It really is not the camera

[Ed Richards]

Just to keep things in perspective:

http://fstoppers.com/iphone/

[Thom Bennett]

Uh oh. Birds falling from the sky and now this. The end is near, Ed. :)

[mikebarger]

Great video

[walter23]

Heh, kind of silly. Of course it captures the light from all that studio equipment just fine ;)

[Greg Blank]

Pretty girl, nicely lit, nicely styled. What else is needed? Of course noone says how much time they spent in post production.

[Mark Stahlke]

What else is needed?A longer focal length lens.
In a couple of the finished photos the model seems oddly proportioned, like there is some distortion from a wide angle lens.

[Ed Richards]

http://www.geekiegadgets.com/2010/zoom-in-closer-with-iphone-telephoto-lens-and-tripod/

[Brian C. Miller]

"... I see Photoshop as a necessary tool for every image I make."
-- Lee Morris

OK, sure. Retouching has been a part of photography from the beginning. The 3GS has a 3Mp camera, and the iPhone 4 has a 5Mp camera. Come on, isn't it sort of a no-brainer that a good sensor and lens results in a pretty decent shot? Never mind that it was done with a phone, this could have been done with any point and shoot, given the same lighting.

Here's a good question: From the images after touch-up, can anybody tell the difference between a phone, a P&S, and a SLR?

[Ash]

I can tell a few of them had way too much post-pro. She's way too plastic in a couple, and when you put the series together the image effects become really obvious. They're excellent photos, but they blew out some highlights on her forehead and nose, which are rookie errors.

Even so, they proved a point to many gearheads.

[Matus Kalisky]

Point taken, but blurring in PS does not look appealing to me.

All those shots are base on getting good visage for models and making the light right. Both require experience and skill. The camera really played little role there.

On the technical side - these shots are most probably only suitable for web presentation. I may be wrong but after all the PS done on them they would probably not be suitable for the magazine cover ...

[eddie]

my brother works in a photo lab. the camera phone photos never print as well. the above link says they only up load anyway.

[Frank Petronio]

All the post-production gets to be an issue when people use their cameraphones to cover breaking news. How much clean up do you do? Is that a compression artifact or a gun?

I wish they made a digital camera that had an iOS or Android interface instead of the crappy Canikon UI they shove down our throats.

An iPhone or Droid with a really usable camera would be great.

[Brian Ellis]

If we say it isn't good enough often enough despite all evidence to the contrary maybe it will go away.

[Marko]

And if they don't go away, perhaps we could start smashing the evil little things as we happen upon them? The buggers are even worse than the steam machine... :D

[Joe Forks]

good enough for who and what? that is surely subjective - what is good enough for me may not be good enough for my wife (I'd bet on that), or the next guy. But it's not good enough for me and my print background. Spend some time in pre-press and see what clients are sending in these days.

[mrladewig]

I can tell a few of them had way too much post-pro. She's way too plastic in a couple, and when you put the series together the image effects become really obvious. They're excellent photos, but they blew out some highlights on her forehead and nose, which are rookie errors.

Even so, they proved a point to many gearheads.

What's that?

With crummy gear in a critical part of the system you'll get crummy results?

With mad photoshop skillz, you can make anyone look plastic?

Or maybe its that people don't have very high standards?

[Steve M Hostetter]

must be the way he talked with his hands that convinced so many

[Bruce Watson]

Heh, kind of silly. Of course it captures the light from all that studio equipment just fine ;)

Yup. It's amazing what $30k of equipment and a studio with 16' ceilings and 30' long walls will do. Not to mention a couple of knowledgeable assistants. And the budget to send shots out to a retoucher. Why, with a studio like that, with that level of lighting control, it might even be possible to make 35mm slide film look good! Oh wait.... been there, done that. ;)

But he'll never equal Hurrell with all those soft lights. No sir, not a chance.

[Ed Richards]

I think that it is interesting that while most folks see this as demonstrating the importance of good lighting and production, most of this forum is talk about cameras and lenses and film.:-)

[walter23]

Point taken, but blurring in PS does not look appealing to me.

All those shots are base on getting good visage for models and making the light right. Both require experience and skill. The camera really played little role there.

On the technical side - these shots are most probably only suitable for web presentation. I may be wrong but after all the PS done on them they would probably not be suitable for the magazine cover ...

Yeah, exactly. The camera is just the final step in a pretty complex process. I'm pointing out the obvious here - while image quality is obviously going to be better from higher end cameras, shooting conditions trump sensor & lens, and the the biggest difference between cameras lies in usability features. I'd bet a lot of professional studio photographers could get publishable images from the lowest end DSLRs on the market, but they still pay a premium for bodies with controls that make studio work easier.

[Marko]

I think that it is interesting that while most folks see this as demonstrating the importance of good lighting and production, most of this forum is talk about cameras and lenses and film.:-)

It depends on the camera. And on who's doing the talking.

What's really funny is that most of those ridiculing the cheap digital camera and pointing the importance of good (expensive) lighting and production are the same folks who routinely take pride in cheap film cameras and photographer's skills and who berate high-end digital equipment as ridiculously expensive and qualify the high end production as manipulation.

Something about having a cake and eating it too... :D

[John NYC]

From a technical standpoint, I actually think those shots look really terrible. They are tiny, tiny sizes and yet you can still see the super rough tonality transitions in what are supposed to be smooth areas (even the ones that were p'shopped to the wazoo), pixelation blur in the guy's eyes and terrible edge acutance and finally truly awful digital noise.

From the skill of the photographer, the lighting person and the good-looking-people-ness aspects, they are fine.

So, the camera does matter, and it is the only thing at fault here.

[BOB MURPHY]

I think the guy did a good job. He was trying to show you that it is the photographer not the camera. If anyone here does not think he did a good job post your portraits and tell everyone how you did it. Instead of trying to find fault with his.

[mrladewig]

I think the guy did a good job. He was trying to show you that it is the photographer not the camera. If anyone here does not think he did a good job post your portraits and tell everyone how you did it. Instead of trying to find fault with his.

Of course it is the photographer, not just the camera. This is a publicity stunt, plain and simple.

He came to the shoot with several K in lighting, and then came out with a low quality end product because he didn't use a camera up to the job. Its no different than showing up for the assignment with 20K in lighting gear and a Olympus Pen or Minolta16 or Holga for that matter. Sure they can produce an OK image.

Or, it would be like putting together a race pedigree Pro Tour bicycle and then knackering it all up to show that you could fix anything with a crescent wrench, vise grips and duct tape.

[Brian C. Miller]

From a technical standpoint, I actually think those shots look really terrible. They are tiny, tiny sizes and yet you can still see the super rough tonality transitions in what are supposed to be smooth areas (even the ones that were p'shopped to the wazoo), pixelation blur in the guy's eyes and terrible edge acutance and finally truly awful digital noise.

I looked at the (slightly) larger sizes on Flickr. The max size is 1024x768, but most are 640x480. The 3GS is a 3Mp camera, so these aren't what the camera initially created. I'd reserve my opinions on the camera's optics until I saw the original images. Based on a Nokia N97 vs iPhone 3GS Photos (http://thenokiablog.com/2009/08/26/nokia-n97-vs-iphone-3gs-photos/) comparison which does have the original photos, it looks like it has a real toe and shoulder, but the edges seem better than the Nokia. The phone would benefit from a raw mode.

But the whole point of the shoot was to make someone realize that the camera is not a major factor, i.e., make or break. Yes, looking at other 3GS images, I'm not going to chuck anything, let alone my old digital Canon P&S, but the iPhone camera isn't bad.

(Yes, I absolutely think that Kodak can kick @$$ on iPhone.)

[Steve M Hostetter]

If in fact what this guy says " you don't need a fancy high dollar camera to take good shots" is true then he shouldn't use the ultra high dollar lighting equipment to try to prove his point..!
His credibility is lost with those of us that know better.. Kind of reminds me of my oldest nephew " full of BS " and to me the pics he took look pixeled around the shoulders and breasts
I bet thats his sister posing ,,what pro model would pose for a phone no matter how much $$ they paid her?

[David Carson]

Look at 5:06 in the vid, guys (did you guys even watch the thing?). He went to Lowes to buy some contractor floods for the full-length shots. He's also using the MODELING lights on his strobes. Any $10 photofloods from Ace Hardware can mimic a modeling light on a strobe. There's also a list of budget lighting equipment he suggests at the bottom of his post (not the bottom of the comments).

But really, it's not the camera, it's not the lighting equipment, it's the model. Now where is my Russian brides magazine...

[Robert Hughes]

As Godard said about making a French New Wave film: "All you need is a gun and a girl." And a camera - any camera will do.

My main critique? Too much clothing...

[engl]

Thousands of dollars worth of gear and they couldn't do better than that? Quite surprising. They have indeed proven a point about gear, paying a lot of money is no help if you don't know how to spend it wisely. Labeling it a "iPhone Fashion Shoot" and not a "Cellphone Fashion Shoot" is pretty much a giveaway that they are gadgetheads looking for attention.

[Bruce Watson]

I think that it is interesting that while most folks see this as demonstrating the importance of good lighting and production, most of this forum is talk about cameras and lenses and film.:-)

Of course it is. Most of the participants here are LFers for a hobby. They don't have a 1000 sqft of studio with 16 ft ceilings. Most of them don't want to buy $20k+ of lighting equipment and grip gear for said studio either.

What they do is take their cameras outside. Nature photographers in general aren't into carrying tons of grip gear with them on hikes. They tend to take the light they get, or time their hikes so the arrive when the light is what they want.

I'm just sayin' that if you don't use lighting gear, you aren't going to talk about it much. You're going to talk about what you do use. Which brings us back to cameras, lenses, and film.