# Anyone fancy a course in iPhoneography?



## sim667 (Feb 6, 2012)

If you're too stupid to work out how to use the camera on your iPhone, you can now do a course in iPhone photography.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-16870423


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 6, 2012)

The article also says that there is a possibility of a similar course being set up for Android phone users. I suppose it is no different learning the basics of 'seeing' a photograph and how to observe the effects of light when using any camera.

It is possible that this is a 'sprat to catch a mackerel', that is, once they have got the students interested in taking photography a bit further than getting their subjects to pose with their backs to Cleopatra's Needle or similar, that they might want to take a proper course for real cameras.


----------



## sim667 (Feb 6, 2012)

Or said students will decide that their phones take just as good photos as proper cameras and all photography in offices will now be done with the learning experience kid on their bosses iphone.


----------



## editor (Feb 6, 2012)

You'd have to be inhaling some pretty strong stuff to conclude that the iPhone camera is as good as a proper dedicated camera.


----------



## sim667 (Feb 6, 2012)

editor said:


> You'd have to be inhaling some pretty strong stuff to conclude that the iPhone camera is as good as a proper dedicated camera.


 
You know people will though


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Feb 8, 2012)

Er that's a bit of a crap BBC piece but you know what they say the best camera is the one you have with you. No point talking about amazing camera's versus the iPhone when you're only likely to have the iPhone with you 99% of the time tbh...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 8, 2012)

One of the good things about the iPhone having a camera is that it's encouraged an interest in photography - even if it's been novelty photography a lot of the time. But there are lots of apps designed around taking good pictures and sharing them with a community - Instagram for instance. Decent phone cameras are as good as a point and shoot these days, and a course for people who have got into photography via their phones, teaching them some of the basics, sounds like a good idea to me. Although I suspect this one has a big publicity element to it.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Feb 8, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> One of the good things about the iPhone having a camera is that it's encouraged an interest in photography - even if it's been novelty photography a lot of the time. But there are lots of apps designed around taking good pictures and sharing them with a community - Instagram for instance. Decent phone cameras are as good as a point and shoot these days, and a course for people who have got into photography via their phones, teaching them some of the basics, sounds like a good idea to me. Although I suspect this one has a big publicity element to it.


 
Yep, it's incredible how many people I know are now avid photographers due to having a good smartphone, almost all are using filter apps to produce some very nice photos. Gone are the days of the crappy composition, thumb over the lens shots from cheap film cameras!


----------



## editor (Feb 8, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Yep, it's incredible how many people I know are now avid photographers due to having a good smartphone, almost all are using filter apps to produce some very nice photos. Gone are the days of the crappy composition, thumb over the lens shots from cheap film cameras!


"Filter apps" don't lead to a greater understanding of photographic composition, and there's just as many shit photos being taken now as at any other point in time. Probably far more, in fact.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 8, 2012)

Well, more photos being taken = more shit photos being taken. But you have to take photos to get better at it.


----------



## editor (Feb 8, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Decent phone cameras are as good as a point and shoot these days


They're really not, you know. They're slower, have tiny, average quality lens and perform appallingly bad in low light.

And this is coming from someone who is a fan of cameraphone photography.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 8, 2012)

sim667 said:


> If you're too stupid to work out how to use the camera on your iPhone, you can now do a course in iPhone photography.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-16870423


people often need guidance in technical matters. that doesn't make them stupid.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 8, 2012)

editor said:


> You'd have to be inhaling some pretty strong stuff to conclude that the iPhone camera is as good as a proper dedicated camera.


it can be in certain situations. very limited ones, mind.


----------



## editor (Feb 8, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Well, more photos being taken = more shit photos being taken. But you have to take photos to get better at it.


To really get better and progress part point'n'shoot snapshots*, you really need a camera with proper manual controls.

(*that's not to say cameraphones can't take great photos, but they're seriously limited in many departments).


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 8, 2012)

editor said:


> They're really not, you know. They're slower, have tiny, average quality lens and perform appallingly bad in low light.
> 
> And this is coming from someone who is a fan of cameraphone photography.


The decent ones? Vs compact consumer point-and-shoots - not the several-hundred-quid posh ones, but the little Nikons and Canons? I'd rate the iPhone 4S camera, for example, as easily as good (apart from lack of optical zoom) as any compact POS I've tried. That's really the major thing I miss from having mine nicked.

Anyway, the exact details aren't the point - at the very least they take pictures in the same class. Getting people interested in taking photos in the first place, and allowing them to get decent results and making it fun, is the main point.


----------



## editor (Feb 8, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> The decent ones? Vs compact consumer point-and-shoots - not the several-hundred-quid posh ones, but the little Nikons and Canons? I'd rate the iPhone 4S camera, for example, as easily as good (apart from lack of optical zoom) as any compact POS I've tried.


Unless you're talking about really cheap'n'nasty sub £100 cameras, the iPhone camera really is not as good.

And that's not just my opinion - it's simple physics relating to sensor size, and it's all explained here:
http://www.uscoles.com/sensorsandlenses.pdf







*just to repeat: that's not to say that you can't get great pics from a camera phone, because you can. But it is a seriously limited device, particularly in low light.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Feb 8, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Well, more photos being taken = more shit photos being taken. But you have to take photos to get better at it.


 
I've seen some great photos from people with no training, these apps and phones are great at bringing new levels of creativity to the average person in photography. Think that's a good thing personally...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 8, 2012)

Now come on - we've all talked about megapixel bloat a lot before. When it comes to casual shooting, being able to extract tiny details Bladerunner-style is irrelevant. And people just don't start by saying "hey I'll spend a few hundred quid on a camera" - they're going to start by taking pictures on their phones, just like they'd have started with a cheap 35mm manual a few decades ago.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Feb 8, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Now come on - we've all talked about megapixel bloat a lot before. When it comes to casual shooting, being able to extract tiny details Bladerunner-style is irrelevant. And people just don't start by saying "hey I'll spend a few hundred quid on a camera" - they're going to start by taking pictures on their phones, just like they'd have started with a cheap 35mm manual a few decades ago.


 
Well exactly, this is about the average person being able to get great results (by the standards of the average person and compared to the old days) with very little barrier to entry. I'm very pleased this has developed the way it has because it will mean people being more creative and some of those may take it further, that's A Good Thing imo.


----------



## editor (Feb 8, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Now come on - we've all talked about megapixel bloat a lot before. When it comes to casual shooting, being able to extract tiny details Bladerunner-style is irrelevant. And people just don't start by saying "hey I'll spend a few hundred quid on a camera" - they're going to start by taking pictures on their phones, just like they'd have started with a cheap 35mm manual a few decades ago.


It's not about megapixels. It's about the clear, well documented limitation of teensy weensy tiny sensors, small optics and auto-only cameras.

Camera phones can take excellent photos in perfect conditions, but their limitation means that they can perform very poorly in conditions that aren't ideal - and those are the areas where a proper camera would do a better job.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 8, 2012)

https://www.xkcd.com/1014/


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Feb 8, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> https://www.xkcd.com/1014/


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 8, 2012)

editor said:


> It's not about megapixels. It's about the clear, well documented limitation of teensy tiny sensors and auto cameras.
> 
> Camera phones can take excellent photos in perfect conditions, but its limitations means that they can perform very poorly in conditions that aren't ideal - and those are the areas where a proper camera would do a better job.


The performance of cameras that they don't have is irrelevant to people potentially interested in photography taking snaps with their phones. Phone cameras can take decent pictures nowadays, that's what matters. They don't need to be told that their equipment is shit, they need to be told "this is how to take better pictures, and if you're interested here is some kit that could give you better results".


----------



## editor (Feb 8, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> The performance of cameras that they don't have is irrelevant to people potentially interested in photography taking snaps with their phones. Phone cameras can take decent pictures nowadays, that's what matters. They don't need to be told that their equipment is shit, they need to be told "this is how to take better pictures, and if you're interested here is some kit that could give you better results".


Who's saying that the cameraphones are "shit"? 

But for anyone with a real interest in photography, I'd advise that they keep on using their phone for everyday snaps, but invest in a decent camera for far better results and a better understanding of photography - especially if they're interested in sports or low light photography.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 8, 2012)

editor said:


> Who's saying that the cameraphones are "shit"?
> 
> But for anyone with a real interest in photography, I'd advise that they keep on using their phone for everyday snaps, but invest in a decent camera for far better results and a better understanding of photography - especially if they're interested in sports or low light photography.


Sure, but you have to start somewhere. And it doesn't mean that you can't do both.

From personal experience, it has definitely been iPhone photo apps that got me interested in photography again recently - and then I got a film SLR because I wanted more control over what I was doing, but I wouldn't have without the phone.


----------



## editor (Feb 8, 2012)

I'm not going to disagree that cameraphones have got people taking more photos, but I still think you're wrong to maintain that a decent phone camera "is as good as a point and shoot". They may be as 'good as' in some circumstances, but they lag far behind in many others.

Cameraphones are great for snapshots and documenting everyday scenes, but they are _awful_ for sports photography, dreadful in low light, have nasty LED flashes and are slow and cumbersome to operate.


----------



## sim667 (Feb 9, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> it can be in certain situations. very limited ones, mind.



Then you google it. It's not like it's got manual settings and different modes, or you can even alter your exposures, it's a point and shoot


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 9, 2012)

sim667 said:


> Then you google it. It's not like it's got manual settings and different modes, or you can even alter your exposures, it's a point and shoot


it's much better getting instruction about stuff like that in real life cos it doesn't go in one ear and out the other


----------



## editor (Feb 9, 2012)

The best way to learn about manual settings and how images are affected by things such as shutter speeds, aperture settings, exposure compensation, spot metering etc is by going out and taking pictures with a camera that lets you easily adjust those things.

It's how I learnt and it's info that has held me in good stead every since, whatever camera I'm using.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 9, 2012)

hmm maybe, but i think that some people are stumped by such things and would do better taking instructions off a real person. i have a lumix digital camera that has totally stumped me because i lost the manual, so i don't take pics on it anymore. sometimes the settings, or rather the pictographs representing them are totally bamboozling.


----------



## editor (Feb 9, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> hmm maybe, but i think that some people are stumped by such things and would do better taking instructions off a real person. i have a lumix digital camera that has totally stumped me because i lost the manual, so i don't take pics on it anymore. sometimes the settings, or rather the pictographs representing them are totally bamboozling.


Just about every consumer camera comes with a fully auto mode that requires you to just point at the subject. In the case of a Lumix camera, it's usually marked by iA, and it will almost certainly take better pictures than your iPhone in that mode.

You can download manuals for Lumix cameras:here http://www.panasonic.co.uk/html/en_GB/Support/Downloads/220239/index.html#anker_222458


----------



## chilango (Feb 9, 2012)

It always amazes me how many people I see here wandering around the shops at the weekend with exceedingly expensive cameras (y'know a couple of grand easily) with _massive_ lenses slung around their necks. Only to take very casual snapshots of "buildings against the sky" and such like using the "auto" function.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Feb 9, 2012)

chilango said:


> It always amazes me how many people I see here wandering around the shops at the weekend with exceedingly expensive cameras (y'know a couple of grand easily) with _massive_ lenses slung around their necks. Only to take very casual snapshots of "buildings against the sky" and such like using the "auto" function.



Heh yeah I've seen the same, they'd probably get better results using an iPhone 4S and snapseed!


----------



## sim667 (Feb 9, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> it's much better getting instruction about stuff like that in real life cos it doesn't go in one ear and out the other


 
Well thats about the person trying to learn it not paying attention. Nothing else.


----------



## editor (Feb 9, 2012)

chilango said:


> It always amazes me how many people I see here wandering around the shops at the weekend with exceedingly expensive cameras (y'know a couple of grand easily) with _massive_ lenses slung around their necks. Only to take very casual snapshots of "buildings against the sky" and such like using the "auto" function.


There's nothing wrong with using the auto function of a dSLR and the results will be infintely better than that of an iPhone, what with the vastly superior optics, sensor, metering etc.

You must have remarkable eyesight to be able to see where the tiny mode dial on their cameras is set, btw.


----------



## chilango (Feb 9, 2012)

editor said:


> There's nothing wrong with using the auto function of a dSLR and the results will be infintely better than that of an iPhone, what with the vastly superior optics, sensor, metering etc.
> 
> You must have remarkable eyesight to be able to see where the tiny mode dial on their cameras is set, btw.


 
If you watch someone taking a photo in the street you can tell if they're doing any manual adjusting or they're just pointing and clicking as they stroll around the shops.

I'm sure there's nowt wrong with using auto. But it seems a waste of a 2 grand camera (which really is not the best option for casual snapshots in the street).


----------



## editor (Feb 9, 2012)

chilango said:


> If you watch someone taking a photo in the street you can tell if they're doing any manual adjusting or they're just pointing and clicking as they stroll around the shops.


How can you tell if they're using spot metering? Or have +/- exposure set? And why should you care? 

Oh, and it's certainly not a 'waste' to use the auto function. Some stunning shots have been shot in auto. It's the picture that matters, not the mode it was shot in.


----------



## sim667 (Feb 9, 2012)

editor said:


> There's nothing wrong with using the auto function of a dSLR and the results will be infintely better than that of an iPhone, what with the vastly superior optics, sensor, metering etc.
> 
> You must have remarkable eyesight to be able to see where the tiny mode dial on their cameras is set, btw.


 
I'd agree, but you do see a lot of people using auto who end up with perfectly exposed skys and underexposed buildings because they haven't switched from spot to metric metering.

But still a lot of people do waste money on cameras they really dont need or will never understand how to use fully.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 9, 2012)

sim667 said:


> I'd agree, but you do see a lot of people using auto who end up with perfectly exposed skys and underexposed buildings because they haven't switched from spot to metric metering.
> 
> But still a lot of people do waste money on cameras they really dont need or will never understand how to use fully.


In the days of film this rather mattered, because it wasn't until after development and printing that you discovered your mistake. Nowadays with digital cameras you see the result straight away and have time to re-shoot with the correct exposure. The camera teaches you how to use it in a way.


----------



## sim667 (Feb 9, 2012)

But if you dont know why its happening then it doesnt matter if you can see the images or not straight away.


----------



## chilango (Feb 9, 2012)

How can I tell? I watch them take the photo.

I'm sure their Luis Vuitton bags are more functional than a cheap bag too...I see a lot of people using expensive cameras as status symbols. It seems a bit silly is all. But it's their money I guess.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 9, 2012)

sim667 said:


> Well thats about the person trying to learn it not paying attention. Nothing else.


no, it's about people learning in different ways


----------



## sim667 (Feb 9, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> no, it's about people learning in different ways


 
Or not being arsed to learn a whole 3 functions of a phone camera......

You going on the course then OU?


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 9, 2012)

sim667 said:


> Or not being arsed to learn a whole 3 functions of a phone camera......
> 
> You going on the course then OU?


no, can't be arsed. 
but i still think you're being unfair on other users of technology - it doesn't come naturally to everyone to use new technology, and some people really do need a helping human hand to get to grips with it.


----------



## Greebo (Feb 9, 2012)

Hocus Eye. said:


> In the days of film this rather mattered, because it wasn't until after development and printing that you discovered your mistake. Nowadays with digital cameras you see the result straight away and have time to re-shoot with the correct exposure. The camera teaches you how to use it in a way.


Agreed. Mine tells me the technical details of each picture, giving me more of a chance of getting similar results with film. It also lets me switch beween colour saturated, normal colour, and black & white for each picture - can't do that with film.  Also, since highstreet film has become increasingly aimed at snappers, the ISO levels and shutter speed choices on my digital camera make the extremes of light/darkness a lot more usable.  

No, I don't use all of the manual settings yet, but it's a camera to grow into.


----------



## sim667 (Feb 9, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> no, can't be arsed.
> but i still think you're being unfair on other users of technology - it doesn't come naturally to everyone to use new technology, and some people really do need a helping human hand to get to grips with it.


 
But the thing is you literally point it at what you want to take a photo of, and press the button. I dont see how they can off a course which essentially teaches someone to look at an object and press a button.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 9, 2012)

it's what you do with it afterward, the processing, that people would like instructing in. there's a confounding amout of apps out there and a course would be great for learning how to get the best out of them


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 9, 2012)

sim667 said:


> But the thing is you literally point it at what you want to take a photo of, and press the button. I dont see how they can off a course which essentially teaches someone to look at an object and press a button.


As opposed to a posh camera, where you literally point it at what you want to take a photo of, twiddle some dials, and press the button?


----------



## Greebo (Feb 9, 2012)

sim667 said:


> But the thing is you literally point it at what you want to take a photo of, and press the button. I dont see how they can off a course which essentially teaches someone to look at an object and press a button.


It might be teaching the theory of composition, or getting people to think about the best/most interesting angle for a shot.


----------



## sim667 (Feb 9, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> As opposed to a posh camera, where you literally point it at what you want to take a photo of, twiddle some dials, and press the button?


 
You're clearly doing it wrong.


----------



## sim667 (Feb 9, 2012)

Greebo said:


> It might be teaching the theory of composition, or getting people to think about the best/most interesting angle for a shot.


 
Its a lot of money to pay to be given a piece of paper with a half arsed explanation of the rule of thirds on it.


----------



## Greebo (Feb 9, 2012)

sim667 said:


> Its a lot of money to pay to be given a piece of paper with a half arsed explanation of the rule of thirds on it.


Worth every penny for those who don't check background details before taking the picture.


----------



## sim667 (Feb 9, 2012)

true dat.

It'd be interesting to know exactly whats covered in the course.


----------



## Greebo (Feb 9, 2012)

From the BBC news website:
Mr Gray plans to teach the basic rules of composition, colour and light but he will also include a wide range of editing skills including blending, collage and cloning.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Feb 11, 2012)

The excellent Instagram has updated, new filter, tweaked look and the big new thing is Lux which seems to work very nicely.


----------



## IC3D (Feb 11, 2012)

sorry but your not going to learn photography taking pictures of sepia tinted cupcakes and putting them on tumblr...hey have you thought of putting some naff poignant statement over it for the win !


----------



## stuff_it (Feb 12, 2012)

Misread the thread title.


----------

