Chuck_893 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

Photography is (of course) entirely a visual medium. I have seen it suggested on the 'Hog that some folks, maybe not-so-hot-photographers, should stick to taking snaps with their phone cameras, which implies that phone cameras are just toys and not for "real" photographers. But even a toy in the right hands can produce great beauty:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/31/sony-world-photography-awards_n_6976552.html?ir=Impact&ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000054

(I should add that I don't personally care for the first place winner, but many of the rest are pretty amazing.)

Hacksaw Loc: Pacific Northwest

I'm in total agreement with you about the first photo. To be honest, I think it was the worst one out the ones presented. The others I was impressed with.

Chuck_893 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

Yyyyep! :D Don't know what whoever the judges were, were thinking, but honestly I think that's just pretty awful, and it would be if it had been made with a $4,000 outfit. It's overexposed (to start with), and boy I'm sure glad whoever did that didn't catch me and my wife on the beach. :mrgreen: I'da had to kill him! :lol:

GHS58 Loc: Missouri, USA

I also agree. After being a member of UHH for a time (and other photography forums), I have come to the conclusion that the person holding the equipment rather that the equipment makes the outcome bad, good or exceptional. I can not even come close to the quality of photographs seen on this forum using the same camera. That said, I don't do much PP on my shots.

Chuck_893 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

I have said for some time that "cameras is cameras," which is of course a huge oversimplification, but basically intends to say that a good camera in unskilled hands is not likely to produce better images, and conversely a poor camera in skilled hands can produce art. I don't know if you can still buy them, but there was a cheap novelty plastic camera called the Diana that has been used by some pretty gifted people to produce really astonishing work. There's a Flickr group devoted to it that has over 75,000 submissions that you can see here: https://www.flickr.com/groups/diana_plus/pool/
(I just noticed that there are a few pictures in the pool that were NOT made with a Diana or equivalent! Clearly the group administrators are not keeping up and weeding out, but most of the shots are made with Dianas.)

gessman Loc: Colorado

At the risk of being labeled a quibbler I have to say that the title of this article might be better served and less confusing if it said, "20 of the best cell phone pictures from around the world." As stated, it could be misconstrued to mean something a little different. While these images are quite good, they were only in competition with other cell phone pictures and not with all cameras at large as stated in the Huff Post article.

If I may, I'd like to also add to the mention of the "Diana" camera. As I'm sure you know, but for anyone interested but unaware of it, it is one of several cameras that fit into a broader category of what is referred to as Lomography or Lomo Photography and there are other cameras perhaps more popular worldwide named Holga and Woca as well as a Lomo camera from Russia, Lubitel. Both Holga and Woca, like Diana cameras, use medium format film which is not a hot item at present. You can get Diana and Holga lens for a dslr, for anyone wondering, and they do render very similar results as the film cameras, at least close enough to play with. I'm a fan of the genre and have a Diana, Holga, and Woca as well as lens for my Canons and really enjoy messing around with them. One can pick the lens up very inexpensively on Amazon, ebay, and other places, quite a variety.

Searching for google images under either "diana images" or "lomo images" both yield a nice variety of example pix to look at, perhaps even better representative images than the Flickr page mentioned.

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

Yeah, that first place photo is a real loser for me. There are some quite good photos here, and some other big losers, as well. It makes me wonder what criteria the judges were using.

farnsworth52 Loc: W. Pa.

I guess it's true when they say,"If you want to win photo contests you should know the judges first". The winner must have been a relative,because I can't find any other reason for it being 1st place. This must have been an April Fool's joke

4X4Lee

I agree with you, no 2 is far and away better, I think it should be the best of the batch :thumbup:

Bram boy Loc: Vancouver Island B.C. Canada

there is more to a good picture than just going by some ones looks .maybe as you get older you will notice this . this is a good shot . I probably would thought different . 50 years ago than I do now . but the older I get , the more I can see .

Bram boy Loc: Vancouver Island B.C. Canada

I may add . That all the pictures here beats 90 % of what is put out by uhh.
Every one is great . I agree with the score of every one . And if you can't
See it for what it is . You have a long way to go in evaluating a photo . If the
Same people scored the weekly contest that UHH has , you just may get to
See the deserving photos at the top of the page