Wes Groleau

Now that I have a "flash," I have to decide whether or not to use it.

One problem is taking pictures near a window or other light source.

IOS adjusts the brightness and contrast so that the faces not directly
in the light are very dark. Turn on flash to counter that, and tap to
snap. light comes on, camera readjusts settings, _then_ takes the
picture. Sometimes that takes nearly a second, so for example,
the bride and groom are no longer facing you, or you get a picture
of someone walking in front of you instead of what you wanted.

--
Wes Groleau

Be spontaneous … today
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/BlindDog?itemid=3984

Davoud

Wes Groleau:

> Now that I have a "flash," I have to decide whether or not to use it.
>
> One problem is taking pictures near a window or other light source.
>
> IOS adjusts the brightness and contrast so that the faces not directly
> in the light are very dark. Turn on flash to counter that, and tap to
> snap. light comes on, camera readjusts settings, _then_ takes the
> picture. Sometimes that takes nearly a second, so for example,
> the bride and groom are no longer facing you, or you get a picture
> of someone walking in front of you instead of what you wanted.

Your expectations of the iPhone camera are unrealistic. It is not a
general-purpose camera like a DSLR, and it's certainly not a wedding
camera. You can't take a quality wedding photo with "a flash;" that
requires two or three powerful flashes, none of them on the camera.

As a photographer with 45 years of experience, I understand where
you're coming from, I really do. We all want simple, and especially
small and pocketable, high-quality cameras. Many small point-and-shoot
cameras do a superb job when the available light is just right. But a
mobile-phone camera or a small point-and-shoot is not, and will never
be, the instrument of choice for consistently pro quality photographs.
Such cameras will continue to be valued by people to whom a mediocre
photo is better than no photo at all. There is nothing wrong with that
so long as the photo is made for personal use and the photographer is
satisfied with the quality.

In other words, if you want great pictures, carry a top-level pro DSLR
camera. Alphabetically, that means Canon or Nikon.

Davoud

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

Wes Groleau

On 11-12-2011 21:25, Davoud wrote:
> you're coming from, I really do. We all want simple, and especially
> small and pocketable, high-quality cameras. Many small point-and-shoot

I didn't ask for a high-quality camera. The issue is not the quality
of the photo. My complaint this is the first camera I've ever had
of any quality (I've had them for $10 and for $600 and various in
between) in which the camera instead of me decided _when_ to snap.

> Such cameras will continue to be valued by people to whom a mediocre
> photo is better than no photo at all. There is nothing wrong with that

No doubt "mediocre" to you is "pretty good" to me. After all, when
there's a webserver, webbrowser, and computer monitor between the event
and the consumer, who can tell the difference?

--
Wes Groleau

Be spontaneous … today
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/BlindDog?itemid=3984

JF Mezei

Wes Groleau wrote:

> picture. Sometimes that takes nearly a second, so for example,
> the bride and groom are no longer facing you, or you get a picture
> of someone walking in front of you instead of what you wanted.

That is why you have expensive cameras with enough "humph" to take
pictures instantly whereas smaller/cheaper cameras such as those in cell
phones take a long time to take a picture.

salgud

On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 16:06:18 -0500, Wes Groleau wrote:

> Now that I have a "flash," I have to decide whether or not to use it.
>
> One problem is taking pictures near a window or other light source.
>
> IOS adjusts the brightness and contrast so that the faces not directly
> in the light are very dark. Turn on flash to counter that, and tap to
> snap. light comes on, camera readjusts settings, _then_ takes the
> picture. Sometimes that takes nearly a second, so for example,
> the bride and groom are no longer facing you, or you get a picture
> of someone walking in front of you instead of what you wanted.

That's the reality of cell phone cameras. My 4S is much faster than my 3GS
at recycling and at taking the pics, it can take about 2 per second, which
is a big improvement. I'm told that's a lot faster than a 4. But it's not a
"real" camera, particularly when it comes to cycle time and response time.
It's great for snaps of my grandkids and the rest of the family (I
occasionally take pics of them too), but the problem you mention is, and I
think continue to be, there for a while.

I'm guessing you'll be up for an upgrade in a year or less, and that the
iPhone 5 will be as fast, maybe even faster than my 4S. So your issue will
be reduced, but probably not resolved.

One other thing. Most people think that when you have a fast cycling
camera, you no longer have to patiently wait for that "magic moment" when
the action is at it's peak. That with a 5fps DLSR that you just wait til
the shooter approaches the basket and press the button as he goes up.
Wrong! Even at 5 fps, the "magic moment" only lasts for a tenth of a second
or less, so the photographer still has to be ready and know when to snap
the shutter to catch that exact instant when the shooter is at the apex of
his jump and the ball is arcing over into the net. Same with kids playing.
So even a fast cycling/recycling camera, the photographer needs to know how
to time it. It ain't easy!

Alan Browne

On 2011-11-12 16:06 , Wes Groleau wrote:
> Now that I have a "flash," I have to decide whether or not to use it.
>
> One problem is taking pictures near a window or other light source.
>
> IOS adjusts the brightness and contrast so that the faces not directly
> in the light are very dark. Turn on flash to counter that, and tap to
> snap. light comes on, camera readjusts settings, _then_ takes the
> picture. Sometimes that takes nearly a second, so for example,
> the bride and groom are no longer facing you, or you get a picture
> of someone walking in front of you instead of what you wanted.

What do you expect from an no lens-shade lens that has a light (not a
flash) located adjacent to the lens as a light source?

Not to mention that the image sensor is the (contrast) focus sensor and
the exposure sensor?

Any camera is subject to flare if there are reflections as well as
exposure errors due to reflections.

Any exposure is subject to how the camera meters.

Any use of lighting in a 3D scene is subject to 1/r^2 losses - if the
camera exposes (aperture, light intensity, light duration) for the scene
at 2 meters away then everything further out will be under exposed -
anything close will be over exposed in that image. (Hint: why do
studios use several lights?).

I've made some very nice photos with my iPhone - but then as an
experienced photographer I know how to shoot within the limitations of
the camera.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

Alan Browne

On 2011-11-12 21:25 , Davoud wrote:
> Wes Groleau:
>
>> Now that I have a "flash," I have to decide whether or not to use it.
>>
>> One problem is taking pictures near a window or other light source.
>>
>> IOS adjusts the brightness and contrast so that the faces not directly
>> in the light are very dark. Turn on flash to counter that, and tap to
>> snap. light comes on, camera readjusts settings, _then_ takes the
>> picture. Sometimes that takes nearly a second, so for example,
>> the bride and groom are no longer facing you, or you get a picture
>> of someone walking in front of you instead of what you wanted.
>
> Your expectations of the iPhone camera are unrealistic. It is not a
> general-purpose camera like a DSLR, and it's certainly not a wedding
> camera. You can't take a quality wedding photo with "a flash;" that
> requires two or three powerful flashes, none of them on the camera.
>
> As a photographer with 45 years of experience, I understand where
> you're coming from, I really do. We all want simple, and especially
> small and pocketable, high-quality cameras. Many small point-and-shoot
> cameras do a superb job when the available light is just right. But a
> mobile-phone camera or a small point-and-shoot is not, and will never
> be, the instrument of choice for consistently pro quality photographs.

Of course not. On the other hand a good photographer can get great
photos with a P&S - as long as he shoots within the limits of the
camera. I've made some very nice photos with the iPhone 4.

In my studio, or on excursions I use my 'blad and Sony a900.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

Wes Groleau

On 11-17-2011 10:27, salgud wrote:
> That's the reality of cell phone cameras. My 4S is much faster than my 3GS
> at recycling and at taking the pics, it can take about 2 per second, which

No, it's the reality of a 4. 3Gs doesn't have a flash, so it snaps when
I tap the icon.

> One other thing. Most people think that when you have a fast
> cycling camera, you no longer have to patiently wait for that
> "magic moment" when

In my case, there was no "magic moment" The subjects were
standing still but everyone else was not.

--
Wes Groleau

Be spontaneous … today
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/BlindDog?itemid=3984