p.2 #2 · Stephanie in swimsuits (a7iii and iPhone 13 Pro)
RustyBug wrote:
Yeah, I look past them also take in the "whole" of an image. But, I often feel compelled to share with our fellow FM'ers ... "in case" it might be something meaningful to them. It's not meant to be negative, just observant.
I've learned long ago, that I can always "print small" to cover a LOT of my own technical imperfections.
p.2 #4 · Stephanie in swimsuits (a7iii and iPhone 13 Pro)
brad-man wrote:
Let's face it, she'll make any camera look good.
Yeah...I have to agree. Which camera was being used was not the first thing that came to mind when I opened this post. Great looking model and great job photographing her.
p.2 #5 · Stephanie in swimsuits (a7iii and iPhone 13 Pro)
RustyBug wrote:
Yeah, I look past them also take in the "whole" of an image. But, I often feel compelled to share with our fellow FM'ers ... "in case" it might be something meaningful to them. It's not meant to be negative, just observant.
I've learned long ago, that I can always "print small" to cover a LOT of my own technical imperfections.
Oh I never even considered, or will imply, that anything was negative!
Dan
p.2 #7 · Stephanie in swimsuits (a7iii and iPhone 13 Pro)
She's such a knockout, I would be all thumbs trying to photograph her on an iPhone and likely drop it. The camera would be strapped to me so the camera wins out on that for me.
In terms of image quality, I'm looking at it on my MacBook pro laptop and even though I can see some issues here and there if I really look into the photo, I simply don't care. She makes you forget about everything else and that's what happens when you have a great model coupled with great work by the photographer.
p.2 #8 · Stephanie in swimsuits (a7iii and iPhone 13 Pro)
A few things..
1. This is to sell the swimsuit. Pretty sure the pixel peeping some are doing matters zero to how it will be used.
b. Not being funny here - but if you are billing for the job, I can see some clients feeling that if you are using a phone, just like the one they have, that perhaps they should pay you less? I know it's the result that matters and they are paying you for your skill/experience, but that 'mental block' can still be there.
p.2 #9 · Stephanie in swimsuits (a7iii and iPhone 13 Pro)
Desmolicious wrote:
b. Not being funny here - but if you are billing for the job, I can see some clients feeling that if you are using a phone, just like the one they have, that perhaps they should pay you less? I know it's the result that matters and they are paying you for your skill/experience, but that 'mental block' can still be there.
I never get this way of thinking. Lots of clients have mirrorless cameras as well. Can they take the same photo you can just because they own the same camera you do? If the answer is yes, then they dont need you. We all know that photography is about MUCH more than the camera used. an iPhone in the hands of a professional photographer will yield far greater results than one in the hand of an average person who has no experience with lighting, composition, working with models etc...Just because you have the same ingredients as a chef doesnt mean you can prepare a meal like they can. If I ever had a client question the camera I chose to use, I would just shrug, tell them to do it themselves and leave. Luckily thats never happened in the 17 years Ive been shooting professionally.
By the way, both the client and the model ended up preferring the iPhone shots in almost every outfit.
p.2 #10 · Stephanie in swimsuits (a7iii and iPhone 13 Pro)
Dexter75 wrote:
I never get this way of thinking. Lots of clients have mirrorless cameras as well. Can they take the same photo you can just because they own the same camera you do? If the answer is yes, then they dont need you. We all know that photography is about MUCH more than the camera used. an iPhone in the hands of a professional photographer will yield far greater results than one in the hand of an average person who has no experience with lighting, composition, working with models etc...Just because you have the same ingredients as a chef doesnt mean you can prepare a meal like they can. If I ever had a client question the camera I chose to use, I would just shrug, tell them to do it themselves and leave. Luckily thats never happened in the 17 years Ive been shooting professionally.
By the way, both the client and the model ended up preferring the iPhone shots in almost every outfit. ...Show more →
I don't disagree with what you are saying. Or am criticizing your work. It's just that, yes some people have pro gear (whatever that means), but everyone has an iphone/smartphone. And it has nothing to with the ability of the photographer, just the perception of the lay person.
Frankly, it's why some amateurs buy pro gear - many want to emulate pros. But if the avg person already has that 'pro gear' in his/her pocket with their phone, it will be a tough sell for many working photogs going forward.
p.s. mentioning your client and model preferred the phone pics is something that in passing I addressed with my first point, where people on this site were addressing 'flaws' in the technical quality of those pics. I said it did not matter, because it doesn't!
p.2 #11 · Stephanie in swimsuits (a7iii and iPhone 13 Pro)
Desmolicious wrote:
I don't disagree with what you are saying. Or am criticizing your work. It's just that, yes some people have pro gear (whatever that means), but everyone has an iphone/smartphone. And it has nothing to with the ability of the photographer, just the perception of the lay person.
Frankly, it's why some amateurs buy pro gear - many want to emulate pros. But if the avg person already has that 'pro gear' in his/her pocket with their phone, it will be a tough sell for many working photogs going forward.
p.s. mentioning your client and model preferred the phone pics is something that in passing I addressed with my first point, where people on this site were addressing 'flaws' in the technical quality of those pics. I said it did not matter, because it doesn't! ...Show more →
Good points and yes, more businesses are increasingly using only their phones and/or tables for what they do. iPhone photos look great when viewed on social media or product websites on iPhones and tablets. I just traded my a73 for an a7R3 which is complete overkill for 95% of my work these days, but there are times when the extra resolution will come in handy.
p.2 #12 · Stephanie in swimsuits (a7iii and iPhone 13 Pro)
brad-man wrote:
Let's face it, she'll make any camera look good.
Yeah hard to argue with that!
I'd also add that some flash systems (e.g., Profoto) allow for flash triggering using iPhones, so that expands the capability of smartphones even further. A decade from now, I suspect the use cases for dedicated cameras will be incredibly narrow, with most of the world's photography (including a lot of professional photography) migrating to the smartphone camera that "you always have with you."
p.2 #14 · Stephanie in swimsuits (a7iii and iPhone 13 Pro)
Arka wrote:
Yeah hard to argue with that!
I'd also add that some flash systems (e.g., Profoto) allow for flash triggering using iPhones, so that expands the capability of smartphones even further. A decade from now, I suspect the use cases for dedicated cameras will be incredibly narrow, with most of the world's photography (including a lot of professional photography) migrating to the smartphone camera that "you always have with you."
And having seen some of the computational, defocusing / bokeh stuff that's already available ... yup, 10 years from now will be quite a different tool from when the first camera phone arrived on the scene.
p.2 #15 · Stephanie in swimsuits (a7iii and iPhone 13 Pro)
Desmolicious wrote:
A few things..
1. This is to sell the swimsuit. Pretty sure the pixel peeping some are doing matters zero to how it will be used.
b. Not being funny here - but if you are billing for the job, I can see some clients feeling that if you are using a phone, just like the one they have, that perhaps they should pay you less? I know it's the result that matters and they are paying you for your skill/experience, but that 'mental block' can still be there.
+1 Sell
I think that point #1 is the point of the pixel peep actually. If it is going to be used in a commercial application ... there may be others in the commercial world that will also peep. The main point of bringing it to the attention of the OP was so that the OP doesn't get "embarrased" by an AD looking at it and thinking that the OP sent them junk that they can't use due to the technical aspects ... even if it "doesn't matter" ... sometimes it does. Just depends on who that someone is.
If I (and others) could see it readily here ... then it's very likely that an AD, etc. could see it too. The reality is that how it is going to be used in the future, is a bit unkown at this juncture. Sure, you might think it's going to be just social media (for now), but ya never know.
To that point, as long as the OP doesn't have it on his end, then he's golden. But, the attention given to it (the OP being a pro) was to ensure that the OP didn't have an "oooops" happen to sully his good reputation over something that truly wasn't that hard to see as it was posted. So, if you're posting things to garner marketing attention, etc. if the same issue wouldn't reveal itself to a potential decision maker in the commercial world.
Truly, the intent / spirit of the mention was so the OP wouldn't have a professional embarrassment occur.
For folks looking at pretty girls, and pretty girls looking at swimsuits ... the emotional impact matters more than the technical ... no doubt. But, if presented to an AD, etc. ... such a notable technical artifact can invoke a similar "mental block" as was mentioned about a client thinking less $$$ because of the gear (which we all know), rather than the talent handling the gear. As it turns out, it seems that there is an underlying issue going on in the OP's workflow ... TBD. As a professional, he likely doesn't want such an issue revealing itself with his name on it.
Someone may crop in on these exploring a potential "detail" shot. Better (imo) to learn of it here, now ... than while working with an AD, later.
My entire point for mentioning, was for the benefit of the OP, as a fellow FM'er, to ward off any potential professional / commercial hazard those artifacts might present.
Of course, it's always the messenger that gets shot.
p.2 #17 · Stephanie in swimsuits (a7iii and iPhone 13 Pro)
nugeny wrote:
My photography is wildlife and landscape, but I have the feeling that this beautiful lady deserves a better photographer and a better camera.
You would think that as an FMer, but my wife always want me to take her picture with the beauty app on her Pixel phone. She's like put that portrait lens and full frame camera away please. I look better this way.
p.2 #20 · Stephanie in swimsuits (a7iii and iPhone 13 Pro)
Thanks for sharing! IMHO, first one's bokeh is not that pleasing, compared to the 2nd one. Can be easily told the 3rd one is from Iphone (by a 1080p monitor), even before exploring the weird "bokeh transition" that her hair were blurred.
And I am glad after reading the exif, the first one is the tamron, the 2nd is from the 85 prime. The bokeh got to be better with the prime...
However, the young lady is "best-looking" in the third. A lot of time, it is not that helpful to capture all the detail and micro contrast from the pro-camera.
if the same issue wouldn't reveal itself to a potential decision maker in the commercial world.