Shoot out: Smart phone vs Canon EOS 5D Mark III

On 10/12/14 1:36 AM, in article , "Floyd L.
Davidson" wrote:

philoÂ* wrote:
On 10/11/2014 08:16 PM, Savageduck wrote:

Just give us a link to the shots you are raving about, since you have
already displayed this photog/artist's images in one of your shows, that
shouldn't be a problem for you. As for which camera he used, it would be
nice to know the model and that should be available via the EXIF data.

It is good to see the work of talented folks from time-to-time.


I put the other guy in my KF for being a boor...
I just did a quick google search and see some pretty
decent point and shoot cameras in the less than $100
range.

The whole point I was making was that one needs an eye
for photography for the photo to be any good and if one
has that eye...the photos from a decent but lower end
camera will be better than those someone gets with an
expensive camera who does not know how to use it.

Anyway here is one image the guy took...No processing
was done other than greatly lowering the resolution for
posting on the web

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.n...1557423_779529
745407730_1707725285_o.jpg

If you don't like it , that's fine
but it's superior to anything the other guy took with his expensive Nikon

The horizon isn't even straight. It has exactly zero
value as a photograph.

But notice how he stripped the Exif data so that we
can't see if it was taken with a $90 camera or with a
$400 camera.

That is so damn fuzzy that I would surmise it was a pinhole camera...

On 10/12/14 10:40 AM, in article ,
"Sandman" wrote:

In article 2014101122330331566-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-10-12 04:05:18 +0000, philo* said:

Savageduck:
Just give us a link to the shots you are raving about, since you
have already displayed this photog/artist's images in one of
your shows, that shouldn't be a problem for you. As for which
camera he used, it would be nice to know the model and that
should be available via the EXIF data.

It is good to see the work of talented folks from time-to-time.

philo:
I put the other guy in my KF for being a boor...

Floyd can be a PITA at times, especially when he does whatever he
can to establish his expertise with all things in arcane technology.
Other than that he has a personally established knowledge of all
things, and quite often can provide some useful advise &
information.

He just chooses to never do so, apparently. I've never seen him express
anything that would lead me to believe he has knowledge about anything. He
is held up as a master troll by other trolls in this group, but he's pretty
poor as far as trolling goes as well. He is a con artist that knows very
little about things he talks about. He has no knowledge about photo
editors, photo processing or anything related to computers. He has poor to
no knowledge about the Englisg language and is constantly having severe
problems expressing a consistent line of thought due to the language
barrier. On top of that, he's an arrogant asshole that tries his best to
use laughter and personal insults when he realizes that a subject is way
out of his league (i.e. all subjects).

I really can't understand why some people in this group actually think he
knows anything about anything.

Sometimes he can give that advise and information
without belittling those on the receiving end.

I've never seen him do anything but attempting the latter.


Pretty much in agreement with you. Maybe those long winters just makes Floyd
grumpy. Lack of daylight will do that.

On 10/12/2014 12:01 PM, Savageduck wrote:
X

Yup!
The WB was way off and the resulting color cast was just wrong &
overwhelming. Here is a quick, but not too perfect fix.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/Philo-3WB2.jpg



It's fixed but I still like the un-retouched original...
it has a darker, slightly ominous feel to it.

Those who have lived in Milwaukee's extremely cold winter can probably
identify with it.

Somehow "global warming" has missed this area.

On 10/12/2014 12:15 PM, George Kerby wrote:



snip


That is so damn fuzzy that I would surmise it was a pinhole camera...




The print is pretty good, I knocked it way down for posting on-line.


BTW: A pinhole camera would not likely have produced a fuzzy image

On 2014-10-12 17:36:35 +0000, philoÂ* said:

On 10/12/2014 12:01 PM, Savageduck wrote:
X

Yup!
The WB was way off and the resulting color cast was just wrong &
overwhelming. Here is a quick, but not too perfect fix.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/Philo-3WB2.jpg



It's fixed but I still like the un-retouched original...
it has a darker, slightly ominous feel to it.

I am sorry to be the one to break the news to you, as I was truly
hoping to see some praise-worthy photographs. Neither of the two
examples you posted rise to that level. I felt I was able to make
something from the first one, but the second was not a good capture.
The "blue" color cast was a clue that the camera had failed to deal
with the WB. When shooting with a compact camera, and only having JPEG
available can be a handicap, and there are conditions where auto-WB can
fail you. Shooting in ice & snow is one of those conditions. Rather
than rely on auto-WB and just shoot away, he should have used one of
the WB pre-sets, and there is usually one for snow.

This is a case where having a more feature rich camera, which had a RAW
capture feature, would have resulted in a far better original file to
adjust. That "blue" color cast isn't a good thing, and it didn't
produce an image which rises to the level of art. It was damaged right
from the start, and any perceived artistry is accidental.

With things done right in setting up the camera and understanding the
limitations of this camera, then taking care of a few photography
fundamentals, I am sure that he would be able to produce some decent
images from that camera.

The camera is what it is, a very affordable, compact, capable of
producing good images in the right hands. Understandably there are no
manual exposure adjustments, no RAW capture, and I suspect no WB
adjustments other than auto.

BTW: that camera, a Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W800 is available at B&H for
$78 and Amazon for $88.99 that isn't bad for a 20MP compact. However,
it isn't one I would choose for myself, not because of price, but lack
of features I look for in a camera, be it compact or DSLR that I am
willing to pay for, as I know what having those features mean.

Those who have lived in Milwaukee's extremely cold winter can probably
identify with it.

You guys have blue shadows out in the ice & snow?


Somehow "global warming" has missed this area.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 10/12/2014 04:39 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-10-12 17:36:35 +0000, philo said:

On 10/12/2014 12:01 PM, Savageduck wrote:
X
X

snipped but read


You guys have blue shadows out in the ice & snow?



Yes we do!

In article ,
Ron C wrote:

Just for the heck of it, here's an article that might make some folks
wonder why bother spending big bucks on a DSLR when a smart
phone will do.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/...amera-vs-dslr/

The end of closing line of the article kind of says it all:
~~
[ ... ] remember this photography aphorism: "Amateurs worry about
gear; professionals worry about money; masters worry about light."
~~

==
Later...
Ron C
--

It looks like a nonsense article. A better review would be trying to
get the best photo possible with the available lighting, and that would
mean doing a lot more than fussing with the ISO and shutter speed. It
looks like the author messed up his 5D JPEG conversion settings at some
point too. The gamma is weird and high ISO photos have green and
magenta polarization seen in some RAW converters.

--
I will not see posts from astraweb, theremailer, dizum, or google
because they host Usenet flooders.

On 10/12/2014 1:33 AM, Savageduck wrote:


snip


Personally I would have done something quite different with it, starting
with a severe crop as the buildings, and the shooter's shadow on the ice
don't really work. However that doesn't meant there isn't an interesting
image in there.
To end up with something like this.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/Philo-C2.jpg



Did you make that crop just to seek my approval? ;-)

I agree. the building and the far shore do not add anything to thhe image.

--
PeterN

On 10/12/2014 5:07 AM, philo wrote:
On 10/12/2014 12:33 AM, Savageduck wrote:



snip

you don't like it , that's fine
but it's superior to anything the other guy took with his expensive
Nikon

Then the other guy's work must have been awful.

Now you are getting the idea...indeed they were...however he now seems
to be getting better...just took him a very long time. I don't have any
to post but they were just very poor snapshots.


That shot is to my eye
(just an opinion) a reasonable snap shot. It just doesn't rise to the
level of photographic fine art.

Personally I would have done something quite different with it, starting
with a severe crop as the buildings, and the shooter's shadow on the ice
don't really work. However that doesn't meant there isn't an interesting
image in there.
To end up with something like this.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/Philo-C2.jpg




Normally when I process a shot I do not crop so I left the photo uncropped.

The way /you/ cropped it was nice but since this was a locally taken photo
I wanted the viewers to get some recognizable visual clues allowing them
to know it was right here in Milwaukee.


Here is one more of his images (again not cropped)

https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/...01263360_o.jpg






Much better. But, as you know I have a thing for abstractions.

--
PeterN

On 10/12/2014 11:50 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article , philo wrote:

The way /you/ cropped it was nice but since this was a locally taken
photo I wanted the viewers to get some recognizable visual clues
allowing them to know it was right here in Milwaukee.

Here is one more of his images (again not cropped)

https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/...01263360_o.jpg

This one has been HDR:ified in post, however. Not very nicelu so either. I
bet the original photo looks a lot better.



The HDR doesn;t bother me that much.


--
PeterN