You do not need a DSLR to take nice looking photos, your phone will suffice | Hacker News Reader

You do not need a DSLR to take nice looking photos, your phone will suffice

b.sricola.com

24 pointssricola60 comments

I don't want to be Mr. Negative here, but each photo in the post is a decent example of the inadequacies of a phone camera. The first is a classic low-dynamic-range night shot that would be much better served by a large sensor that can do a higher ISO; the second is a nice attempt at some depth of field but is only a fraction of the bokeh you'd get with a wide-aperture prime lens; almost all of the daytime photos have pretty middling ranges and color reproduction.

Lastly, and this is the part I hate to be a jerk about, but the author is probably right, at least for himself right now. I don't think he'd stand to gain all that much from a higher-end camera today. With practice, though, further developing a critical eye, and understanding the photographic process, in time, he might be well-served by upgrading.

> but the author is probably right as far as his current photography skills go. I don't think he'd stand to gain much from a higher-end camera at this point.

Yikes! Kind of harsh, don't you think? (I am not the author.)

You caught me before my ninja edit! That was too harsh and I've changed it.

Don't feel too bad about it. While I understand what the post is trying to say, the way he says it is pretty ignorant to photography in general, and even makes some poor suggestions and sweeping generalizations.

I've been there--a few years ago--with a point and shoot camera, taking what I thought were better photos than the pros. If I'd gotten a DSLR at that time, I wouldn't know what to do with it. But as I got more and more interested in photography, I started to understand the complexity and limitations, and moved up to a DSLR. Yes, I started on Auto mode and as I learned more features I used them more.

Yes, the lines between photographic technology are blurring. I've taken some incredible photos with my Note II (same phone as him, and far better quality than his), but I've also been extremely limited in many situations. He's only taking wide angle still scenes, which doesn't take much skill or technical ability. There are far more situations in which a cellphone can't even compare.

He says "Why burden yourself with such a bulky device, not to mention the cost of it, when your good old phone can take just as good photos." In reality, the Note II cost more than my DSLR ($700 vs $600), and the bulk of it is not just for ergonomics but also to keep it steady and shake-free.

Not harsh at all. The photos the author posted are just snapshots, any camera (or person) could take them. If he had a higher-end camera he could learn more about photography, but if his aim is just to take snapshots of daily life then of course his phone will be the best tool for it.

Absolutely agreed. What he probably means is "good enough to show my holiday pictures to friends on a phone in a bar".

Of course it's true, that it's far more important to have photographer skills (find a good motive, angle, frame it right, lightning, etc.). That's something you can't buy though. Also he doesn't really shine in this regard, to be honest.

BUT, to support his point (and my last one), take a look at this: http://mostlylisa.com/worldtrip/ So again, it's the photographer and his skills and not the technical details. You'll quickly hit limits with a smartphone though (as you described in your post).

edit: Also, the main blog will show pictures taken with a full frame DSLR which simply wouldn't be possible with a smartphone. http://mostlylisa.com/

> Why burden yourself with such a bulky device, not to mention the cost of it, when your good old phone can take just as good photos.

This is false. Any DSLR can do better than the author's examples. These are not "nice photos", I am sorry. I would be hypocritical if I said otherwise.

OK, I get it, you can take pretty nice shots with your phone, but you cannot compare it to what a DSLR can provide. Not to mention that DSLRs let you tune several parameters that can make all the difference.

I'd have to agree, the photos all looked undersaturated and flat. Good enough for your average holiday snap I suppose, but nothing compared to what a good photographer can get with a DSLR.

A good photographer can do amazing work with whichever camera they are given, under the right circumstances (in the following case, a fully controlled studio fashion shoot) http://fstoppers.com/iphone

I'd say that the photos were nice. Not great, not outstanding, not attention grabbing, not technically excellent, but nice. Phones are fine for getting photos that are good enough, and if that's all you want buying equipment that's expensive and has a learning curve might not be for you. But if you do use the more expensive equipment and learn to use it you can produce some outstanding, attention grabbing, technically excellent photography. It's all about what your goals are and using the right tool for the goal.

I don't agree with this. While you might not need a DSLR, you can easily do better than the camera in your phone.

I recently completed a family trip and left my Canon 5D mark III at home. Instead I took the pocketable Sony RX100. It created some beautiful images and didn't get in the way on the family trip. It also did worlds better than the camera built in to my or my wife's phone.

Here is an image direct from the camera: http://bedafamily.smugmug.com/Other/public/i-SmCN6Hf/0/X3/DS...

I'm sorry, but that picture is pretty much what I would expect from a phone. It might just be that I'm not a photographer and don't know what to look for, but so are most people...

These days it is all about dynamic range. A dynamically lit scene is much more challenging. Similar photos from phones at the same location looked much too contrasty.

Nice photo, but maybe a touch underexposed. I love the tones on the rock throughout.

I agree with the author of the original piece: a good camera phone is often better than a DSLR since you are more likely to have the camera phone with you when you want to take a picture.

The most important part of using any camera to take pictures is balancing composition to the technical limitations of the camera. Poor composition will kill the photograph regardless of how amazing your camera is.

If you're ever seeing something beautiful and wishing you brought a "real" camera with you while you actively ignore the camera phone in your pocket, you are engaging in the belief that it's the camera that takes the pictures.

Some of you are missing the point here.

There are people who buy dslr cameras to take snapshots, and they do it because they think this will magically make their photos better.

And then these cameras never leave automatic mode, and never have the kit lens removed.

The point is that you don't need an expensive camera to take perfectly good shots [for most applications]

That's not what the author says.

> Why burden yourself with such a bulky device, not to mention the cost of it, when your good old phone can take just as good photos.

I'll admit it, you described me. Plus it's so awkward to take a large camera that I've just stopped using it altogether except for the rarest of occasions.

I actually think they will make your photos better. Better glassware = better image. Now that's not to say that you can't take an OK, or even a great image on a phone, but you will definitely start to run up against technical limitations sooner. Low light, fast movement, anything where you need a quick reaction time to capture a moment. Any of these conditions and you'll get average images from a camera phone.

First of all, the Galaxy Note II is more expensive than many entry-level DSLRs. We're really just talking about tradeoffs here.

>they do it because they think this will magically make their photos better

Truth is... DSLRs and cameras in general are becoming magical.

My girlfriends dad just came bak from Africa with a point-and -shoot, and I was convinced that several of his photos were stolen from National Geographic. These were not average snaps.

My dad just came back from Dubai, and not only was he amazed at the lowlight performance of the camera (yes, on Auto), but the camera was also cropping portraits by itself (sony's Auto Portrait setting), taking out the skill of composition. Instead of spending hours stitching his photos into a panorama, he was able to do it on the fly. And he could take incredible lowlight HD movies without changing any settings. Intelligent Auto settings also detect what scenes you're shooting and can do some pretty advanced settings to make your shot look professional.

That's true, camera tech. is steadily improving to the point that a DSLR left on auto can do some impressive work behind the scenes. A modern DSLR has a lot of amazing tech for low light handling, autofocus, setting the white point/color fidelity, vibration reduction, and other things that a camera of the past wouldn't have handled well, and kit lenses tend to be darn good general purpose zoom lenses.

I'll be impressed when cellphone cameras can provide apps with their full RAW image information, global shutter (rather than rolling shutter) functionality and compatibility with wireless external flashes, and apps getting advanced enough to match the functionality available in Photoshop Camera RAW (distortion correction, advanced noise reduction, recovering shadows and highlights, etc).

I'll be impressed with DSLRs when they have advanced post-processing and connectivity. Image stacking, noise reduction and sharpening based on computer vision, OCR, light field technology for focussing and 3D, NFC, WiFi Direct

Claims you don't need a DSLR then produces a bunch of amateur photos as evidence.

I think computational approaches like the Lytro are the future. But right now, DSLR's still produce markedly better images thanks to faster lenses, larger sensors, shallow focus depths that create buttery soft backgrounds.

Some of those advantages, larger cameras will always have. At some point we'll probably ditch the anachronistic "reflex" part. The viewfinder gives you an inaccurate representation of the image anyway.

Smart phones are good enough for 98% of the photography that we do - vacation photos, drunk nights out with friends, that colourful homeless guy with neon tassels and a cowboy hat.

I can still easily tell a DSLR photo apart from a camera phone shot and it doesn't take pixel peeping either. Better dynamic range, sharpness, focus.

Still love my camera phone, in fact I don't even have a DSLR anymore. But I'm not going to pretend its anywhere near as good as a pro camera in pro hands.

Of course, we're geeks and love to expand our skills. One day we wake up and want to be a photographer dammit. So we buy a DSLR and take it to parties, dinner, public events. The big camera is a liability - you worry about dropping it or having it stolen. It also makes you look like a dork. Sometimes people give you flak for bringing a pro camera to no cameras allowed situations. When you do take pictures it feels like a ceremony. Of course, you have to nail the photo because you just spent 2500 on a camera. Every previously dismissible imperfection is now a bottleneck that prevents your camera and you, the ariste, from living up to their full potential. You need the external bounceable flash, the L series lenses, the filters and hoods.

I would say that a DSLR is useful for taking nice-looking photos in more challenging situations than a phone can (places with poor lighting, fast movement, or where depth-of-field or magnification are important). It's depressing that a lot of amateurs use a $700 DSLR on AUTO to take pictures of their lunch though.

A DSLR on auto is a sad thing to behold.

I'm an amateur photographer. My DSLR is almost 7 years old now and my iPhone can keep up with it as a point-and-shoot, but nothing on the iPhone can compare to setting up the shot properly. Switching lenses for the situation is also really handy.

The dynamic range in the photos is much better from the DSLR as well.

Yeah. Software can fake a lot of things, like DOF or vintage film effects - but you can't fake good glass or a wide-aperture lens.

I use aperture or shutter priority a LOT, and don't feel bad about it, particularly in environments with rapidly changing lighting.

Until fairly recently, you couldn't get an APS-C or FF sensor with fast glass without D-SLR (or M4/3, which is essentially the same concept), so I have no problem with using it on auto mode for snapshots, too.

>Also, HDR is so 2007, natural photos are where its at.

The whole point of HDR is to create a natural image with natural colors.

It's too bad that many neophytes of photography tend to use the HDR term for oversaturated and exaggerated pictures that were probably not taken with multiple exposures to begin with.

HDR is, in effect, like Auto-Tune. Used as it was intended, it can improve your results, but with the correction turned up beyond a natural degree, can give a highly artificial effect of its own (which has been overused).

> HDR is, in effect, like Auto-Tune

The difference between these two is that HDR is a technique designed to work around the limitations of the transfer medium: our eyes perceive more dynamic range than our cameras. Properly-done HDR should be closer to reality than the LDR image.

Auto-Tune, OTOH, is creating a new effect, "fixing" the original singing. The recording fidelity itself is plenty high enough.

Binaural recording is similar to HDR, too. Used properly, it will produce a stereo effect which should match what a local (human) listener would have heard. Used improperly, it's just stereo recordings.

A couple more tips:

* Creating a strong photograph is far less dependent upon what you're shooting with and more about what you're shooting. Instead of spending your cash on a Mark III or a Leica, take a photography crash course at your local photo school (Seattle people: http://pcnw.org) (see: times square and the bread)

* Don't be afraid to strobe your subject in the daytime. For example, in the second photo, I would've tried taking this in three ways: 1. as-is, 2. strobed, and 3. HDR. The background exposure is pretty good, but the flowers in the foreground are underexposed.

* Watch out for stray junk in the foreground. In the bridge photo, I'd crop out the errant flowers at the bottom of the frame (and straighten it).

* If you have a lot of gray sky in your photo, your camera is going to do its best to underexpose the photo. Watch out for it, expose for the foreground, and do post-processing if necessary (see the last photo of the bread).

And, on HDR: "Also, HDR is so 2007, natural photos are where its at."

Sure, shitty, haloed HDR is so 2007. If you do HDR right, though, no one will ever know. Here's my favorite HDR photo I've ever taken: http://www.flickr.com/photos/aaronbrethorst/3266221538/in/se...

That is a spot-on example of HDR used as a scalpel and not a hammer. To the viewer, it just looks natural, even though a normal shot of that scene would likely have a washed-out Space Needle or dimmed-out skyline behind.

My turn to ask the stupid questions :)

1. When you say strobed, do you mean simply flash? Is a built-in flash adequate for the technique you describe? (I usually don't carry my real flash around in the daytime, since it's so bulky.) How do you find the right exposure with the flash? I ask because whenever I try to use flash in the daytime, my shot gets blown out and sometimes adding -2 or -3 EC helps, but sometimes it doesn't.

2. For HDR, do I understand correctly that any HDR technique still requires multiple exposures and therefore some kind of tripod and a still subject? (I suppose I could wing it without a tripod if I find a way to set the camera down and have it fire off 3 shots, auto-bracketed?)

I think they mean fill flash, which can help a lot. You can use a built in flash for that, if you look up "fill flash" tutorials you can find info. appropriate to your camera. I use a speedlight for fill flash, since I tend to shoot things that are a ways off, but the built in works well enough for close subjects.

True HDR is bracketing shots with different exposures, so the camera and subject need to be still. It requires a tripod for best results, though I've set the camera down on a flat surface and used a remote to do HDR. Without a tripod it's very limiting since you have way less control on where the camera can be placed.

Strobe & Speedlight are to flash what Kleenex are to facial tissues: they are brand names which have become used in some circles as universal names.

Some people will discriminate between "strobe" and "flash" based on cycle times and power source, e.g.: a "strobe" will be a mains-powered flash system that can keep flashing as fast as you can trigger the shutter while a "flash" will be a camera-mounted, battery-powered thing that takes several seconds to recharge.

But in the specific example above, the author is using strobe as a synonym to flash.

The Golden Gate Bridge shot is not level, a common problem when shooting off an LCD at arms length. And to me it ruins it.

A wonder that it wasn't corrected in-phone, simple post-processing is one of the great features of phone-based photography.

This article is the best illustration possible of the saying: "You don't know what you don't know".

Eg, the author's pics are pretty awful but he doesn't have the eye to see it.

A while back, I was setting up a shot and trying different approaches for several minutes with my DSLR. A friend laughed at me, whipped out his phone, took a pic, and showed me an awful picture saying "See? What's taking you so long?".

>the author's pics are pretty awful but he doesn't have the eye to see it. //

But that's the authors point, or so it seems to me. That the majority of people can't see it. If you're showing your pics as a non pro to a pro then they'll probably find them terrible even if you used a large-format Hasselbad.

My interpretation is that it's about the essence of the image in most cases and not the actual technical detail of the image. The images we capture as novices are aide-memoires primarily and in the main. To a non-photog it rarely matters if the dynamic range is poor or there's a little aberration or a slight lack of focus or a bit of extra noise.

That said I often bemoan the lack of a faster camera, better flash, adjustable aperture, better lens ...

The problem is, the example pictures aren't that great.

The first one lacks details in the darker areas, something a high ISO, fast lens DSLR setup would have no problem with. The second one is a standard macro shot but with a DSLR and a good lens, you'd get way more of a bokeh effect then what's seen. The third is crooked, probably a result of holding the phone arms length away. The fourth is really dark, because controlling exposure on a phone isn't that flexible.

The tips you give are the basics for any beginner photographer. I agree, people should not be walking around with DSLRs on auto setting; it's a complete waste.

But for those who do know a bit more about photography, a DSLR is magnitudes more flexible and efficient than a phone. Putting it on priority, adjusting ISO, f-stop, shutter speed, white balance, all of those things I use constantly with my DSLR.

Taking "nice" photos can be done with just about any camera nowadays. The really great, breathtaking shots are almost always taken with DSLRs (or medium format and larger).

It really depends on what sort of pictures you are taking. If you are taking photos in low light, a better sensor (whether it's a full-frame 35mm or an APS-C sensor) will allow you take photos without using a flash in certain environments where using the cell phone would be hopeless.

There are also certain things you can do playing with depth of field that aren't possible with smaller sensors such as found on a cell phone. But it's also true that for most people, and for most shots, it doesn't matter. What does matter is that you have a something to take a photo with you; using a cell phone is just another variant of the old saying, "f/8 and be there".

While these are "nice" pictures, it's still obvious that these are taken with a crappy camera and that a good DSLR, combined with someone who know how to use it, could create significantly better results.

Of course I love the fact that today I always have my phone with me for snapshots that I would have missed otherwise but my phone is no replacement for my better cameras (a sony rx1 and my canon 5d that I both enjoy a lot) and it won't be for the foreseeable future.

Go ahead and take your wedding pictures with your iphone and let me know what you think of that decision 10 years from now.

It depends on what you're doing with photography. The big selling point of a DSLR is interchangeable lenses, I have a telephoto, a macro, and a general purpose kit lens. I have macro shots of jumping spiders with amazing detail far better than any phone could possibly get, and shots of birds and wildlife that are better than any phone could possibly get. Wide angle lenses again will let you do things you can't do with a phone. In low light a DSLR will be much better - the tech. and larger sensor reduces noise. You have direct control over aperture, ISO, manual focus, shutter speed and various settings which experienced photographers use to get better photos. Also things like ring lights and speedlights can help a ton and aren't an option for phones.

Modern phones can take great photos, but the reason to opt for a DSLR are to get far better photos than a phone can manage for a lot of types of photography. No nature photographer is going to walk through the woods and be happy with a phone. Here's a photo of a bee hive I'd never try to shoot with a phone that was perfectly safe with my DSLR:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/somebachs/8639569426/

This Waxwing shot would be impossible as well:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/somebachs/8401678087/

And the spider photo:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/somebachs/8626752660/

Yeah, I might just be posting photos since I like photography... But still, they are ones a phone couldn't take.

> The number of amateurs walking around with a DSLR shooting in auto, is staggering. Why burden yourself with such a bulky device, not to mention the cost of it

Fashion.

DSLR's can be constituted as part of the hipster/nerd/geek/preppy fashion trend of today. So a lot of people striving for this look will plump the money and put up with the inconvenience to make their look complete.

My point here is really only of interest to hackers-who-hack-with-images: mobiles suck; Get any, ANY DSLR for your imagery.

When you want to do anything with the photos other than look at them, a mobile phone camera is a complete joke. Today, people use photos for a lot more than pretty pictures to illustrate link-bait.

Imagery for 2D & 3D textures is one, and a growing use is 3d reconstruction. (Disclosure: I develop 3d reconstruction technology.)

Images taken with the lowest entry DSLR are an order of magnitude higher quality in almost every measure than the highest quality, most expensive mobile phone camera. The greater quality translates into higher precision information recovery from its photos. The difference is the size of the lens and the greater information it captures - information beneath our perceptions, but not beyond trained and plain-old human-written algorithms' perceptions.

You can pick up used DSLR's really cheaply these days, may aswell have one, might fuel an interest in finding out about Av & Tv modes, and white balance...plus lens' are what really make the big difference....I mean a canon EF 85mm 1.2 is gonna take a hell of a shot....

DSLR's take wonderful photographs, they are not comparable to a phone camera. Sure if you are taking snaps, I can sort of relate to the point, but do not denegrate DSLR's.

And yes,don't buy a DSLR to use it in Auto mode, you at least need a passing interest in amateur photography, or a penchant for art...

Here's a snap with my canon 500D, http://www.flickr.com/photos/casa_de_shay/5941345438/lightbo..., the bouquet is just great on the camera, can only dream of owning a 5D

DO you have any recommendations of online resources for getting started with amateur photography, specifically using DSLRs?

I do indeed, I think its hard to look past www.kenrockwell.com

I also recommend the series of digital photography books by Scott kelby, I started with him, was actually this one I found some if very useful: http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Digital-Photography-Book-Pt/dp/0...

Bullshit. My iPhone 4S is unusable in anything less than cloudy daylight.

It is useless in dark comditions, where the ip5 does ok.

I can't believe everyone here missed the point. The cheapest DSLR costs $400. It's not convenient to carry. It does ONE task. If you don't know how to use it, it won't take great pictures.

The author is saying "If you spend some time learning to use the camera in the device you already own, you can get acceptable results and save the money."

It's like my saying "The typical family member doesn't need a new computer. They can do everything they need to on a $50 lease turn-in with a couple of gigs of memory added."

For most photos taken by most people, a cellphone camera is fine - mostly because, as noted, it's the camera you have when you need one.

The pictures shown are indeed a testament to how good such cameras are. Such cameras are not, however, (relatively) large frame high color depth imagers with quality lenses - and it shows to those who know what they're looking at.

Yes you can get nice looking photos with a cheap camera. Framing & leveling the subject is a great place to start.

The biggest problem I have with my phone camera is that it only works well on close shots. Take a picture of anything more than 5-10m away and it looks terrible. I'm no photographer and only ever used 'decent' point and shoots (£100-150) with an optical zoom. I sold mine when I got the iPhone 5 but I'm considering getting a POS again.

At that size or low ISO, almost every picture looks OK. I assume the OP never stretched the capabilities of a real camera.

All of those picture beg for some basic color balance... But that is usually a post-processing move.

Hey, do you happen to know of any authoritative tutorials or references for color balance? Exposure gets a ton of attention, but I only ever seem to find mechanical posts on color--like step-by-step instructions on using Photoshop's color tools, but without explanation of what you're trying to achieve. I think I have a terrible understanding of color balance and I'd like to improve it.

Ken Rockwell says "It's not hard, just use what looks good"[1], but to a colorblind photographer such as myself, that's not as easy as it sounds!

I do all my WB in post production. For this reason, it helps a lot to have a calibrated monitor and to shoot in the RAW format (WB isn't 'baked in' to the image, unlike JPEG, so you have far more control).

It also helps to have a reference point in your image. Either someone wearing a white article of clothing, or you can use a grey card held up in an extra shot.

White balance is used to correct the overall color in the photo such that color cast is removed so that neutral tones (white/grey/black) from the scene (or at least the focal point) appear to be neutral in the image. This increases the contrast between colors in the image--which can reveal details that couldn't be seen--and also makes the photo appear more realistic.

[1] http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/changewhitebalance.htm

I own a Sony NEX and it's a good balance between a huge DSLR and mobile phone camera. I like it a lot.

This marketing video is so true about this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=...

Taking pictures of my 18 month old son is miserably with a phone (iPhone 4S and Nexus 4). The kid just moves too much. A DSLR, even in Auto mode, makes it far easier to capture what he is doing.

But this dude's photos suck.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com