iphone fashion shoot

yeah, I watched that the other day, pretty impressive stuff and makes sense that light it so important and not the camera.
 
That's pretty impressive! Cheers for posting - I'm trading in my nikon:D
 
treeman said:
Just goes to reiterate (IMHO) that photography is about light 1st, composition 2nd, subject 3rd, and finally level of equipment :)
Click to expand...


Lee's taken a lot of stick for that shoot, but I must say I was pretty impressed by it. He should really have used bedsheets or shower curtains though, rather than "proper" light modifiers, to put his point across better...
 
Gordon F said:
hey treeman....don't you remember this post.....

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=211399

think I started a trend!...except mine are processed in phone, not at an expensive professional retouchers.

I'm thinking of upgrading to the big 5 megapixel IP4......
Click to expand...

Hey Gordon :) I've been racking my brains trying think of the name of the guy that was shooting great stuff on the iphone, and lived near me!
Am I right in thinking you made a book of the images?
ip4? just can't justify upgrading yet, still got 6 months to go on this one :'(
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Lee's taken a lot of stick for that shoot, but I must say I was pretty impressed by it. He should really have used bedsheets or shower curtains though, rather than "proper" light modifiers, to put his point across better...
Click to expand...

His site keeps crashing under the overload. I was just trying to read his replies to some of the criticism, then it died on me!
 
treeman said:
His site keeps crashing under the overload. I was just trying to read his replies to some of the criticism, then it died on me!
Click to expand...


As I said in response to his "defence" post, all publicity is good publicity, I'm sure fstoppers will have gained plenty of new followers as a result of DH posting the iphone video on Strobist
 
He came to look at one of my iPhone images on flickr....said he liked it...

Yes, did the first in a series of books. It's like a little sampler...except at 188 pages it's not that little. I posted about it on the iPhone image thread with an OK from the mods...


here is the link
http://www.blurb.com/books/1367024
 
Pretty impressive. I'd have a job trying to do the same with wildlife though! :D
 
good advert for what photoshop can do to images.

the actual IQ of the images are not great so for small web use images they are not bad but no subsitute for even a decent point and click camera.
 
At large flickr size they more or less fall apart. They are still better than some awful amateurish [insert your favourite dSLR model here] snaps. Lighting is no1, but without all components in place, including gear, there is no complete finished product.
 
treeman said:
Just goes to reiterate (IMHO) that photography is about light 1st, composition 2nd, subject 3rd, and finally level of equipment :)
Click to expand...

me - subject, light, compo(in my head by default) , equipment - cardboard box with a hole in it will be fine thanks, of course good kit is great but location, subject, your skills is what matters .
 
Voyager said:
Same question really, how do you measure the 'quality of the actual image'?
Click to expand...

the IQ of the image - its very grainny, blotchy and the colours are not very smooth. just about fine at 800px just but not worthy of anything else.
 
It can be push further to remade the grainy blotchy look by processing it 'plastic fantastic' à la canon style.



pushed.jpg
 
I'm not expert but that's a stunning image and just goes to show you don't need to top dollar equipment to obtain good results.

Of course it's not going to blow up to billboard size but that wasn't the point he was trying to make. Shoot what you got and get the best results....

I'm more guilty than most of spending more time buying equipment than actually using it...
 
That was a great video, and was fun seeing the results.


edited to retract my comments.
i read what they had to say on the forum and was corrected :)
 
It's a great video but it just goes to show how much professional people relay on Photoshop.

And he didn't choose "the worst camera you can buy"
The 3G iPhone is far far far the crappest camera I have ever come across...! (he used a 3GS with focusing etc)
 
I like F-stoppers, it's a real cool site and I really liked the iphone fashion shoot article, it was initially posted for fun and humour but I can also completely understand why folk have opposing opinions.

Morris suggests that you don't need all the best stuff to create good photography, he say's "So many photographers get wrapped up in the technical side that they forget how to take compelling images. This video is for them.”

Very true, but to illustrate this point he's compensated the camera quality with tech and resources.

The only element that's basic or questionable was the camera, the fact that he used lighting/diffusion, good models, a controlled environment and despite being free of charge, a pro retoucher.

Without all of the above, would you still have good results? Morris argues yes, so my questions is why didn't he make his point without them instead?

I'm still impressed and I don't think any less of the article, just that he's been a little too strong on the 'You don't need this to do that' and then gone ahead and used quite a bit of 'this' anyways.

...He then goes on to say "There is no way you are going to be able to take studio photography with your phone or any camera without some sort of lights"....

....and then has a bit of a paddy that folk have missed the point.

IMO, he does have a point but hasn't illustrated it too well.
 
well not quite - the images have been through processing which does a lot to them compared to the originals.


gingerweasel said:
I'm not expert but that's a stunning image and just goes to show you don't need to top dollar equipment to obtain good results.

Of course it's not going to blow up to billboard size but that wasn't the point he was trying to make. Shoot what you got and get the best results....

I'm more guilty than most of spending more time buying equipment than actually using it...
Click to expand...
 
POAH said:
the IQ of the image - its very grainny, blotchy and the colours are not very smooth. just about fine at 800px just but not worthy of anything else.
Click to expand...
How is that a measure of any 'quality of the actual image'? You are measuring technical details but that are not related to the image, but solely concern the digital construction of it.

Are the images understandable as photographs? Of course they are. Do they project and idea or feeling? Of course they do.

Do you see images like that (outside this experiment) published in a commercial journals, used in advertising, in a fashion magazines and printed as commercial art? I believe that you do and, for that alone, are therefore perfectly acceptable 'quality', they do not 'more or less fall apart' and therefore are a 'complete finished product'.
 
because it is - image quality not photographic quality. obviously you just have a different name for it thats all. This does have bearing on the finished item. I don't like the images because of their poor IQ and the over use of photoshop to make them into somthing. when you view them at their largest size on flickr they just don't stand up for me. Just because I'm not impressed does not mean you can't



Voyager said:
How is that a measure of any 'quality of the actual image'? You are measuring technical details but that are not related to the image, but solely concern the digital construction of it.

Are the images understandable as photographs? Of course they are. Do they project and idea or feeling? Of course they do.

Do you see images like that (outside this experiment) published in a commercial journals, used in advertising, in a fashion magazines and printed as commercial art? I believe that you do and, for that alone, are therefore perfectly acceptable 'quality', they do not 'more or less fall apart' and therefore are a 'complete finished product'.
Click to expand...
 
gingerweasel said:
I'm not expert but that's a stunning image and just goes to show you don't need to top dollar equipment to obtain good results.
Click to expand...

I recently stated just that and said that, in my opinion as a retired pro of 50+ years experience, the average amateur photographer wastes a lot of money on unnecessary kit. I was somewhet surprised, having been told that this was a friendly forum, at some of the replies I received from some very unfriendly people.
 
POAH said:
well not quite - the images have been through processing which does a lot to them compared to the originals.
Click to expand...

Actually I don't think the unprocessed images look to bad either considering what they were taken on... although the end results are far better.
 
POAH said:
because it is - image quality not photographic quality.
Click to expand...
But the 'quality' (whatever that is) is still not anything to do with the final result - a photograph. You are zooming in on pixels (or some other pointless nothingness) and comparing with what you would get if taking the same image with a large sensor camera and a top grade lens.

This does not alter the fact that the photographer created some stunning images with a pretty low grade (if measured in a laboratory) piece of kit. Whether you like them or not (I don't as it goes) you cannot really argue that they are poor images.
 
never zoomed in on pixels that the thing the IQ is pretty bad as is without zooming in and it does make the image less attractive.

the photographer created the images with the lights and photoshop and I do think they are poor. I don't like made in photoshop images

Voyager said:
But the 'quality' (whatever that is) is still not anything to do with the final result - a photograph. You are zooming in on pixels (or some other pointless nothingness) and comparing with what you would get if taking the same image with a large sensor camera and a top grade lens.

This does not alter the fact that the photographer created some stunning images with a pretty low grade (if measured in a laboratory) piece of kit. Whether you like them or not (I don't as it goes) you cannot really argue that they are poor images.
Click to expand...
 
It is very very good what he's managed to do with the phone camera. But he's still used a hell of a lot of studio equipment, lights, modifiers, tripod, studio space etc. If you were to add up the cost of that lot a budget DSLR would be cheap really.

iPhone 3Gs 8GB is £419 on Apples website.

D3000 kit on Amazon is £335.
 
POAH said:
the photographer created the images with the lights and photoshop and I do think they are poor. I don't like made in photoshop images
Click to expand...

Although the fashion industry do, and that's the area he works in.
 
POAH said:
the photographer created the images with the lights and photoshop and I do think they are poor. I don't like made in photoshop images
Click to expand...
But your opinion about Photoshopped images does not make anything 'poor quality'.

You may not like them as pictures (and I don't care for them that much) but I can see that the photographer has done what he set out to do - which was create 'great pictures' without 'fancy equipment'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top