by Gavin Seim: When I was starting out you we’re not even regarded as a respectable portrait photographer unless you used at least medium format. How things have changed. But this mobile photography for the sake of it is a passing fad.
The camera in your iPhone costs about ten dollars to make – Now I was browsing Facebook the other day I found the above reference photo I posted while on our Spring 2012 tour. I remembered that morning, the light on the trees and how my 4 year old son rode with me to greet the sunrise. It was a good memory. But next I compared it as a photographer to the final print version of Winter’s End. That promoted me to compare others, from both film and digital, comparing them to their mobile counterparts.
A great image is more than the sum of it’s tech specs – But when those details are far below the sum of it’s artistic merit, it brings down the entire work.
What was really illustrated was the vast difference between a point and shoot image and a quality photograph. Even I had not realized how poor the quality was. The phone photo is a good reference and helped me plan and log I wanted to produce. It was also fun travel memory and some might say it was “good enough”. But I’ve learned that “good enough” is not how we produce great images to stand out in today’s market.
I see more and more people acting as if phones are serious cameras. Sometimes even touting it as something special. This bothers me because a low grade camera is not a feature of your art (and make no mistake, your phone camera is low grade). It’s true that gear does not make a photographer. But low image quality can make even the most accomplished photographer look like an amateur. Comparing a phone snap to a professional level camera is a bit like comparing a Prius to a dragster.
Now there’s nothing wrong with the snapshot or a point and shoot. But you don’t build a skyscraper out of straw and it’s not until you see the difference between the a mobile photo and the well finished piece made with the right equipment that you realize what you would have been missing – The finished images show how much difference there truly is. Now technically (but unlikely) you could spend as much time visualizing your image with your mobile as with the serious gear. But the lack of control and image quality would still limit your results.
Nothing I could have done to these snapshots would have made them even close to the finals. It’s not just pixel numbers, it’s pixel quality. The difference is clear even on screen. But in print it will be like a screaming Banshee and every flaw is revealed. Some argue that prints can be made from mobile photos. Fine, but that does not make them good prints. In a world where it’s VERY hard to stand out, I want the best quality I can get. The goal of a photographer is not to lower the standard, but to always raise it.
I make wall prints. Portraits and Pictorials. My goal is that finished print and how it will look both technically and artistically. This is my job. I see a lot of people touting mobiles, but very few doing anything with the images but posting snaps to the web. I don’t kid myself when using a phone to take photos – I know, it’s technically a” real camera” a handy tool to have along. But I’ve never once made a quality wall print from a mobile.
I might get a decent 8×10, but even that would be lacking. Sure, mobiles getting better. That does not mean they’re the the right tool. I’m not looking for Facebook snaps when I’m working. I’m making serious images. To make them on a camera that does not have print quality would be a giant waste of my time. Mobiles have their place. But I don’t pretend that a cheapo camera is “good enough” for serious prints.
[xyz-ihs snippet=”newswide”]
It’s said the best camera is the one you have with you – Fair enough. But I say the best photographer is the one who has the right camera and knows how to use it well. I believe that most people touting mobile have not done much comparing. I know we’re not comparing apple to apples. And that’s the point.
The best camera is the one you Have With You – The best camera TO Have With You is the best one you have… Be prepared for quality.
Bear in mind that a good camera is not simply measured by whether it takes a photo: It’s measured by it’s control, noise, artifacts, lens abilities, handling abilities, overall functionality and of course fine quality. Phones will remain snapshot cameras, just like snapshot cameras have always been. That’s what their made for. There’s a reason Ansel did not take his best images with his $1 Brownie. And that had a lot more quality potential than our mobiles – The right tool for the right job.
Don’t short change yourself. Just because you “can” does not make it the right tool. A good craftsman must consider not only if it’s good enough, but what tool would make it look it’s very best. A mobile device camera is not even remotely close to what a professional system can produce. It’s not even close to an image done on 35mm film. The line between the snapshot and the professional photograph exists and and should be taken seriously if we as image makers want to be taken seriously. Below are a few more reference snapshots next to their finished counterparts. (click them for larger versions). Note that these were cropped from the full quality mobile images.
My point was not to insult you for using your mobile – I use mine too! And in fact we can capture and edit nicely planned images on a mobile, even though our controls are very limited. My point is to remind us that while our skill can be applied to the smallest of cameras, the resulting image fails if it lacks the quality needed to convey our vision. It can make a great snapshot of the kids and may even have great artistic merit. It can me a good web photo or promo clip. But don’t expect to be able to do much with it. A mobile produces web photos. That’s about it.
Using “mobile photography” as a marketing approach is getting attention. But it’s a fad that won’t last. An image is either good, or it’s not. Regardless of what it was captured on. Iconic images will occasionally be made on a mobiles just like in years past. Spur of the moment journalism using cheap cameras has it’s place. But a low quality camera is rarely ideal.
Some will tell me I’m just a pixel peeper. But the proof is in the print and that’s what I look for. I love the science of photography and I got really into that in my EXposed series. But I also don’t ignore the art. As evidenced by our new film, PHOTOGRAPHICS. I’m just saying if we expect to be taken seriously, we should use the right tool for the right job. And if you plan to make quality prints, a mobile is not the right tool.
Good luck, Gavin
Gavin Seim: Portraitist, Pictorialist, Speaker and producer of Seim Effects Photo Tools and the EXposed workshop.
For me, cell phone cameras are about “communication” not “photography” I use it for visual note taking and for communicating with friends on instagram, facebook, twitter or google +. There are several interesting “artists” that do amazing art work with cell phone cameras. For me it is another form of visual art.
I agree absolutely with the phrase ‘…right tool for the right job…’ Understanding your goals in making an image forces this type of assessment of how an image or a work is produced. An intimate knowledge of the equipment, procedures, and conceptual approach to is critical to making that type of decision.
It seems like, because your particular goals in making an image hinge on pictoral aesthetics and the requires the medium chosen to convey the most (withing reason) image detail, the scale by which you judge the two approaches does not allow for different conceptual framework. Just as the high resolving power of the lenses and film you use in your 4×5 are your ally in creating strong pictoral images, they are the enemy of work that intends to take a critical stance on mobile media, itself. Just as polaroid allowed not only proofing for scenes to be later photographed on film, but it also impacted the social idea of image making in general; it allowed artists to creatively explore how a near instant medium can impact the definition of a photograph, a print, et cetera. The understanding of the work required the medium used to be known in oder to convey a more complete understanding of the work. This dialog between the medium and the shown work is not necessary for the pictoral work used in the examples in your post. The goal of most pictoral photographic art is to exploit the cameras advanced ability as a mimetic device; to capture the grand landscape, in your case, with the most precision possible. It also doesn’t rely on the knowledge of the medium to convey the aesthetics of a scene, or rather, the camera is perfunctory, only the thing that allows the scene to be imaged and reproduced. it is, in essence erased from the image as much as possible (the idea being that through ideal craftsmanship and technical prowess the scene can be conveyed as accurately in print as it was experienced in the physical place itself).
Because of the many many many y approaches to making work exists examples of a variety of techniques exist within the cannon of art history. Holga and diana photographs, polaroid transfers, sx70 prints, albumen prints, et cetera all hang on the walls of the national and private galleries all over the world. I’m sure curators are trying to wrestle with “iphoneography” as an idea and an art medium and how to deal with the influx of art making it has spurred in society.
I think you held true to your goals of evaluation, the iPhone is not the right tool for the job when compared to other better suited tools. (Bit of a rigged match, though. Dont you think? a piece of film that can resolved an image on nearly 20in^2 vs a pinkey-toe nail sized sensor in an iPhone….I think the game was fixed from the beginning :-P)
Just a few thoughts, everything has it niche.
Did anyone ever say that the iPhone is as good as a “real” camera? It has its uses and its fun some times, but I dont think ive ever seen anyone say that they can or would replace their main camera with an iPhone when they are looking for all of the things an iPhone simply cannot offer (control, detail, low noise etc). But even in your examples above, it really takes for us to look at the zoomed images to see the massive failures the iphone has – in fact in the picture of the house specifically theres hardly any noticable difference in the thumbnails – and thats exactly what the iphone is for – low res images for sharing. You’re never going to blow up an iphone picture to hang on your wall, and if you do you will notice the difference.
I just feel this whole argument is akin to comparing a top of the range Samsung 52″ LCD TV to a Store Branded 32″ Plasma, or like comparing a high end DSLR to a cell phone….oh wait..
Spot on J. It’s a silly argument, but I have actually seen people saying they were dumping for DSLR and using only their mobile. That’s one of the reasons this article exists. Just to illustrate how wide the gap actually is.
Gav
If someone wants to dump their SLR for an iPhone I say let them, more clients for me 🙂