6 Cellphone images in Time Magazine's "Best Photos of the Year"

References:
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID:
Lines: 30
X-Trace: sv3-WMMIn2C5/KWhyWpE1Ro8gaNTKxSYsYxeH+VB4+bHTAJsLiMza1FP0ASb0ji Zbpf3W/Zt8/w5wwQB+OR!bRowvOgJT9X1dzMl/g+5O7HOukeYaPrLz6+q7wpJj5CC7H02loX1uKI7aKLF4Ic=
X-Complaints-To:
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.32
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com rec.photo.digital:1347715

columbotrek wrote:
timeOday wrote:


http://www.time.com/time/yip/2005/index.html

#20 of 24 is a tiling of 6 images from the London underground bombing.
The shots were captured on cellphones in near darkness.

I guess it goes to show that interesting or important subject matter
trumps other aspects of image quality.
Those cell phone images remind me of capturing images with toy cameras.
They look bad even on a computer monitor. Imagine how small and lack
luster they would look printed on a high resolution media such as
photographic paper. That and transfer charges are why my cellphones do
not include the camera function. Others are more useful to me.



Cell phones with up to 5mp sensors are now available (for a high price).
They even include optical zoom on some models. It is true that most
of the camera functions on very inexpensive cell phones are crap, but
some people seem to find them useful. I have a cell phone with a
camera, but so far the only use I have for it is to snap a picture of a
person to link to their number so that their face comes up on the phone
when they call.... Pleasant, but it doesn't improve the utility of the
phone.

But there was the quick-thinking teen who captured the license number of
a van a guy tried to pull him into....