iPhone does Elle Australia magazine front cover, editorial

x-ray said:
I'll bet money this was nothing more than a stunt to get attention to the cover and it worked. Matter of fact I wouldn't be surprised if in the beginning the photographer simply pulled his phone out of his pocket and shaped a few images to compare to his primary camera and the art director said what a cool idea to use one of these images for the cover, if they look good enough. It's a gimmick to get people to look.
Click to expand...

It is hardly a gimmick. Many photojournalists are willing to try it because it gives something different. John Lehmann talks more about it in this video around the 6:47 mark and contrasts it with his DSLR and explains why the iPhone is just another tool in his arsenal.

https://youtu.be/_DFJCTHG8pw

I find it hilarious that the most alternative photography forum has so many detractors for an alternative form of (digital) photography.
 
infrequent said:
I find it hilarious that the most alternative photography forum has so many detractors for an alternative form of (digital) photography.
Click to expand...

Hilarity aside, it is an easy camera to be annoyed by. How many times do you hear people say you don't need anything other than an iPhone anymore? When a hardcore camera site (rangefinders are certainly not mainstream and are great objects) knows the difference between a beautifully made camera and a phone that take photos, are you really that surprised? I mean of course any camera is capable of a beautiful image. The one on the cover could have been made with anything and worked.

Oh yeah... Alternate form? nah, mainstream and ubiquitous.
 
I heard someone say something the other day that made a lot of sense ...

'to be comfortable and confident with your own point of view, you should first take the time to understand the alternate point of view without automatically dismissing it before even considering it.'
 
So, granted the photo is on the cover of Elle, but does anyone think it is anything special? It's a yawner to me, and would be even if it were taken with a Phase One. Yet there is no talk of the image itself here. It's all about what camera was used. Who cares?
 
What I tell people that ask me what kind of camera I use, it doesn't matter (within reason) it's what's 2 inches behind it.

I don't care what the person used. It's about the end product and satisfying the client. I still can't see the iPhone camera making any impact in the commercial photo world.
 
I wasn't intending to suggest the iPhone 7 in portrait mode would replace more flexible alternatives with better IQ.. what I'm amazed at is that a camera phone is now capable of producing a fashion magazine front cover without it being an embarrassment of jpg artefacts.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Early generation p&s cameras are capable of producing superb A4 prints - the size of a magazine cover - as long as the lighting ratio remains within the sensor's capability. I still have my first digital camera, a 4Mp Nikon Coolpix E4500 and the results are great if keep this in mind. A bonus is you get to enjoy a coffee while it focuses.

The big change I see is that once, a photographer needed a sizeable investment in medium format, large format (and later, even 35mm) and lighting to be able to produce front cover results. Now inexpensive digital formats have removed the gear/cost barriers, opening the market to people with good ideas on a low budget.

Concepts and ideas are far more important than gear IMO - as long as the gear is capable of rendering them. Which in the case of this Elle front cover, it was.
 
This reminds me of the recent David Bailey interview:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=161285

PR: Do you feel that today everyone is a photographer because everyone has a camera on their phone?

DB: It’s always been that way. In and around 1895 when they brought out the first box camera the professionals said, ‘ Oh this is the end of photography’. It’s not, is it? It becomes something else./
 
infrequent said:
Should have qualified that. Mainstream definitely but alternative still for photojournalism and commercial work intended for print.
Click to expand...

So, I guess the argument here is that it will it become mainstream with photojournalism and commercial work intended for print? I'm some what missing the argument, was it about ok iPhone can make printable photo or iPhone will replace photojournalism camera?

if the argument is about iPhone can make printable photo that I agree no doubt there, but if it was about being/going mainstream with photojournalism and commercial I think that's a bit far stretch as of now.
 
lynnb said:
The big change I see is that once, a photographer needed a sizeable investment in medium format, large format (and later, even 35mm) and lighting to be able to produce front cover results. Now inexpensive digital formats have removed the gear/cost barriers, opening the market to people with good ideas on a low budget.

.
Click to expand...

Whats involved in executing a cover or any other fine image hasn't changed. An iPhone or any other camera whether film or digital doesn't eliminate the need for lighting, makeup or any of the other production requirements of the past. The iPhone isn't magic, it doesn't do anything if as much as a high quality camera. I've had clients that thought I no longer needed to light my jobs and that all I had to do was walk in and snap a picture and magically it was ready To go on the press.

The only thing different about digital be film is the medium in the back of the camera. Think of the difference as electronic film. What digital does give us is the ability to quickly view our images with our clients and determine if we have the money shot. In years past we relied on polaroids to view the setup and get a general idea of everything but now we view the actual images and know for certain if we've captured what the client wants. I even have indesign on my MacBook so my clients can load their layout in and drop a photo into it as we shoot to confirm how it fits and how it looks.

iPhones are about the minimum level of hardware needed to do something like this. It's not going to open up new worlds anytime soon.
 
Xray, you said it very well.

The attitude of the poster you quoted is prevalent amongst folks today, from organizations with supposed creative types to most everyone in general. People don't rcognize or don't seem to care about the person who creates beautiful photographs, regardless of most equipment and they don't seem to recognize it either when it is shown to them. That makes it hard, almost impossible, to find enough work to sustain a decent living.
 
Jake Mongey said:
For my college final project I looked at the iphones effect on self identity and looked at cases of the selfie becoming the "self portrait" and for one of the shoots I shot a full studio setup on a 2003ish nokia with a half a megapixel camera, and I got some average results considering the quality. The shots looked good when printed small and when printed to a3 gave something certainly different. If thats what the photographer wanted to use than all power to them.
Click to expand...

I once played around with my Gameboy camera, I quite liked the results even though there were only four shades of greens. Too bad I couldn't find a printer with reasonable price.
 

Attachments

  • 20180_1229461019200_4152305_n.jpg
    20180_1229461019200_4152305_n.jpg
    20.5 KB · Views: 0
  • 20180_1229461099202_2279267_n.jpg
    20180_1229461099202_2279267_n.jpg
    36.5 KB · Views: 0
newfilm said:
So, I guess the argument here is that it will it become mainstream with photojournalism and commercial work intended for print? I'm some what missing the argument, was it about ok iPhone can make printable photo or iPhone will replace photojournalism camera?

if the argument is about iPhone can make printable photo that I agree no doubt there, but if it was about being/going mainstream with photojournalism and commercial I think that's a bit far stretch as of now.
Click to expand...

No no...the point is that it can be done within reason and conditions. Earlier responses called it a gimmick and a marketing ploy, not a legit tool.
 
infrequent said:
No no...the point is that it can be done within reason and conditions. Earlier responses called it a gimmick and a marketing ploy, not a legit tool.
Click to expand...

It's a legit tool and a holga or pinhole camera can be a legit tool too. It depends on how it's used.

I see the iPhone as the new Brownie of the millennium. Everyone's making more out of this cover than it really is. It's a gimmick to get attention and say we did it although I'd say it's not the first cover or spread just a very well publicized one. We fell for it too and look how much attention it got but I'm not going to buy one just to say I have it.

Bill Clark you said it very well.
 
Bill Clark said:
Xray, you said it very well.

The attitude of the poster you quoted is prevalent amongst folks today, from organizations with supposed creative types to the general populace. People don't rcognize or don't seem to care about the person who creates beautiful photographs, regardless of most equipment and they don't seem to recognize it either when it is shown to them. That makes it hard, almost impossible, to find enough work to sustain a decent living.
Click to expand...

The past wasn't so creative as you are brushing it here. In fact, many of so called professional photographers had paid job just because no devices like iPhone were available. Due to these kind of "professional" photographers my wife and I decided to buy better than P&S and stop paying for bad photos. So called professional photos were correctly exposed, in focus, but nothing else.

And my family experience is different about photography these days. My daughter is growing as photographer because it is much more simple to photograph today. Modern cameras and flashlights are closer to the iPhone by simplicity of use. It opens profession for more creative, less technical people. And it is paid well as long as you are willing to work hard.
 
Ko.Fe. As you learned technically a person receiving money for an assignment is a professional but that doesn't guarantee they can make a good image. There a lot more than megapixels and gear that goes into making a great image.

The problem with inexpensive cameras including the iPhone is the entry point into passable gear and the knowledge to create a passable image is very low now. Forums and family praise folks that post terrible images giving them the impression they're doing great work when in fact it's really bad. I see it all over the Internet including this forum.

Don't get the idea the photographer and model casually walked to the location and snapped a few shots and magically they had a cover. You can bet your iPhone there was a full crew with reflector boards, silks, flags, assistants, makeup artist and client. As I mentioned above it takes just as much skill to make a great image on digital as it did on film. Digital hasn't bypassed the need for lighting or anything other than physical film. Just because a person makes an image that family and friends rave about doesn't make it great. I can tell you this from experience. I shot for Life, Esquire, Gourmet Magazine and a host of others and still shoot on a limited basis and nothing has changed when it comes to demands on quality. Don't read too much into this cover and the iphone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom