Loading
iPHONES AND RAINBOWS


In this day and age of technology you’ll never miss a picture of a rainbow.

Digital cameras changed photography, and now smart phones are changing digital cameras.

Yet, not too long ago my camera of choice was a Pentax and not an iPhone. But now the iPhone camera is becoming competitive, if not superior, to the DSLR or especially the Point and Shoot camera. I tried using Android phone cameras, and in my tests there is much more attention going into the iPhone camera by Apple than by Samsung or equivalent.

I am amazed sometimes in post processing a picture made with the iPhone how you often just need a slight tweak of the brightness or the exposure, and how this saves time. Which brings me to the point of this post, how making pictures of rainbows now is not so much about the camera as it is the photographer.

How you compose an image and tell a story is more simple and quick than ever, and less and less do you have to play with adjustments or post processing. I feel that no longer do I have to carry my Pentax wherever I go as I have for the past three decades. More on this in a moment.

One of the things I don’t miss about the DSLR is every time they put out a new model you then have to upgrade your editing software to be compatible with it. I must confess, though, I learned photography back in the days of film (and a Nikon), before digital, when composing through the camera viewfinder and setting all the details mostly was done before the click of the shutter. Even today with my digital Pentax I turn off the preview screen on the back so I don’t depend on it as too many today do, as well as ‘fixing’ it in post processing.

Yes we used techniques in the darkroom when printing from film, and it was just basic tweaking compared to what you can do today with programs like Photoshop and GIMP. For you photography geeks, you may arguably understand when I say that I’ve reasoned with shooting JPEG images only, no more RAW.

Because, when you shoot in RAW it makes you slave to the camera manufacturers formats, or at least the Adobe Digital Negative format, even though my Pentax is over a decade old. This way with JPEG it will always be able to be used in the (foreseeable) future no matter your camera, and editing software will not become outdated.

There are many photographers including myself who arguably can produce quality imagery from a JPEG compared to using a RAW file if not better. So, for example, the past several years that I’ve been RAW free there has not been an issue with quality in how the photography has been used.

The one argument, though, for using my Pentax still is with focal length or lighting for the most part. To zoom with an iPhone or to use different lighting techniques still needs improvement. Also the size of the sensor in a DSLR has an advantage in certain applications, and I still enjoy the (colors from the) CCD sensor which is no longer used in present models.

But for making pictures of general subjects, the iPhone camera shines. These little devices are really computers, compact and lightweight like never before. You can pull it out of your pocket and have it ready to shoot in a quick moment. Tap the screen to focus and click the shutter. I often shoot these days in square format, so composing an image is a snap, as you don’t have to play with turning the device for composition sake.

The great photographer Ansel Adams was known for preferring the square, and would crop from that if need be. Ansel was also a master craftsman in the darkroom, and I bet if he were living today, though he might use digital, his pictures from a film negative would still be unnoticeable if you compared it to a picture made from a digital negative.

Yes, it is said that more pictures have been taken with the smartphone camera than all the pictures in the history of photography ... or something like that.

So start snapping and sharing, and enjoy life.


Frank J Casella
www.ipernity.com/user/frankjcasella


15 comments

HaarFager said:

I also believe that more pictures taken with a smartphone camera than all the pictures in the history of photography will be forgotten about 5 seconds after it was snapped. That surely has to be taken into account.

Nice to see you on Ipernity! I hope you have lots of fun and meet lots of nice people.
6 years ago

Frank J Casella replied to HaarFager:

You have a point there about forgotten snaps. Very easy to do if we're not intentional about it.

I think ipernity is a nice platform, I'm learning a lot from the community, and everyone so far is very nice and welcoming. Thank you too for your kindness.
6 years ago

HaarFager said:

Not to beat a dead horse but that first statement you made:
"In this day and age of technology you’ll never miss a picture of a rainbow."
Why is that? Is it because nobody goes anywhere without their cell-phones? If that's the case and technology allows this, "technology" for photography is almost 200 years old. If a person was so inclined, they could have always taken a camera with them. But, if they didn't, why didn't they? Was photography not as important to them then? If so, why is photography so important to them now? If it's only important to them because they carry a cell-phone camera with them wherever they go, then they could have been carrying a camera with them before cell-phones came along. It seems to me that, due to technology and the fact that just about the whole world is connected and exposed to technology by television and other media, a whole lot of people jump on the bandwagon just to be like the proverbial "Jones." You might have guessed that I don't own a cell-phone. I don't need one, as I have a telephone that hangs on the wall of my home. It works and I can talk to people, which is what it was created to do. I don't need to send messages of text because the telephone superceded telegraph as a technology.

I never missed a rainbow since the 1970s and it's because I always had a camera with me, loaded with film. It was easy to have a camera. For me or anybody. But, most people didn't carry a camera. Why? It seems there has been a paradigm shift and now people are awakening to the idea that they can take pictures anywhere they go. Well, they always could - it's just that evidently they chose not to. That's my question - what changed? Or is it just a fad of technology and people will grow tired of snapping those countless, pointless pictures?
6 years ago

Frank J Casella replied to HaarFager:

Yes, agree, I think how the iPhone is so portable, and how Apple makes it so quick and easy to make a snap. There is no forgetting your camera, and no processing, and more instant gratification.
6 years ago

Bergfex said:

Smartphone technology has opened a whole new era for snapshots. It's often the case that my wife sent a shot to our friends long before I found the right settings with the big camera. So we complement each other as a team.
6 years ago

Frank J Casella replied to Bergfex:

Yes, that I think is how the smart phone cameras are designed. The technology is incredible.
6 years ago

Steve Bucknell said:

A fascinating topic. I thought, recently, I should take photography a little more seriously, think about DSLR equipment, the basics of the craft of photography rather than my airy fairy notions of art.

I went along to a local photography group. Well attended! All male...all toting bags, cameras, multiple lense, discussing fine details of equipment. I was keen to look, I’m quite socially skilled, having worked as a nurse for many years....but for each one it seemed to be the equipment that was paramount. Their images seemed generic: beautiful landscapes, stiff, posed portraits, Flora and fauna. Some beautifully shot, but.....

And I felt that I could reproduce most of the pictorial quality they had on my iPhone.

The next session was spent trying to reproduce perfectly a portrait of a sitter, a smartly dressed retired steelworker. Why? To test the equipment, to calibrate the image quality to the enth degree.

I couldn’t help feeling the odd one out with my point and shoot and iPhone, but LOOK, I thought, look at this man’s boots, so worn, grained, loved, expressive...I didn’t have the nerve to get up and take an iPhone image of his boots, it would have felt like showing off ( so I’m showing off here, instead!). But it did crystallise some of what I feel about photography and the discussions around equipment.

So, for me at the moment, I’m going to try and keep on doing what I’m doing: keep my eyes open, look at other photographs, have fun, have some serious fun.
6 years ago

HaarFager replied to Steve Bucknell:

By honing in on the models' interesting boots, it seems to me you might have a little more discerning eye than all those other people who had all the equipment. I've seen people like that before, the "Oh, look at all my expensive equipment - you know I must be good," type of person. I once saw this guy with a two-foot long zoom lense at a balloon show. I was probably the only one there that knew it was too long of a lens to be able to capture a whole balloon as close as we were to them. Yeah, he was poser. Having fun, too me, is where it's at as well.
6 years ago

Frank J Casella said:

I've been in those situations that you describe. As mentioned in my article, when I transitioned from RAW files to JPEG it was during the argument on which is better ... I said, the one you master. The important thing, as you say, have fun with it. Photography has no hard rules, its all suggestive.
6 years ago

Sami Serola (inactiv… said:

Greetings from a "fellow amateur mobile phone photographer" ;-)

I chose SONY, because they also have long experience on mobile phone camera manufacturing. What comes to JPEG vs RAW, I fully understand the advances of RAW, but on the other hand it is the output that matters. If the output is pleasing, then it doesn't matter what the original situation looked like. Or that is what is my style, not to painstakingly trying to document the reality, but to create images that hopefully speaks to other people as well. Just as much I want to "consume" such images made by others.
5 years ago

Frank J Casella said:

Yes, I agree, the type of digital negative, and processing, is becoming less and less important compared to the quality of the photography. I will check out Sony phone cameras, thanks for that suggestion, Sami.
5 years ago

Sami Serola (inactiv… replied to Frank J Casella:

First of all my apologies for calling you as a "fellow amateur photographer" ;-)

After reading more of your articles, I realized you have a long professional background.

When it comes to phone cameras in general, it really doesn't matter what trademark it is. I try to write a review on phone cameras soon, where I explain what features one should look for, if and when one considers to invest on a new phone camera.

I have now used mobile phone cameras almost for a decade, and at least gained a lot of experience on them.
5 years ago

Frank J Casella replied to :

No need to apologies, Sami. We are all photographers. I am here to learn too. In fact, just what you're saying about phone cameras is where I need to learn. My hopes are to do much as I can on iPad or Tablet.
5 years ago

Sami Serola (inactiv… replied to :

This is very likely nothing new, but I suggest using some cloud service to share your own photos between different devices. I use Google Images to store, not the best quality, but good enough images for web. That way all my photos taken with mobile phone immediately becomes uploaded to cloud, and then accessible also on other devices (pad, laptop, computer).

For mobile editing I recommend Snapseed. It is free, based on famous Nik Collection, and what's best, it keeps EXIF when editing images.
5 years ago

Frank J Casella said:

Thank you, Sami, for these suggestions. I have to find alternatives as I try to avoid anything Google. For example, in place of G Images I use this at $1. USD per month for 100GB www.ionos.com/office-solutions/hidrive-cloud-storage And am still playing with apps, presently using one called Darkroom. Still searching. .... thanks!
5 years ago