying fuck what camera the image was taken on, or what it looks like zoomed in at 2000% in Photoshop.

All they care about is: is it a good photo and is the quality good enough for print? - and in many cases, a smartphone will pass those criteria easily. That's why such photos have ended up on front pages.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 17, 2014)

fractionMan said:


> Does anyone have any words of wisdom regarding camera straps?
> 
> I'm worried that people will think I'm an amateur instead of a _serious hobbiest_



Neoprene. An Op-Tech or Chinese knock-off.  If you're wearing your camera all day, the reduction of weight pressure is worth it.
If you want to look like a "serious hobbyist", though, you need one of those shoulder-harness double straps so you can carry *two* cameras.


----------



## editor (Mar 17, 2014)

kabbes said:


> My local paper needed a head and shoulders shot of me last week. I got someone at work to take one with my iPhone. The paper used it, it was fine. It was only something like a three inch square photo anyway; how much quality do they really need?


Amateurs, clearly.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 17, 2014)

editor said:


> Can your photos be pro if they're shot in auto mode?
> 
> : )



I remember an interview with a war photographer (a South African bloke, Kevin Carter) who reckoned that cameras with aperture priority and shutter priority modes were the biggest boon to his kind of photography - that you could get fantastic photos with a fully-manual camera, but that in his experience he missed more shots.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 17, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Ok, have it your way. *A phone can do everything a DSLR can do, sensor size makes no difference to image quality, and those of us that bought DSLRs wasted our money*...especially those that bought Full Frame DSLRs. What fools, huh. We should have all bought smart phones.
> 
> I'll tell you what, go and ask Gavin Hoey if he wants to swap his 5D Mk II for a smart phone.
> 
> I'd have serious reservations about employing someone who claims to be a	   "pro photographer", yet doesn't understand the fundamental differences between a phone camera and a DSLR; and also one that is so disrespectful towards another extremely experienced photographer who probably knows a hell of a lot more about photography then they do.



Except that no-one has made any such claims, have they? 
What the editor has said (to paraphrase) is "a photographer can take photographs good enough to sell, on a camera phone".

Now do stop being disingenuous.  It makes you look childish and pathetic.


----------



## editor (Mar 17, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I remember an interview with a war photographer (a South African bloke, Kevin Carter) who reckoned that cameras with aperture priority and shutter priority modes were the biggest boon to his kind of photography - that you could get fantastic photos with a fully-manual camera, but that in his experience he missed more shots.


I generally use aperture priority (shutter priority for football coverage), but given how damn clever some of the 'intelligent' auto modes can be on newer cameras, there's no shame in using them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 17, 2014)

sim667 said:


> Just to throw my tuppence in, someone whos good with a camera will get a good photo regardless of what they're taking a photo with. Some of the best photos Ive taken have been with an empty beer can with a hole in it.



Yup.  As I said earlier, Bert Hardy took up a challenge to prove that it's the photographer (and the photographer's "eye" for a shot) that matters, not their kit.  He habitually used a Leica III with a 50mm/f.2 attached, but took a fantastic photograph (which _Picture Post_ used as a cover shot) on a Box Brownie.



> But phone cameras will never be a replacement for a good quality camera, they just dont have the ability to reproduce the quality, and will never have the physical shape or size to give you any real control over shutter speed or apertures, as real control over them needs them in their physciality, and by the nature of a camera phone, being predominantly a phone before a camera, means that being pocket sized will always be important.



I agree about the technical control, but in some circumstances (street photography, for example) how much control is actually necessary?  Again, much of the time, it's about your "eye" for a picture.  All the complex kit in the world can't make a duffer into a decent photographer, and a decent photographer *can* get a *decent enough* picture with a phone's camera.
That's not to say that DSLRs or mirrorless system cameras or digi-compacts are irrelevant or obsolete - far from it -  or that phone cameras are a *replacement* for them, because they're not.  All it means is that they're just another photographic tool in a photographer's armoury.



> This isn't even an argument worth having, but in all honesty if i hired a photographer for a decent amount of money and they turned up with nothing but a phone, I'd be telling them to fuck off. That doesnt mean you can't take a great photo with a camera phone, its just that they dont suit a professional purpose.



It's not an argument that's actually been made, though, except in Bungle's febrile imagination.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 17, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> <snip> If you want to look like a "serious hobbyist", though, you need one of those shoulder-harness double straps so you can carry *two* cameras.


You forgot to mention that those who want to really look the part make sure that they're followed everywhere by an assistant carrying the rest of the kit, including at least one tripod and/or one ludicrously long lens.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 17, 2014)

editor said:


> I generally use aperture priority (shutter priority for football coverage), but given how damn clever some of the 'intelligent' auto modes can be on newer cameras, there's no shame in using them.



Absolutely. 
Back when I was a teen, I used to love the shutter priority mode on my clunky Minolta Hi-Matic (my other camera at the time was a fully-manual Praktica SLR), because when I went to the stock car races at Wimbledon, you could easily take those "frozen in motion" shots of the cars hurtling about. Another case of "horses for courses", IMO.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 17, 2014)

Gromit said:


> You still get so many camera snobs. This one website used to compliment me on some great shots. One day someone said wow the quality on that is great, what camera are you using?
> 
> Reply: Kodak EasyShare
> 
> ...



Always the way.  Chinon produced many 35mm compacts (rangefinder focus and scale focus) in the '60s and '70s.  What people didn't tend to cotton onto, because Chinon were seen as a "cheapo" brand who produced "badge-engineered" cameras for the likes of Dixons (in the UK), Sears (in the US) and Porst (in West Germany), was that most of their compacts were Chinon-badged models of cameras they'd been contracted to produce for other, bigger companies, so you've still got Chinon compacts out there that are functional copies of Canon, Minolta, Fuji and Yashica models that sell for twice the price.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 17, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I'd agree that either would probably be perfectly acceptable for journalism work. I've already agreed that camera phone photos can be good enough for an newspaper photo, for instance.
> 
> Doesn't change the fact that the quality attainable with a camera phone isn't comparable with that attainable with a good DSLR or SLR.



Attainable by whom?


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 17, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Now try taking a picture in low light










Bungle73 said:


> then try a macro shot










Bungle73 said:


> then try taking one of something far away












Bungle73 said:


> then a sport's action shot










Bungle73 said:


> then a long exposure shot










Bungle73 said:


> then try getting a narrow DoF shot.










Bungle73 said:


> There's a reason people buy DSLRs.



Yeah, I see what you mean...


----------



## Corax (Mar 17, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Yeah, I see what you mean...


Nice. How do you get the DoF with a phone camera? Is there an app that gives you that kind of control?


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 17, 2014)

Corax said:


> Nice. How do you get the DoF with a phone camera? Is there an app that gives you that kind of control?



They're not my photos. They're the first ones I found on Flickr that matched the brief. There were plenty that were a lot better but weren't downloadable.

I haven't tried a macro shot with the S4 but I'll give it a go and see how it turns out and see if I can get a decent DoF shot.


----------



## Gromit (Mar 17, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Always the way.  Chinon produced many 35mm compacts (rangefinder focus and scale focus) in the '60s and '70s.  What people didn't tend to cotton onto, because Chinon were seen as a "cheapo" brand who produced "badge-engineered" cameras for the likes of Dixons (in the UK), Sears (in the US) and Porst (in West Germany), was that most of their compacts were Chinon-badged models of cameras they'd been contracted to produce for other, bigger companies, so you've still got Chinon compacts out there that are functional copies of Canon, Minolta, Fuji and Yashica models that sell for twice the price.



Not forgetting when Leica and Panasonic were selling the exact same camera (made in the same factory to the same spec) and the Leica was £80 more because it had a Leica badge on it.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 17, 2014)

Gromit said:


> Not forgetting when Leica and Panasonic were selling the exact same camera (made in the same factory to the same spec) and the Leica was £80 more because it had a Leica badge on it.



I bought one of those.


----------



## sim667 (Mar 17, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yup.  As I said earlier, Bert Hardy took up a challenge to prove that it's the photographer (and the photographer's "eye" for a shot) that matters, not their kit.  He habitually used a Leica III with a 50mm/f.2 attached, but took a fantastic photograph (which _Picture Post_ used as a cover shot) on a Box Brownie.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I regard street photography almost as a seperate thing from photography with its own requirements. In the same way you wouldn't use a rangefinder in a studio with flash (well I wouldn't) I'd use a dslr/slr/medium format or large formate.

Basically this whole thread is fucking bollocks in the first place. Lens hoods fit on backwards for storage, if your not taking the photo into the sun and you've just grabbed your camera out of your bag then most probably wouldn't bother turning the hood round when they're just going to put it back in the bag.


----------



## Corax (Mar 17, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> They're not my photos. They're the first ones I found on Flickr that matched the brief. There were plenty that were a lot better but weren't downloadable.
> 
> I haven't tried a macro shot with the S4 but I'll give it a go and see how it turns out and see if I can get a decent DoF shot.


Do you use the native app?


----------



## Corax (Mar 17, 2014)

Gromit said:


> Not forgetting when Leica and Panasonic were selling the exact same camera (made in the same factory to the same spec) and the Leica was £80 more because it had a Leica badge on it.


Same thing happens with cars, tvs, loads of stuff. It's kinda depressing how much it succeeds tbh.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 17, 2014)

Corax said:


> Do you use the native app?



I haven't tried any of the other available camera apps. I've only taken a handful of pictures with it and they've all come out at least as good as I'd expected them to.


----------



## neonwilderness (Mar 17, 2014)

Because of this thread I've just bought a new camera app (Camera+ for iOS) to try


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 17, 2014)

The camera on this thing less than a hundred quid huawei phone is really awful yet I occasionally manage a decent shot.   That one of the kids in a tree was done using this and I love it.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 17, 2014)

neonwilderness said:


> Because of this thread I've just bought a new camera app (Camera+ for iOS) to try



Does it come with a virtual, reversible hood?


----------



## neonwilderness (Mar 17, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Does it come with a virtual, reversible hood?


It's probably an in-app purchase for idiots


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 17, 2014)

neonwilderness said:


> It's probably an in-app purchase for idiots amateurs



Fixed that for ya


----------



## editor (Mar 17, 2014)

Problem solved.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 17, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Is this supposed to be an example of a high-quality photo?



I think I found the original... http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7001/13226631335_0780e4436c_o.jpg

Admittedly, my DSLR with a 1000 quid lens does take better pictures than my 7 year old phone... who would have thought!?!?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 17, 2014)

Ah, the snobbery of folks who care about their photos is a beautiful thing to behold.

Who gives a flying fuck what anyone else wants to do with their equipment and/or photos? Spend more time caring about enjoying your own hobby (or making it pay the bills, should that be your thing) and less about whether others are doing it right. Because they are. Everyone is.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 17, 2014)

Vintage Paw said:


> Ah, the snobbery of folks who care about their photos is a beautiful thing to behold.
> 
> Who gives a flying fuck what anyone else wants to do with their equipment and/or photos? Spend more time caring about enjoying your own hobby (or making it pay the bills, should that be your thing) and less about whether others are doing it right. Because they are. Everyone is.



Spot on...

There is no right/wrong, professional/amateur direction for a lens hood... what a fookin' ridiculous statement! It's the kind of statement you'd expect from someone who never took a decent photograph in their life but had achieved pseudo-professionalism after reading one of Ken Rockwell's blogs.


----------



## Corax (Mar 17, 2014)

Vintage Paw said:


> Ah, the snobbery of folks who care about their photos is a beautiful thing to behold.
> 
> Who gives a flying fuck what anyone else wants to do with their equipment and/or photos? Spend more time caring about enjoying your own hobby (or making it pay the bills, should that be your thing) and less about whether others are doing it right. Because they are. Everyone is.


That's the kind of post only an amateur could write.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 17, 2014)

Right, I'm home.  I had to reply to this one first as it's given me the biggest laugh I've had in ages.  You have no idea what you were supposed to be searching for do you? First posting a bunch of pictures with no info at all on camera or settings and that are not full size is beyond useless.



Dr_Herbz said:


>



That's not a  low light shot. With all those buildings lit up it's practically like broad daylight. Also, what ISO was used?  You don't know do you?  It was probably a really high one that gives noise galore.  The tiny sensor in a camera phone is just not capable of producing high quality low noise low light shots.

Try this on a phone: http://500px.com/photo/60791526



>



I just don't believe that was done on a phone....at least not without some kind attached lens.  There is no phone out there that comes stock with a lens capable of taking a picture like that.  Phones come with wide angle lenses and you'd never be able to hold the phone close enough to take shot like that.





>



I meant a close up of something far away with a long focal length.  Any old camera can take a shot like that.




>



Honestly, this one's the funniest of the bunch.  I can't believe you were serious when you posted it.  I mean something like this:






It's a bit of a crappy quality picture but it serves very well it illustrate what I'm talking about.




>



Again, nice try, but no cigar.  Try doing something like this on phone:






You can't, because it requires control of the shutter speed, which phones don't give you, and the ability to attach an ND filter, which again phone cannot do.




>



This one the second biggest laugh I've had tonight. You do realise that close-up shots always have an inherent shallow DoF don't you? You don't you do, because you thought you were being clever by posting that. This what I'm talking about:






You can only achieve that with a) a wide aperture lens and/or b) a long focal length lens.  Neither of which you can get on a phone.  In fact the tiny sensor is incapable of producing a decent bokeh effect as you need a large sensor to do it, and definitely not the wide angle lens (which have an inherent large DoF) phone cameras come with.


I had to laugh when I saw Ed had liked your posts as it makes quite clear he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. Ed, you really need to do some Googling on DSLRs and educate yourself.  LOL. Really.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Mar 17, 2014)

OK people. Let's leave Bungle73 alone, or even find them help.

This has gone far enough.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Mar 17, 2014)

I am going to have to add this:

Look at the quality of photography posted here every month, week, day! It is far better than stuff you see in specialist websites and magazines. Look at all the threads here - no need to doubt that there is very good knowledge and creativity here. 

Learn from it.


----------



## editor (Mar 17, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> I had to laugh when I saw Ed had liked your posts as it makes quite clear he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. Ed, you really need to do some Googling on DSLRs and educate yourself.  LOL. Really.


Hey, what kind of camera do you think a professional would definitely need if they were commissioned to shoot a series of dramatic landscapes for the prestigious National Geographic magazine?


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 17, 2014)

Ah, the old goalpost trick again...  

If you want the EXIF data, search Flickr for S4 photos and you'll find it.

No doubt the EXIF data will be telling porkies, or photos from Flickr don't count, or they have to be taken by Ken Rockwell to count, or whatever goalpost shift you decide to choose next  

E2A... I was going to post links to the Flickr pages but I can't be arsed.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 17, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Ah, the old goalpost trick again...


It's funny how when people's wrong "facts" get shot down in flames I'm "moving the goal posts" 



> Because I'm feeling generous and this happened to be in my 'recently closed tabs', I'll provide you with the first one...
> 
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/97508...Xzd-eJ2Sdb-jgT1HR-hFjHRk-gMis6P-h87da3-hfsAEb
> 
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/leepictures/9956666026/meta/





> took this using my Samsung galaxy S4 *and a magnifying glass*,



And what about the rest of them? The pictures you posted were crap, pure crap, and nothing whatsoever like what I was talking about. The fact that you are still defending them after I obliterated them one by one tells me all I need to know.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 17, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> It's funny how when people's wrong "facts" get shot down in flames I'm "moving the goal posts"
> 
> 
> And what about the rest of them? The pictures you posted were crap, pure crap, and nothing whatsoever like what I was talking about. The fact that you are still defending them after I obliterated them one by one tells me all I need to know.



They were exactly like you were talking about... or do photos only count if they're posted by someone who can pre-empt your next goalpost shift?


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 17, 2014)

editor said:


> Hey, what kind of camera do you think a professional would definitely need if they were commissioned to shoot a series of dramatic landscapes for the prestigious National Geographic magazine?


I think they would need a camera that does the job.

What would you say if you were getting married, hired a photographer, and he turned up with a camera phone?


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 17, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> They were exactly like you were talking about... or do photos only count if they're posted by someone who can pre-empt your next goalpost shift?


You don't know anything at all about photography do you?  You don't, otherwise you would not still be defending those pictures.


----------



## editor (Mar 17, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> You can't, because it requires control of the shutter speed, which phones don't give you, and the ability to attach an ND filter, which again phone cannot do.


Er, yes it can. The Lumia 1020 offers "manual control for exposure time – from one sixteen-thousandth of a second (1/16000s) up to four seconds."  [--]

Oh, and ND filters for long exposure? Yep, that's very possible too. [--]


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 17, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> You don't know anything at all about photography do you?  You don't, otherwise you would not still be defending those pictures.



I posted pictures of exactly what you asked for... If you don't know enough about photography to be more specific... that's hardly my fault/problem.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 17, 2014)

editor said:


> Hey, what kind of camera do you think a professional would definitely need if they were commissioned to shoot a series of dramatic landscapes for the prestigious National Geographic magazine?


----------



## editor (Mar 17, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> I think they would need a camera that does the job.


Yes they would. But you'd insist that something like a Lumia couldn't possibly be up to the job, yes?


----------



## weltweit (Mar 17, 2014)

I was today in an interesting location.
My iPhone was the best camera I had with me.

The photos will not blow up as easily as ones from my dslr, but I didn't have my dslr with me!
It was good light so I hope there will be little motion blur when I look at them on my PC.
If I wanted to use the photos, in relatively small size, I expect they would be ok.


----------



## editor (Mar 17, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> I had to laugh when I saw Ed had liked your posts as it makes quite clear he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. Ed, you really need to do some Googling on DSLRs and educate yourself.  LOL. Really.


Requoted, to set the scene perfectly.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 17, 2014)

editor said:


> Er, yes it can. The Lumia 1020 offers "manual control for exposure time – from one sixteen-thousandth of a second (1/16000s) up to four seconds."  [--]
> 
> Oh, and ND filters for long exposure? Yep, that's very possible too. [--]
> 
> View attachment 50399



Awaits the inevitable shift in the tectonic plates, moving the goalposts yet further away....


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 17, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> I just don't believe that was done on a phone....at least not without some kind attached lens.



Hey there. Could you give me some examples of photos you've taken with a dslr without some kind of attached lens? Please?


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 17, 2014)

editor said:


> Er, yes it can. The Lumia 1020 offers "manual control for exposure time – from one sixteen-thousandth of a second (1/16000s) up to four seconds."  [--]
> 
> Oh, and ND filters for long exposure? Yep, that's very possible too. [--]
> 
> View attachment 50399


That's more like it; but it's not quite what I posted is it.


Dr_Herbz said:


> I posted pictures of exactly what you asked for... If you don't know enough about photography to be more specific... that's hardly my fault/problem.


No you didn't.  You went off and Google image searched a bunch of pictures that you *thought* would do, but in reality you had no idea what you were supposed to be searching for, and now you've been found out you don't want to admit it.


editor said:


> Requoted, to set the scene perfectly.


Why did you "Like" that post then? It's obviously because you thought the images posted had me done up like a kipper. That only proves you had no idea what I'm talking about, or what a DSLR is truly capable of, and what a phone isn't.


----------



## neonwilderness (Mar 17, 2014)

editor said:


> Requoted, to set the scene perfectly.


Yes come on editor, you really need to up your game a bit


----------



## editor (Mar 17, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> That's more like it; but it's not quite what I posted is it.


I think the words you're looking for are, "Oh sorry, I got it wrong. You can adjust the shutter speed on some camera phones and you can use ND filters, and I was silly to assert otherwise".

Now, that National Geographic magazine, eh? There's a prestigious photo journal and one that would never, ever accept sub standard or 'unprofessional' images shot on crappy cameras, wouldn't you say?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 17, 2014)

You can get little self-adhesive ND filters that will fit on anything. I used to use some on my SX-70. Then they started producing ND filters that would actually fit _on the film pod_ which was awesome. Made worrying about the adhesive drying up a thing of the past.

Ah, technology.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 17, 2014)

This is a popular thread, good for photography, but some people seem to be arguing for the sake of it.

I don't think it is possible to say a camera phone is better, equal or worse than a dslr. They are quite different things.

In some applications phones are better, for the recording of the details of a road accident, chances are these days that one or more participants in an accident will have a camera phone they can use to record the event. For that application, a camera phone is probably ideal. Especially in good light.

And one phone is not like another. My iPhone's camera is much better than my older Nokia although the Nokia can take many more photos on the same charge. There is as much variation between the best smartphones and the most basic as there is between point and shoots and top of range dslrs.

If I wanted to create a portrait in natural light with a well diffused background of the three cameras I have available, I would use my dslr with either a 85mm f1.8 or a 200mm lens. My phone camera would not make that image so easily. However, if my subject was standing with their back against a hedge which was sufficiently different to make a good background the camera phone would probably make a good job of it.

I haven't yet tried to print images from my phones, my dslr will easily print 10x15 inches in super quality, and if I shoot max resolution much more than that. I am a beginner with camera phones, I don't even know the resolutions yet.

I am a camera club member and I want to create some stunning images with my phones, such that they score 10 or win a competition. It would be fun and a learning experience. I am sure it is possible to create top quality images, it is just a case of making the most of the qualities of the device much as I work with the specific characteristics of my dslr.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 17, 2014)

I wish I could like my own post. I was really proud when I found that Admiral Ackbar picture.


----------



## Corax (Mar 17, 2014)

I have to admit I can't manage reading the entirety of Bungle73's posts any more. The "ner ner ner" tone and lack of self awareness is just overwhelming.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 17, 2014)

Vintage Paw said:


> Hey there. Could you give me some examples of photos you've taken with a dslr without some kind of attached lens? Please?



Or how about just posting up _any_ of _his own_ photos, to prove his point(s)?


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 17, 2014)

Vintage Paw said:


> Hey there. Could you give me some examples of photos you've taken with a dslr without some kind of attached lens? Please?









This conversation is descending into farce,it really is. Do you not actually know the difference between a phone's fixed lens and the infinite variety of DSLR lenses one can choose from?


Corax said:


> I have to admit I can't manage reading the entirety of Bungle73's posts any more. The "ner ner ner" tone and lack of self awareness is just overwhelming.


There's nothing wrong with my "tone".  What you have in this thread is a bunch of people arguing one thing, then denying they were ever arguing that at all, then thinking they've got one over on me by posting a bunch of crappy pictures, then start to argue the same thing they were arguing in the first place, and that they were earlier denying arguing. It's pathetic, it really is.

Either you all are yanking my chain, or you are bunch of complete idiots.  Which is it?


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 17, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Or how about just posting up _any_ of _his own_ photos, to prove his point(s)?


I already posted three of my pictures, but I have no idea what "point" you expect me to "prove" with any shot I have taken?


----------



## Corax (Mar 17, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> This conversation is descending into farce,it really is. Do you not actually know the difference between a phone's fixed lens and the infinite variety of DSLR lenses one can choose from?
> 
> There's nothing wrong with my "tone".  What you have in this thread is a bunch of people arguing one thing, then denying they were ever arguing that at all, then thinking they've got one over on me by posting a bunch of crappy pictures, then start to argue the same thing they were arguing in the first place, and that they were earlier denying arguing. It's pathetic, it really is.
> 
> Either you all are yanking my chain, or you are bunch of complete idiots.  Which is it?


It's not you Bungle73, it's _everyone else_.


----------



## editor (Mar 17, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Either you all are yanking my chain, or you are bunch of complete idiots.  Which is it?


Let's talk about the National Geographic, because it is all about fantastic photography.

It's been described as "home to some of the highest-quality photojournalism in the world," and is "recognized for its book-like quality and its standard of photography" [--], so we can rest assured that anything that makes it in there is of the highest quality with no compromises in photographic quality. You'd agree on that wouldn't you?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 17, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> This conversation is descending into farce,it really is. Do you not actually know the difference between a phone's fixed lens and the infinite variety of DSLR lenses one can choose from?




Oh honey.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 17, 2014)

Oh yeah, and I forgot that classic about how "I'm changing the goal posts" when either a) I produce that facts of what I'm saying, or b) I shoot someone quite legitimately down in flames who thought they had me "had".



Corax said:


> It's not you Bungle73, it's _everyone else_.


Except, several people have come in and basically said what I've bee saying all along.

Go and put the arguments you're putting forward here on a proper photographer forum, and see how far you get.  Go on, I dare you.


editor said:


> Let's talk about the National Geographic, because it is all about fantastic photography.
> 
> It's been described as "home to some of the highest-quality photojournalism in the world," and is "recognized for its book-like quality and its standard of photography" [--], so we can rest assured that anything that makes it in there is of the highest quality with no compromises in photographic quality. You'd agree on that wouldn't you?


So, are you, or are you or are you not arguing that a phone camera can equal a DSLR in all areas? Yes or no?


----------



## Corax (Mar 17, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Except, several people have come in and basically said what I've bee saying all along.


They've not received the same responses as you. Why is that?


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 17, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> I already posted three of my pictures, but I have no idea what "point" you expect me to "prove" with any shot I have taken?



The goalposts have been moved so many times that it's hard to say what I want you to prove at this stage but I'll start with the OP... Show me why one of your pictures is better than one taken with the lens hood reversed.

Then show me some of the pictures you've had printed and we'll compare them to the images that editor is going to post that were taken with phones.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Mar 17, 2014)

Corax said:


> It's not you Bungle73, it's _everyone else_.


We are all, obviously, on drugs


----------



## Corax (Mar 17, 2014)

QueenOfGoths said:


> We are all, obviously, on drugs


I'm using my lens hood as a roach.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 17, 2014)

Corax said:


> I'm using my lens hood as a roach.



I'm using a roach as a lens hood for my S4


----------



## editor (Mar 17, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> So, are you, or are you or are you not arguing that a phone camera can equal a DSLR in all areas? Yes or no?


Ah, you're back to making stuff up. How tedious. I have never, ever made such a claim or argued for anything even remotely like the above, so why try and make stuff up when it's clear you'll be caught out?

Anyway, about National Geographic. Are you going to answer my questions concerning the quality of photography required or do those goalposts need shifting elsewhere for a while longer?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 17, 2014)

Any fule know National Geographic are a bunch of fly-by-night cowboys, ed.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 17, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> The goalposts have been moved so many times that it's hard to say


You don't even know what the "goalposts" are so you have no idea whether they have been "moved" or not, which they haven't.  I was quite clear in what I wanted, and that would have been obvious to anyone with even basic knowledge of photography.  And you don't as you have shown.



> what I want you to prove at this stage but I'll start with the OP... Show me why one of your pictures is better than one taken with the lens hood reversed.
> 
> Then show me some of the pictures you've had printed and we'll compare them to the images that editor is going to post that were taken with phones.


Why do they have to be "my" images?



That explains everything.  There is a video I saw with a practical demonstration, but I cannot find it.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 17, 2014)

Is this your most successful thread so far, Bungle old chap?


----------



## neonwilderness (Mar 17, 2014)

Vintage Paw said:


> Any fule know National Geographic are a bunch of fly-by-night cowboys, ed.


Cowboys ed, they're a bunch of cowboys


----------



## Corax (Mar 17, 2014)

Corax said:


> They've not received the same responses as you. Why is that?


Perhaps you missed this question also.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 17, 2014)

editor said:


> Ah, you're back to making stuff up. How tedious. I have never, ever made such a claim or argued for anything even remotely like the above, so why try and make stuff up when it's clear you'll be caught out?
> 
> Anyway, about National Geographic. Are you going to answer my questions concerning the quality of photography required or do those goalposts need shifting elsewhere for a while longer?



I can't see a definitive answer coming any time soon but I'm dying to see the images... These suspenders are fookin' killing me! 



Bungle73 said:


> *You don't even know what the "goalposts" are* so you have no idea whether they have been "moved" or not, which they haven't.  I was quite clear in what I wanted, and that would have been obvious to anyone with even basic knowledge of photography.  And you don't as you have shown.



I'm pretty sure that nobody but you knows where the goalposts are at this stage



Bungle73 said:


> Why do they have to be "my" images?



Because I want you to shoot yourself in the foot by proving that better pictures can be taken with a camera phone than you're capable of taking with your all singing, all dancing DSLR


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 17, 2014)

editor said:


> Ah, you're back to making stuff up. How tedious. I have never, ever made such a claim or argued for anything even remotely like the above, so why try and make stuff up when it's clear you'll be caught out?


Honestly you are flip-flopping here more than a very flippy floppy thing. If you are not arguing that when why every time I state how DSLRs are superior do you keep going about "Oh, X person had a phone picture published in X magazine!"? Show me where I said you can't get a good image out of a phone?  I said that no where.  What I actually said is that a DSLR is technological superior and more versatile. And these are exactly the points you keep arguing against. I also said a pro's MAIN camera will always be a DSLR.  Did I say they would never use a phone? I did not.  In fact I said many, many posts ago that Mike Browne (the guy you were completely disrespectful about) uses one.



> [or do those goalposts need shifting elsewhere for a while longer?


You know how ever much you use that phrase it doesn't make it true you know.

Please tell me how stating that DSLRs are superior, and then given the ways that they are superior is "moving the goalposts"?

Also, tell me shooting down in flames the pathetic pictures posted earlier is "moving the goalposts"?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 17, 2014)

Bungle73 You deserve all the chain pulling that you have received on here. Go back over the thread from the beginning and read it all again to see where you went wrong.

And do that on a computer - not a phone.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 17, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> ....tell me shooting down in flames the pathetic pictures posted earlier is "moving the goalposts"?


.
.
.



Bungle73 said:


> Now try taking a picture in low light



You have no idea what you were supposed to be searching for do you? First posting a bunch of pictures with no info at all on camera or settings and that are not full size is beyond useless.

That's not a  low light shot. With all those buildings lit up it's practically like broad daylight. Also, what ISO was used?  You don't know do you?  It was probably a really high one that gives noise galore.  The tiny sensor in a camera phone is just not capable of producing high quality low noise low light shots.




Bungle73 said:


> then try a macro shot



I just don't believe that was done on a phone....at least not without some kind attached lens.  There is no phone out there that comes stock with a lens capable of taking a picture like that.  Phones come with wide angle lenses and you'd never be able to hold the phone close enough to take shot like that.



Bungle73 said:


> then try taking one of something far away



I meant a close up of something far away with a long focal length.  Any old camera can take a shot like that.



Bungle73 said:


> then a sport's action shot



Honestly, this one's the funniest of the bunch.  I can't believe you were serious when you posted it.  I mean something like this:



Bungle73 said:


> then a long exposure shot



Again, nice try, but no cigar.  Try doing something like this on phone:



Bungle73 said:


> then try getting a narrow DoF shot.



You do realise that close-up shots always have an inherent shallow DoF don't you? You don't you do, because you thought you were being clever by posting that.


No moving of goalposts...?

You, sir, are deluded!


----------



## editor (Mar 17, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Honestly you are flip-flopping here more than a very flippy floppy thing. If you are not arguing that when why every time I state how DSLRs are superior do you keep going about "Oh, X person had a phone picture published in X magazine!"? Show me where I said you can't get a good image out of a phone?  I said that no where.  What I actually said is that a DSLR is technological superior and more versatile. And these are exactly the points you keep arguing against. I also said a pro's MAIN camera will always be a DSLR.  Did I say they would never use a phone? I did not.  In fact I said many, many posts ago that Mike Browne (the guy you were completely disrespectful about) uses one.


Actually, you said this:


Bungle73 said:


> Mike Browne has an iPhone he takes snaps with - in fact he has a whole video about taking images with one - *but do you think he'd use one on a job? I very much doubt it.*


So why do you think he'd never use one on a job? Is it not good enough for professional work?


Bungle73 said:


> A phone doesn't come anywhere near to equalling the quality of even a budget DSLR, no matter how many megapixels it's got.


Is that a fact? Are they that crap then?


Bungle73 said:


> Not to mention a DSLR lens outshines the one a phone by about a million times.


Oh really? So if they're as awful as you claim, then there'd be no chance of prestigious magazines using them, right?


----------



## editor (Mar 17, 2014)

Oh hold on Bungle73 , Ten seconds Googling shows you're talking bollocks about this Mike Brown bloke too. He was using camera phones on assignment as far back as 201.


> In 2011, he documented the Libyan revolution using a camera phone, exploring ethical distance and the iconography of warfare
> 
> http://www.mcbphotos.com/#/biography


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 17, 2014)

I can sense ed's just absolutely bloody _desperate_ to share the link of some really amazing phone shots in Nat. Geographic.

Someone please, for the love of god, throw him a bone


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 17, 2014)

editor said:


> Oh hold on Bungle73 , Ten seconds Googling shows you're talking bollocks about this Mike Brown bloke too. He was using camera phones on assignment as far back as 201.


LOL! That's a completely different person!


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 17, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> So, are you, or are you or are you not arguing that a phone camera can equal a DSLR in all areas? Yes or no?



The only person arguing for or against that point is you. 

Your arguments make as much sense as arguing that the paint brushes used by Turner weren't as good as the brushes available today, ergo, his paintings can't be as good as a modern painting.


----------



## editor (Mar 17, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> LOL! That's a completely different person!


Yet it _still _rubbishes your claim that a pro wouldn't use a smartphone on assignment! You get pwned without even trying these days.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 17, 2014)

Poor old Bungle - grandmothers and eggs come to mind.  Sorry if that was a bit unkind.


----------



## neonwilderness (Mar 17, 2014)

editor said:


> Oh hold on Bungle73 , Ten seconds Googling shows you're talking bollocks about this Mike Brown bloke too. He was using camera phones on assignment as far back as 201.


That's quite a good set of photos. However they probably don't look great at 1:1 so don't count


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 17, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> The only person arguing for or against that point is you.
> 
> Your arguments make as much sense as arguing that the paint brushes used by Turner weren't as good as the brushes available today, ergo, his paintings can't be as good as a modern painting.


I suggest you stay out of this conversation as you obviously know nothing about it, and still keep insisting those pictures you posted were legit.



editor said:


> Yet it _still _rubbishes your claim that a pro wouldn't use a smartphone on assignment! You get pwned without even trying these days.


Some war zone in the back of beyond where image quality is not the top priority, is not exactly the same as a wedding or interior or portrait shoot, anything else that the majority of pro photographers earn their money from.

You just made a fool of yourself posting that.  Not only was it a different person, he isn't even the same nationality!


----------



## editor (Mar 17, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Some war zone in the back of beyond where image quality is not the top priority, is not exactly the same as a wedding or interior or portrait shoot, anything else that the majority of pro photographers earn their money from.


You seem to have lost all attachment with reality now.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 17, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Not only was it a different person, he isn't even the same nationality!



Eh?


----------



## editor (Mar 17, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Eh?


It's all to do with the way that foreigners affix lens caps.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 17, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> I suggest you stay out of this conversation as you obviously know nothing about it, and still keep insisting those pictures you posted were legit.



Good comeback 



Bungle73 said:


> Some war zone in the back of beyond where image quality is not the top priority, is not exactly the same as a wedding or interior or portrait shoot, anything else that the majority of pro photographers earn their money from.



Quelle surprise...!  Another goalpost shift


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 17, 2014)

editor said:


> You seem to have lost all attachment with reality now.


That's "go to" phrase what ever the situation isn't it? Even when it makes zero sense what so ever.


Spymaster said:


> Eh?


The Mike Browne I follow on YouTube is a fattish Englishman who lives somewhere in Hampshire.  The Michael Brown (with a completely different spelling to boot) that Ed posted is from Washington State *in America!*


----------



## Corax (Mar 17, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> I suggest you stay out of this conversation as you obviously know nothing about it...
> 
> 
> ... You just made a fool of yourself posting that.  Not only was it a different person, he isn't even the same nationality!


Fuck me, can you hear yourself?!?


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 17, 2014)

I was looking forward to editor's Nat Geo pictures but something gives me the impression that because they're not billboard sized prints, they won't be 'legit'...


----------



## editor (Mar 17, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Quelle surprise...!  Another goalpost shift


It's quite a remarkable assertion. Most pros would rightly think that photographing in a war zone is a far more demanding job that snapping interiors and nice weddings, but it seems that in Bungle's confused head they don't really count for much because, err, it's not what "the majority of pro photographers earn their money from."


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 17, 2014)

Corax said:


> Fuck me, can you hear yourself?!?


Yes  of course we take notice of someone who posts a bunch of pictures which bare only a passing resemblance to what I was looking for, and then when I take them apart one by one still refusing to acknowledge that they made a mistake.


----------



## neonwilderness (Mar 17, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> I was looking forward to editor's Nat Geo pictures but something gives me the impression that because they're not billboard sized prints, they won't be 'legit'...


editor isn't a fatish Englishman so his opinions don't count


----------



## editor (Mar 17, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> The Mike Browne I follow on YouTube is a fattish Englishman who lives somewhere in Hampshire.  The Michael Brown (with a completely different spelling to boot) that Ed posted is from Washington State *in America!*


And he appears to be a lot more successful and accomplished too, but no doubt you'll ignore anything he says, eh?


----------



## Fez909 (Mar 17, 2014)

See as ed is so reluctant to share professional quality photos taken with phones, I've done some digging and found some myself (non-NatGeo). Enjoy


----------



## Fez909 (Mar 17, 2014)




----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 17, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Yes  of course we take notice of someone who posts a bunch of pictures which bare only a passing resemblance to what I was looking for, and then when I take them apart one by one still refusing to acknowledge that they made a mistake.


Please accept my profound apologies for failing to predict which direction the goalposts were heading.


----------



## neonwilderness (Mar 17, 2014)

Rubbish.


----------



## Fez909 (Mar 17, 2014)




----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 17, 2014)

editor said:


> And he appears to be a lot more successful and accomplished too, but no doubt you'll ignore anything he says, eh?


You know I have never in my life seen someone so disrespectful about someone as you have been

.  Just because I used them to back up my case.



editor said:


> It's quite a remarkable assertion. Most pros would rightly think that photographing in a war zone is a far more demanding job that snapping interiors and nice weddings, but it seems that in Bungle's confused head they don't really count for much because, err, it's not what "the majority of pro photographers earn their money from."


I could point the very obvious of why a smaller camera is better in such a situation, but I won't bother because you'll only come out with another load of complete bollocks.


----------



## Fez909 (Mar 17, 2014)




----------



## Fez909 (Mar 17, 2014)




----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 17, 2014)

Oh, and disrespectful about me too! Calling me a "deceitful little shit" just because I told someone exactly what it is you are arguing here.  Nice.

And don't fucking deny it again, because you are.  You have been arguing it for 22 fucking pages.


----------



## neonwilderness (Mar 17, 2014)

Photos of zebras don't count.


----------



## Fez909 (Mar 17, 2014)




----------



## editor (Mar 17, 2014)

Here's some of the ones taken on a Lumia for a Nat Geo assignment. The photos were used across multiple pages inside the magazine. 

They prove beyond all doubt that a high end smartphone can be used for some professional work and that they can produce work of such quality that it is impossible to tell the difference when seeing them in a magazine.












http://www.nationalgeographic.com/nokia/


----------



## Fez909 (Mar 17, 2014)

neonwilderness said:


> Photos of zebras don't count.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 17, 2014)

Someone tell me what those images are supposed to prove?  They prove nothing at all.  Show me the same image from a phone and from a DSLR.  You won't.

I've already posted a bunch of images earlier that you can only get from a DSLR and you have tried to make out that the other similar pathetic image posted are "the same", when they are not the same at all. They are very,very different.


----------



## editor (Mar 17, 2014)

Stunning work.


----------



## Fez909 (Mar 17, 2014)




----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 17, 2014)

>



I see a ton of noise in that image.  In fact the overall quality is not very high at all.


----------



## Fez909 (Mar 17, 2014)




----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Mar 18, 2014)

editor the bike silhouette is a stunning shot.  It's such a shame that you can't get sports action shots with a phone though.

Keep it up folks.  This thread has gone from a really daft bunfight into a brilliant, eclectic gallery.  Good work all


----------



## editor (Mar 18, 2014)

Zapp Brannigan said:


> editor the bike silhouette is a stunning shot.  It's such a shame that you can't get sports action shots with a phone though.


Not just a sports action shot, but a _low light_ sports action shot! Double impossible!


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 18, 2014)

editor said:


> Stunning work.



Doesn't count... There must be 3 people in the shot to balance the image!

... and the walls are too steep.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 18, 2014)

You can post as many images as you like, but it doesn't change the facts.  Why don't you try going onto a photography forum and trying the same line you're using here? You won't, because you know what answer you'll get.


----------



## Fez909 (Mar 18, 2014)




----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 18, 2014)

editor said:


> Not just a sports action shot, but a _low light_ sports action shot! Double impossible!


You really are someone who claims to know a lot but actually knows very little. That shot is noise city - and is not very good quality, as I already said. If you actually knew anything you'd know noise is the price for shooting in low light with a small sensor camera, but you obviously don't.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 18, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> You can post as many images as you like, but it doesn't change the facts.  Why don't you try going onto a photography forum and trying the same line you're using here? You won't, because you know what answer you'll get.



In case you hadn't noticed... we're in the photography forum 

(or does it only count if the domain name contains 'photography'?)


----------



## Fez909 (Mar 18, 2014)




----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 18, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> In case you hadn't noticed... we're in the photography forum
> 
> (or does it only count if the domain name contains 'photography'?)


I mean a forum that actually has a bunch of people who are experts on photography, rather than a  bunch of people who think they are.


----------



## Fez909 (Mar 18, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> I mean a forum that actually has a bunch of people who are experts on photography, rather than a  bunch of people who think they are.


Experts don't use photography forums. They don't need them.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 18, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> Experts don't use photography forums. They don't need them.


That would be why Tony and Chelsea Northrup frequent their private forum on FB then?

And of course no expert on something would want to take part in a forum on their subject of interest would they?


----------



## Fez909 (Mar 18, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> That would be why Tony and Chelsea Northrup frequent their private forum on FB then?
> 
> And of course no expert on something would want to take part in a forum on their subject of interest would they?


Two experts using a private Facebook group isn't great evidence.

Of course some people will choose to take part in online forums, but they'll be in the minority. Most people on forums (in any subject) are beginners, casuals and amateurs. Which is why when you find the odd expert on a forum they stand out so much.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 18, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> Two experts using a private Facebook group isn't great evidence.


Um, why not?  They're there, and able to answer questions.



> Of course some people will choose to take part in online forums, but they'll be in the minority. Most people on forums (in any subject) are beginners, casuals and amateurs. Which is why when you find the odd expert on a forum they stand out so much.


Um, exactly how many "experts" do you think you need?? By my count you only need the one. And why can't someone be both an "expert" and an amateur? Many amateurs, in lots of fields, are exactly that.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 18, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> You really are someone who claims to know a lot but actually knows very little. That shot is noise city - and is not very good quality, as I already said. If you actually knew anything you'd know noise is the price for shooting in low light with a small sensor camera, but you obviously don't.



Are you serious?

So what it boils down to (on planet Bungle), is that a photograph is shite unless it's clinically perfect?

So this is a shit photograph (on planet Bungle)?






Not a great example but it'll do.

And what about film? Film is grainy as fuck... are all shots taken with a film camera shite too?

You're accusing people of knowing nothing about photography... Ironic poster is ironic.


----------



## Fez909 (Mar 18, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Um, why not?  They're there, and able to answer questions.
> 
> 
> Um, exactly how many "experts" do you think you need?? By my count you only need the one. And why can't someone be both an "expert" and an amateur? Many amateurs, in lots of fields, are exactly that.


am·a·teur  (ăm′ə-tûr′, -tər, -cho͝or′, -chər, -tyo͝or′)
_n._
1. A person who engages in an art, science, study, or athletic activity as a pastime rather than as a profession.
2. _Sports_ An athlete who has never accepted money, or who accepts money under restrictions specified by a regulatory body, for participating in a competition.
*3. One lacking the skill of a professional, as in an art.*


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 18, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Are you serious?
> 
> So what it boils down to (on planet Bungle), is that a photograph is shite unless it's clinically perfect?
> 
> ...


LOL! You don't give up do you. So you think that any stock photo site or somewhere like Getty would accept an image like that of the cyclist, with that much noise in it, and of such low quality.  News images are 100% different. I can tell you now that some stock photo sites are very, very picky about what they will and won't accept.

Do you actually know why people buy DSLRs (and I'll give you a clue, it's not to make the user look "cool"), and why they are used for the majority of professional photography?  I suggest you go and find out.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 18, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> am·a·teur  (ăm′ə-tûr′, -tər, -cho͝or′, -chər, -tyo͝or′)
> _n._
> 1. A person who engages in an art, science, study, or athletic activity as a pastime rather than as a profession.
> 2. _Sports_ An athlete who has never accepted money, or who accepts money under restrictions specified by a regulatory body, for participating in a competition.
> *3. One lacking the skill of a professional, as in an art.*





> expert
> ˈɛkspəːt/
> _noun_
> noun: *expert*; plural noun: *experts*
> ...


----------



## Fez909 (Mar 18, 2014)

OK, so you're agreeing with me now?


----------



## discokermit (Mar 18, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> And what about film? Film is grainy as fuck.


lol!


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 18, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> OK, so you're agreeing with me now?


Um, how so?



> a person who is very knowledgeable about or skilful in a particular area.


How can that not apply to an amateur?


----------



## discokermit (Mar 18, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> News images are 100% different.


next up, zapruder film is broadcast standard. ''but it's been on telly!''.


----------



## editor (Mar 18, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> You really are someone who claims to know a lot but actually knows very little. That shot is noise city - and is not very good quality, as I already said. If you actually knew anything you'd know noise is the price for shooting in low light with a small sensor camera, but you obviously don't.


I do know that it was used by National Geographic.

I think that says enough about:
(a) how good it is and (b) what your opinion on the matter is worth.


----------



## editor (Mar 18, 2014)

Hey Bungle73 - what do you think of this photo? Too much noise to be any good?


----------



## Fez909 (Mar 18, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Um, how so?
> 
> 
> How can that not apply to an amateur?


your own definition of expert included "amateur" as an antonym


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 18, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> LOL! You don't give up do you. So you think that any stock photo site or somewhere like Getty would accept an image like that of the cyclist, with that much noise in it, and of such low quality.  News images are 100% different. I can tell you now that some stock photo sites are very, very picky about what they will and won't accept.
> 
> Do you actually know why people buy DSLRs (and I'll give you a clue, it's not to make the user look "cool"), and why they are used for the majority of professional photography?  I suggest you go and find out.



Ah, right, I see... National Grographic don't know what they're talking about, and the images they use aren't even fit for stock photo sites.

I'm not sure I agree with you but you're entitled to your opinion... as ridiculously stupid as it is may be.



discokermit said:


> lol!



I am, of course, talking about planet Bungle, where unless it can be blown up to a billboard sized print, with pixel perfect quality, it's shite.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 18, 2014)

editor said:


> I do know that it was used by National Geographic.
> 
> I think that says enough about:
> (a) how good it is and (b) what your opinion on the matter is worth.


In an article about taking pictures with a phone.................

http://www.friends-arc.com/national-geographic

Do you think they'd put that image on their cover? Of course they wouldn't


----------



## discokermit (Mar 18, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> I am, of course, talking about planet Bungle, where unless it can be blown up to a billboard sized print, with pixel perfect quality, it's shite.


that was pretty much what i was taught on my hnd. and for the vast majority of professional work it stood true.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 18, 2014)

discokermit said:


> next up, zapruder film is broadcast standard. ''but it's been on telly!''.


I've no idea what you are talking about.


Dr_Herbz said:


> Ah, right, I see... National Grographic don't know what they're talking about, and the images they use aren't even fit for stock photo sites.


In an article about phone pictures...............................



> I'm not sure I agree with you but you're entitled to your opinion... as ridiculously stupid as it is may be.


The only thing that's ridiculous is you continue post like you know anything about it, where as those images you posted show that you don't, and that you are still refusing to accept were not what I was talking about at at all.




> I am, of course, talking about planet Bungle, where unless it can be blown up to a billboard sized print, with pixel perfect quality, it's shite.


Did you find out what people buy DSLRs, and why they're used by pros? You didn't, did you?


----------



## fuck seals (Mar 18, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> You really are someone who claims to know a lot but actually knows very little /snip.  If you actually knew anything /snip




are you a dslr expert bungle? - i only ask as you bought your first dslr just 6 months ago. and only got into photography 18 months before that.  http://500px.com/GrahamWest/about

eta - your photosets are not too bad, to be fair.


----------



## discokermit (Mar 18, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> I've no idea what you are talking about.


i was agreeing with you. a piece of film of exceptionally bad quality that is broadcast despite not being of broadcast standard.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 18, 2014)

fuck seals said:


> are you a dslr expert bungle? - i only ask as you bought your first dslr just 6 months ago. and only got into photography 18 months before that.  http://500px.com/GrahamWest/about


No, and I never claimed to  be. But I do know what they are capable of, why people buy them, and how they are superior to cameras with tiny sensors.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 18, 2014)

editor said:


> And assuming that _any_ dSLR is better than a new smartphone isn't too clever either..



Yes, it would  be totally a dumbass assumption. Good  thing no one has said any such thing so far, apart from your mentioning in the quoted post.


----------



## fuck seals (Mar 18, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> No, and I never claimed to  be. But I do know what they are capable of, why people buy them, and how they are superior to cameras with tiny sensors.



fast learner.  i like that.


----------



## editor (Mar 18, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> In an article about taking pictures with a phone.................
> 
> http://www.friends-arc.com/national-geographic


Here's his quote from that very article.  Once again, it destroys your clueless arguments: 


> I've used a lot of smartphones, but the Nokia Lumia 1020 is extraordinary. There's never been anything like it. *Until now, I could only get images like this using a professional DSLR camera."*


----------



## editor (Mar 18, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Yes, it would  be totally a dumbass assumption. Good  thing no one has said any such thing so far, apart from your mentioning in the quoted post.


Er, yes they have.


----------



## editor (Mar 18, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> No, and I never claimed to  be. But I do know what they are capable of, why people buy them, and how they are superior to cameras with tiny sensors.


But you've never used either professionally, yet still presume to tell those who have that they're wrong? Way to go!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 18, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> ...


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 18, 2014)

editor said:


> Er, yes it can. The Lumia 1020 offers "manual control for exposure time – from one sixteen-thousandth of a second (1/16000s) up to four seconds."  [--]
> 
> Oh, and ND filters for long exposure? Yep, that's very possible too. [--]
> 
> View attachment 50399



I think the photo Bungle posted has been messed with in pp, but in any event the quality of the two photos is very different.


----------



## editor (Mar 18, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


>


You missed out the words that are supposed to underline whatever point it is that you're making,


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 18, 2014)

editor said:


> But you've never used either professionally, yet still presume to tell those who have that they're wrong? Way to go!


Why the hell do I need to have used them "professionally" do know what the differences are? I know what they are.

It really is amazing to me that someone who claims to know about photography has spent 24 pages trying to argue that no one needs a DSLR any more because phones do everything and have comparable image quality.


----------



## editor (Mar 18, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> It really is amazing to me that someone who claims to know about photography has spent 24 pages trying to argue that no one needs a DSLR any more because phones do everything and have comparable image quality.


So you'll have no problem producing at least one post where I make such a claim, yes?


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 18, 2014)

editor said:


> So you'll have no problem producing at least one post where I make such a claim, yes?


Oh, so people do need DSLRs then?  You admit it at last?


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 18, 2014)

lol


----------



## editor (Mar 18, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Oh, so people do need DSLRs then?  You admit it at last?


Just the one quote will do fine, thanks.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 18, 2014)

editor said:


> Just the one quote will do fine, thanks.


This whole thread is one big quote.  Your endless posts about how "phones are as good as DSLRs" because a few photos have "been in NG".


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 18, 2014)

editor said:


> ], so we can rest assured that anything that makes it in there is of the highest quality with no compromises in photographic quality. You'd agree on that wouldn't you?



I'm afraid not. 



> _The Pyramids at Giza in the smoky light of evening. Three camels and their riders in the foreground._
> 
> _ "The famous National Geographic cover," Rowell said. "The Pyramids were moved in relation to the camel riders to make room for the logo. Originally the cover was to be a picture of mine of a Tibetan boy. They kicked it off because the Chinese Embassy objected. The Chinese said they wouldn't let National Geographic writers and photographers into Tibet again if they ran that picture on the cover. It was already at the printer's. When they decided to yank mine out, they needed an instant replacement. They chose this picture, which was a horizontal. In making it a vertical they reset the riders."_



http://museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/photo_database/image/the_case_of_the_moving_pyramids/


Manipulated photo from Nat. Geog.






http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/378-National-Geographic-and-Fauxtography.html


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 18, 2014)

Tell me, Ed, if you're so convinced that camera phones are the bee's knees why do you own a mirrorless camera?


----------



## discokermit (Mar 18, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Oh, so people do need DSLRs then?  You admit it at last?


thinking about it, if it's quality of image that's important, wouldn't you be using medium format?


----------



## editor (Mar 18, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I'm afraid not.
> 
> http://museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/photo_database/image/the_case_of_the_moving_pyramids/


That story is from *1982*, ffs, and it's got bugger all to do with the _photographic quality_ argument either. Oh well.


----------



## editor (Mar 18, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Tell me, Ed, if you're so convinced that camera phones are the bee's knees why do you own a mirrorless camera?


It's getting a bit boring listening to you posting up your mad lies now. Please stop. Thanks.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 18, 2014)

editor said:


> That story is from *1982*, ffs, and it's got bugger all to do with the _photographic quality_ argument either. Oh well.



What can one say about photographic quality when the image has been made for all intents and purposes, by a computer?

Are these quality photos?


----------



## fishfinger (Mar 18, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> What can one say about photographic quality when the image has been made for all intents and purposes, by a computer?
> 
> Are these quality photos?


Those are quality photo manipulations. They are no more "made by a computer", than a photograph is "made by a camera". Both require a creative talent to produce good results.


----------



## editor (Mar 18, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> What can one say about photographic quality when the image has been made for all intents and purposes, by a computer?


Computers don't make photos that like, Johnny. I'm not even sure what convoluted point it is you're trying to make here, but it seems to have little to do with the discussion.

What is under discussion is whether a smartphone can be used to produce work of a high enough quality to be used professionally and at a high level, and the answer to that is - under some circumstances - most definitely, and I've produced ample evidence of that happening. I've even sold a smartphone photo myself.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 18, 2014)

editor said:


> . I've even sold a smartphone photo myself.



Have you sold any film or digital camera photos? How many?


----------



## editor (Mar 18, 2014)

Incidentally, the Lumia image used in NG wasn't just across on page - it formed part of a three page gatefold shot. 



> During the trip, Alvarez used the phone to shoot a wide, 16:9 image of Lizard Rock in Moab, Utah with the Lumia 1020. The wide-angle image, which is cropped down to approximately 38MP, is being used as a three-page gatefold shot in the current issue of National Geographic, to help celebrate the magazine's 125th anniversary.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## editor (Mar 18, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Have you sold any film or digital camera photos? How many?


I think you should go back and read what's been discussed in this thread before firing off any more random questions.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 18, 2014)

editor said:


> I think you should go back and read what's been discussed in this thread before firing off any more random questions.



Is there some reason for not answering it?

I suppose you wouldn't want to make a big deal of it if the answer is 'none'.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 18, 2014)

Check out the noise in these shite photographs...











Not even fit for the recycle bin...


----------



## discokermit (Mar 18, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Is there some reason for not answering it?
> 
> I suppose you wouldn't want to make a big deal of it if the answer is 'none'.


he sold that one of the thatcher death party to that tory paper.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 18, 2014)

discokermit said:


> he sold that one of the thatcher death party to that tory paper.



What did he take the photo with though?


----------



## discokermit (Mar 18, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> What did he take the photo with though?


pinhole camera. he left his dslr at home with his moral compass.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 18, 2014)

More noisy shite....


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 18, 2014)

discokermit said:


> pinhole camera. he left his dslr at home with his moral compass.



Are you his solicitor?


----------



## editor (Mar 18, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Is there some reason for not answering it?


Yes, because I've already got bored with you not bothering to read what I've repeatedly said already, missing the point altogether and bombard me with irrelevant questions, and pointless rubbish about a photo from 1982.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 18, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> More noisy shite....



Some camera phone shots:


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 18, 2014)

editor said:


> Yes, because I've already got bored with you not bothering to read what I've repeatedly said already, missing the point altogether and bombard me with irrelevant questions, and pointless rubbish about a photo from 1982.



Right. 

This bombardment has been so heavy, a helmet might be necessary.

Two 'bunker buster' questions.


----------



## editor (Mar 18, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Some camera phone shots:


So people don't take bad pictures on 'proper' cameras then?
Oh, OK. Great point, brilliantly made with that collection of photos from fuck knows when and taken on fuck knows what .


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 18, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Some camera phone shots:



WTF...? 

A DSLR shot...


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 18, 2014)

editor said:


> So people don't take bad pictures on 'proper' cameras then?.



Apparently they do. Dr Herbs has been posting examples, right above mine.


----------



## editor (Mar 18, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Right.
> 
> This bombardment has been so heavy, a helmet might be necessary.
> 
> Two 'bunker buster' questions.


I'll leave you to continue your seemingly totally random stream of uncredited photos. Perhaps a coherent point may have emerged in the morning.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 18, 2014)

editor said:


> I'll leave you to continue your seemingly totally random stream of uncredited photos. Perhaps a coherent point may have emerged in the morning.



Actually, I'm going to go and make some nachos, to be accompanied by juicer-made juice. We'll see how it goes after that.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 18, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Apparently they do. Dr Herbs has been posting examples, right above mine.



That's the thing... I like those photos, regardless of noise but in Johnny Bungle's world, they're shite.

I guess it takes all kinds..


----------



## existentialist (Mar 18, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> That's more like it; but it's not quite what I posted is it.
> 
> No you didn't.  You went off and Google image searched a bunch of pictures that you *thought* would do, but in reality you had no idea what you were supposed to be searching for, and now you've been found out you don't want to admit it.
> 
> Why did you "Like" that post then? It's obviously because you thought the images posted had me done up like a kipper. That only proves you had no idea what I'm talking about, or what a DSLR is truly capable of, and what a phone isn't.


A mind reader, too. Is there no end to your talents?


----------



## existentialist (Mar 18, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Oh, and disrespectful about me too! Calling me a "deceitful little shit" just because I told someone exactly what it is you are arguing here.  Nice.
> 
> And don't fucking deny it again, because you are.  You have been arguing it for 22 fucking pages.


Given the way you behave, it'd be bloody difficult for anyone to be OTHER than disrespectful to you.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 18, 2014)

I know nothing whatsoever about photography and have a Nikon Coolpix from about 2005. But I do know about arguments, I know about how to influence people and I know about how to play to a gallery. And by those measures, Bungle has lost this argument spectacularly.


----------



## gabi (Mar 18, 2014)

Crikey - what a pack of fucking weirdos   Only looked at a couple of pages, but seriously guys, you need to get out more.


----------



## Hulot (Mar 18, 2014)

Very persuasive arguments on both sides. I'm going to find a compromise between the two: from now on I'm going to put my lens hood on sideways.


----------



## Corax (Mar 18, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> That's the thing... I like those photos, regardless of noise but in Johnny Bungle's world, they're shite.
> 
> I guess it takes all kinds..


Oh, so now good photography is about people *liking* the photo is it?


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 18, 2014)

Corax said:


> Oh, so now good photography is about people *liking* the photo is it?



Well I thought it was but I'm not sure now... Perhaps it really is all about taking pictures of badly lit brick walls from 90 degrees and checking the resulting images to make sure they're straight and noise free.

I'm confused...


----------



## neonwilderness (Mar 18, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> I mean a forum that actually has a bunch of people who are experts on photography, rather than a  bunch of people who think they are.


I was under the impression that there are at least a couple of members posting here who make at least some sort of living from photography 

But they probably don't count


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 18, 2014)

Gromit said:


> Not forgetting when Leica and Panasonic were selling the exact same camera (made in the same factory to the same spec) and the Leica was £80 more because it had a Leica badge on it.



Although to be fair, the software/firmware is different between the cameras.
Not enough difference to make it worth the extra money for a Leica badge, though.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 18, 2014)

Corax said:


> Same thing happens with cars, tvs, loads of stuff. It's kinda depressing how much it succeeds tbh.


Badge-engineering (the name given to the practice about 60 years ago) is ridiculously common, but *can* sometimes work in the consumer's favour, if you can spot the (lack of) difference between branded and "cheapo" products.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 18, 2014)

Corax said:


> Fuck me, can you hear yourself?!?



Nope, he's deaf to his wn stupidity, and totally incapable of the self-awareness needed to admit what a prick he is.
Still, at least he hasn't threatened to report anyone to his friends on the RailUK boards, so that's an improvement, I suppose...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 18, 2014)

fuck seals said:


> are you a dslr expert bungle? - i only ask as you bought your first dslr just 6 months ago. and only got into photography 18 months before that.  http://500px.com/GrahamWest/about
> 
> eta - your photosets are not too bad, to be fair.



So basically he's a fresh convert.  What one might call a zealot.   It explains why he's full of opinions that aremeaningless *if* one chooses to remember that photography is an art, rather than merely a series of practices dependent upon having "the right gear".

I got into photography as part of a "Graphic Art" O level course at school about 38 years ago, which taught me about the rules of composition and how to break them creatively; which taught me how to wring quality results from cheap or home-made kit; when a "painterly" eye serves your purpose, and when a technician's eye does; how to process film and make prints, and to perform the various arcane rites of "darkroom wizardry", and many other things.  One of the first things we were taught, though, is that it's *never* about the quality of the gear.

It's not about whether you're a "professional" or an "amateur", either. I've met professional photographers (mostly established wedding photographers) whose work was of a quality so quotidian you'd almost think they'd worked down to a poor standard, even though their kit was high-quality (invariably, 'blads and Nikons), and amateurs whose "erotica" would have given Bob Carlos Clarke a stonking boner.  A label is exactly that - a label.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 18, 2014)

discokermit said:


> that was pretty much what i was taught on my hnd. and for the vast majority of professional work it stood true.



Although, of course, "the vast majority of professional work" is still just a drop in the ocean of photographic art.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 18, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Have you sold any film or digital camera photos? How many?



He's sold an awful lot.  That's why Bungle's buglings have been so hilarious.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 18, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> What did he take the photo with though?



I liked this not because of your question, but because IIRC the answer is quite amusing and informative.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 18, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> Those are quality photo manipulations. They are no more "made by a computer", than a photograph is "made by a camera". Both require a creative talent to produce good results.



People still get hung up on seeing photography as a way of presenting an snapshot "true record" of an event, often ignoring or simply not bothering with the fact that photography is actually mostly *representational*, that even the smallest choice made at the taking or processing stage can change the way that others will "read" the picture.  It's an art-form that has a grounding in technology, not a science, as some people hope it is (because to do so validates their expensive gear, and lends them the hope that they can master photography through rote learning).

And if anyone reading this gets the impression that I dislike gearheads, damn right!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 18, 2014)

existentialist said:


> A mind reader, too. Is there no end to your talents?



There isn't even a beginning to them, let alone an end.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 18, 2014)

gabi said:


> Crikey - what a pack of fucking weirdos   Only looked at a couple of pages, but seriously guys, you need to get out more.



Don't worry, we think you're a weirdo too.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 18, 2014)

Corax said:


> Oh, so now good photography is about people *liking* the photo is it?



"Good photography" is in the eye of the beholder.  For some people it's all about technical image quality (definition, resolution etc).  For others it's about how a photo "speaks to" you - what it tells you,  how it makes you feel, and what thoughts it provokes (all utterly subjective, of course, but then art always is!).
For me both definitions I've made "work" for me, but I personally get far more joy from pictures in the latter category, than in the first.


----------



## marty21 (Mar 18, 2014)

could some on post a picture taken with the lens hood on backwards and the same picture with the lend hood on forwards ?

SCIENCE demands it


----------



## fishfinger (Mar 18, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> People still get hung up on seeing photography as a way of presenting an snapshot "true record" of an event, often ignoring or simply not bothering with the fact that photography is actually mostly *representational*, that even the smallest choice made at the taking or processing stage can change the way that others will "read" the picture.  It's an art-form that has a grounding in technology, not a science, as some people hope it is (because to do so validates their expensive gear, and lends them the hope that they can master photography through rote learning).
> 
> And if anyone reading this gets the impression that I dislike gearheads, damn right!


As I've mentioned on another photography thread - the camera always lies, as every picture is subject to the photographer's idiosyncrasies. Camera technology may have improved in terms of "accuracy" ie better lenses, image sensors etc. But no amount of technology can make up for a lack of talent. Even "scientific" images require a lot of visual imagination on the part of the photographer, if they are to convey the "correct" message.


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 18, 2014)

The resolution on this Rothko is crap.  Loads of noise too.  Call himself a professional?  He needs better paintbrushes.  The other 13 must have been really rubbish.

Maybe he did it with his cap on backwards.


----------



## badseed (Mar 19, 2014)

I fucking love the internet.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 19, 2014)

At this point I feel the need to ask a question that has been bugging me.

What's a lens hood?


----------



## 5t3IIa (Mar 19, 2014)

kabbes said:


> At this point I feel the need to ask a question that has been bugging me.
> 
> What's a lens hood?


----------



## kabbes (Mar 19, 2014)

I see. Well you certainly don't want that backwards.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 19, 2014)

That is a cruel thing to do to a dog. 

And what is worse, it is on a site called Cute Animal Images. That isn't cute. The dog will wonder why his vision is changed. Taking the micky out of a human on a forum is bad enough but that animal cruelty is much worse.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 19, 2014)

It's satire. Didn't you watch Stuart Lee?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 19, 2014)

kabbes said:


> It's satire. Didn't you watch Stuart Lee?


Never heard of him. Was he cruel to animals?


----------



## kabbes (Mar 19, 2014)

You have made me sad


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 19, 2014)

kabbes said:


> You have made me sad


Serves you right for your antics on the counting thread.


----------



## neonwilderness (Mar 19, 2014)

kabbes said:


> It's satire. Didn't you watch Stuart Lee?


I wonder if an Anusol smeared mongoose could take a decent photo with a camera phone


----------



## kabbes (Mar 19, 2014)

It would be too angry because it doesn't like being smeared with anusol.


----------



## neonwilderness (Mar 19, 2014)

kabbes said:


> It would be too angry because it doesn't like being smeared with anusol.


Amateur


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 19, 2014)

editor said:


> It's getting a bit boring listening to you posting up your mad lies now. Please stop. Thanks.


Mad lies, huh?



editor said:


> I posted the details in an earlier post, but seeing as you're having such trouble believing them, here's a screengrab of the image and EXIF details.
> 
> View attachment 34254



http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/its-fucking-massive-moon-night-apparently.311997/page-3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympus_OM-D_E-M5

A mirrorless camera.


----------



## editor (Mar 19, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Mad lies, huh?
> A mirrorless camera.


What the fuckity fuck are you on about now?


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 19, 2014)

editor said:


> What the fuckity fuck are you on about now?


I might ask you the same question.  I asked what I thought would be a simple question to answer: why did you buy a mirrorless camera. Apparently I'm a "liar" for suggesting that you own such a device.  But as we all see now do you own one, or are you saying that the EXIF data that you yourself posted is wrong?


----------



## editor (Mar 19, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> I might ask you the same question.  I asked what I thought would be a simple question to answer: why did you buy a mirrorless camera. Apparently I'm a "liar" for suggesting that you own such a device.  But as we all see now do you own one, or are you saying that the EXIF data that you yourself posted is wrong?


I really haven't the slightest clue what you're blathering on about here.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 19, 2014)

editor said:


> I really haven't the slightest clue what you're blathering on about here.


No of course you don't.........

But it's plain for everyone else to see.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 19, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> No of course you don't.........
> 
> But it's plain for everyone else to see.


What is plain to see is that you are being quite ridiculously obsessive about editor's photographic activities.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 19, 2014)

Ed never denied he bought a mirror less camera, whatever the fuck that is.  That's not the part of your post he was denying.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 19, 2014)

existentialist said:


> What is plain to see is that you are being quite ridiculously obsessive about editor's photographic activities.


I'm not obsessed about anything.  I just want to know the reason Ed bought a mirrorless camera - not too difficult a question to ask you might think - since he has been arguing here is a phone is all anyone needs.  He must have bought one for a reason, and I'd like to know what it is.



kabbes said:


> Ed never denied he bought a mirror less camera, whatever the fuck that is.  That's not the part of your post he was denying.


Really?

My post:


Bungle73 said:


> Tell me, Ed, if you're so convinced that camera phones are the bee's knees why do you own a mirrorless camera?



His reply.


editor said:


> It's getting a bit boring listening to you posting up your mad lies now. Please stop. Thanks.



I take great exception be being called a "liar" as he has done several times in this thread, when I am clearly not.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 19, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> since he has been arguing here is a phone is all anyone needs.


This is not true and it is the part that led him to call you a liar.


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 19, 2014)

Denying things traditionally involves denying things

On a related note, asserting things traditionally involves asserting them.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 19, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> I'm not obsessed about anything.  I just want to know the reason Ed bought a mirrorless camera - not too difficult a question to ask you might think ......  He must have bought one for a reason, and I'd like to know what it is.



To take _mirrorless camera_ pictures? (whatever the fuck they are).



> since he has been arguing here is a phone is all anyone needs.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 19, 2014)

kabbes said:


> This is not true and it is the part that led him to call you a liar.


So it's wasn't Ed that when I said "DSLRs are better because of A and B, and can do X and Y" argues that A & B don't matter, and that phones can do X and Y as well?

Oh, and Ed re the Lumia 1020 a 4 second shutter speed isn't very impressive.  My ten year old Canon A80 (a compact camera) can do 15 seconds, and DSLRs can do 30, longer if one invokes Bulb mode.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 19, 2014)

You have misunderstood pretty much everything said to you.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 19, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> To take _mirrorless camera_ pictures? (whatever the fuck they are).


LOL!  This is the level of argument I'm having here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirrorless_interchangeable-lens_camera


----------



## kabbes (Mar 19, 2014)

Yep, you've now even got the non-photographers lined up against you, purely on the strength of your own arguments.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 19, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> LOL!  This is the level of argument I'm having here
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirrorless_interchangeable-lens_camera



 

I actually couldn't care less what a Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera is.

You're really odd.


----------



## editor (Mar 19, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Oh, and Ed re the Lumière 1020 a 4 second shutter speed isn't very impressive.  My ten year old Canon A80 (a compact camera) can do 15 seconds, and DSLRs can do 30, longer if one invokes Bulb mode.


Gosh. And isn't that amazing!
Oh, and good luck editing and sharing photos from that camera. And making calls. And sending emails. And browsing the web.

And it's called a Lumia.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 19, 2014)

editor said:


> Gosh. And isn't that amazing!
> Oh, and good luck editing and sharing photos from that camera. And making calls. And sending emails. And browsing the web.
> 
> And it's called a Lumia.


You need those speeds to do proper long exposure photography.

The 70D has built-in WiFi, with which one can share images, and even control the camera.

And if I want to make a call, send emails or browse the web I'll use my phone. A camera in a phone is a compromise. A DSLR camera is not because it is designed to do one job, and not to be a jack off all trades and a master of none.


----------



## editor (Mar 19, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> The 70D has built-in WiFi, with which one can share images, and even control the camera.


I thought you were talking about your "ten year old Canon A80"?

*Checks. Yes, you were.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 19, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> People still get hung up on seeing photography as a way of presenting an snapshot "true record" of an event, often ignoring or simply not bothering with the fact that photography is actually mostly *representational*, that even the smallest choice made at the taking or processing stage can change the way that others will "read" the picture.  It's an art-form that has a grounding in technology, not a science, as some people hope it is (because to do so validates their expensive gear, and lends them the hope that they can master photography through rote learning).
> 
> And if anyone reading this gets the impression that I dislike gearheads, damn right!



If I could like this 10 times I would. I absolutely would. Most definitely.

Yes.


----------



## Enviro (Mar 19, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> You need those speeds to do proper long exposure photography.
> 
> The 70D has built-in WiFi, with which one can share images, and even control the camera.
> 
> And if I want to make a call, send emails or browse the web I'll use my phone. A camera in a phone is a compromise. A DSLR camera is not because it is designed to do one job, and not to be a jack off all trades and a master of none.



Depending on the size of the building site jacking off all trades could take quite a while.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 19, 2014)

editor said:


> I thought you were talking about your "ten year old Canon A80"?
> 
> *Checks. Yes, you were.


I believe I also mentioned DSLRs in the same sentence didn't I? Yes I did.

Oh, and nice job side-stepping the question about your camera btw.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 19, 2014)

Enviro said:


> Depending on the size of the building site jacking off all trades could take quite a while.



I bet you could make quite a bit of money photographing it and selling the resulting 'erotica' though.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Mar 19, 2014)

Enviro said:


> Depending on the size of the building site jacking off all trades could take quite a while.


 
the voice of experience?


----------



## neonwilderness (Mar 19, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> My ten year old Canon A80 (a compact camera) can do 15 seconds, and DSLRs can do 30, longer if one invokes Bulb mode.


I thought you'd discounted million 10 year old Canons earlier in the thread?


----------



## editor (Mar 19, 2014)

neonwilderness said:


> I thought you'd discounted million 10 year old Canons earlier in the thread?








Yeah, but no, but yeah, but no.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 19, 2014)

neonwilderness said:


> I thought you'd discounted million 10 year old Canons earlier in the thread?




I was using it as an example of a camera (and an extremely old, low budget, one to boot) that far exceeds the quite frankly pathetic 4 second shutter speed Ed seems so impressed with.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 19, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> So it's wasn't Ed that when I said "DSLRs are better because of A and B, and can do X and Y" argues that A & B don't matter, and that phones can do X and Y as well?



What he rgued wasn't that "A & B don't matter", you disingenuous weasel, it was that "you can get great results from C & D, *some* of which can do X & Y".



> Oh, and Ed re the Lumia 1020 a 4 second shutter speed isn't very impressive.  My ten year old Canon A80 (a compact camera) can do 15 seconds, and DSLRs can do 30, longer if one invokes Bulb mode.



It's good for a phone camera, though.  That's the point (well one of them) that you appear to keep missing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 19, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> LOL!  This is the level of argument I'm having here
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirrorless_interchangeable-lens_camera



Yes, most sane people (and camera retailers) refer to them as "compact system cameras".  The "mirrorless" bit is a no-brainer, given that the cameras aren't SLRs.


----------



## Corax (Mar 19, 2014)

Bungle73 really seems quite unbalanced


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 19, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> You need those speeds to do proper long exposure photography.



No, you need those speeds to do *some* long-exposure photography, you absolutist goon.


----------



## neonwilderness (Mar 19, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> I was using it as an example of a camera (and an extremely old, low budget, one to boot) that far exceeds the quite frankly pathetic 4 second shutter speed Ed seems so impressed with.


But when I compared my iphone to my 20D you immediately rubbished my argument because the 20D is "a million years old" even though I still manage to take half decent photos with it.  But now an old Canon suits your argument they are suddenly ok again.


----------



## editor (Mar 19, 2014)

I take thousands of photos every year and can't remember that last time I took a 4 second exposure. Mind you, if that was really important to me, I'd clearly buy the best tools for the job, and the Lumia would be nowhere near the top of that list.

That said, it certainly would be a great 'carry everywhere' camera/phone and it clearly has the capability to take photos of a very high quality indeed. Good enough for publishing in one of the world's most prestigious photo magazines, in fact.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 19, 2014)

This has been a remarkable thread and will give us many memories for the years to come. One of my favourite moments was when Bungle73 tried to rubbish a well-known photograph by Henri Cartier-Bresson. He would be embarrassed if he had any idea who that was.


----------



## mauvais (Mar 19, 2014)

editor said:


> Gosh. And isn't that amazing!
> Oh, and good luck editing and sharing photos from that camera. And making calls. And sending emails. And browsing the web.
> 
> And it's called a Lumia.


By this definition, the greatest camera of all time is the iPad.


----------



## neonwilderness (Mar 19, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> This has been a remarkable thread and will give us many memories for the years to come. One of my favourite moments was when Bungle73 tried to rubbish a well-known photograph by Henri Cartier-Bresson. He would be embarrassed if he had any idea who that was.








No lens hood, obviously a complete amateur


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 19, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Oh, and Ed re the Lumia 1020 a 4 second shutter speed isn't very impressive.  My ten year old Canon A80 (a compact camera) can do 15 seconds, and DSLRs can do 30, longer if one invokes Bulb mode.









			
				A Sane Person said:
			
		

> My camera phone takes pretty good pictures






			
				Bungle73 said:
			
		

> How can your camera phone possibly be as good as a DSLR?






			
				A Sane Person said:
			
		

> But I didn't say that






			
				Bungle73 said:
			
		

> Yes you did. You just said your camera phone is better in every way than a DSLR






			
				A Sane Person said:
			
		

>






			
				Bungle73 said:
			
		

> You can't even control the shutter speed on your camera phone






			
				A Sane Person said:
			
		

> I can... up to 4s






			
				Bungle73 said:
			
		

> Yeah but 4 seconds isn't as long as 6 years and you own a mirrorless camera






			
				A Sane Person said:
			
		

>






			
				Bungle73 said:
			
		

> So you're finally admitting that you own a mirrorless camera?






			
				A Sane Person said:
			
		

>






			
				Bungle73 said:
			
		

> How can your camera phone possibly be as good as the Hubble telescope?






			
				A Sane Person said:
			
		

> I didn't say it was






			
				Bungle73 said:
			
		

> So you do admit that you own a mirrorless camera?






			
				A Sane Person said:
			
		

> I never denied it






			
				Bungle73 said:
			
		

> Yes you did. Everyone knows you did, and you said your phone has a bigger lens than the Hubble telescope






			
				Bungle73 said:
			
		

> So why did you say that all camera phones are better in every way than a Duckbill Platypus






			
				A Sane Person said:
			
		

>


----------



## fuck seals (Mar 19, 2014)

Bungle73

are you a simpleton or a troll?  or both?  as it most certainly not neither.

you seem to be utterly incapable of either constructing or following a reasoned argument without resorting to a victim's mentality or being as slippery as Des O'Connor covered in olive oil*.  Which is a shame, as generally the participants on this site are very adept at such argument.  cf butchers, pickmans, ed, the usual suspects.


you also seem to be unable to accept that those who have extremely deep & broad knowledge on various areas (cf. ed & photography & web, me on retail banks, butchers, frog and many on class issues, cesare on working conditions, kabbes on pizza, garf on driving & web, crispy on df & many many many others) could possibly have an opinion that needs to be deferred to.

u75 is a robust and knowledge collective of 10s of thousands of people.  who know stuff.  who are good at it. 

and will tell you in very short order when you're being an arse

you're being an arse.

please
.  concede you're not the expert & are wrong.  Or man up; stick to a single point and prove it cogently.
.  stop whining about how it's all so unfair & rude & disrespectful.  not just on this thread, but on all of them.  it's not & you know it

i am an avid reader of u75 - generally in a learning capacity - and you're making it a painful business to have to visit the site.

*very fucking slippery


----------



## sim667 (Mar 19, 2014)

editor said:


> I take thousands of photos every year and can't remember that last time I took a 4 second exposure.


You're not a real photographer until you can hand hold a 4 second exposure with no camera shake 

I've just spent the morning doing painting with light images with students, really want to go and do some in the real world now


----------



## xenon (Mar 19, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> So it's wasn't Ed that when I said "DSLRs are better because of A and B, and can do X and Y" argues that A & B don't matter, and that phones can do X and Y as well?
> 
> Oh, and Ed re the Lumia 1020 a 4 second shutter speed isn't very impressive.  My ten year old Canon A80 (a compact camera) can do 15 seconds, and DSLRs can do 30, longer if one invokes Bulb mode.



TBF you said DSLRs wre a millin times better than camera phones. Implying camera phones were next to useless for anything other than casual snapping. Then people presented situations in which to all practicle purposes, camera phones were better than DSLRs. That's why both high end cameras on phones and DSLRs both manage to exist and sell. You then seemed to be arguing from an absolutist POV and the thread predictably went the way it did.


----------



## xenon (Mar 19, 2014)

I know next to fuck all about cameras BTW.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 19, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> What he rgued wasn't that "A & B don't matter", you disingenuous weasel, it was that "you can get great results from C & D, *some* of which can do X & Y".


[
Um, yes he did.  I argued that DSLRs have superior image quality, and then it was put to me that image quality "doesn't matter"..........



> It's good for a phone camera, though.  That's the point (well one of them) that you appear to keep missing.


Um, I don't think I said it wasn't did i? What I actually said that it isn't as good as a DSLR, and this is precisely the point you people keep arguing against.


----------



## sim667 (Mar 19, 2014)

The only person who can sort this argument out is ken Rockwell


----------



## editor (Mar 19, 2014)

mauvais said:


> By this definition, the greatest camera of all time is the iPad.


That's a true Bungle-like bit of reasoning there.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 19, 2014)

mauvais said:


> By this definition, the greatest camera of all time is the iPad.


Oh yes the iPad is a great camera. I was trying to take some photographs the other day and someone else was holding up a great big iPad occupying a lot of space. "Great" I thought.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 19, 2014)

I really don't think I can bothered with this thread any longer.

The points I have put forward:

a) DSLRs are better all round cameras than camera phones are

b) DSLRs have a lot of features and capabilites that are not available on phones, of which I gave list

c) DSLRs have the best image quality

What I got back was a bunch of people trying to argue that a phone can do everything a DSLR can, that image quality "doesn't matter", replying to every point I make with "you moved the goalposts", and then posting a bunch pictures that were mostly nothing like type of images I said a DSLR can produce, and then patting themselves on the back and congratulating themselves over it because they think they got one over on me!

And then there was the pooh poohing of the views, and a show of disrespect, of couple of very experienced photographers with excellent credentials earlier in the thread just because you didn't agree with them. And I'm supposed to take notice of people here just because they claim to be "experienced" (what are your credentials exactly), and who are trying to argue something that goes against something most experienced photographers believe to be true?

I'm out.


----------



## sim667 (Mar 19, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> What can one say about photographic quality when the image has been made for all intents and purposes, by a computer?
> 
> Are these quality photos?


 
You seem to be confusing photographic realism and photographic quality with this post.

Whether the camera lies is a whole different bunfight!


----------



## neonwilderness (Mar 19, 2014)




----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 19, 2014)

Bye bye Bungle. As you haven't been banned to my surprise, you will be able to lurk on these boards without giving away your presence. If you do so please take the opportunity to read slowly and carefully through this thread from the very beginning checking carefully what everyone and more especially editor really did say about the lumia camera phone and what claims were made for it.


----------



## sim667 (Mar 19, 2014)

Having just read the OP and first page, I'd also like to add that lens hoods can block the throw of a flash, causing dark areas at the bottom of images.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 19, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yes, most sane people (and camera retailers) refer to them as "compact system cameras".  The "mirrorless" bit is a no-brainer, given that the cameras aren't SLRs.


They are also referred to as mirrorless cameras you muppet!


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 19, 2014)

sim667 said:


> Having just read the OP and first page, I'd also like to add that lens hoods can block the throw of a flash, causing dark areas at the bottom of images.


Yes, that is one good reason to take one off.


----------



## sim667 (Mar 19, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Yes, that is one good reason to take one off.


 
Or turn it backward...... for storage purposes


----------



## editor (Mar 19, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> What I got back was a bunch of people trying to argue that a phone can do everything a DSLR can


Produce ONE QUOTE from _any one_ of this "bunch of people" making such a claim, please. Thanks.


----------



## Corax (Mar 19, 2014)

editor said:


> Produce ONE QUOTE from _any one_ of this "bunch of people" making such a claim, please. Thanks.


Please do this Bungle73. We're all waiting expectantly.


----------



## editor (Mar 19, 2014)

sim667 said:


> Or turn it backward...... for storage purposes


Gosh, that would be convenient if you haven't got a bag or big pockets, wouldn't it?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 19, 2014)

sim667 said:


> Or turn it backward...... for storage purposes


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 19, 2014)

editor said:


> Produce ONE QUOTE from _any one_ of this "bunch of people" making such a claim, please. Thanks.


Go and read your own posts.  It's what you've been arguing with me about for the past 28 pages.  I say "DSLRs can do X", you say "Phone cameras can do X too".

Oh, and thanks for that one, I missed out Ed trying to make out he hasn't been arguing something he very well has been arguing.

That is all.


----------



## Corax (Mar 19, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Go and read your own posts.  It's what you've been arguing with me about for the past 28 pages.  I say "DSLRs can do X", you say "Phone cameras can do X too".
> 
> Oh, and thanks for that one, I missed out Ed trying to make out he hasn't been arguing something he very well has been arguing.
> 
> That is all.


A QUOTE please Bungle73.

Otherwise it starts to look like you're lying, and you've already said how much you dislike that.


----------



## editor (Mar 19, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Go and read your own posts.  It's what you've been arguing with me about for the past 28 pages.  I say "DSLRs can do X", you say "Phone cameras can do X too".
> 
> Oh, and thanks for that one, I missed out Ed trying to make out he hasn't been arguing something he very well has been arguing.
> 
> That is all.


I know exactly what I've posted, but you claimed that there's been "a bunch of people trying to argue that a phone can do everything a DSLR can."

I'm now asking you to name those people and to produce some quotes that back up your assertion.  A simple enough request, you'd think.

Can you do that now?


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 19, 2014)

editor said:


> I know exactly what I've posted, but you claimed that there's been "a bunch of people trying to argue that a phone can do everything a DSLR can."
> 
> I'm now asking you to name those people and to produce some quotes that back up your assertion.  A simple enough request, you'd think.
> 
> Can you do that now?


Tell me what you were and the others were arguing in this thread?  Can you do that now?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 19, 2014)

Corax said:


> A QUOTE please Bungle73.
> 
> Otherwise it starts to look like you're lying, and you've already said how much you dislike that.


You don't think he is lying do you? I had it figured that he was just not reading and understanding what people had written. If he is lying then that makes him a troll, and you know what we do to trolls. Oh dear.


----------



## editor (Mar 19, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Tell me what you were and the others were arguing in this thread?  Can you do that now?


Come on. You've made a bold claim about what a "bunch of people" were supposedly saying, so why don't you toddle along and produce some quotes to back it up?


----------



## Corax (Mar 19, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> You don't think he is lying do you? I had it figured that he was just not reading and understanding what people had written. If he is lying then that makes him a troll, and you know what we do to trolls. Oh dear.


It is, sadly, starting to look that way 

Can you provide a quote Bungle73? Or are you a liar?


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 19, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> I really don't think I can bothered with this thread any longer.
> 
> blah
> 
> ...


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 19, 2014)

editor said:


> Come on. You've made a bold claim about what a "bunch of people" were supposedly doing, so why don't you toddle along and produce some quote to back it up?


Oh, so you can't. Because you know full well what you've been saying, as do I.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 19, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> You don't think he is lying do you? I had it figured that he was just not reading and understanding what people had written. If he is lying then that makes him a troll, and you know what we do to trolls. Oh dear.



What would be the appropriate punishment for this thread about lens hoods?


----------



## editor (Mar 19, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Oh, so you can't. Because you know full well what you've been saying, as do I.


Yep, I know what I've been saying, but you've made claims about what a *whole bunch of people* hare have supposedly been saying here. 

Are you going to FINALLY name these people and produce some quotes to back up your claims, or just keep on wriggling forever?:


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 19, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> What would be the appropriate punishment for this thread about lens hoods?


We have yet to get a conviction or confession for these sins. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. And while I am slaving at a hot keyboard well done Dr Herbz on the "toys out of the pram" image.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 19, 2014)

Post #160 onwards.

Its funny, I ask Ed why he bought his camera and he doesn't seem to know; I also ask him what he's been saying in this thread, and he doesn't seem to know that either........


Corax said:


> It is, sadly, starting to look that way
> 
> Can you provide a quote Bungle73? Or are you a liar?


How ironic that was actually you that started this discussion off, with this litter gem:



Corax said:


> I don't see the point in fancy cameras with optical lenses these days. My phone is 26 megapixels with a x30 zoom.


----------



## fuck seals (Mar 19, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> We have yet to get a conviction or confession for these sins. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. And while I am slaving at a hot keyboard well done Dr Herbz on the "toys out of the pram" image.




in general people _did_ expect the SPanish Inquisition.  They gave about 2 months' notice.


----------



## Corax (Mar 19, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> How ironic that was actually you that started this discussion off, with this litter gem:


Oh dear. You're a bit... 'literal' aren't you?  

Quotes please


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 19, 2014)

How about this?



Bungle73 said:


> A phone doesn't come anywhere near to equalling the quality of even a budget DSLR, no matter how many megapixels it's got





editor said:


> You really haven't much of a clue when it comes to photography because this a statement from Planet Idiot. That is all.


----------



## editor (Mar 19, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> How about this?


Those context-stripped quotes have no correlation to the claims you're making.

And you still haven't named the people making up this "bunch of people" who all supposedly think a phone can do everything a DSLR can. Can you name them now please?


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 19, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> What would be the appropriate punishment for this thread about lens hoods?



I think we should send him to Canada to live with you.  



I grew up with a lad who (thought he) knew everything there was to know about cars but the sum total of his knowledge came from a pack of Top Trumps. It seems the sum total of Bungle's knowledge comes from the camera scene's greatest troll, Ken Rockwell.

Bungle reminds me of those pissed up idiots you see shouting at a television screen in a pub, hoping that the footballer he's shouting at can hear what he's doing wrong.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 19, 2014)

editor said:


> Those context-stripped quotes have no correlation to the claims you're making.


The context is there in it's entirety.



> And you still haven't named the people making up this "bunch of people" who all supposedly think a phone can do everything a DSLR can. Can you name them now please?


And you still haven't stated exactly what your point has been in this thread?  Don't you know?  If I am wrong tell me how I am wrong.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 19, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> I think we should send him to Canada to live with you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This coming from the guy who thought he had one over on me because he posted a bunch if pathetic pictures which were nothing like the sort of thing I was talking about (and I think you know it), yet still keeps insisting he was right.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 19, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Bungle reminds me of those pissed up idiots you see shouting at a television screen in a pub, hoping that the footballer he's shouting at can hear what he's doing wrong.



Slightly irritating, but harmless, you mean?


----------



## Corax (Mar 19, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> How about this?


Nope. Please show a quote where someone actually claims what you keep stating they have. 

Nb: NOT something that you have drawn inferences from that no one else has.


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 19, 2014)

Corax said:


> Nope. Please show a quote where someone actually claims what you keep stating they have.
> 
> Nb: NOT something that you have drawn inferences from that no one else has.


You know if I am wrong, then someone here should be able to state the point they were actually making. No one has. I wonder why.........


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 19, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Slightly irritating, but harmless, you mean?



Exactly... 'Harmless' is a good description.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 19, 2014)

Dearest Bungle. If you really want to know why ed bought his current main (Olympus) camera you have only to look in the section on Cameras and equipment and check back to Feb 2012.:

_"After lugging my ten-ton Nikon D300 SLR around all day, I've even more interested in this camera. But only if I don't think about the price. £1149.95 for the 12-50mm kit. Ouch!

Olympus reckon it has the "world's fastest autofocus" of any camera, and comes with an ISO range of 200-25,600, support for 1080p video, five-axis image stabilisation, weather sealing and articulated 3-inch viewfinder.

It's rocking my boat alright."_

Those of us who have been around Urban for a few years and especially the Photography Forums know the history of some of ed's cameras.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 19, 2014)

Corax said:


> Nope. Please show a quote where someone actually claims what you keep stating they have.
> 
> Nb: NOT something that you have drawn inferences from that no one else has.


----------



## editor (Mar 19, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> The context is there in it's entirety.
> 
> 
> And you still haven't stated exactly what your point has been in this thread?  Don't you know?  If I am wrong tell me how I am wrong.


About the names of this bunch of people and the quotes from them all.
You can't name them, or find any quotes to support your daft claims, can you?

You can? Great! Let's go! Name and quotes here, please:

1.
2.
3.
4.
etc


----------



## Corax (Mar 19, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> If I am wrong tell me how I am wrong.


NO ONE HAS CLAIMED THAT PHONES ARE BETTER CAMERAS THAN DSLRS. 

Clear enough?


----------



## sim667 (Mar 19, 2014)

Maybe we should all air our dirty little camera secrets and get it all out in the open.

I admit, I once owned a sony DSC-707


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 19, 2014)

editor said:


> About the names of this bunch of people and the quotes from them all.
> You can't name them, or find any quotes to support your daft claims, can you?
> 
> You can? Great! Let's go! Name and quotes here, please:
> ...


I'm still waiting.....


Corax said:


> NO ONE HAS CLAIMED THAT PHONES ARE BETTER CAMERAS THAN DSLRS.
> 
> Clear enough?



I said DSLRS are better all round cameras, and better quality than phones.  I've been told by the people here I am "wrong".  Simples.


----------



## Corax (Mar 19, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Simples.


Ah. You're one of _them_.


----------



## fuck seals (Mar 19, 2014)

sim667 said:


> Maybe we should all air our dirty little camera secrets and get it all out in the open.
> 
> I admit, I once owned a sony DSC-707



i too am a sony point and shoot owner.

i revel in the filth of my shame.


----------



## fuck seals (Mar 19, 2014)

Corax said:


> Ah. You're one of _them_.



no.  bears aren't meercats.

unless taken with a poor quality camera.


----------



## sim667 (Mar 19, 2014)

fuck seals said:


> i too am a sony point and shoot owner.
> 
> i revel in the filth of my shame.



I'm not anymore, it's when I was a student, and I couldn't afford a dslr, I worked at Jessops and got it for a tenner more than we paid for it in the shop. £100 iirc and it had a wide angle lens and an external flash.

It was a piece of shit, but it was my piece of shit and the first camera I'd ever bought for myself and not got as a donation, and was my first digital.


----------



## editor (Mar 19, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> I'm still waiting.....
> 
> 
> I said DSLRS are better all round cameras, and better quality than phones.  I've been told by the people here I am "wrong".  Simples.


Name all the people who YOU claimed said that 'phones can do everything that a DSLR can do'. If you can't provide a list of names (with supporting quotes) then you are a liar. It's really quite a simple as that.


----------



## fuck seals (Mar 19, 2014)

sim667 said:


> I'm not anymore, it's when I was a student, and I couldn't afford a dslr, I worked at Jessops and got it for a tenner more than we paid for it in the shop. £100 iirc and it had a wide angle lens and an external flash.
> 
> It was a piece of shit, but it was my piece of shit and the first camera I'd ever bought for myself and not got as a donation, and was my first digital.



i on the other hand have descended rather than ascended.  when i was a nipper, i hiijacked the downstairs bathroom with my dad for years which we used as a dark room with trays of evil yet delicious smelling chemicals and red lights.  much fun was had, sadly i have now dumbed down to point/ click/ delete/ upload/ share.

i am fuck seals and i am ashamed


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 19, 2014)

Another:


Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Trying hard to make sense of your f2.2 comment. With a real camera, you can shoot either aperture or shutter priority. Also, with the larger sensor of a real camera, you can shoot at a smaller aperture, and gain greater control over the image clarity and depth of field.





editor said:


> Guess what? You can do that with the S4 too. Incredible, etc, etc.





editor said:


> Name all the people who YOU claimed said that 'phones can do everything that a DSLR can do'. If you can't provide a list of names (with supporting quotes) then you are a liar. It's really quite a simple as that.


Actually it's as simple as you being unable, or unwilling, to actually post what your point was here. It's quite obvious why that is.

You have spent 29 pages now arguing with me about DSLRs being better and telling that I'm "wrong" and making silly claims that a newspaper swapped all their DSLRs for phones when that isn't quite what happened at all! And now you're claiming you didn't say that any of that at all.

I really am done with this thread now, until Ed can man up and come clean about exactly what he was going on about for 29 pages.  That is all


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 19, 2014)

Bungle you stated that Corax wrote -_ " I don't see the point in fancy cameras with optical lenses these days. My phone is 26 megapixels with a x30 zoom."_

Now I don't know if English is your first language or not and if it isn't I apologise for any offence you may take here, but that statement is what we call "irony". That is to say it is a mischievous tease where an untruth or exaggeration is used to appear to be a truth. Corax is a bit of a cheeky imp on these boards and is known for it. You have been wound up.


----------



## editor (Mar 19, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> I really am done with this thread now, until Ed can man up and come clean about exactly what he was going on about for 29 pages.  That is all


So you're not going to name all these people who you say claimed that a phone can do everything a DSLR can, then?

Might that be because _they don't exist _and you haven't the balls to admit you've been caught out a whopper?


----------



## Corax (Mar 19, 2014)

What's more, I learned that phone cameras can actually produce much better shots than I assumed - so cheers all for that anyway


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 19, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> You don't think he is lying do you? I had it figured that he was just not reading and understanding what people had written. If he is lying then that makes him a troll, and you know what we do to trolls. Oh dear.


I rarely accuse anyone of being a troll but in the absence of any proof that Bungle is clinically insane, or has an IQ comparable to that of a gherkin...


----------



## Corax (Mar 19, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Another:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's not you Bungle73 - it's _everyone else._


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 19, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> I rarely accuse anyone of being a troll but in the absence of any proof that Bungle is clinically insane, or has an IQ comparable to that of a gherkin...



Dr_Herbz, what are you saying about Bungle's *I*mage *Q*uality now?


----------



## editor (Mar 19, 2014)

Corax said:


> What's more, I learned that phone cameras can actually produce much better shots than I assumed - so cheers all for that anyway


I've discovered that the Lumia is even better than I thought, and is capable of superb shots. Those National geographic images were exceptional.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 19, 2014)




----------



## 5t3IIa (Mar 19, 2014)

30 pages!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 19, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> [
> Um, yes he did.  I argued that DSLRs have superior image quality, and then it was put to me that image quality "doesn't matter"..........



Interesting that the only way you come out as being "right" is if you totally divorce what he said from the context it was said in.
Like I said, disingenuous weasel.



> Um, I don't think I said it wasn't did i? What I actually said that it isn't as good as a DSLR, and this is precisely the point you people keep arguing against.



Wrong again, what people are arguing against is that you are effectively saying that a DSLR is "better" due to spec, equating "good" to "superior technical specification",  - literally, that a phone's camera isn't as good because it has an inferior technical specification - whereas "good" is a hell of a lot more to do with the "eye" of the photographer, than it is to do with pixel count or lens.  You can take a *great* picture, a picture good enough to grace the cover of a glossy, on a Box Brownie with a meniscus lens and a choice of two apertures.  You can take a *great* on phone camera.  You don't require superior technical specifications, you require an understanding of the limitations of your kit, and the ability to work within them.  That's *all* you need.  Anything else is technicist gearhead self-delusion, and self-justification for spending a small fortune on kit.


----------



## twentythreedom (Mar 19, 2014)

So, what about the people who put their lens hoods on backwards, hmm? Well?? What about them?


----------



## editor (Mar 19, 2014)

I made a fair bit of cash from a particularly low res photo of Brighton beach shot on a 2.1MP camera which was used for a book cover. 

Admittedly, I had to go into Photoshop to clean it up and smooth out jaggies, but the camera was massively inferior to the one on my S4.


----------



## Sweet FA (Mar 19, 2014)

There's been some talking at cross porpoises going on though. I think discokermit pointed out (in between being a fucking massive wind up merchant obviously ) that for a lot (the majority?) of pro work (& I mean all those millions of stock images/agency photos etc), then phone images wouldn't be acceptable. I'm on thin ice here as I know next to fuck all about it but they do want sharp, focussed, massively hi res images don't they? When Bungle73 was talking about comparing 1:1, wasn't he talking about a specific type of pro work? The aesthetics of the commercial photography world that he's talking about and those of newspapers/'art'/can't think what I'm trying to describe here, are poles apart.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 19, 2014)

editor said:


> I take thousands of photos every year and can't remember that last time I took a 4 second exposure. Mind you, if that was really important to me, I'd clearly buy the best tools for the job, and the Lumia would be nowhere near the top of that list.



I *can* remember the last time I did an exposure that long/longer - on a beach in Norfolk, trying to get that "foamy" effect on the fairly-rough sea.  The best tool for the job in this case was a venerable Praktica B200, because the slowest shutter speed was 40 seconds (longer than most other production cameras at the time it was made.



> That said, it certainly would be a great 'carry everywhere' camera/phone and it clearly has the capability to take photos of a very high quality indeed. Good enough for publishing in one of the world's most prestigious photo magazines, in fact.



You mean, perfectly handy for whipping out, when uncasing your SLR or removing it from the bag might make you miss the shot?
Well fancy that!


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 19, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Interesting that the only way you come out as being "right" is if you totally divorce what he said from the context it was said in.
> Like I said, disingenuous weasel.


I think he's actually divorced from reality and has lost all sense of self-awareness.

There are enough straw men in this thread to start a straw man revolution.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 19, 2014)

neonwilderness said:


> No lens hood, obviously a complete amateur



And using a little Rollei 35mm compact with minimal technical spec, too, rather than his usual Leica.
Fucking know-nothing amateur wanker, innit?


----------



## editor (Mar 19, 2014)

Turns out just about any Android phone can do extended long exposures via third party apps.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 19, 2014)

sim667 said:


> You're not a real photographer until you can hand hold a 4 second exposure with no camera shake



Image stabilisation is the boon of my dad's photographic life.  He can use the Panasonic compact I gave him in spite of having Parkinsons shakes.
I quite like it too, given my advancing decrepitude!


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 19, 2014)

_VP wrote:

Wrong again, what people are arguing against is that you are effectively saying that a DSLR is "better" due to spec, equating "good" to "superior technical specification", - literally, that a phone's camera isn't as good because it has an inferior technical specification - whereas "good" is a hell of a lot more to do with the "eye" of the photographer, than it is to do with pixel count or lens. You can take a *great* picture, a picture good enough to grace the cover of a glossy, on a Box Brownie with a meniscus lens and a choice of two apertures. You can take a *great* on phone camera. You don't require superior technical specifications, you require an understanding of the limitations of your kit, and the ability to work within them. That's *all* you need. Anything else is technicist gearhead self-delusion, and self-justification for spending a small fortune on kit._


Steady on VP are you trying to damage the sales of good quality DSLRs  (that should be dSLRs really?) If aspiring young photographers who were still learning the basics from YouTube videos didn't splash out on all the expensive kit, that same kit would cost a lot more for the rest of us when we finally scrape together to get the best we can manage to afford. Also I think you are pitching the argument too high there for a tyro to understand.

As for the box brownie story, that was Bert Hardy who in advertising a photograph competition in a magazine(which?) stated that you didn't need anything more sophisticated to take a good picture. The editor took him up on his word and demanded that he proved this by using a box brownie to give an example. The ensuing picture which is well known showed two girls in spotted dresses sitting apparently having a chat on the beach railings at Blackpool. It was a simple bold composition in black and white - as was most of Bert Hardy's work. Later it came out that the two girls weren't just spotted (sorry) in situ but were local models he employed for the shot. Ok not really cheating but he didn't let on at the time. All's fair in photography and publicity.

Later in the '80s I think it was, that photograph was reproduced and used in advertising posters for British Telecom or the Royal Mail or even British Rail (which?) It was made into a poster in black and white but was presented as an inset image about 10 by 8 set on a larger grey rectangle. Those old negatives didn't stand up to much enlargement given the limitations of an uncorrected meniscus lens. Ah yes I remember it well, you wore a dress of...

I have written this without recourse to Google so your mileage may vary.

Après Google


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 19, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> I think he's actually divorced from reality and has lost all sense of self-awareness.
> 
> There are enough straw men in this thread to start a straw man revolution.



Indeed.  We now need to worry about a scarecrow revolution, too, once the straw men find themselves some clothes.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 19, 2014)

editor said:


> Turns out just about any Android phone can do extended long exposures via third party apps.



iPhones can too. I expect anything that is capable of an app can do similar.

Grab a gorillapod to keep it steady and you could make something pretty nice, I'd expect.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 19, 2014)

mauvais said:


> By this definition, the greatest camera of all time is the iPad.



What definition of "greatest" are you using?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 19, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> They are also referred to as mirrorless cameras you muppet!



Where did I say they weren't, you pustulent goat-cock?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 19, 2014)

I love a thread that brings us together. <3


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 19, 2014)

sim667 said:


> Maybe we should all air our dirty little camera secrets and get it all out in the open.
> 
> I admit, I once owned a sony DSC-707



That the one with the night mode, that looked like a spotting scope and a bridge camera had mated?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 19, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> So, what about the people who put their lens hoods on backwards, hmm? Well?? What about them?



They're obviously in the "brain-rot" stage of syphilis, and should be pitied.

That, or they're storing them when they're not needed, and don't have neural syphilitic damage at all.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 19, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> So, what about the people who put their lens hoods on backwards, hmm? Well?? What about them?



DP


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 19, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> _VP wrote:
> 
> Wrong again, what people are arguing against is that you are effectively saying that a DSLR is "better" due to spec, equating "good" to "superior technical specification", - literally, that a phone's camera isn't as good because it has an inferior technical specification - whereas "good" is a hell of a lot more to do with the "eye" of the photographer, than it is to do with pixel count or lens. You can take a *great* picture, a picture good enough to grace the cover of a glossy, on a Box Brownie with a meniscus lens and a choice of two apertures. You can take a *great* on phone camera. You don't require superior technical specifications, you require an understanding of the limitations of your kit, and the ability to work within them. That's *all* you need. Anything else is technicist gearhead self-delusion, and self-justification for spending a small fortune on kit._
> 
> ...



I admit that scoring excellent kit at decent prices because some gonk has updated to the latest all-singing, all-dancing camera has given me *lots* of pleasure over the last 10-15 years, but I don't believe that telling people the truth will affect that - gearheads will still be gearheads, and still judge their sexual potency via the cost of their kit. 



> As for the box brownie story, that was Bert Hardy who in advertising a photograph competition in a magazine(which?) stated that you didn't need anything more sophisticated to take a good picture. The editor took him up on his word and demanded that he proved this by using a box brownie to give an example. The ensuing picture which is well known showed two girls in spotted dresses sitting apparently having a chat on the beach railings at Blackpool. It was a simple bold composition in black and white - as was most of Bert Hardy's work. Later it came out that the two girls weren't just spotted (sorry) in situ but were local models he employed for the shot. Ok not really cheating but he didn't let on at the time. All's fair in photography and publicity.
> 
> Later in the '80s I think it was, that photograph was reproduced and used in advertising posters for British Telecom or the Royal Mail or even British Rail (which?) It was made into a poster in black and white but was presented as an inset image about 10 by 8 set on a larger grey rectangle. Those old negatives didn't stand up to much enlargement given the limitations of an uncorrected meniscus lens. Ah yes I remember it well, you wore a dress of...
> 
> ...



As I recall, the original mag cover was from an inter-negative shot (with yer standard process camera of the time) from the original 6 x 9cm, so would have only been subjected to about 3x physical enlargement - fine for retaining detail without blowing up the grain, whereas a poster...well, it's another kettle of fish, isn't it?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 19, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> As I recall, the original mag cover was from an inter-negative shot (with yer standard process camera of the time) from the original 6 x 9cm, so would have only been subjected to about 3x physical enlargement - fine for retaining detail without blowing up the grain, whereas a poster...well, it's another kettle of fish, isn't it?



Yes that would be  about right. As you say it was Picture Post. The process camera would be there to copy from the standard 35mm film at 24 by 36mm (albeit on cameras with properly corrected lenses - Leicas for example, so would do a decent job of a 60 by 40 mm neg from the Brownie.

Interestingly (for me and perhaps you) if nobody else, Bert Hardy made a full poster size advert from a 35mm negative. It was for the "You're Never Alone with a Strand" cigarette advert. It was withdrawn, not for any problems about a large grainy black and white poster of a man smoking but because the campaign failed to raise sales. The bit about being "Alone" put off the punters.


----------



## neonwilderness (Mar 19, 2014)

Vintage Paw said:


> I love a thread that brings us together. <3


I can't remember a more popular thread in photography in recent years


----------



## twentythreedom (Mar 19, 2014)

THIRTY pages


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 19, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> THIRTY pages


is this still the thread for putting the boot into Bungle73?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 19, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> is this still the thread for putting the boot into Bungle73?


Not at the moment he has escaped or gone into hiding or something. Do you want to be notified when he returns? It is not much fun trying to interact with Bungle he doesn't get the rules of engagement.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 19, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Not at the moment he has escaped or gone into hiding or something. Do you want to be notified when he returns? It is not much fun trying to interact with Bungle he doesn't get the rules of engagement.


it's ok, i'll send out the mare street irregulars to find him


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 19, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> it's ok, i'll send out the mare street irregulars to find him


Nightmare on Mare Street is that a regular thing or irregular?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 19, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Nightmare on Mare Street is that a regular thing or irregular?


the council is the nightmare on mare street. the mare street irregulars are tho the modern and real equivalent to conan doyle's fictional baker street irregulars


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 19, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> the council is the nightmare on mare street. the mare street irregulars are tho the modern and real equivalent to conan doyle's fictional baker street irregulars


You are not trying to say that Sherlock Holmes was a fictional character are you? My Great Grandmother knew him quite well according to family legend and there is one of his pipes in the loft.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 19, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> You are not trying to say that Sherlock Holmes was a fictional character are you? My Great Grandmother knew him quite well according to family legend and there is one of his pipes in the loft.


when you say "quite well" how well do you mean? are you a holmes?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 19, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> when you say "quite well" how well do you mean? are you a holmes?


No I am a Watson.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 19, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Wrong again, what people are arguing against is that you are effectively saying that a DSLR is "better" due to spec, equating "good" to "superior technical specification",  - literally, that a phone's camera isn't as good because it has an inferior technical specification - whereas "good" is a hell of a lot more to do with the "eye" of the photographer, than it is to do with pixel count or lens.  You can take a *great* picture, a picture good enough to grace the cover of a glossy, on a Box Brownie with a meniscus lens and a choice of two apertures.  You can take a *great* on phone camera.  You don't require superior technical specifications, you require an understanding of the limitations of your kit, and the ability to work within them.  That's *all* you need.  Anything else is technicist gearhead self-delusion, and self-justification for spending a small fortune on kit.



What's being discussed is the technical capabilities of phone cameras vs other types of cameras - not the aesthetics of photography.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 19, 2014)

editor said:


> I made a fair bit of cash from a particularly low res photo of Brighton beach shot on a 2.1MP camera which was used for a book cover.
> 
> Admittedly, I had to go into Photoshop to clean it up and smooth out jaggies, but the camera was massively inferior to the one on my S4.



What does that prove?

A lot more people eat KFC than eat cordon bleu from Fauchon.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 19, 2014)

editor said:


> Turns out just about any Android phone can do extended long exposures via third party apps.



Hard to mount your phone on a tripod, though.


----------



## twentythreedom (Mar 19, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> is this still the thread for putting the boot into Bungle73?


He's been regularly slapping himself in the face, not much need for boots


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 19, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> What's being discussed is the technical capabilities of phone cameras vs other types of cameras - not the aesthetics of photography.


You haven't read the thread then. It is a good time now to start reading it through from the beginning before it gets up to speed again - and it will you can be sure, oh yes sirree.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 19, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> He's been regularly slapping himself in the face, not much need for boots



In any event, there's been a liberal application of bootage from the Palace Guard.


----------



## Corax (Mar 19, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> What's being discussed is the technical capabilities of phone cameras vs other types of cameras - not the aesthetics of photography.


Nope. It's the relative *merits* of different types of camera - and that goes beyond the technical capabilities.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 19, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> You haven't read the thread then..



Sorry; incorrect.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 19, 2014)

Corax said:


> Nope. It's the relative *merits* of different types of camera - and that goes beyond the technical capabilities.



Ah yes; the 'merits'.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 19, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Hard to mount your phone on a tripod, though.


http://www.amazon.co.uk/iStabilizer...d=1395262477&sr=8-10&keywords=s4+tripod+mount


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 19, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Hard to mount your phone on a tripod, though.


Uh uh, the model of phone under discussion can be used with a Gorilla pod which has a standard camera screw thread. You can even get a dedicated kit bag for the camera with lots of accessories to use. You probably think I am making this up and I sometimes do that but then I put "probably" at the bottom of the page referencing lager adverts. This is the real deal though.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 19, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> What's being discussed is the technical capabilities of phone cameras vs other types of cameras - not the aesthetics of photography.



Wrong.  What's being discussed (by everyone except those obsessed by kit or by IQ, seemingly) is both, and whether the one is relevant to the other.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 19, 2014)

Corax said:


> that goes beyond the technical capabilities.



Whatever happens beyond the technical capabilities occurs as a function of the photographer and his/her capabilities.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 19, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Hard to mount your phone on a tripod, though.



No it isn't. You can buy skeletonised phone cradles that weigh about 100g and will allow you to mount your phone securely on any 1/4" BSW thread.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 19, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Wrong.  What's being discussed (by everyone except those obsessed by kit or by IQ, seemingly) is both, and whether the one is relevant to the other.



What an SLR, DSLR, or phone camera is, is... 'kit'.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 19, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> No it isn't. You can buy skeletonised phone cradles that weigh about 100g and will allow you to mount your phone securely on any 1/4" BSW thread.


Is that what these are?

http://www.ebay.com/bhp/cell-phone-tripod-mount


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 19, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> *You haven't read the thread then*. It is a good time now to start reading it through from the beginning before it gets up to speed again - and it will you can be sure, oh yes sirree.



Now there's a surprise!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 19, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> What an SLR, DSLR, or phone camera is, is... 'kit'.



By "kit", as is blatantly clear from the previous post of mine you quoted, I mean "the latest all-singling, all dancing DSLR".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 19, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Is that what these are?
> 
> http://www.ebay.com/bhp/cell-phone-tripod-mount



Similar, although ones I've looked at were proper cradles in that they securely clamped the camera on both sides.


----------



## twentythreedom (Mar 19, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> In any event, there's been a liberal application of bootage from the Palace Guard.


Who's that then?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 19, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> Who's that then?



You're right: it's an inaccurate description. Better: those who aspire to becoming part of a Palace Guard.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 19, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> By "kit", as is blatantly clear from the previous post of mine you quoted, I mean "the latest all-singling, all dancing DSLR".


My camera is pretty good but it can't sing or dance. It plays a mean piano though.


----------



## Corax (Mar 19, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Whatever happens beyond the technical capabilities occurs as a function of the photographer and his/her capabilities.


Yes, but the "merits" of a camera go beyond that. Eg accessibility, obtrusiveness, ease of carrying etc


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 19, 2014)

Corax said:


> Yes, but the "merits" of a camera go beyond that. Eg accessibility, obtrusiveness, ease of carrying etc



..ability to talk on it or play Angry Birds....


----------



## twentythreedom (Mar 19, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> You're right: it's an inaccurate description. Better: those who aspire to becoming part of a Palace Guard.


Oh, THEM!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 19, 2014)

I don't understand why Nikon, Canon etc just don't add telephony, internet capability, and games-play to their DSLRs. Then they'd really be able to compete with smart phones.


----------



## neonwilderness (Mar 19, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> You are not trying to say that Sherlock Holmes was a fictional character are you? My Great Grandmother knew him quite well according to family legend and there is *one of his pipes in the loft.*


Probably a crack pipe, we're all on drugs after all


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 19, 2014)

Also, why don't we bring tablets into this discussion?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 19, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Also, why don't we bring tablets into this discussion?


We already did this. Amazingly that girl with the tablet looks just like the girl I was describing. Johnny Come Lately3 you can't wander into a thread late and re-visit topics we have already covered.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 19, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> you can't wander into a thread late and re-visit topics we have already covered.



Why not?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 19, 2014)

neonwilderness said:


> Probably a crack pipe, we're all on drugs after all


Holmes was more into Opium than crack.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 19, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Holmes was more into Opium than crack.



We'd have to ask Watson if Holmes liked crack.


----------



## neonwilderness (Mar 19, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Holmes was more into Opium than crack.


More importantly though, how did he use a lens hood?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 19, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> We'd have to ask Watson if Holmes liked crack.


I do hope you are not indulging in smut there Caruthers.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 19, 2014)

neonwilderness said:


> More importantly though, how did he use a lens hood?


Magnifying glasses don't take hoods. If he had indulged in photography, in those days the hood would not have been on the lens but would be a cloth over the head of the photographer at the back of the camera. Holmes was probably a bit early for that though.


----------



## neonwilderness (Mar 19, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Magnifying glasses don't take hoods. If he had indulged in photography, in those days the hood would not have been on the lens but would be a cloth over the head of the photographer at the back of the camera. Holmes was probably a bit early for that though.





Spoiler: Flashy bits 












Completely clueless


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 19, 2014)

neonwilderness said:


> Completely clueless


There should be a warning on this post. "Warning flash photography" for those who suffer from epilepsy. Excuse me I need to sit down for a bit.


----------



## neonwilderness (Mar 19, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> There should be a warning on this post. "Warning flash photography" for those who suffer from epilepsy. Excuse me I need to sit down for a bit.


Oops, I'll add a spoiler.  That wouldn't happen with a camera phone


----------



## souljacker (Mar 19, 2014)

What is a lens hood anyway?


----------



## Corax (Mar 19, 2014)

souljacker said:


> What is a lens hood anyway?


Ask Len. 

*rimshot*


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 19, 2014)

souljacker said:


> What is a lens hood anyway?


If you don't know you don't need one. You might put it on backwards and look at the trouble that causes,


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 19, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> If you don't know you don't need one. You might put it on backwards and look at the trouble that causes,


it's like the genie of the lamp only instead of getting three wishes you get an earbashing off Bungle73


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 19, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> it's like the genie of the lamp only instead of getting three wishes you get an earbashing off Bungle73


You are taking this very literary.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 19, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I do hope you are not indulging in smut there Caruthers.



Of course not; Watson was his doctor.


----------



## Sweet FA (Mar 19, 2014)

Corax said:


> Ask Len.
> 
> *rimshot*


*neckshot*


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 20, 2014)

I think it's absolutely wonderful that we have so many accessible methods for photography these days. When Messrs Kodak and Polaroid (yes, I know) made their respective inventions that allowed families to easily take lots of photographs of holidays and birthdays and their new fancy rug to send to Aunt Mavis in Australia I wonder if they could guess at just how it would grow.


----------



## editor (Mar 20, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Hard to mount your phone on a tripod, though.


£2.89 does the job.
next stupid point please.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 20, 2014)

Might be NSFW


----------



## editor (Mar 20, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> We already did this. Amazingly that girl with the tablet looks just like the girl I was describing. Johnny Come Lately3 you can't wander into a thread late and re-visit topics we have already covered.


Amen to that.


----------



## neonwilderness (Mar 20, 2014)

http://www.engadget.com/2014/03/19/oppo-find-7-50mp-camera/?ncid=rss_truncated

This looks interesting.  50mp photos from a 13mp sensor.  It's not dSLR quality (  ), but the 100% crop samples look fairly decent


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 20, 2014)

neonwilderness said:


> http://www.engadget.com/2014/03/19/oppo-find-7-50mp-camera/?ncid=rss_truncated
> 
> This looks interesting.  50mp photos from a 13mp sensor.  It's not dSLR quality (  ), but the 100% crop samples look fairly decent


Way to get the ball rolling again


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 20, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Way to get the ball rolling again


Nooooooooh!


----------



## editor (Mar 20, 2014)

And right on cue: 



> The latest issue of large format arts and fashion magazine Centrefold features some striking photography shot using Nokia Lumia smartphones.
> 
> Centrefold is a bi-annual title launched by photographer Andrew Hobbs. For its tenth issue showcasing emerging photographic and modelling talent, the magazine teamed up with Nokia and commissioned nine photographers to conduct shoots using the Lumia 1020.













http://www.creativereview.co.uk/cr-blog/2014/march/centrefold-nokia-lumia


----------



## weltweit (Mar 20, 2014)

I have recently found that photography with my iPhone runs the battery down quite quickly.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 20, 2014)

re lens hoods putting a shadow on the bottom of images, if you have a large diameter lens / hood (some of mine are 77mm) and use the on board flash there is a risk of that. I use an external Sunpak (tilt and swivel), a lot higher and never get this issue.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 20, 2014)

Weltweit what are you on about?


----------



## weltweit (Mar 20, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Weltweit what are you on about?


Responding to some points that were made in the thread.
You know, joining in


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 20, 2014)

weltweit said:


> re lens hoods putting a shadow on the bottom of images, if you have a large diameter lens / hood (some of mine are 77mm) and use the on board flash there is a risk of that. I use an external Sunpak (tilt and swivel), a lot higher and never get this issue.



I was messing with my camera last week, taking pictures of some stuff I'm selling, and I accidentally pressed a button and a little flash popped up. I'd forgotten the camera had an onboard flash..


----------



## existentialist (Mar 20, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


>


What's pedobear got to do with anything ?


----------



## existentialist (Mar 20, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> I rarely accuse anyone of being a troll but in the absence of any proof that Bungle is clinically insane, or has an IQ comparable to that of a gherkin...


Some gherkins are able to take better photographs than...ok, er, maybe not.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 20, 2014)




----------



## Sweet FA (Mar 21, 2014)




----------



## fractionMan (Apr 28, 2014)

These people are discussing which lens hood to use with their pancake lenses.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52590403

Bungle73  is this possibly the best solution for beginners as it's impossible to put the hood on backwards?  First, it's a screw on hood.  Second, the lens is only 2cm deep.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 29, 2014)

fractionMan said:


> These people are discussing which lens hood to use with their pancake lenses.
> 
> http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52590403



I'm not clicking on any link entitled ‘DP Review’


----------



## weltweit (Apr 30, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> I'm not clicking on any link entitled ‘DP Review’


Why ever not?


----------



## fractionMan (May 1, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Why ever not?



http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dp


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 1, 2014)

It means 'Digital Photography Review' in this case.


----------



## sim667 (May 6, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> I'm not clicking on any link entitled ‘DP Review’


 
I thought that first time I saw it, its not how it sounds.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 6, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> I'm not clicking on any link entitled ‘DP Review’


certainly not at work


----------



## ToothlessFerret (May 6, 2014)

I'm trying out what else DP could stand for.... Dominatrix Porn?  Dirty Penis?


----------



## Corax (May 6, 2014)

ToothlessFerret said:


> I'm trying out what else DP could stand for.... Dominatrix Porn?  Dirty Penis?


Try googling DVDA, that'll at least give you a clue.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 6, 2014)

ToothlessFerret said:


> I'm trying out what else DP could stand for.... Dominatrix Porn?  Dirty Penis?


----------



## fractionMan (May 13, 2014)

I desperately need some advice on which camera case to buy.  I sure hope bungle can tell me what the experts use.


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 13, 2014)

fractionMan said:


> I desperately need some advice on which camera case to buy.  I sure hope bungle can tell me what the experts use.


One with lots of glass by the look of it:


----------



## CobraKaiPhoto (Oct 15, 2014)

No doubt, somewhere out there, someone is shooting with a lens hood screwed on backwards, wondering how to get rid of the sun glare in their photos.


----------



## bmd (Oct 15, 2014)

33 pages? THIRTY. THREE. PAGES?


----------



## neonwilderness (Oct 15, 2014)

CobraKaiPhoto said:


> No doubt, somewhere out there, someone is shooting with a lens hood screwed on backwards, wondering how to get rid of the sun glare in their photos.


More than likely.



neonwilderness said:


> I keep mine attached to my lenses all the time, either forwards when in use or backwards when not.  That way I know where it is, so when I need to use it I don't realise that it's sat in another bag at home or something.
> 
> I'm clearly an idiot.


This is still the case


----------



## sim667 (Oct 15, 2014)

What about those people who use flash in bright sunlight? Can we have some thoughts on those Bungle73 

*runs


----------



## marty21 (Oct 15, 2014)

bmd said:


> 33 pages? THIRTY. THREE. PAGES?


 you'll never get that time back


----------



## bmd (Oct 15, 2014)

marty21 said:


> you'll never get that time back



It's one of those threads where I read the first page and the last. I see it morphed into the 'what's a proper camera' argument for a bit. Back on track now though.


----------



## pesh (Oct 15, 2014)

sim667 said:


> What about those people who use flash in bright sunlight? Can we have some thoughts on those Bungle73
> 
> *runs


fill flash is a good thing isn't it? assuming the suns behind the subject...


----------



## neonwilderness (Oct 15, 2014)




----------



## sim667 (Oct 15, 2014)

pesh said:


> fill flash is a good thing isn't it? assuming the suns behind the subject...


 
Im taking the piss


----------



## CobraKaiPhoto (Oct 15, 2014)

Reversed lens hoods also make the camera extremely aerodynamic, which is helpful when using high shutter speeds.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Oct 15, 2014)

If you need for any reason to use your camera as a hammer, it is easier to hold the lens if the lens hood is on backwards. Some of the bigger Canons and Nikons make excellent hammers or even weapons if you have to fight your way out of a tricky situation that you have got into through photographing people who don't want to be photographed.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 16, 2014)

CobraKaiPhoto said:


> No doubt, somewhere out there, someone is shooting with a lens hood screwed on backwards, wondering how to get rid of the sun glare in their photos.



Probably not, as few screw-mounted lens hoods will fit on backward - it's mostly the bayonet-mount lens hoods that will.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 16, 2014)

bmd said:


> 33 pages? THIRTY. THREE. PAGES?



GARLIC? BREAD?


----------



## Lord Hugh (Oct 16, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> GARLIC? BREAD?



Yeah! Who needs lens hoods when you've got garlic bread


----------



## Zack Murray (Jan 1, 2015)

editor clearly has more patience than i do because this wankstain would have been gone off u75 by page 5 for being an insufferable cunt

also here's my vote to thread of the year


----------



## twentythreedom (Jan 1, 2015)

It's an early contender for Thread of the Year 2015 for sure


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 1, 2015)

I've not seen this thread. 33 pages on lens hoods? How is this possible?
Is it worth a read if you don't have an interest in these things? 
Précis, please!


----------



## twentythreedom (Jan 1, 2015)

Fuck you, Zack Murray you smartarse


----------



## Zack Murray (Jan 1, 2015)

well that went from 0-100 real fast


----------



## twentythreedom (Jan 1, 2015)

Zack Murray said:


> well that went from 0-100 real fast


Sorry man that sounded a bit moody 

I'll rephrase it: "great minds think alike" or "snap". Take your pick


----------



## Greebo (Jan 1, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> <snip> Is it worth a read if you don't have an interest in these things?
> Précis, please!


The OP's way or the highway.  Not worth reading unless obsessed or very bored.


----------



## Zack Murray (Jan 1, 2015)

on the contrary, it's a great read if you enjoy yelling "what the FUCK are you talking about" with increasing velocity each time you click next page


----------



## Greebo (Jan 1, 2015)

Zack Murray said:


> on the contrary, it's a great read if you enjoy yelling "what the FUCK are you talking about" with increasing velocity each time you click next page


It takes all sorts, but you're seriously weird, dude.


----------



## Tankus (Jan 1, 2015)

Fuuuck me !....


its still alive​


----------



## Zack Murray (Jan 1, 2015)

Greebo said:


> It takes all sorts, but you're seriously weird, dude.



it's sarcasm, over time i've learned that you are more obtuse than a geometric angle greater than 90 and less than 180 degrees

edit: i've been practicing my "family friendly" retorts to appeal to your humor, hope this works


----------



## Greebo (Jan 1, 2015)

Zack Murray  Nope.   BTW that's wilfully obtuse in the presence of children such as yourself, sweetie.


----------



## Zack Murray (Jan 1, 2015)

you follow me into practically every thread i post in and the stern father approach doesn't work here lmao, not to mention i literally put my personal information such as my full real name and birthdate into u75 when i registered so the whole "age condescension" fails too

edit: to make it clear to someone like you, were i to give a lone shit about what people think of my age i probably wouldn't have left it in my profile to begin with


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 1, 2015)

1000 replies


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 1, 2015)

Zack Murray said:


> it's sarcasm, over time i've learned that you are more obtuse than a geometric angle greater than 90 and less than 180 degrees
> 
> edit: i've been practicing my "family friendly" retorts to appeal to your humor, hope this works


pity you're not acute - is your reaction to Greebo simple reflex?


----------



## Zack Murray (Jan 1, 2015)

i just enjoy the banter


----------



## Greebo (Jan 1, 2015)

Zack Murray said:


> i just enjoy the banter


Maybe you do, but you're coming across as a bit of a bantam.  

FYI I haven't checked your profile, just your vibes.  As for allegedly following you around, the paranoia is tiresome; I browse urban by checking recent posts.


----------



## Gone Girl (Jan 5, 2015)

Don't know if this is exactly the right thread to ask but I've read posts discussing smart phone photography here.

I've a iPhone 6 Plus which camera is fine for me apart from zoom pics, which go really grainy so aren't worth doing, but I've noticed you can get separate lens gadgets which from what I gather have zoom feature but there's no customer reviews of it.

http://store.apple.com/uk/product/H...93b3d16b233672f6e67268c9c39887680b99186c42e6d

Does anyone have any experience with this or similar, or are they more gimmicky?

I'm just trying to be able to get zoom pics without grainy results.

Thanks in advance for any kind advice


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jan 5, 2015)

Zack Murray said:


> you follow me into practically every thread i post in and the stern father approach doesn't work here lmao, not to mention i literally put my personal information such as my full real name and birthdate into u75 when i registered so the whole "age condescension" fails too



Pfft, Greebo stalks everyone, stop trying to be special.


----------



## neonwilderness (Jan 5, 2015)

Gone Girl said:


> Don't know if this is exactly the right thread to ask but I've read posts discussing smart phone photography here.
> 
> I've a iPhone 6 Plus which camera is fine for me apart from zoom pics, which go really grainy so aren't worth doing, but I've noticed you can get separate lens gadgets which from what I gather have zoom feature but there's no customer reviews of it.
> 
> ...


The zoom on an iphone is all done digitally (as it is pretty much all other smartphones), so it's not worth using as you can just crop the photo to get the same effect. I haven't tried a lens adapter with my iphone, but it looks like they might be better than using the phone's zoom feature. There's a review of some of them here:
http://www.macworld.com/article/241...-little-dslr-on-the-front-of-your-iphone.html


----------



## Gone Girl (Jan 5, 2015)

neonwilderness said:


> The zoom on an iphone is all done digitally (as it is pretty much all other smartphones), so it's not worth using as you can just crop the photo to get the same effect. I haven't tried a lens adapter with my iphone, but it looks like they might be better than using the phone's zoom feature. There's a review of some of them here:
> http://www.macworld.com/article/241...-little-dslr-on-the-front-of-your-iphone.html



Thank you! 

Edit: From your kind link the Schneider Optics iPro Lens System seems to be what I'm looking to achieve and gets a very good rating also, plus it's claimed "The Best glass for DSLR results".

Thanks again.


----------



## editor (Jan 5, 2015)

Good luck trying to get 'DSLR results' from an iPhone.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 5, 2015)

editor said:


> Good luck trying to get 'DSLR results' from an iPhone.



A friend of mine does it with annoying regularity. He has an astonishing collection of incredible, non-processed, cameraphone photos.


----------



## Gone Girl (Jan 5, 2015)

editor said:


> Good luck trying to get 'DSLR results' from an iPhone.



The iPhone 6 Plus camera is pretty good I think (without using zoom) and I've posted some photos I've done already,

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/december-2014-photo-thread.329833/page-2

And another on pg3 of above link thread.

I'm mainly looking to be able to zoom without getting a grainy image which will do for me.

This is another photo I took on iP6+ and it's totally unedited


----------



## editor (Jan 5, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> A friend of mine does it with annoying regularity. He has an astonishing collection of incredible, non-processed, cameraphone photos.


They may well be very good - most high end cameraphones are pretty good as point and shooters these days - but any comparisons with 'DSLR quality' quickly fall apart when the light goes down, or true depth of field effects are wanted or the image has a high dynamic range. Bolting on third party zooms is hardly an ideal solution either, and phones have awful handing compared to a proper camera.


----------



## fractionMan (Jan 5, 2015)

Have you considered standing closer to the object you wish to photograph?


----------



## Gone Girl (Jan 5, 2015)

Well couldn't you say that about any phone camera or "DSLR" camera even?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2015)

editor said:


> They may well be very good - most high end cameraphones are pretty good as point and shooters these days - but any comparisons with 'DSLR quality' quickly fall apart when the light goes down, or true depth of field effects are wanted or the image has a high dynamic range. Bolting on third party zooms is hardly an ideal solution either, and phones have awful handing compared to a proper camera.


i've an auld a200 sony dslr, which has _f_ numbers up to the 30s. you won't find that on a phone camera. you won't have the quality of zoom of a lumix on a phone camera, not even an auld tz18. if what you want's right at hand you'll get a decent picture. but the laws of optics prevent a phone camera lens from being as good as the lens you find on dslrs.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2015)

fractionMan said:


> Have you considered standing closer to the object you wish to photograph?


what if the object you wish to photograph is the moon? how's your phone compare to a dslr now?


----------



## editor (Jan 5, 2015)

Gone Girl said:


> Well couldn't you say that about any phone camera or "DSLR" camera even?


Say what? DSLRs come with a sensor that is an order of magnitude bigger then the wee thing in your phone, and you can access a wide range of fast lenses and do things that aren't just possible on a cameraphone.


----------



## Gone Girl (Jan 5, 2015)

editor said:


> Say what? DSLRs come with a sensor that is an order of magnitude bigger then the wee thing in your phone, and you can access a wide range of fast lenses and do things that aren't just possible on a cameraphone.



I'm not suggesting otherwise and I know nothing about DSLR cameras apart from what I learn here, so far.

I was replying to poster who commented to consider just standing closer to what you wish to take a photo of.

I'm just trying to find something that can provide a zoom feature to my iP6+ without the really bad grain that comes using the phones standard zoom which is really quite grainy so much it's just not worth using.

The link to review add on lens's provided by neonwilderness  was pretty interesting to me as it showed one model in particular that appears to have improved zoom quality judging by the sample photo provided.


----------



## weltweit (Jan 5, 2015)

On a DSLR you can have a lens hood!


----------



## editor (Jan 5, 2015)

weltweit said:


> On a DSLR you can have a lens hood!


Look!


----------



## weltweit (Jan 5, 2015)

editor said:


> Look!


Hmmph.. On a DSLR you can mount your lens hood backwards


----------



## neonwilderness (Jan 5, 2015)

editor said:


> Say what? DSLRs come with a sensor that is an order of magnitude bigger then the wee thing in your phone, and you can access a wide range of fast lenses and do things that aren't just possible on a cameraphone.


Depends on the situation I guess, horses for courses and all that. I regularly use both an iPhone and a DLSR for photos depending on what I'm doing, both are capable of producing decent photos (admittedly the SLR is vastly superior in terms of control and image quality). I'd be quite interested to try one of those phone adapters to see what difference it made, although I doubt I'd ever buy one


----------



## editor (Jan 5, 2015)

neonwilderness said:


> Depends on the situation I guess, horses for courses and all that. I regularly use both an iPhone and a DLSR for photos depending on what I'm doing, both are capable of producing decent photos (admittedly the SLR is vastly superior in terms of control and image quality). I'd be quite interested to try one of those phone adapters to see what difference it made, although I doubt I'd ever buy one


All smartphone cameras are wildly hit and miss for sports and low light photography, although with some skill, tweaking and luck, some decent images can occasionally be produced in those conditions.

Handling is always awful compared to a DSLR though, and those bolt on adapters just make the phones look more unwieldy and less useful as an actual phone.


----------



## Bungle73 (Jan 5, 2015)

editor said:


> Good luck trying to get 'DSLR results' from an iPhone.





editor said:


> They may well be very good - most high end cameraphones are pretty good as point and shooters these days - but any comparisons with 'DSLR quality' quickly fall apart when the light goes down, or true depth of field effects are wanted or the image has a high dynamic range. Bolting on third party zooms is hardly an ideal solution either, and phones have awful handing compared to a proper camera.





editor said:


> Say what? DSLRs come with a sensor that is an order of magnitude bigger then the wee thing in your phone, and you can access a wide range of fast lenses and do things that aren't just possible on a cameraphone.





editor said:


> All smartphone cameras are wildly hit and miss for sports and low light photography, although with some skill, tweaking and luck, some decent images can occasionally be produced in those
> conditions.
> 
> Handling is always awful compared to a DSLR though, and those bolt on adapters just make the phones look more unwieldy and less useful as an actual phone.


LOL! You've changed your tune.  This is exactly what I was saying way back at the beginning of this thread....or was it the other one? Whatever. Point is I was, and it's exactly what you were arguing against.


----------



## editor (Jan 5, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> LOL! You've changed your tune.  This is exactly what I was saying way back at the beginning of this thread....or was it the other one? Whatever. Point is I was, and it's exactly what you were arguing against.


You're a blinking nutcase.


----------



## Bungle73 (Jan 5, 2015)

editor said:


> You're a blinking nutcase.


It's all there, for anyone who can be bothered to look.

Tell me, is it difficult trying to remember from one day to the next which side of an argument you are supposed to be on? Or does it depend on which way the wind is blowing?


----------



## editor (Jan 5, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> It's all there, for anyone who can be bothered to look.
> 
> Tell me, is it difficult trying to remember from one day to the next which side of an argument you are supposed to be on? Or does it depend on which way the wind is blowing?


Unlike you, I actually know what I'm talking about when it comes to some aspects of photography, and I'm afraid I can't help your comprehension problems in this area.


----------



## Bungle73 (Jan 5, 2015)

editor said:


> Unlike you, I actually know what I'm talking about when it comes to some aspects of photography, and I'm afraid I can't help your comprehension problems in this area.


Of course you do.............

You also seem to think you know better than people who have been doing it for years, and have the credentials to back up what they say.

But no matter. You're not going to succeed this time in drawing me into yet another of your pointless arguments.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jan 5, 2015)




----------



## editor (Jan 5, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> But no matter. You're not going to succeed this time in drawing me into yet another of your pointless arguments.


I'm afraid the 'pointless argument' was all yours, mainly down to your bizarre inability to understand what was being said to you by several posters here.


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2015)

I've not read this thread.  Can someone give me a precis, please?

What's the consensus?  Are backwards lens hoods good or bad?

Ta.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jan 5, 2015)

Athos said:


> Are backwards lens hoods good or bad?



It depends.

Hope that helps.


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2015)

Puddy_Tat said:


> It depends.
> 
> Hope that helps.



Yeah, that's great.  Ta.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jan 5, 2015)




----------



## Bungle73 (Jan 6, 2015)

editor said:


> I'm afraid the 'pointless argument' was all yours, mainly down to your bizarre inability to understand what was being said to you by several posters here.


You're so full of shit. You mean like that person who tried to counter my argument of how a DSLR is superior by posting a bunch of pathetic images that were nothing like what I was talking about? Those statements you made just now are EXACTLY what I was arguing at the time, and what you were arguing against! This sort of nonsense is obviously something you get off on. How pathetic. I don't like liars, and I don't like 2-faced people either. I'd rather you didn't converse with me again.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 6, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> You're so full of shit. You mean like that person who tried to counter my argument of how a DSLR is superior by posting a bunch of pathetic images that were nothing like what I was talking about? Those statements you made just now are EXACTLY what I was arguing at the time, and what you were arguing against! This sort of nonsense is obviously something you get off on. How pathetic. I don't like liars, and I don't like 2-faced people either. I'd rather you didn't converse with me again.


this will end well


----------



## editor (Jan 6, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> You're so full of shit. You mean like that person who tried to counter my argument of how a DSLR is superior by posting a bunch of pathetic images that were nothing like what I was talking about? Those statements you made just now are EXACTLY what I was arguing at the time, and what you were arguing against! This sort of nonsense is obviously something you get off on. How pathetic. I don't like liars, and I don't like 2-faced people either. I'd rather you didn't converse with me again.


Time to stop trying to blame everyone else but yourself, methinks.


----------



## Bungle73 (Jan 6, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> this will end well


The matter is closed for me now. I refuse to play any more of Editor's games, and I won't be talking to him any further.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 6, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> The matter is closed for me now. I refuse to play any more of Editor's games, and I won't be talking to him any further.


i'll pass that on


----------



## Bungle73 (Jan 6, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> i'll pass that on


Thanks.


----------



## Gone Girl (Jan 6, 2015)

I've just realised that if I get a zoom lens for my iPhone 6 Plus, I will have to keep removing the protective case I use, which would be so annoying and inconvenient.

So, my budget is maybe £200 right now but I could save more if needed I guess.

Can I get a camera small enough to easily fit into a bag that's very easy to use (I don't want to be fiddling about with settings etc) and can be used quickly and easily with good zoom (ie no bad grainy pics)?

Can I get a "DSLR" that fits my above requirements?

Any advice, greatly appreciated!


----------



## editor (Jan 6, 2015)

Devastated.


----------



## editor (Jan 6, 2015)

Gone Girl said:


> I've just realised that if I get a zoom lens for my iPhone 6 Plus, I will have to keep removing the protective case I use, which would be so annoying and inconvenient.
> 
> So, my budget is maybe £200 right now but I could save more if needed I guess.
> 
> ...



Sony A5000 -£245
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/NEW-SONY-...Cameras_DigitalCameras_JN&hash=item43d4d4abe0


----------



## Gone Girl (Jan 6, 2015)

editor said:


> Sony A5000 -£245
> http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/NEW-SONY-...Cameras_DigitalCameras_JN&hash=item43d4d4abe0




I just watched the above video and I think that camera was totally made for me so much!

And guy in video showed what the "sensor" looked like by taking the lens off (I guess I understand how much smaller the sensor on my iPhone is in comparison now if I imagined removing the small lens to see the sensor behind it, pretty small).

Just need to save a little more money, then, I'm sold!

Many thanks!


----------



## RoyReed (Jan 6, 2015)

Gone Girl said:


> I've just realised that if I get a zoom lens for my iPhone 6 Plus, I will have to keep removing the protective case I use, which would be so annoying and inconvenient.
> 
> So, my budget is maybe £200 right now but I could save more if needed I guess.
> 
> ...


You won't get a DSLR that fits easily into a small bag, but you can get one for  for that price if you go second hand or look for a discontinued model, but if you don't want to be bothered with settings it would be a waste.

I've just had a quick look on Amazon and there are nearly 300 point and shoot cameras (some pocket sized, some larger) with a 10x (or better) optical zoom and 12MP+ resolution for between £100 and £200. Any one of them would be better than a phone for taking photos. Look for Canon, Nikon, Panasonic or Fuji.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 6, 2015)

Bungle73 have you any other messages for editor?


----------



## Gone Girl (Jan 6, 2015)

RoyReed said:


> You won't get a DSLR that fits easily into a small bag, but you can get one for  for that price if you go second hand or look for a discontinued model, but if you don't want to be bothered with settings it would be a waste.
> 
> I've just had a quick look on Amazon and there are nearly 300 point and shoot cameras (some pocket sized, some larger) with a 10x (or better) optical zoom and 12MP+ resolution for between £100 and £200. Any one of them would be better than a phone for taking photos. Look for Canon, Nikon, Panasonic or Fuji.



Thanks! 

What is your opinion of the SONY A5000 that the editor kindly recommended me?

It looks almost tailor fit for me


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 6, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> Bungle73 have you any other messages for editor?



He's answered that quite unequivocally.


----------



## Bungle73 (Jan 6, 2015)

Why don't you get a super-zoom? They come with a massive zoom, in a small(ish) self-contanined package. The image quality isn't the best, especially at the extremes of the zoom range, but it's acceptable if you just want "a camera".



RoyReed said:


> You won't get a DSLR that fits easily into a small bag,


What about the 100D?



Pickman's model said:


> Bungle73 have you any other messages for editor?


No thanks.


----------



## RoyReed (Jan 6, 2015)

Gone Girl said:


> Thanks!
> 
> What is your opinion of the SONY A5000 that the editor kindly recommended me?
> 
> It looks almost tailor fit for me


It's very good, but you won't get one for £200. £250 is about the best price.


----------



## RoyReed (Jan 6, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> What about the 100D?


It's small for a DSLR, but still much bigger than a point'n'shoot.


----------



## Gone Girl (Jan 6, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> Why don't you get a super-zoom? They come with a massive zoom, in a small(ish) self-contanined package. The image quality isn't the best, especially at the extremes of the zoom range, but it's acceptable if you just want "a camera".
> 
> 
> What about the 100D?
> ...



Thanks for the recommendations! 

Can you suggest any particular models?

So far the A5000 looks pretty good but the more recs  the merrier I guess.

Many thanks


----------



## Bungle73 (Jan 6, 2015)

Gone Girl said:


> Thanks for the recommendations!
> 
> Can you suggest any particular models?
> 
> ...


The only one I have direct experience with is the Canon SX40HS (35x zoom, equivalent to a 840mm lens), which is pretty long in the tooth now, so you may want to look at more recent models, which may be more advanced, or those from other manufacturers. You could probably pick one up pretty cheap on eBay though.

The thing to bear in mind though is that super-zooms are basically just point-and-shoot cameras in a DSLR-esque body with a long zoom. The sensor is still minuscule, so they won't perform as well in low light, nor give you depth of field options, as either a DSLR or a mirrorless camera.


----------



## fractionMan (Jan 6, 2015)

Older Samsung nx system cameras are cheap second hand, compact, easy to use and fit the bill IMO.


----------



## Brainaddict (Jan 7, 2015)

editor said:


> Sony A5000 -£245
> http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/NEW-SONY-...Cameras_DigitalCameras_JN&hash=item43d4d4abe0


The value for money you can get with cameras seems to be increasing at an amazing rate. I bought the Lumix LX7 a year or so ago and was chuffed with the quality you could get for the money these days. This looks even more impressive. Probably next month there'll be something better.


----------



## editor (Jan 7, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> The thing to bear in mind though is that super-zooms are basically just point-and-shoot cameras in a DSLR-esque body with a long zoom. The sensor is still minuscule, so they won't perform as well in low light, nor give you depth of field options, as either a DSLR or a mirrorless camera.


That's not true. Some of the new generation of superzoom cameras have larger sensors (such as the FZ1000 and RX10's 1 inch sensors).


----------



## starfish2000 (Jan 11, 2015)

Ive just found this discussion, read the first & last pages...wow, weirdly intense!


----------



## grosun (Jan 12, 2015)

fractionMan said:


> Older Samsung nx system cameras are cheap second hand, compact, easy to use and fit the bill IMO.



The NX3000 is available for £200 with a pretty nice compact lens. I bought one just after Christmas, mostly to get hold of the bundled copy of lightroom. I was intending to sell the rest on ebay (the body, camera & flash go for more separately), but ended up trying it out & was impressed by the results. My Dad ended up buying it off me after seeing the pictures. High ISO results in particular were very impressive; put my Olympus E-P5 in the shade, sigh.

e2a: & that's not an older model. It's bang up to date & uses the same sensor as their higher-end cameras


----------



## fractionMan (Jan 12, 2015)

grosun said:


> The NX3000 is available for £200 with a pretty nice compact lens. I bought one just after Christmas, mostly to get hold of the bundled copy of lightroom. I was intending to sell the rest on ebay (the body, camera & flash go for more separately), but ended up trying it out & was impressed by the results. My Dad ended up buying it off me after seeing the pictures. High ISO results in particular were very impressive; put my Olympus E-P5 in the shade, sigh.
> 
> e2a: & that's not an older model. It's bang up to date & uses the same sensor as their higher-end cameras


Is that the 20-50mm one?  Its tiny


----------



## grosun (Jan 12, 2015)

fractionMan said:


> Is that the 20-50mm one?  Its tiny


16-50, i think.. but yeah, it's very small (a little less tiny when turned on/extended, but still very little, & unexpectedly good given it's size)


----------



## editor (Jan 12, 2015)

grosun said:


> 16-50, i think.. but yeah, it's very small (a little less tiny when turned on/extended, but still very little, & unexpectedly good given it's size)


What's the aperture range? A lot of those super compact zooms are super sluggish.


----------



## fractionMan (Jan 12, 2015)

it's a csc, but yeah, the aperture range isn't going to win any awards.   Saying that, the cheapest f2.8 constant zoom lens around is probably twice the cost of that camera and lens combined.


----------



## grosun (Jan 13, 2015)

editor said:


> What's the aperture range? A lot of those super compact zooms are super sluggish.


3.5-5.6 which is pretty average for a kit zoom imo. Combined with the usable high iso, it seemed fine for taking photos in fairly low light.


----------



## editor (Jan 13, 2015)

grosun said:


> 3.5-5.6 which is pretty average for a kit zoom imo. Combined with the usable high iso, it seemed fine for taking photos in fairly low light.


I'm afraid I'd find that next to useless in the winter - in fact I recently sold a similar lens as I found it too slow to be practical.


----------



## grosun (Jan 13, 2015)

editor said:


> I'm afraid I'd find that next to useless in the winter - in fact I recently sold a similar lens as I found it too slow to be practical.


Yeah, can see your point of view. Was it the Olympus kit zoom you sold?


----------



## editor (Jan 13, 2015)

grosun said:


> Yeah, can see your point of view. Was it the Olympus kit zoom you sold?


Yes. It was neat little lens but I found it too frustrating to use.


----------



## grosun (Jan 13, 2015)

editor said:


> Yes. It was neat little lens but I found it too frustrating to use.


For me the biggest annoyance with that lens is having to open it before you can use it. I just want to be able to turn the camera on & be ready to take photos, not some tedious 2-stage process (3 stage i suppose, if you include taking the lens cap off).


----------



## 5t3IIa (Jan 19, 2015)




----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 20, 2015)

5t3IIa said:


>



Why,I otter...!


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 20, 2015)

editor said:


> I'm afraid I'd find that next to useless in the winter - in fact I recently sold a similar lens as I found it too slow to be practical.


I know what you mean. I was trying to get some shots just on a dim afternoon in Parliament Square at the long end of my Panasonic kit zoom—which is otherwise a really good lens, really sharp and quick to focus—and even at 3200 I was getting speeds of 1/30 or less.

I really lust after the Panasonic 12-35 f2.8 but that's £6-700 minimum


----------



## editor (Mar 25, 2021)

Bungle73 said:


> So I say again, we're only supposed to listen to people who a) you've heard of, and b) agree with what you think?  What's you're experience?
> 
> A quote from Tony Northrup's book:


Toneh!


----------



## Voley (Mar 25, 2021)

Omg. This Thread Of Glory is back.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Mar 25, 2021)

I miss Bungle - he always livened the place up.


----------



## Voley (Mar 25, 2021)

farmerbarleymow said:


> I miss Bungle - he always livened the place up.


He was amazing.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Mar 25, 2021)

Voley said:


> He was amazing.


I'd love to hear his views about what has happened to the rail network since the pandemic.


----------



## marty21 (Mar 25, 2021)

Voley said:


> Omg. This Thread Of Glory is back.


Classic bungle   

This and train tickets


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 25, 2021)

farmerbarleymow said:


> I miss Bungle - he always livened the place up.


The dude was a fucking legend.

He's still the only poster on these boards who's ever driven me properly, tearing my hair out, shouting at the screen, bonkers. 

Sadly missed


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 25, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> The dude was a fucking legend.
> 
> He's still the only poster on these boards who's ever driven me properly, tearing my hair out, shouting at the screen, bonkers.


😐😐😐


----------



## marty21 (Mar 25, 2021)

farmerbarleymow said:


> I'd love to hear his views about what has happened to the rail network since the pandemic.


I'd love to hear more of his views on train ticket apps


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 25, 2021)

marty21 said:


> I'd love to hear more of his views on train ticket apps


not sure that angry spluttering would advance your understanding of same


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Mar 25, 2021)

marty21 said:


> I'd love to hear more of his views on train ticket apps


I remember one bizarre exchange about the height of the steps into train carriages from the platform.  Despite all of us reporting what we'd experienced day in day out he argued the complete opposite and we were all wrong.


----------



## marty21 (Mar 25, 2021)

farmerbarleymow said:


> I remember one bizarre exchange about the height of the steps into train carriages from the platform.  Despite all of us reporting what we'd experienced day in day out he argued the complete opposite and we were all wrong.


I did like his enthusiasm for train travel , but he was all over the shop in the fact department.


----------



## editor (Apr 26, 2022)

More hood material









						Lens Hoods: Why, When, and How to Use One in Photography
					

A beginner's guide to camera lens hoods, from what they are to how to best use them to shoot photos without glare and lens flare.




					petapixel.com


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 26, 2022)

I forgot about this thread.  
He was definitely channeling Tobyjug.


----------



## nogojones (Apr 26, 2022)

I miss bungle73


----------



## friedaweed (Apr 26, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I forgot about this thread.
> He was definitely channeling Tobyjug.


The funniest part for me is him asking Stanley if he's on drugs or something  Like the answer would ever result in a a false enquiry


----------



## friedaweed (Apr 26, 2022)

nogojones said:


> I miss bungle73


I'd forgotten about him/her. What did they park it for?


----------



## Voley (Apr 26, 2022)

This thread was epic.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 26, 2022)

Voley said:


> This thread was epic.


Yeh one of the urban classics  in these times we should perhaps reach out to Bungle73 and get him to come back as he's left us a rich legacy of mirth and sure there's more left for him to give


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 26, 2022)

friedaweed said:


> I'd forgotten about him/her. What did they park it for?



He got booted for some pretty nasty misogynistic stuff iirc


----------



## nogojones (Apr 26, 2022)

friedaweed said:


> I'd forgotten about him/her. What did they park it for?


I think he may have got a bit "train happy"


----------



## friedaweed (Apr 26, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> He got booted for some pretty nasty misogynistic stuff iirc


Ahh. 

I stopped being lazy and checked out his last posts and I see you are correctamondo. 

Sounds like he was having a bit of a meltdown as well as being a bit of a knob.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 26, 2022)

marty21 said:


> Early contender for thread of the year


When belboid comes to do thread of the decade 2010-19 this will be on the shortlist


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 26, 2022)

nogojones said:


> I miss bungle73



By far the most fucking infuriating poster who's ever graced the boards.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 26, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> By far the most fucking infuriating poster who's ever graced the boards.


Worse than teuchter? That's really saying something.


----------



## friedaweed (Apr 26, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> By far the most fucking infuriating poster who's ever graced the boards.


That's rich coming from you


----------



## nogojones (Apr 26, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> By far the most fucking infuriating poster who's ever graced the boards.


That's why I liked him. He'd go from 0-100 over the stupidest shit. Didn't he come here after getting booted from a train spotting forum or the like?


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 26, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> Worse than teuchter? That's really saying something.



Teuchers is a wind-up merchant, so easy to deal with.

Bungle was a disingenuous, arrogant, incendiary, fuck-bollock, who was perfect to wind-up because he was such a horrible dick, he deserved all the shit he got so you never felt sorry for him.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 26, 2022)

nogojones said:


> That's why I liked him. He'd go from 0-100 over the stupidest shit. Didn't he come here after getting booted from a train spotting forum or the like?



There’s a thread about that which is gold also. 
Something like “that’s it for me and…” <insert train forum>

Somebody please find it.


----------



## friedaweed (Apr 26, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Teuchers is a wind-up merchant, so easy to deal with.
> 
> Bungle was a disingenuous, arrogant, incendiary, fuck-bollock, who was perfect to wind-up because he was such a horrible dick, he deserved all the shit he got so you never felt sorry for him.


Must admit I never paid that much attention to him. Must of been during my mumsnet vacation years time off.


----------



## nogojones (Apr 26, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Bungle was a disingenuous, arrogant, incendiary, fuck-bollock, who was perfect to wind-up because he was such a horrible dick, he deserved all the shit he got so you never felt sorry for him.


But he also had his faults


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 26, 2022)

I thought of both Bungle and the SOCIAL CLUBS FOR UNDER 30s posters during the time of the Plymouth Incel massacre. Rightly or wrongly.


----------



## nogojones (Apr 26, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I thought of both Bungle and the SOCIAL CLUBS FOR UNDER 30s posters during the time of the Plymouth Incel massacre. Rightly or wrongly.


Wast  the poster who was really jelly of his brother because he had a job and a girlfriend and wouln't stop winging on about it?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 26, 2022)

nogojones said:


> Wast  the poster who was really jelly of his brother because he had a job and a girlfriend and wouln't stop winging on about it?



Yeah. Exactly. And then said “but where do I go?” When told to fuck off. Hallmarks of it.


----------



## Chilli.s (Apr 26, 2022)

Always put the case for how reasonable and intuitive it was purchasing rail tickets and what a great deal the traveller was getting. Hilarious to read his poor deluded bleating


----------

