Jon Erdmann wrote:
I like the fact that I don't have to rush home, look on the computer to edit the photos... and yes, everyone can see them right away... Love It!
That’s one of the best parts of using a mobile phone. I don’t have to transfer it from my camera to my phone and then share.
scoundrel wrote:
I doubt that many hedgehogs use the cameras in their cell phones more than occasionally or in photographic emergencies where they don't have their main gear with them. If you are an exception to this rule, I want to hear from you. I don't even have a modern cell phone; just a clamshell phone that has a camera that I never used, even for a test shot.
Cell phones these days can produce decent enough image quality for casual work, such as family events and holidays. That said, how often do you use your cell phone in this way as opposed to a dedicated camera (if any)?
How controllable are its settings and which does it have: manual shutter speed, aperture, ISO sensitivity, white balance? Does it have scene modes and, if so, do you use them? Does it have a capture mode other than JPEG? Some have more than one lens. About what angle of coverage does your camera have for each? (Don't forget to specify long dimension, short dimension, or diagonal.) Does your phone have on-camera flash? If so, can you disable it? How is your camera's performance in dim light (How low can you go?) What is your flash's range, if you have one?
Does your phone have a photographic feature that you are especially proud of? That you wish it had but doesn't? That you use a lot?
Describe your favorite technique(s) for holding your phone steady when long exposures are expected.
I doubt that many hedgehogs use the cameras in the... (
show quote)
I just had a fashion client request an entire campaign shot solely on mobile. Lol! Made me think of this post. It seems to be happening more and more in the last year.
russjc001 wrote:
I have a Sony A7rii and plan an overseas trip this summer. Do any such Sony users have a good travel lens suggestion? I would like wide to long capability.
If you don’t mind the weight the Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 is an incredible all around lens. You also have the Sony 24-240 as an option. There are other options as well depending on what you’re trying to capture.
Hello!
I just saw that now. I’ve been aware that a new section was made, but never think to go to it. I do most of my personal shooting on my Sony’s, and have similar full frame and cinema cameras for work, so while mobile usage is increasing, I’m still mostly “old school”. lol! I will say the Sherpa system does get you feeling a little closer to a traditional camera.
srt101fan wrote:
Thank you! I'm gravitating more towards a cell phone camera and I appreciate the info.
No problem! I highly recommend the Freewell Sherpa system. The handle’s trigger comes off so you can also shoot remotely. There is also a good selection of filters and lenses to do what you need. And the best part is that you can fit the handle in a pocket, and throw the filters into a filter case and you’re done.
srt101fan wrote:
Can you please tell us a little about your experience with cell phone grips?
Sure. I have 3 setups that I generally run with depending on what I need.
Smallest: Freewell Sherpa system. It’s a grip with a trigger that also turns into a selfy stick if you are into that, works great and I always have that on my with a couple of filters to help remove some of the digital feeling from the phone camera. (Probably the best for just photo along with your tripod. The freewell handle has a 1/4” thread to screw into your tripod plate)
Midsize: is the Smallrig Fold P20. I like this because it folds up, is pretty sturdy to help reduce shake and you have a couple cold shoes and 1/4 threads for attachments.
Large: Smallrig cage I also have handles to attach to this but can fully rig that up to house filters, lava, mics, recorders, or anything else you could want.
And the tripod I’m generally using the most with this is the Promaster Carbon Chronicle. But it works with any tripod as well. And lastly I use the Osmo 6 gimbal when I need to move more
scoundrel wrote:
I doubt that many hedgehogs use the cameras in their cell phones more than occasionally or in photographic emergencies where they don't have their main gear with them. If you are an exception to this rule, I want to hear from you. I don't even have a modern cell phone; just a clamshell phone that has a camera that I never used, even for a test shot.
Cell phones these days can produce decent enough image quality for casual work, such as family events and holidays. That said, how often do you use your cell phone in this way as opposed to a dedicated camera (if any)?
How controllable are its settings and which does it have: manual shutter speed, aperture, ISO sensitivity, white balance? Does it have scene modes and, if so, do you use them? Does it have a capture mode other than JPEG? Some have more than one lens. About what angle of coverage does your camera have for each? (Don't forget to specify long dimension, short dimension, or diagonal.) Does your phone have on-camera flash? If so, can you disable it? How is your camera's performance in dim light (How low can you go?) What is your flash's range, if you have one?
Does your phone have a photographic feature that you are especially proud of? That you wish it had but doesn't? That you use a lot?
Describe your favorite technique(s) for holding your phone steady when long exposures are expected.
I doubt that many hedgehogs use the cameras in the... (
show quote)
Hello!
You might be surprised at the quality of cell phones these days. In the past few weeks alone, I’ve receive 2 commercials and 4 professional product shoot deliverables that were all shot on the iPhone 15 pro max. You would be fooling yourself if you were to think that the image quality can’t compete or equal a traditional setup or deliver professional quality. The biggest difference I’ve noticed is mainly in print, or if you require heavy compositing. Then it may not hold up as well. But with apps like Photoshop and Topaz, even that is becoming less of an issue.
As far as composition goes, there are some great third party apps that help with both the photo and video side opening up full manual control over your phone. And I also have a phone cage, grips, as well as a phone mount for tripods, gimbals, or if I have to heavily rig it out for video.
Hal Masover wrote:
I met a big dollar wedding photog in LA that uses Fuji. I don't know which model. Used it in night photography too. I get a bit picky about noise. When the Nikon D500 came out a friend of mine bought it. We were shooting a ballet. He was working for the ballet company and I was working for the theater. He handed me the D500. I popped a card out of my D750 and put it into his D500, and replaced his lens with mine so the only variable would be the camera body and on the card I had shots of the same ballet on both the D500 and the D750. Unquestionably the D750 handled the low light conditions better than the D500. What I've learned from this discussion is that all the camera sensors have advanced and that the best quality is still going to be in the larger sensor but the advances just might be enough for me to now be happy with APS-C. Before I send Nikon their Zfc back, I have a night photosession scheduled with a model for this weekend. Just have to put the Zfc on the tripod and compare it to my D850 under the same conditions.
I met a big dollar wedding photog in LA that uses ... (
show quote)
Yep! You might be surprised!
Hal Masover wrote:
For the last decade I've been a devoted user of full frame DSLRs. It's been quite a love affair. dozens of weddings and portraits, commercial work and thousands of miles of travel, lightpainting and astrophotography. My digital photography started in earnest with a Sony NEX6, which is an APS-C camera. From there I graduated to a Nikon D750 and what a difference! Boom. But in the last decade it seems that APS-C cameras have greatly advanced. I'm currently trying out the Nikon Zfc, which is a 2022 APS-C camera and comparing to my D750, it's really hard to tell any difference. I've tried low light, high ISO, etc. No, I don't want to buy the Zfc. It simply doesn't have the amount of control I'm used to and it's hard to hold in my hand. But here's my questions - are today's APS-C sensors equivalent to full frame or are they just equivalent to my 10 year old D750? Are new full frame cameras better at handling noise? How about dynamic range? And my second question is, if APS-C has gotten so much better, what about MFT? In other words, does sensor size matter anymore? Because my 72 year old body wouldn't mind lighter gear on my shoulders but I also don't want to go backwards in quality and capability. Comments?
For the last decade I've been a devoted user of fu... (
show quote)
I loved my Fujifilm X-T5 and X-H2s. They produce beautiful images and are significantly better than they used to be. As far as comparing them to Full Frame, I would still give it to full frame for noise, dynamic range, etc. But you can be a professional with aps-c. M43 is also much better, but I don’t know much about photo there just video.
It’s mostly just the cost of doing business these days and making sure that you are compatible with other studios and clients that you work with. Subscriptions are thousands of dollars cheaper than what I used to have to pay for a non-upgradable package (but I think they did offer some level of discount to upgrade maybe). If I remember correctly I would have to pay somewhere around $1500/year for Adobe? Now I pay $50/mo.
Any yes the subscription services do get annoying but it is what it is.
I pay around
$600/year for Adobe
$200/ 1 time for Davinci
$3300/year for Nuke
$2500/year for Houdini
$1400/year for Maxon 1
And around another $3000/year for AI subscriptions and plugins.
It definitely adds up! And yes I wish it was significantly cheaper. But that’s what I need to make a living.
You do have cheaper and free alternatives. They may not have all the bells and whistles but if you’re just looking to edit photos, they would probably be more than enough for your needs.
Maybe check out:
Krita
Gimp
Pixlr
Snapseed
Inshot
VSCO
Or some of the other free apps? You might be pleasantly surprised at the amount of features that they have and how well they work.
RodeoMan wrote:
Yes, but they (the thieves) would have to go the work and bother of doing that and could be made subject to penalties, legal and otherwise. A person who steals the copyrighted work of another can face the consequence of plagery or financial punishment via the legal system. This should be extended to using AI to steal the work of others.
The work takes all of about 10 minutes max if you know what you’re doing. And if you use AI to do it which is pretty easy to do, the laws are loose at best at assigning blame. You’d have to be pretty sloppy to get caught and have it lead directly to you. I would also imagine it would be fairly costly for you to take it to court. Too much grey area these days.
And just to be clear, you and I are probably on the same side of the argument where I would love nothing more than to find ways to make the thieves pay significantly more than they currently do. But unfortunately when it comes to AI, it’s still new and people in general don’t actually understand what it’s doing behind the curtain or if and when humans are involved at all. There are now algorithms that allow it to learn beyond the models that it was programmed and trained on when you start introducing generative algo prompting. It’s the Wild West and as someone who has to try to negotiate usage and rights management, I can tell you it’s a bit of a nightmare.
Makes me really miss my film days.
Architect1776 wrote:
With photo certification being a big deal to show the history and additions or modifications of a photo to fight AI in the news one wonders.
This is just digital information so how many hours will it take to get software to totally defeat digital certification? And make the certificate itself suspect.
I hate to say it, but as someone who works in the tech side of Photo and video, I can tell you that it’s already possible to manipulate, hack, and recreate that. I look at this as a speed bump that would prevent some who are a bit lazier from stealing your image. But the long and short of it is that you can already fake photo certification just as easily as you can hack embedded metadata.
leftyD500 wrote:
I hope this question has not been asked before, I hate facing the wrath of those people with photographic minds that remember every post ever made on UHH, but here goes. I like using a lens hood on my lenses. When using a CP filter, it is rather difficult, if not impossible to adjust that filter without taking off the lens hood, adjusting the filter, then replacing the filter. Is there a better way of doing it without taking off that hood? I realize I am not the brightest bulb on the tree, so please spare the ink in trying to prove to me how stupid I am, thanks in advance!
I hope this question has not been asked before, I ... (
show quote)
Some of the more premium lenses have a slide in the hood that you can open to turn the filter, if yours does not and you don’t want to have to take the hood off, you might need to look for a third party hood that does.
As long as your SSD is formatted to run on both Mac and pc you’ll be fine.
But if it’s only formatted for PC you’ll have to reformat it which means you’ll have to transfer your files to another drive or they would be deleted upon formatting.
tripsy76 wrote:
I have VERY recently gone down to a single personal camera. I now only use a Sony a1 with 2 lenses (Tamron 20-40 f2.8, Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8) and a flash when I go anywhere and that’s it.
That didn’t last long. Lol! Since this post, I kept the a1 (still my favorite), sent the Tamrons to my work locker, and bought another set of Sony Zooms, and fell in love with the Zeiss loxia line. I also just acquired the Sony a7cii which fits the Loxia lenses perfectly!
Between those two bodies and the lenses, there’s nothing I feel like I can’t shoot and it give me two different kits to keep things fun.
I may eventually go down to one camera, but no clue what that would look like. Maybe a Fujifilm X-T5 (or latest version) with the 23 f1.4 LMWR, and the 56 f1.2 ii.