Apple's attitude to photography ... 'Stop learning, we'll do the work for you!'

Apple doesn't address the people like us who are really serious about photography. They address the ones that are buying DSLRs, because they think that would give them better images. And I'm inclined to agree with Phil Schiller: For those people, the iPhone camera may be better than a big DSLR, that's always been shot in the "green" mode.

Wouldn't Flickr be down right now, I would show you some examples to compare.
 
Brian Legge said:
My wife has a point and shoot. She is comfortable using a Nikon (film or digital) though she isn't an expert. She has spent a bit of time with a Rolleicord and Polaroid 250. Now when we go places, she generally prefers to use her phone. She is perfectly happy with the results she gets from it - and the results are all she really cares about.

I have a hard time faulting Apple here. There are a lot of people who care only about the results and are totally fine using whatever tool gets them there the quickest.
Click to expand...

And the result is the only point that counts!
If a phone would bring the results I want, I would use a phone too.
All this esoteric stuff arround photografic machinery and prozess is just something with which some people wnat to show up that they are better then the rest, but they are just snobs!

I use film most of the time and I love to use my old folding plate camera - but if I would get the same results in the same time with the same afford of work with an other tool I would thing about it.
 
I guess Apple are just trying to make their products seem as important to have/use as they can. Most manufacturers of technology do this. But I find with Apple that their all encompassing model for using their technology/products seems to eliminate much of the human interaction and use of senses from the process. So I stay away and take photos the way that works best for me.

Mark
 
Brian Legge said:
My wife has a point and shoot. She is comfortable using a Nikon (film or digital) though she isn't an expert. She has spent a bit of time with a Rolleicord and Polaroid 250. Now when we go places, she generally prefers to use her phone. She is perfectly happy with the results she gets from it - and the results are all she really cares about.

I have a hard time faulting Apple here. There are a lot of people who care only about the results and are totally fine using whatever tool gets them there the quickest.
Click to expand...

And that's why you see iPads moving into the phone camera market now. Easier to steady, easier to touch focus on screen and if you're going to look at iPad pictures for the rest of your life only, you don't care about the 5MP picture you took with the pinky nail-sized sensor.

Usually these folks get into trouble when they move to a newer device, lose the device they used before, or want a pretty 5MP picture printed big for grandmas birthday. Which is where REAL photographers come in again...:)
 
Not gonna lie, the iphone is a better quality camera than pretty much any small sensor point and shoot. It has gotten to the point where for small prints its just as good as a proper camera in most conditions.
 
gavinlg said:
Not gonna lie, the iphone is a better quality camera than pretty much any small sensor point and shoot. It has gotten to the point where for small prints its just as good as a proper camera in most conditions.
Click to expand...

True indeed. I have a 4S and no complaints about its quality. But, I know how to use it (avoiding flash and contre-jour, that is) and will not switch to using an iPad just because it's easier to hold and focus, like so many happy snappers do. And it's those happy snappers that are gonna jump at the occasion to have that new iPhone 'do it all for them'.

The kind of stuff that gets shot with phone camera's and iPads wasn't going to generate income for a photographer anyway, it's mainly 'uncle Bob's biggest fist yet' kinda snaps. It's the kind of more serious stuff like peoples journalism and happy snapping wedding guests that eats into revenues.

I say let them all buy the 'camera does it for you' kinda phones, they'll find out soon enough that it ain't true.
 
this is stupid

this is stupid

one does not "spend a lifetime learning" to make sharp and correctly exposed pictures. That is a trivial requirement if you want to take photos. Nowadays, cameras do that for you, not only since we have apple cameras.
I learnd that when I was 13, Steve Jobs went to shool and nobody had a mobile phone.

So what is the discussion about? Some arrogant marketing monkeys think it is sufficient to have sharp and correctly exposed photos.
 
I think Schiller's right--most people "just want to take a picture" and couldn't care less with what the picture is taken. At almost any public event, it's the phones and tablets you see most.
Paul
 
gavinlg said:
Not gonna lie, the iphone is a better quality camera than pretty much any small sensor point and shoot. It has gotten to the point where for small prints its just as good as a proper camera in most conditions.
Click to expand...
Yep. I use my iPhone 4S camera all the time. At normal on-screen viewing sizes or in small prints, the photos look just fine. As the saying goes, the best camera is the one you have with you, so whatever Apple can do to improve that experience is fine with me.
 
What he said was (as hurtful as it sounds to us here) pretty much the truth. Most people want nice pictures to show their friends on cellphones and small tablets.
Okay, that's the Apple target niche. Smart (business-wise) actually.

Ex: my wife refuses to carry the little Nikon I bought for her - she uses her phone which is always with her and uploads to facebook (I think?) instantly. That's what people want.
 
Technical knowledge used to make a difference, but not so much these days.
When he says "better pictures" he means technically better, and you can't really argue that technology has made the "point and shoot" technique viable (try that with a folder of the 30's)
For most people wanting snapshots of their family, it's enough.
even for a good part of creative artists, technical superiority is not part of the equation (some good work from Holga or Iphone).
It's always irritating to see an outsider refer a bit too lightly to our beloved hobby, but is he THAT wrong?
 
For a company that makes worthless widgets, that is as good a way to make a hinkey billion bucks as any of the others. Personally, I used to have an Apple computer but have no idea what these other overpriced gizmos are and do not need any of them.
 
Photography enthusiasts have different priorities than the general public.

People who used to have fully-automated. compact film cameras for family events and casual use slowly but surely transitioned to digital versions of the those cameras for the same purposes. These people didn't learn about photography.

People who can afford Smart Phone technology abandoned small, highly automated compact digital cameras. Those people will be happier using a multi-purpose device.

People rarely print photographs. A small fraction organize their Smart Phone photos and print photo books. Otherwise the photos pile up in their laptop or desk top computers and are eventually lost.

This is no different than decades ago. Some people organized printed photos into albums. Most people just stuffed them into shoe boxes or drawers. Eventually they were lost.

Now evil Apple (and others) came along and made it easier for non-enthusiasts to make and share photographs. People take more photos than ever before, share them and never think about them (or view them) again. And there's a lot more drawer space available for other stuff we don't know what else to to do with. When we're gone nobody will have to pitch that stuff either.
 
Elitist?

Elitist?

They have still to do some homework to convince me.

Not saying the mentioned "happy snappy" images need more camera than a smartphone. I did also some tests, months ago, when I got a one (iPhone 5). Did my Canon S100 become obsolete? No way, I still carry this camera with me. My smartphone is only useful for a snap of a poster or a bus timetable on the street. Or a selfy in the sun.
Control for backlight? Nothing. Good b/w copy of a letter or business card? No. Useful zoom? Just digital crap. Spontaneous macro work walking by a flower? Forget it!

Did I mention entusiast-gear-head-elitist requirements? I don’t think so. IMHO this are minimum requirements for a very simple camera nowadays. If they will add features like this, maybe also some control for aperture and shutter speed, ISO… Then the time is come to have a closer look at such a device. I’m ready to change my mind, but please, give me the minimum I need for an “always-with-me” camera.

Thanks in advance to Apple, Samsung, Nokia etc. etc.
 
......I use my iPhone constantly for personal snaps, for my personal use I feel anything else would be pretentious and burdensome. When I go on vacation I like a few shots to remember it, it's just natural, but I don't need huge raw files to remember I ate lunch in London or Paris.

When I want to make serious images I don't use my iPhone, but sometimes I wonder why not, I like the look of iPhone photos...
Click to expand...

I think you nailed it. Considering that digital camera sales have plunged 43% so far this year, you're not the only one who feels this way. The vast majority of people really don't care about f-stops and ISO's, all they want is a good picture. Today's smart phone cameras can easily do that.

Jim B.
 
Apple is correct and is just addressing the general public, not the kind of folks that read RFF. Relax.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom