News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:You do not need a DSLR to take nice looking photos, your ... by mortenjorck on Sunday April 21, 2013 @03:11PM (#5585979)
I don't want to be Mr. Negative here, but each photo in the post is a decent example of the inadequacies of a phone camera. The first is a classic low-dynamic-range night shot that would be much better served by a large sensor that can do a higher ISO; the second is a nice attempt at some depth of field but is only a fraction of the bokeh you'd get with a wide-aperture prime lens; almost all of the daytime photos have pretty middling ranges and color reproduction.

Lastly, and this is the part I hate to be a jerk about, but the author is probably right, at least for himself right now. I don't think he'd stand to gain all that much from a higher-end camera today. With practice, though, further developing a critical eye, and understanding the photographic process, in time, he might be well-served by upgrading.

Re:You do not need a DSLR to take nice looking photos, your ... by buster on Sunday April 21, 2013 @03:16PM (#5585996)
Absolutely agreed. What he probably means is "good enough to show my holiday pictures to friends on a phone in a bar".

Of course it's true, that it's far more important to have photographer skills (find a good motive, angle, frame it right, lightning, etc.). That's something you can't buy though. Also he doesn't really shine in this regard, to be honest.

BUT, to support his point (and my last one), take a look at this: http://mostlylisa.com/worldtrip/ So again, it's the photographer and his skills and not the technical details. You'll quickly hit limits with a smartphone though (as you described in your post).

edit: Also, the main blog will show pictures taken with a full frame DSLR which simply wouldn't be possible with a smartphone. http://mostlylisa.com/

Re:You do not need a DSLR to take nice looking photos, your ... by Xcelerate on Sunday April 21, 2013 @03:13PM (#5585988)
> but the author is probably right as far as his current photography skills go. I don't think he'd stand to gain much from a higher-end camera at this point.

Yikes! Kind of harsh, don't you think? (I am not the author.)

Re:You do not need a DSLR to take nice looking photos, your ... by Lennington on Sunday April 21, 2013 @03:25PM (#5586041)
Not harsh at all. The photos the author posted are just snapshots, any camera (or person) could take them. If he had a higher-end camera he could learn more about photography, but if his aim is just to take snapshots of daily life then of course his phone will be the best tool for it.
Re:You do not need a DSLR to take nice looking photos, your ... by mortenjorck on Sunday April 21, 2013 @03:15PM (#5585995)
You caught me before my ninja edit! That was too harsh and I've changed it.
Re:You do not need a DSLR to take nice looking photos, your ... by fudged71 on Sunday April 21, 2013 @03:36PM (#5586078)
Don't feel too bad about it. While I understand what the post is trying to say, the way he says it is pretty ignorant to photography in general, and even makes some poor suggestions and sweeping generalizations.

I've been there--a few years ago--with a point and shoot camera, taking what I thought were better photos than the pros. If I'd gotten a DSLR at that time, I wouldn't know what to do with it. But as I got more and more interested in photography, I started to understand the complexity and limitations, and moved up to a DSLR. Yes, I started on Auto mode and as I learned more features I used them more.

Yes, the lines between photographic technology are blurring. I've taken some incredible photos with my Note II (same phone as him, and far better quality than his), but I've also been extremely limited in many situations. He's only taking wide angle still scenes, which doesn't take much skill or technical ability. There are far more situations in which a cellphone can't even compare.

He says "Why burden yourself with such a bulky device, not to mention the cost of it, when your good old phone can take just as good photos." In reality, the Note II cost more than my DSLR ($700 vs $600), and the bulk of it is not just for ergonomics but also to keep it steady and shake-free.