gavinlg
Veteran
Wow. Some serious technology there. The dual/amber flash is sheer brilliance. A lot of photographers will use a bandaid over their popup flash on DSLRs to get a warm output - David alan harvey for one.
Im very impressed.
FrankS
Registered User
No. They are helping the general public with their family snaps and memories image making. Their sales schpeil was not aimed at the type of person on RFF, who may very well find their rhetoric insulting.
seakayaker1
Well-known
Much to do about nothing. I do not currently own a smart phone but do enjoy Apple products, iMac desktop and Mac Air for a laptop.
. . . . . my daughter sends me photographs of my two grand daughters when she is out and about from her smart phone. I love them and they do exactly what they are designed to do. Making Grandpa happy . . . . .
. . . . . my daughter sends me photographs of my two grand daughters when she is out and about from her smart phone. I love them and they do exactly what they are designed to do. Making Grandpa happy . . . . .
Rogier
Rogier Willems
Its now how well you can handle the camera but all about your creative vision and creating a great image.
To do so technology should not be a obstacle but an aid.
How manny off us prefer to shoot in "P" for Professional :angel:
To do so technology should not be a obstacle but an aid.
How manny off us prefer to shoot in "P" for Professional :angel:
Shirley Creazzo
Well-known
Found this thread interesting with the variety of opinions on how an adobe app. might affect various groups of users. But in three pages of posts no one mentioned a very large group of Adobe users [and to someone like me, a very important one], so I have come to play advocate.
Adobe apps, despite what some of you seem to think, were not originally aimed at recreational photographers, and were never intended to band-aid photographs in need of some aid. They were for use in the field of commercial art, nowadays more often referred to as graphics, and were meant to remove some of the tedium, and the time consumption of producing art [including photos of course] and text for print.
Time being money as in any industry, they - first Quark Express for Page layout, then Illustrator, and Photoshop, for the jobs their names imply - were intended to speed up some of the tedious processes use in print media. Those of you trashing apple likely do not remember when people at drawing boards created ink renderings on clay coated board and mistakes were removed with single-edge razor blades. Or when some corrections desired by clients required hours of mind-numbing extra work. When kids were confined to stat rooms all day modifying and adjusting photographic work. Some of you may realize that at one time, not so long ago, the type for magazines was still produced in many cases by a large room of typesetters, then the type cut into strips and applied to sheets with the aid of a parallel rule and some wax. And that the whole project still had to be printed.
Speaking of printing, most commercial art studios worked with Apple products - that is Mac computers - so they could interface with the print industry, almost entirely on Mac computers already.
Now, because Adobe has found a market in home users some people think they are making frivolous apps. Or providing easy outs for recreational photographers who don't wish to work very hard. I suggest you ask some people who work in graphics or produce any two dimensional art for printing if they want to get rid of their Apple devices.
As for those of you who are understandably concerned with the technical quality of photos I assume you realize that the moment your image is in print somewhere or reproduced digitally to be viewed on any number and variety of digital 'viewers' you have lost control of the quality of that image.
So, you see, there are more facets to this story than were accounted for here.
Adobe apps, despite what some of you seem to think, were not originally aimed at recreational photographers, and were never intended to band-aid photographs in need of some aid. They were for use in the field of commercial art, nowadays more often referred to as graphics, and were meant to remove some of the tedium, and the time consumption of producing art [including photos of course] and text for print.
Time being money as in any industry, they - first Quark Express for Page layout, then Illustrator, and Photoshop, for the jobs their names imply - were intended to speed up some of the tedious processes use in print media. Those of you trashing apple likely do not remember when people at drawing boards created ink renderings on clay coated board and mistakes were removed with single-edge razor blades. Or when some corrections desired by clients required hours of mind-numbing extra work. When kids were confined to stat rooms all day modifying and adjusting photographic work. Some of you may realize that at one time, not so long ago, the type for magazines was still produced in many cases by a large room of typesetters, then the type cut into strips and applied to sheets with the aid of a parallel rule and some wax. And that the whole project still had to be printed.
Speaking of printing, most commercial art studios worked with Apple products - that is Mac computers - so they could interface with the print industry, almost entirely on Mac computers already.
Now, because Adobe has found a market in home users some people think they are making frivolous apps. Or providing easy outs for recreational photographers who don't wish to work very hard. I suggest you ask some people who work in graphics or produce any two dimensional art for printing if they want to get rid of their Apple devices.
As for those of you who are understandably concerned with the technical quality of photos I assume you realize that the moment your image is in print somewhere or reproduced digitally to be viewed on any number and variety of digital 'viewers' you have lost control of the quality of that image.
So, you see, there are more facets to this story than were accounted for here.
VF101
Established
What has this thread to do with Adobe?
liamC
Established
about 100 years ago, didn't Kodak use the same line?
you take the picture we do the rest.
For the masses, they just want "good" pictures. Doesn't matter if it is done with a box camera or an iphone.
you take the picture we do the rest.
For the masses, they just want "good" pictures. Doesn't matter if it is done with a box camera or an iphone.
Ansel
Well-known
Apple is all about letting the computer do the heavy lifting for you, and making the experience as simple as possible. I see nothing wrong with their statement about the iPhone, its just another expression of that philosophy.
I am pretty much as dedicated to film photography as they come but I have to admit the iPhone takes some pretty awesome pictures right out of the box.
One of Steve Jobs inspirations when setting up Apple was Polaroid.
I am pretty much as dedicated to film photography as they come but I have to admit the iPhone takes some pretty awesome pictures right out of the box.
One of Steve Jobs inspirations when setting up Apple was Polaroid.
charjohncarter
Veteran
zauhar
Veteran
PM, you wrote:
"I don't like to think too much about the tech side -- I really like letting the smart cameras do the work. I only care about the image, not how it was created."
Then you wrote:
"I come from black and white rangefinder use, all I had to do was focus, set the f-stop and shutter speed, after reading my meter, and push the shutter, Tri-X was so forgiving -- it was impossible to screw up -- I guessed most of the time."
I don't think you were intending to be ironic, but that made my morning!
Randy
"I don't like to think too much about the tech side -- I really like letting the smart cameras do the work. I only care about the image, not how it was created."
Then you wrote:
"I come from black and white rangefinder use, all I had to do was focus, set the f-stop and shutter speed, after reading my meter, and push the shutter, Tri-X was so forgiving -- it was impossible to screw up -- I guessed most of the time."
I don't think you were intending to be ironic, but that made my morning!
Randy
ZeissFan
Veteran
What made Apple successful for the late Steve Jobs in both his stints with the company is that he understood the market. Generally, most people aren't interested in how things work, only that they do work. And the same applies to Apple's approach to photography.
While most here want more from their photos, the truth is that most people just want snapshots. They aren't looking for art or the "defining moment" and in fact probably don't know what it is or likely have never heard of Henri Cartier Bresson. They just want a photo that they can share with a friend or family member.
Steve Jobs understood this about the masses, and by various means, he was able to push his people to develop products that reached that goal. Mac products are often elegant and simple to operate. This has always been central to the Mac and then he was smart enough to do this with the iPod, the MP3 player that forced everyone else to rethink their products. He then expanded this simplified design to the iPhone and iPad. If you notice, competing products try to reproduce this experience with varying degrees of success.
Android, for all of its success, can be a complicated and intimidating experience for the novice, particularly when things go wrong. And it isn't as stable as you might think. The 16:9 format looks great, but trying to read an article in the portrait orientation involves too much scrolling and moving the screen left and right, up and down. The 4:3 format is much better for a tablet.
By the way, I only own a couple of Apple devices. Most of my life is spent in a PC world. But I do recognize the brilliance of Steve Jobs and his ability to develop products that are a notch above the competition when it comes to the mass market. Just look at Microsoft as it continues to try to be better than the Mac OS. Windows 8 - why and what major improvement does it bring over Windows 7? (Answer: none, from what I can tell.)
With Steve Jobs now gone, who will push and demand Apple to be better?
While most here want more from their photos, the truth is that most people just want snapshots. They aren't looking for art or the "defining moment" and in fact probably don't know what it is or likely have never heard of Henri Cartier Bresson. They just want a photo that they can share with a friend or family member.
Steve Jobs understood this about the masses, and by various means, he was able to push his people to develop products that reached that goal. Mac products are often elegant and simple to operate. This has always been central to the Mac and then he was smart enough to do this with the iPod, the MP3 player that forced everyone else to rethink their products. He then expanded this simplified design to the iPhone and iPad. If you notice, competing products try to reproduce this experience with varying degrees of success.
Android, for all of its success, can be a complicated and intimidating experience for the novice, particularly when things go wrong. And it isn't as stable as you might think. The 16:9 format looks great, but trying to read an article in the portrait orientation involves too much scrolling and moving the screen left and right, up and down. The 4:3 format is much better for a tablet.
By the way, I only own a couple of Apple devices. Most of my life is spent in a PC world. But I do recognize the brilliance of Steve Jobs and his ability to develop products that are a notch above the competition when it comes to the mass market. Just look at Microsoft as it continues to try to be better than the Mac OS. Windows 8 - why and what major improvement does it bring over Windows 7? (Answer: none, from what I can tell.)
With Steve Jobs now gone, who will push and demand Apple to be better?
zauhar
Veteran
I have to admit that if you trust your light meter, it is a pretty mechanical process to set your camera - but I think that most casual "photographers" today have no clue what an "aperture" is, that's why I got a kick out of your statement.
Have to say I hate using a cell phone for taking photos, I do it only for utilitarian reasons - like yesterday I took a closeup of the back of my Mac to make sure AV would give me exactly the right DVI-VGA adaptor - there are three or four possibilities to choose from. Thanks Apple!
Randy
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
I don't know what to say ...LINK
I'll bet Kodak made a similar pitch when they came out with the Brownie.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Was that "notch" an actual improvement, or an ability to sell overpriced products to those who were too stupid and technically ignorant to see that they were overpriced? Or maybe they just appealed to illiterates who preferred an "icon" drawn by a Californian programmer to plain English (or German or French or...)?
When I first encountered Apples, I couldn't believe how awful they were. Mind you, I'd been using mainframes for maybe 5 years and PCs for maybe 3.
Then again, as H. L. Mencken said, "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
Ansel
Well-known
No need for the insults Roger. ...
FrankS
Registered User
Roger, you do know that Apple sells its products world wide, right?
Michael Markey
Veteran
My daughter for one
Over priced fluff seems to be her opinion but then she is an analytical scientist.
I fear that a Mac will probably be on my upgrade agenda never the less.
FrankS
Registered User
Not sure how apple does it but the clean design of the hardware and the software, and how everything is so nice to use is great. Because of this they are able to sell at a higher price than similarly spec'ed products.
There is room for improvement: I'd like to see iPads, iPods, and iPhones with USB ports and transferable memory keys, and get rid of the iTunes layer.
There is room for improvement: I'd like to see iPads, iPods, and iPhones with USB ports and transferable memory keys, and get rid of the iTunes layer.
zauhar
Veteran
My daughter for one
Over priced fluff seems to be her opinion but then she is an analytical scientist.
I fear that a Mac will probably be on my upgrade agenda never the less.
Michael, since Macs have a unix foundation, and can still run office applications, they have been the platform of choice for many scientists like me.
Randy
tjh
Well-known
I use Mac because I come from a Unix/Linux world and Mac uses a Linux-like system under the hood. Command line scripts and programming on the Mac are familiar to me. If I had spent a lot of time using Windows/DOS, I might feel differently.
Tom
Tom