> Perhaps this does look exciting to customers whose view of good images
> is what they get on their phone. :-)
Not really the same thing. It's good to have creative/artistic
coverage like this, but if you fail to get the bread and butter shots,
you are total scum. Granted, he may have done all that and just not
included it in this selection.
However, one thing popped right out to me. The in-camera flash
pictures (devil eyes) is a sign of improper equipment and even more
improper technique. We've seen this many times before when a
photographer claims that he/she is a "natural-light" photographer, not
because it is any better (it isn't), but because it requires less
technical skill. Again, when the putrid colors come through, your only
option is to convert to B&W and claim artistic license. Give me proper
lighting any day over that schlock.
As to the cellphones, this has been true since the age of the Brownie
and then the Poloroid. You had people who were satisfied with the Junk
images from the box cameras, while the professionals were using 4x5
and medium format. No significant difference that I can think of. But
I certainly wouldn't go maligning cellphone cameras these days. The
one in my Samsung Galaxy Note 3 is astoundingly good. I wouldn't shoot
a wedding with it, but when you can operate it in the sweet spot, it's
remarkable.
--
Ken Norton
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|