RichardSM Loc: Back in Texas

[quote=GailConnorsPhotography]Your photography is beautiful & all of your input is very welcome. Sorry, did I mention I've been in photography officially since graduating from "Rhode Island School of Photography" 1973. "Medical Photographer" for the USN, 1975-1979 . Scientific & Research Photographer, Army Research Labs, Wash, DC. with the Federal Gov't. for 40 yrs @ Fort Meade MD.[/

Removed

aellman Loc: Boston MA

This happens so often to questions from novices who are summarily trashed because they don't know as much as the self-proclaimed "experts." And sometimes two of these "experts" go at it trying to argue which one is more "expert" than the other. It would be hilarious if it weren't such a dumb waste of our time. >Alan

mbaggs Loc: Daphne, AL

I took a walk on the beach July 4th and left my D750 in the condo. I did have my iPhone 8S+ and snapped this photo. Can I make a large poster size print of it? Nope, not the point of it. LR does have lens configs for smartphones.......

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I think you first (and last!) explain the difference in PURPOSE along with the difference in quality. It is not "iPhone camera vs dSLR quality," in my mind. It's, "What is practical and appropriate for me to use today, to get the results I need from the situation?" I use an iPhone 7 Plus and a Lumix GH4. I no longer use SLRs or dSLRs from Canon and Nikon, as I did for 44 years.

Every camera format from smartphone to 100 MP medium format has an intended use case. The use case for a dSLR or MILC is different from the use case for an iPhone. I use what I use for specific reasons, and my reasons are different from others', and that's okay... and as it should be!

Smartphones have lots of artificial intelligence built in. They use tiny little sensors which are quite good in bright daylight, but very noisy at night. Still, under most circumstances, they blow away all the 35mm ISO 400 and higher speed color films of 50 years ago (Yes, I was around back then, pushing High Speed Ektachrome as far as it would go!).

The tiny sensor in a smartphone means it has a short focal length lens (or two or three). That usually leads to deep depth of field. Whether that is good or bad depends on the intended result. AI (i.e.; Apple's Portrait Mode) can mitigate deep depth of field somewhat.

The tiny sensor limits practical megapixel counts. Most phones are 12 MP or less. The trend, now, is to make slightly larger 12 MP sensors with each iteration, to expose more sensel surface area to light and reduce noise/improve dynamic range. But physics is what it is... Larger sensors suck more photons per sensel, which lowers ultimate noise in each processed file pixel.

If you know what you are doing, and work in good light, you can create 20x16 prints from iPhone 5 and later cameras. We have a couple on our walls, and no one, not even photographers, has asked about what camera recorded the images. Would they "look better" if they had been made with full frame? Yes, if you viewed them from one foot. But due to the subject matter, you view these prints from two or three feet. At that range, they're fine, so long as you aren't comparing them to the same exact scene recorded with a larger format.

A huge impact of the smartphone has been the near total annihilation of the "point-and-shoot" pocket camera market. The "snap shooters" first gave up 35mm "point-and-shoot" film cameras for smaller APS film cameras. Then, less than five years later, they gave up those for point-and-shoot pocket digital cameras. Another five years later, along came the practical smartphone camera.

So... John and Jane Public no longer use idiot-proof cameras of any sort. The smartphone, and its choice from two MILLION apps, is the only thing most want to carry. First, bits beat atoms (digital beat film). Then, the pocket supercomputer beat dedicated cameras, at least for most folks.

The term, "image quality," is loaded with ambiguity. Does it always refer to technical attributes? Or... can it refer to decisive moment? Composition? Use of contrast or color? Storytelling? History? Emotional impact? At some level, a camera is a camera, and a good image has MANY quality characteristics.

Cameras are tools. The subtleties of their differences are often secondary to the impact of their users' results. So I would submit that the photographer's knowledge, experience, training, skills, passion, sensitivity, viewpoint, purpose, and understanding of the situation are often far more important than the brand or format of camera in use.

Three key advantages of the smartphone camera are that for most of us:

> It's always with us, whether doing "intentional photography," or just living life. The most important camera you have is the best one you have with you when a photo opportunity arises.

> It's nearly always connected to the Internet, for immediate sharing of audio, video, photos, text... to any location in the free world, and maybe beyond.

> It's both a camera and a photo album, connectable to anyone else's photo album.

Good luck with your students! Welcome to UHH. Enjoy the spirited (and sometimes appalling, sometimes enlightening) discussions.

aellman Loc: Boston MA

[quote=RichardSM][quote=GailConnorsPhotography]Your photography is beautiful & all of your input is very welcome. Sorry, did I mention I've been in photography officially since graduating from "Rhode Island School of Photography" 1973. "Medical Photographer" for the USN, 1975-1979 . Scientific & Research Photographer, Army Research Labs, Wash, DC. with the Federal Gov't. for 40 yrs @ Fort Meade MD.[/

Removed[/quote]

Impressive (seriously). That's a great background to draw upon. A friend in Maine started out doing analytic titration of photo chemicals in the Navy. He is now acknowledged to be one of the most talented photographers in New England. >Alan

aellman Loc: Boston MA

Nicely done. Proof that "The best camera is the one you have with you." >Alan

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

Quality is in the eyes of the beholder. Beyond that, you have to dig into the technical weeds to discuss the differences. That’s how I would frame it. Each device has its place in the photographic world.

mbaggs Loc: Daphne, AL

Most excellent input!

aellman Loc: Boston MA

Wisely said.

mbaggs Loc: Daphne, AL

Most excellent input!

CWGordon

The lens being small may be a symptom more than the actual problem. Simply put, it’s all about size. Somewhere in their a sensor of some sort exists. It does a great job for what it is and how small it is. If one has only to send pictures from phone to phone, it does an awesome job. Try to enlarge something and you will see how all of the larger sensors have the ability to provide sharp pictures on larger and larger prints. The pixel count alone will generally not be equivalent to those of a DSLR. Then they will be smaller than the larger camera sensors. Already, you have a quality ceiling for a smaller sensor. The user v camera argument really has nothing to do with the actual quality of the picture other than blur or composition. Of course, those are merely to do with the quality of the photographer not really the camera. I know little or less about controls with a phone camera. How ever this appears another factor that affects the final product-the picture. Shooting into sun or in dark areas limit what can be done, re: adjustability. The DSLR has almost limitless adjustability. You can change ISO, which determines light sensitivity. The length of time the shutter is open and the size of the aperture opening. To my knowledge these are not available on most cameras. The fixed focal length of the lens is another limiting factor for the phone as you cannot bring subjects closer as with a telephoto or widen your subject as with a wideangle lens. Certainly macro, etc. are other types of photography that a standard lens would be unable to do. There are now some auxiliary or attachable lens available from photo stores. I am unaware of relative quality, both manufacture-wise and optically.
All of this said I have seen some awesome work done by people who really knew what they were doing. You may be one of them. I have several collectible photos done by famous photographers back in the 40’s and 50’s. They are not as sharp as one would expect today, but the images still are outstanding. The “eye” is still the most important factor in taking a good picture, all things being equal. There is always a place for every camera, phone cameras get better each edition. And as a smart person once quipped, “What’s the best camera? Answer: The one you have with you.”

Enjoy your teaching and students.

foathog Loc: Greensboro, NC

It's just that this question has been asked OVER AND OVER AND OVER...........AND OVER. It's tiresome. Go to the search at the top of this page and do a search. You can write a Dostoyevsky novel with all that is there.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

You might be surprised. As an experiment, I had an image from my Iphone7+ enlarged to 20"by 30" at Costo. The resolution and color were very surprising, far better than I would believed without seeing it. The print is more than acceptable.

CWGordon

Lots of people are unaware of past questions or just learned of their need for an answer. They have questions I just ignore if it isn’t something I wish to be bothered with. To each his own, I guess.

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

The quality of the picture can be defined two ways. 1) the Camera vs the phone-- in general the camera is better( But you have to know how to use it and can make a larger pictures with the larger amount of pixels) 2) the phone camera is more simplified and the person can concentrate on the picture. So the picture be defined technology the camera wins, defining by art the phone is equal or could be easier