

You do not need a DSLR to take nice looking photos, your phone will suffice - sricola
http://b.sricola.com/post/48501704895/taking-photos-with-your-phone

======
mortenjorck
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.

~~~
Xcelerate
> 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.)

~~~
mortenjorck
You caught me before my ninja edit! That was too harsh and I've changed it.

~~~
fudged71
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.

------
_pferreir_
> 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.

This is false. Any DSLR can do better than the author's examples. These are
not "nice photos", I am sorry. I would be hypocritical if I said otherwise.

OK, I get it, you can take pretty nice shots with your phone, but you cannot
compare it to what a DSLR can provide. Not to mention that DSLRs let you tune
several parameters that can make all the difference.

~~~
sitharus
I'd have to agree, the photos all looked undersaturated and flat. Good enough
for your average holiday snap I suppose, but nothing compared to what a good
photographer can get with a DSLR.

~~~
fudged71
A good photographer can do amazing work with whichever camera they are given,
under the right circumstances (in the following case, a fully controlled
studio fashion shoot) <http://fstoppers.com/iphone>

------
jbeda
I don't agree with this. While you might not need a DSLR, you can easily do
better than the camera in your phone.

I recently completed a family trip and left my Canon 5D mark III at home.
Instead I took the pocketable Sony RX100. It created some beautiful images and
didn't get in the way on the family trip. It also did worlds better than the
camera built in to my or my wife's phone.

Here is an image direct from the camera:
[http://bedafamily.smugmug.com/Other/public/i-SmCN6Hf/0/X3/DS...](http://bedafamily.smugmug.com/Other/public/i-SmCN6Hf/0/X3/DSC02018-X3.jpg)

~~~
geon
I'm sorry, but that picture is pretty much what I would expect from a phone.
It might just be that I'm not a photographer and don't know what to look for,
but so are most people...

~~~
jbeda
These days it is all about dynamic range. A dynamically lit scene is much more
challenging. Similar photos from phones at the same location looked much too
contrasty.

------
koobz
Claims you don't need a DSLR then produces a bunch of amateur photos as
evidence.

I think computational approaches like the Lytro are the future. But right now,
DSLR's still produce markedly better images thanks to faster lenses, larger
sensors, shallow focus depths that create buttery soft backgrounds.

Some of those advantages, larger cameras will always have. At some point we'll
probably ditch the anachronistic "reflex" part. The viewfinder gives you an
inaccurate representation of the image anyway.

Smart phones are good enough for 98% of the photography that we do - vacation
photos, drunk nights out with friends, that colourful homeless guy with neon
tassels and a cowboy hat.

I can still easily tell a DSLR photo apart from a camera phone shot and it
doesn't take pixel peeping either. Better dynamic range, sharpness, focus.

Still love my camera phone, in fact I don't even have a DSLR anymore. But I'm
not going to pretend its anywhere near as good as a pro camera in pro hands.

Of course, we're geeks and love to expand our skills. One day we wake up and
want to be a photographer dammit. So we buy a DSLR and take it to parties,
dinner, public events. The big camera is a liability - you worry about
dropping it or having it stolen. It also makes you look like a dork. Sometimes
people give you flak for bringing a pro camera to no cameras allowed
situations. When you do take pictures it feels like a ceremony. Of course, you
have to nail the photo because you just spent 2500 on a camera. Every
previously dismissible imperfection is now a bottleneck that prevents your
camera and you, the ariste, from living up to their full potential. You need
the external bounceable flash, the L series lenses, the filters and hoods.

------
blhack
Some of you are missing the point here.

There are people who buy dslr cameras to take snapshots, and they do it
because they think this will magically make their photos better.

And then these cameras never leave automatic mode, and never have the kit lens
removed.

The point is that you don't need an expensive camera to take perfectly good
shots [for most applications]

~~~
fudged71
First of all, the Galaxy Note II is more expensive than many entry-level
DSLRs. We're really just talking about tradeoffs here.

>they do it because they think this will magically make their photos better

Truth is... DSLRs and cameras in general are becoming magical.

My girlfriends dad just came bak from Africa with a point-and -shoot, and I
was convinced that several of his photos were stolen from National Geographic.
These were not average snaps.

My dad just came back from Dubai, and not only was he amazed at the lowlight
performance of the camera (yes, on Auto), but the camera was also cropping
portraits by itself (sony's Auto Portrait setting), taking out the skill of
composition. Instead of spending hours stitching his photos into a panorama,
he was able to do it on the fly. And he could take incredible lowlight HD
movies without changing any settings. Intelligent Auto settings also detect
what scenes you're shooting and can do some pretty advanced settings to make
your shot look professional.

~~~
nemo
That's true, camera tech. is steadily improving to the point that a DSLR left
on auto can do some impressive work behind the scenes. A modern DSLR has a lot
of amazing tech for low light handling, autofocus, setting the white
point/color fidelity, vibration reduction, and other things that a camera of
the past wouldn't have handled well, and kit lenses tend to be darn good
general purpose zoom lenses.

~~~
fudged71
I'll be impressed when cellphone cameras can provide apps with their full RAW
image information, global shutter (rather than rolling shutter) functionality
and compatibility with wireless external flashes, and apps getting advanced
enough to match the functionality available in Photoshop Camera RAW
(distortion correction, advanced noise reduction, recovering shadows and
highlights, etc).

I'll be impressed with DSLRs when they have advanced post-processing and
connectivity. Image stacking, noise reduction and sharpening based on computer
vision, OCR, light field technology for focussing and 3D, NFC, WiFi Direct

------
iharris
I would say that a DSLR is useful for taking nice-looking photos _in more
challenging situations_ than a phone can (places with poor lighting, fast
movement, or where depth-of-field or magnification are important). It's
depressing that a lot of amateurs use a $700 DSLR on AUTO to take pictures of
their lunch though.

~~~
sitharus
A DSLR on auto is a sad thing to behold.

I'm an amateur photographer. My DSLR is almost 7 years old now and my iPhone
can keep up with it as a point-and-shoot, but nothing on the iPhone can
compare to setting up the shot properly. Switching lenses for the situation is
also really handy.

The dynamic range in the photos is much better from the DSLR as well.

~~~
rdl
I use aperture or shutter priority a LOT, and don't feel bad about it,
particularly in environments with rapidly changing lighting.

Until fairly recently, you couldn't get an APS-C or FF sensor with fast glass
without D-SLR (or M4/3, which is essentially the same concept), so I have no
problem with using it on auto mode for snapshots, too.

------
esolyt
>Also, HDR is so 2007, natural photos are where its at.

The whole point of HDR is to create a natural image with natural colors.

~~~
dllu
It's too bad that many neophytes of photography tend to use the HDR term for
oversaturated and exaggerated pictures that were probably not taken with
multiple exposures to begin with.

~~~
mortenjorck
HDR is, in effect, like Auto-Tune. Used as it was intended, it can improve
your results, but with the correction turned up beyond a natural degree, can
give a highly artificial effect of its own (which has been overused).

~~~
ycombobreaker
> HDR is, in effect, like Auto-Tune

The difference between these two is that HDR is a technique designed to work
around the limitations of the transfer medium: our eyes perceive more dynamic
range than our cameras. Properly-done HDR should be closer to reality than the
LDR image.

Auto-Tune, OTOH, is creating a new effect, "fixing" the original singing. The
recording fidelity itself is plenty high enough.

Binaural recording is similar to HDR, too. Used properly, it will produce a
stereo effect which should match what a local (human) listener would have
heard. Used improperly, it's just stereo recordings.

------
aaronbrethorst
A couple more tips:

* Creating a strong photograph is far less dependent upon what you're shooting with and more about what you're shooting. Instead of spending your cash on a Mark III or a Leica, take a photography crash course at your local photo school (Seattle people: <http://pcnw.org>) (see: times square and the bread)

* Don't be afraid to strobe your subject in the daytime. For example, in the second photo, I would've tried taking this in three ways: 1. as-is, 2. strobed, and 3. HDR. The background exposure is pretty good, but the flowers in the foreground are underexposed.

* Watch out for stray junk in the foreground. In the bridge photo, I'd crop out the errant flowers at the bottom of the frame (and straighten it).

* If you have a lot of gray sky in your photo, your camera is going to do its best to underexpose the photo. Watch out for it, expose for the foreground, and do post-processing if necessary (see the last photo of the bread).

And, on HDR: "Also, HDR is so 2007, natural photos are where its at."

Sure, shitty, haloed HDR is so 2007. If you do HDR right, though, no one will
ever know. Here's my favorite HDR photo I've ever taken:
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/aaronbrethorst/3266221538/in/se...](http://www.flickr.com/photos/aaronbrethorst/3266221538/in/set-72157612028658986)

~~~
ak217
My turn to ask the stupid questions :)

1\. When you say strobed, do you mean simply flash? Is a built-in flash
adequate for the technique you describe? (I usually don't carry my real flash
around in the daytime, since it's so bulky.) How do you find the right
exposure with the flash? I ask because whenever I try to use flash in the
daytime, my shot gets blown out and sometimes adding -2 or -3 EC helps, but
sometimes it doesn't.

2\. For HDR, do I understand correctly that any HDR technique still requires
multiple exposures and therefore some kind of tripod and a still subject? (I
suppose I could wing it without a tripod if I find a way to set the camera
down and have it fire off 3 shots, auto-bracketed?)

~~~
nemo
I think they mean fill flash, which can help a lot. You can use a built in
flash for that, if you look up "fill flash" tutorials you can find info.
appropriate to your camera. I use a speedlight for fill flash, since I tend to
shoot things that are a ways off, but the built in works well enough for close
subjects.

True HDR is bracketing shots with different exposures, so the camera and
subject need to be still. It requires a tripod for best results, though I've
set the camera down on a flat surface and used a remote to do HDR. Without a
tripod it's very limiting since you have way less control on where the camera
can be placed.

------
lttlrck
The Golden Gate Bridge shot is not level, a common problem when shooting off
an LCD at arms length. And to me it ruins it.

A wonder that it wasn't corrected in-phone, simple post-processing is one of
the great features of phone-based photography.

------
Connaissance
This article is the best illustration possible of the saying: "You don't know
what you don't know".

Eg, the author's pics are pretty awful but he doesn't have the eye to see it.

A while back, I was setting up a shot and trying different approaches for
several minutes with my DSLR. A friend laughed at me, whipped out his phone,
took a pic, and showed me an awful picture saying "See? What's taking you so
long?".

~~~
pbhjpbhj
> _the author's pics are pretty awful but he doesn't have the eye to see it._
> //

But that's the authors point, or so it seems to me. That the majority of
people can't see it. If you're showing your pics as a non pro to a pro then
they'll probably find them terrible even if you used a large-format Hasselbad.

My interpretation is that it's about the essence of the image in most cases
and not the actual technical detail of the image. The images we capture as
novices are aide-memoires primarily and in the main. To a non-photog it rarely
matters if the dynamic range is poor or there's a little aberration or a
slight lack of focus or a bit of extra noise.

That said I often bemoan the lack of a faster camera, better flash, adjustable
aperture, better lens ...

------
pduan
The problem is, the example pictures aren't that great.

The first one lacks details in the darker areas, something a high ISO, fast
lens DSLR setup would have no problem with. The second one is a standard macro
shot but with a DSLR and a good lens, you'd get way more of a bokeh effect
then what's seen. The third is crooked, probably a result of holding the phone
arms length away. The fourth is really dark, because controlling exposure on a
phone isn't that flexible.

The tips you give are the basics for any beginner photographer. I agree,
people should not be walking around with DSLRs on auto setting; it's a
complete waste.

But for those who do know a bit more about photography, a DSLR is magnitudes
more flexible and efficient than a phone. Putting it on priority, adjusting
ISO, f-stop, shutter speed, white balance, all of those things I use
constantly with my DSLR.

Taking "nice" photos can be done with just about any camera nowadays. The
really great, breathtaking shots are almost always taken with DSLRs (or medium
format and larger).

------
tytso
It really depends on what sort of pictures you are taking. If you are taking
photos in low light, a better sensor (whether it's a full-frame 35mm or an
APS-C sensor) will allow you take photos without using a flash in certain
environments where using the cell phone would be hopeless.

There are also certain things you can do playing with depth of field that
aren't possible with smaller sensors such as found on a cell phone. But it's
also true that for most people, and for most shots, it doesn't matter. What
does matter is that you have a something to take a photo with you; using a
cell phone is just another variant of the old saying, "f/8 and be there".

------
nemo
It depends on what you're doing with photography. The big selling point of a
DSLR is interchangeable lenses, I have a telephoto, a macro, and a general
purpose kit lens. I have macro shots of jumping spiders with amazing detail
far better than any phone could possibly get, and shots of birds and wildlife
that are better than any phone could possibly get. Wide angle lenses again
will let you do things you can't do with a phone. In low light a DSLR will be
much better - the tech. and larger sensor reduces noise. You have direct
control over aperture, ISO, manual focus, shutter speed and various settings
which experienced photographers use to get better photos. Also things like
ring lights and speedlights can help a ton and aren't an option for phones.

Modern phones can take great photos, but the reason to opt for a DSLR are to
get far better photos than a phone can manage for a lot of types of
photography. No nature photographer is going to walk through the woods and be
happy with a phone. Here's a photo of a bee hive I'd never try to shoot with a
phone that was perfectly safe with my DSLR:

<http://www.flickr.com/photos/somebachs/8639569426/>

This Waxwing shot would be impossible as well:

<http://www.flickr.com/photos/somebachs/8401678087/>

And the spider photo:

<http://www.flickr.com/photos/somebachs/8626752660/>

Yeah, I might just be posting photos since I like photography... But still,
they are ones a phone couldn't take.

------
qwertz123
While these are "nice" pictures, it's still obvious that these are taken with
a crappy camera and that a good DSLR, combined with someone who know how to
use it, could create significantly better results.

Of course I love the fact that today I always have my phone with me for
snapshots that I would have missed otherwise but my phone is no replacement
for my better cameras (a sony rx1 and my canon 5d that I both enjoy a lot) and
it won't be for the foreseeable future.

Go ahead and take your wedding pictures with your iphone and let me know what
you think of that decision 10 years from now.

------
jamescun
> The number of amateurs walking around with a DSLR shooting in auto, is
> staggering. Why burden yourself with such a bulky device, not to mention the
> cost of it

Fashion.

DSLR's can be constituted as part of the hipster/nerd/geek/preppy fashion
trend of today. So a lot of people striving for this look will plump the money
and put up with the inconvenience to make their look complete.

------
bsenftner
My point here is really only of interest to hackers-who-hack-with-images:
mobiles suck; Get any, ANY DSLR for your imagery.

When you want to do anything with the photos other than look at them, a mobile
phone camera is a complete joke. Today, people use photos for a lot more than
pretty pictures to illustrate link-bait.

Imagery for 2D & 3D textures is one, and a growing use is 3d reconstruction.
(Disclosure: I develop 3d reconstruction technology.)

Images taken with the lowest entry DSLR are an order of magnitude higher
quality in almost every measure than the highest quality, most expensive
mobile phone camera. The greater quality translates into higher precision
information recovery from its photos. The difference is the size of the lens
and the greater information it captures - information beneath our perceptions,
but not beyond trained and plain-old human-written algorithms' perceptions.

------
shaydoc
You can pick up used DSLR's really cheaply these days, may aswell have one,
might fuel an interest in finding out about Av & Tv modes, and white
balance...plus lens' are what really make the big difference....I mean a canon
EF 85mm 1.2 is gonna take a hell of a shot....

DSLR's take wonderful photographs, they are not comparable to a phone camera.
Sure if you are taking snaps, I can sort of relate to the point, but do not
denegrate DSLR's.

And yes,don't buy a DSLR to use it in Auto mode, you at least need a passing
interest in amateur photography, or a penchant for art...

Here's a snap with my canon 500D,
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/casa_de_shay/5941345438/lightbo...](http://www.flickr.com/photos/casa_de_shay/5941345438/lightbox/),
the bouquet is just great on the camera, can only dream of owning a 5D

~~~
tuxidomasx
DO you have any recommendations of online resources for getting started with
amateur photography, specifically using DSLRs?

~~~
shaydoc
I do indeed, I think its hard to look past www.kenrockwell.com

I also recommend the series of digital photography books by Scott kelby, I
started with him, was actually this one I found some if very useful:
[http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Digital-Photography-Book-
Pt/dp/0...](http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Digital-Photography-Book-
Pt/dp/0321617657/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1366658095&sr=8-1&keywords=digital+photography+Iii)

------
blt
Bullshit. My iPhone 4S is unusable in anything less than cloudy daylight.

~~~
geon
It is useless in dark comditions, where the ip5 does ok.

------
rufusjones
I can't believe everyone here missed the point. The cheapest DSLR costs $400.
It's not convenient to carry. It does ONE task. If you don't know how to use
it, it won't take great pictures.

The author is saying "If you spend some time learning to use the camera in the
device you already own, you can get acceptable results and save the money."

It's like my saying "The typical family member doesn't need a new computer.
They can do everything they need to on a $50 lease turn-in with a couple of
gigs of memory added."

------
ctdonath
For most photos taken by most people, a cellphone camera is fine - mostly
because, as noted, it's the camera you have when you need one.

The pictures shown are indeed a testament to how good such cameras are. Such
cameras are not, however, (relatively) large frame high color depth imagers
with quality lenses - and it shows to those who know what they're looking at.

Yes you can get nice looking photos with a cheap camera. Framing & leveling
the subject is a great place to start.

------
k-mcgrady
The biggest problem I have with my phone camera is that it only works well on
close shots. Take a picture of anything more than 5-10m away and it looks
terrible. I'm no photographer and only ever used 'decent' point and shoots
(£100-150) with an optical zoom. I sold mine when I got the iPhone 5 but I'm
considering getting a POS again.

------
marban
At that size or low ISO, almost every picture looks OK. I assume the OP never
stretched the capabilities of a real camera.

~~~
liotier
All of those picture beg for some basic color balance... But that is usually a
post-processing move.

~~~
jerryr
Hey, do you happen to know of any authoritative tutorials or references for
color balance? Exposure gets a ton of attention, but I only ever seem to find
mechanical posts on color--like step-by-step instructions on using Photoshop's
color tools, but without explanation of what you're trying to achieve. I think
I have a terrible understanding of color balance and I'd like to improve it.

~~~
fudged71
Ken Rockwell says "It's not hard, just use what looks good"[1], but to a
colorblind photographer such as myself, that's not as easy as it sounds!

I do all my WB in post production. For this reason, it helps a lot to have a
calibrated monitor and to shoot in the RAW format (WB isn't 'baked in' to the
image, unlike JPEG, so you have far more control).

It also helps to have a reference point in your image. Either someone wearing
a white article of clothing, or you can use a grey card held up in an extra
shot.

White balance is used to correct the overall color in the photo such that
color cast is removed so that neutral tones (white/grey/black) from the scene
(or at least the focal point) appear to be neutral in the image. This
increases the contrast between colors in the image--which can reveal details
that couldn't be seen--and also makes the photo appear more realistic.

[1] <http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/changewhitebalance.htm>

------
msoad
I own a Sony NEX and it's a good balance between a huge DSLR and mobile phone
camera. I like it a lot.

This marketing video is so true about this:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gW9alBidf3w)

------
phamilton
Taking pictures of my 18 month old son is miserably with a phone (iPhone 4S
and Nexus 4). The kid just moves too much. A DSLR, even in Auto mode, makes it
far easier to capture what he is doing.

------
toomim
But this dude's photos suck.

