Here is a picture from Device #1:
Here is a picture from Device #2:
Which camera takes the better picture, Device #1 or 2? Tomorrow I'll name the devices used.
Wednesday, January 11, 2017
Which of These Cameras Takes a Better Picture?
I'm hoping you can help me here. I'm a lousy photographer, but am aware of the power that pictures have in a story. Yesterday, at Willie Reynolds' Bethlehem 2017 presentation, I took pictures using two different devices.
Here is a picture from Device #1:
Here is a picture from Device #2:
Which camera takes the better picture, Device #1 or 2? Tomorrow I'll name the devices used.
Here is a picture from Device #1:
Here is a picture from Device #2:
Which camera takes the better picture, Device #1 or 2? Tomorrow I'll name the devices used.
18 comments:
You own views are appreciated, especially if they differ from mine. But remember, commenting is a privilege, not a right. I will delete personal attacks or off-topic remarks at my discretion. Comments that play into the tribalism that has consumed this nation will be declined. So will comments alleging voter fraud unless backed up by concrete evidence. If you attack someone personally, I expect you to identify yourself. I will delete criticisms of my comment policy, vulgarities, cut-and-paste jobs from other sources and any suggestion of violence towards anyone. I will also delete sweeping generalizations about mainstream parties or ideologies, i.e. identity politics. My decisions on these matters are made on a case by case basis, and may be affected by my mood that day, my access to the blog at the time the comment was made or other information that isn’t readily apparent.
#1
ReplyDeleteWillie looks like a celestial being in #1.
ReplyDeleteCould make a better choice if photos were exactly the same from each device, i.e., lighting, angle, framing, etc.
ReplyDeleteA photographer's work is no better than his subject. In this case, you had very little to work with.
ReplyDeletea little hard to judge when one photo used a flash and the other didn't.
ReplyDelete#2
ReplyDelete#2 it has more content.
ReplyDeleteThe only pictures really worth publishing are the ones that can get you Harassed/stalked/killed...Journalistically speaking.
Mr O'Hare.
ReplyDeleteThe quality of the photograph usually has a relationship to the quality of the camera. Today, most digital cameras have many automatic features to correct lighting and other issues. Straying off the automatic settings will generate photos like you presented. I don't recommend doing that unless you're a professional. :)
#1 was with flash and that usually results in the bright foreground/dark background look you got.
ReplyDelete#2 without flash was more natural but was washed-out colorwise, out of focus and lacks contrast. If it was taken with a phone, you need to click on the subject area before hitting the button (focuses and sets exposure better) and, if your phone has it, enable HDR (which takes quick multiple images and merges them into one final, better photo). Knowing the lighting in Town Hall, a recent cellphone camera should have had enough light sensitivity to get a decent non-flash image without resorting to a DSLR camera.
#1 has a halo surrounding Willies head. He is truly saintly.
ReplyDelete#2 is just as bad.
Maybe, just maybe, the photographer is awful at taking pictures. We can't compare apples and oranges and come up with plums.
#2 Hands down
ReplyDeleteBernie,
ReplyDeleteLooking at the articles on a handheld the man with no hair looks to have a head full of clown coloured redd!
Did you do a funny pix here and if not this would make for more entertaining articles.
A few points. I wish I could have taken the photo with both devices from the same angle, but was unable bc Willie was moving around. Though he does look like a celestial being in #1, he is indeed from this earth. Automatic settings were used for both pics,and that includes the flash. Bethlehem's Town Hall is a terrible place to take pictures.
ReplyDelete#1 was a Canon EOS Rebel T3, a low-end DSLR camera.
#2 was the camera on a iPhone 7.
Thanks very much to one and all for your opinions. Please feel free if you have more. I am not a very good photographer, so what I do is take lots and hope one or two are good.
"Maybe, just maybe, the photographer is awful at taking pictures. We can't compare apples and oranges and come up with plums."
ReplyDeleteThat part is a given. Good photographers like Dana Grubb or MM have an artistic eye that I simply lack. In the years that I have been using cameras, the only good ones I've taken have been completely by accident or bc the subjects were stunningly beautiful. ... Like John Stoffa.
Ask Willie which one makes him look better and run with that! :)
ReplyDeleteBernie, I shoot exclusively with an iPhone 7 (Plus). The plus gives you 2x optical zoom. For your purposes, the 7 is fine. It's small, easy to hold, and the quality of the images over time is stupendous. You'd have the same good effects with a Google Pixel, considered to have as good a sensor or perhaps better than the 7/7 Plus. PM me or give me a buzz if you'd like to see the easy and free apps I use.
ReplyDeleteBernie - I have a Cannon Rebel. I took 2 classes at Dans Photo. Far from an expert, but there are a couple of settings that I use now. I think the classes were like 20, maybe 40 bucks each. Worth the cost. However, the iphone7 photo looked good.......
ReplyDeleteThanks. I am going to sign up for the classes.
ReplyDelete