Smartphone Editing versus Big Screen Editing AND Focus on Photography, or elsewhere

[Skygod44]

Simon.
Love “JPWB” threads. They make us think and reflect.
Keep them coming.
When using the iPhone for a quick pic, I’ll straighten, yes I’m anal, and crop if needed. That’s it.
However the “real stuff” is Recorded Separately” to both the CF and SD cards on my Mark III.
Images Imported into Lightroom through DATE, YYYY MM DD and Description. Once the “Duds” are tossed I then rename the ones that are left with DATE format applied-0001 - 0447 for example
If any HDR images need to be created go at it.
Once all done, then I will go into DEVELOP Module.
My iMac 27” is Calibrated Monthly with a SpyderX PRO to 6500K
My “Lightroom Lounge” Basement has 8 Canless LED Lights set at 6500K with dimmers.
A Bright White Sterile Surgiacal Lab with Gray walls. Floor trimming is pure white when all 8 Lights are on.
Switching to 5000K to 2800K and the trim gets warmer as expected.
When Developing, Room has LED Lights set at 3 ZONES so all 8, 4 or two lights at far end can be turned on too as needed. Zone at far end of room from iMac is dimmed at a fixed low amount to eliminate a Black room with only monitor light source.
My work space is illuminated with a BenQ Screen Bar Plus set as you guessed it, 6500 K and set to a specific brightness level to illuminate me, my desk but not my monitor as there is no glare from Light or any light source.
“Developing in the Lightroom Lounge” can now begin.
Starting with WB and all that is available in Lightroom Classic, I know my images will will be printed exactly as I see on Screen through the Lightroom “Print” Module as Canon PRO-300 and ICC Profiles are used accordingly.
Being able to Print confirms all of Brightness, color, WB etc are applied correctly…… yes I’m Anal…..
Soooooo when in Europe or soon to be near you in Japan. All of my Images are on both cards, yes multiples as well waiting the turn to capture, sit on the cards until arrival at home and Then the Import Process can begin correctly at that time.
For me flow, no reason to Jump the Gun, and upload in to an iPAD as its in not calibrated to multiple environments.
So for me, Patience allows me to start off right in my “Lightroom Lounge” knowing that the Output, the Print is SPOT ON!
Being ANAL has its advantages……
My family may disagree…….

@Nick5
That is mindbogglingly impressive.
I really hope you are being paid a lot of money for every single photo you produce, be it digital or printed!

As I said up there ↑↑↑↑↑↑ somewhere, for me, time = money (when it comes to making huge effort in the editing and final production stages of photography), so now that I'm effectively "retired" from the business side, I won't even open my computer unless I have to.

As an aside, Missus Skygod mk3 thinks I'm anal (as well as quite a few other things, which would be censored within FoP ), but Nick, you put me into the shadows.

Cheers for now,
Simon

 

[slpollett]

I enjoyed reading through this thread. Definitely a lot of little things to think about.

I take a lot of pictures on my cell phone because I always have it with me. I don't always lug around my heavy camera equipment. I will do light editing on my cell phone (cropping & straightening). Sometimes I will even add a filter or preset, but usually I don't like the way that turns out so I undo that filter.

I use Lightroom on a desktop to do the majority of my heavy lifting--mainly because my cell phone screen is smaller and it's easier to work the controls on the desktop. I do have some presets that I have found I really like, but I rarely use them exactly the way they apply to an image. I usually go back and tweak the settings that the preset changed--such as removing the vignette, reducing the adjustment to contrast or shadows, or lessening the saturation to something that looks more natural.

Thanks for an interesting thread.

Sherry

 

[Greyswan]

Lol. I know I sound like an old fuddy duddy, well, of course I am, but I just learned to use the camera on my phone recently. I only use it when I have nothing.

Have to add I am somewhat biased as in my graphic design days I was sent many a product photo from the factories, taken on a smart phone, and the quality was so abysmal that I ended up having to pretty much redraw the product. Hated the graininess and lack of sharpness.
I know phones have gotten much better with more MP. but I don't think you can get past the actual physics of having a tiny lens that distorts and is then corrected and adjusted automatically. Unless it's just going up on socials I don't think it's worth editing those pics. Although sometimes you might get a nice image like the scarecrow posted here. But I would not bother with phone apps either as I think they are too limiting in so many ways.

I guess I'm a phone snob. Sorry not sorry!

 

[Wilt]

I know phones have gotten much better with more MP. but I don't think you can get past the actual physics of having a tiny lens that distorts and is then corrected and adjusted automatically. Unless it's just going up on socials I don't think it's worth editing those pics. Although sometimes you might get a nice image like the scarecrow posted here. But I would not bother with phone apps either as I think they are too limiting in so many ways.

I guess I'm a phone snob. Sorry not sorry!

No snobbery. So many smartphone shooters are ignorant to the fact that their default FL is a very Wide Angle FL that results in perspective distortion of the subject.
Who would choose a distorted portrait of themselves by a pro, yet they accept the distorted faces of a selfie...probably because the selfie makes their face look slimmer than realtiy!

The FL series by Steven Eastwood very clearly shows the facial distortion of induced perspective distortion using FL extremes' shooting distances (vs. the shots taken with 85-135mm on 135 format)

 

[Skygod44]

I enjoyed reading through this thread. Definitely a lot of little things to think about.

@slpollett
Thanks Sherry...
That's exactly the idea.

I take a lot of pictures on my cell phone because I always have it with me. I don't always lug around my heavy camera equipment.

I'm the opposite: I almost never take photos with my smartphone.
And I do carry a camera and four lenses all the time.
But after I sold all my Canon gear, I moved to the Olympus micro 4/3 cameras, so a body + 18mm, 35mm, 90mm primes ("Full Frame" equiv.) and 120mm macro, wallet, smartphone, keys, etc. all fit in a small shoulder bag.

I will do light editing on my cell phone (cropping & straightening). Sometimes I will even add a filter or preset, but usually I don't like the way that turns out so I undo that filter.

Yes. Filters are pretty bad, imho. People addicted to Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, etc. and those who have, rather cleverly made a fortune using Social Media, love the speed and don't care/maybe "prefer" the fakery of filters, compared to real life.
The psychological issues with that fill many volumes of academic literature...
...so let's not go there.

I use Lightroom on a desktop to do the majority of my heavy lifting--mainly because my cell phone screen is smaller and it's easier to work the controls on the desktop.

Yep! Size is important.
I have a touch-pen to use with my smartphone. So I can be very accurate.
And when video editing on my twin-monitor Monster PC, I use a Wacom tablet and pen, instead of a mouse...
...because it's far better.
But as I said earlier in the thread, I can edit on my smartphone, and then compare that edit via my PC with many images uploaded by members in here, and not see enough/any difference in quality.

I do have some presets that I have found I really like, but I rarely use them exactly the way they apply to an image. I usually go back and tweak the settings that the preset changed--such as removing the vignette, reducing the adjustment to contrast or shadows, or lessening the saturation to something that looks more natural.

Thanks for an interesting thread.

Sherry

Thanks again, Sherry.

And I'll stress again, that this thread - like many of mine - is to stimulate discussion and thought, development, and understanding.

If I ever do a paid shoot, I will 100% use my PC to edit the photos.

But people here in Japan have become blasé about professional photography, and don't want to pay...
...which were major factors in why I stopped trying to swim upstream.

But if folks obsess over editing, want/have to edit, or enjoy editing on a PC, that's fine and dandy.

Cheers for now,
Simon

 

[Capn Jack]

No snobbery. So many smartphone shooters are ignorant to the fact that their default FL is a very Wide Angle FL that results in perspective distortion of the subject.
Who would choose a distorted portrait of themselves by a pro, yet they accept the distorted faces of a selfie...probably because the selfie makes their face look slimmer than realtiy!

The FL series by Steven Eastwood very clearly shows the facial distortion of induced perspective distortion using FL extremes' shooting distances (vs. the shots taken with 85-135mm on 135 format)

That depends on the lens used. Modern cell phones use several lenses based on the front or back of the camera, and the amount of zoom used. They also commonly use multiple cameras.

Multi-camera smartphones: Benefits and challenges

With the growing importance of camera performance to smartphone makers and users, manufacturers have worked hard to add features and to improve image quality. However, users also want thin phones, which greatly limits the size of the individual camera modules that can be used. The small...

www.dxomark.com

 

[Skygod44]

No snobbery. So many smartphone shooters are ignorant to the fact that their default FL is a very Wide Angle FL that results in perspective distortion of the subject.
Who would choose a distorted portrait of themselves by a pro, yet they accept the distorted faces of a selfie...probably because the selfie makes their face look slimmer than realtiy!

The FL series by Steven Eastwood very clearly shows the facial distortion of induced perspective distortion using FL extremes' shooting distances (vs. the shots taken with 85-135mm on 135 format)

@Wilt
Well, I'm a bit dumbfounded today...

I officiated at a wedding this morning, and this thread (and the replies herein) got me thinking I could ask the wedding dress people, and the flowers people about the shots they take, because they always seem to snap away with smartphones...

And their answers?
1) 100% smartphone photos only - never use a proper camera, during "trying on the dress"/bouquet shots, rehearsals and the actual weddings.

2) Only do cropping if absolutely necessary, on their smartphones.

3) Always upload images to Instagram and other social media accounts.

I also cheekily asked their fees/profit, because I've known them all for over a decade...and it was me, who was asking ...
...to cut a long story short, the wedding dress/groom's suits company makes almost ½ million dollars/year profit, and the flower company, because they also do funerals etc. makes "more than that", net profit.

I think this, as merely a couple of examples shows how the world is moving onwards with "good enough, is exactly that".

Cheers for now,
Simon

 

[Nick5]

@Wilt
Well, I'm a bit dumbfounded today...

I officiated at a wedding this morning, and this thread (and the replies herein) got me thinking I could ask the wedding dress people, and the flowers people about the shots they take, because they always seem to snap away with smartphones...

And their answers?
1) 100% smartphone photos only - never use a proper camera, during "trying on the dress"/bouquet shots, rehearsals and the actual weddings.

2) Only do cropping if absolutely necessary, on their smartphones.

3) Always upload images to Instagram and other social media accounts.

I also cheekily asked their fees/profit, because I've known them all for over a decade...and it was me, who was asking ...
...to cut a long story short, the wedding dress/groom's suits company makes almost ½ million dollars/year profit, and the flower company, because they also do funerals etc. makes "more than that", net profit.

I think this, as merely a couple of examples shows how the world is moving onwards with "good enough, is exactly that".

Cheers for now,
Simon

As my friend in the industry said now fourteen years ago. “Facebook is the ruination of photography. People are conditioned to look at slop.”……

 

[Greyswan]

No snobbery. So many smartphone shooters are ignorant to the fact that their default FL is a very Wide Angle FL that results in perspective distortion of the subject.
Who would choose a distorted portrait of themselves by a pro, yet they accept the distorted faces of a selfie...probably because the selfie makes their face look slimmer than realtiy!

The FL series by Steven Eastwood very clearly shows the facial distortion of induced perspective distortion using FL extremes' shooting distances (vs. the shots taken with 85-135mm on 135 format)

So much this. I find it hilarious with some of the youtubers with no ears and big noses - they don't seem to understand how much their faces are distorted. Some of them look freaky.

Funnily enough, I just had cataract surgery on both eyes recently, opted for distance vision after being highly myopic all my life (read: blind as a bat!). So my lenses were the classic coke-bottle lenses. I had always thought of myself as rather svelte for my age. When I got the new eyes, suddenly my face shows as a lot wider (and the body as well!) than I thought. My coke-bottle lenses had the same effect as a 16mm lens on my proportions, as seen from the inside, time to diet...

So even our personal view of how we look is an illusion...

 

[Wilt]

So even our personal view of how we look is an illusion...

Yes, we each only know ourselves as a MIRROR image, and that is not at all how we actually look!
which one is the famous President?

 

[Wilt]

I think this, as merely a couple of examples shows how the world is moving onwards with "good enough, is exactly that".

Yes, folks settling for MP-3 audio quality from players with 2" speakers, rather than CD sound from full range speakers with 8-10" bass drivers ofers proved that point decades ago

 

[Skygod44]

Yes, folks setting for MP-3 audio quality from players with 2" speakers, rather than CD sound from full range speakers with 8-10" bass drivers ofers proved that point decades ago

@Wilt
I could be wrong (and often am ) but don't CDs have a problem with, in particular, high-tone reproduction?

I've heard the argument that human ears only go up to a certain level of kilohertz, and CDs surpass that.
But I've done the comparisons myself, and could easily hear tonal cut-off, when compared directly with a vinyl LP of the same piece of music.

Or maybe I'm actually a bat?

But my genetics aside, there's a huge tranche of Japanese who insist on going to live concerts, for every conceivable genre of music...
...so maybe there's hope yet!

Simon

 

[Wilt]

@Wilt
I could be wrong (and often am ) but don't CDs have a problem with, in particular, high-tone reproduction?

I've heard the argument that human ears only go up to a certain level of kilohertz, and CDs surpass that.
But I've done the comparisons myself, and could easily hear tonal cut-off, when compared directly with a vinyl LP of the same piece of music.

Or maybe I'm actually a bat?

But my genetics aside, there's a huge tranche of Japanese who insist on going to live concerts, for every conceivable genre of music...
...so maybe there's hope yet!

Simon

CDs have the best high frequency audible reproduction

• AM radio highest is about 5000 Hz
• MP-3 highest is typically about 16Hz
• LP highest is typically about 18kHz
• FM radio highest is about typically 20kHz
• CD highest is about 22kHz

Human hearing is typically considered to top out at 20kHz

 

[Skygod44]

CDs share the best high frequency audible reproduction

• AM radio highest is about 5000 Hz
• MP-3 highest is typically about 16Hz
• LP highest is typically about 18kHz
• FM radio highest is about typically 20kHz
• CD highest is about 22kHz

Human hearing is typically considered to top out at 20kHz

That sounds [sic] likely...
...which means there must be/could be something about analogue (vinyl) sound reproduction versus digital (CD, MP-3, etc).
Maybe along the same lines as film grain versus digital noise?

I don't honestly know, but I expect AI will work out exactly how to convert digital noise into "pleasing film grain" by the end of the decade.
If not sooner.

Cheers for now,
Simon

 

[Nick5]

I hooked up my old “Stereo” in my Lightroom Lounge last year.
The Sony CD 302 II single platter is still going strong. (1986)
The Luxman Receiver could use an upgrade down the road with one that has blue tooth. (1988)
The Polk 2 Way Speakers still sound great. (2002)
Now grab the bin of CD’s

 

[Greyswan]

Yes, we each only know ourselves as a MIRROR image, and that is not at all how we actually look!
which one is the famous President?

Probably why I hate photos of myself. I think there are three in existence.

 

[Greyswan]

@Wilt
I could be wrong (and often am ) but don't CDs have a problem with, in particular, high-tone reproduction?

I've heard the argument that human ears only go up to a certain level of kilohertz, and CDs surpass that.
But I've done the comparisons myself, and could easily hear tonal cut-off, when compared directly with a vinyl LP of the same piece of music.

Or maybe I'm actually a bat?

But my genetics aside, there's a huge tranche of Japanese who insist on going to live concerts, for every conceivable genre of music...
...so maybe there's hope yet!

Simon

I had many records before the cd era. And I much preferred the LPs they are somehow more...soft to the ear, more nuanced with the notes.I can't explain what I mean. There's a lot of ambient sound from the instruments that is cleaned up from cds and digital music, I guess it's similar to jpegs and RAWS, in that a lot of detail is tossed when processed.
I have extremely sharp hearing when I was young, slightly less so now but not much. That may play into my sensitivity to false notes, which I will hear before anyone else notices. Sadly, many of the more famous singers have a lot of flase notes in their repertoires.

 

[Skygod44]

@Greyswan
I think you're onto something...
"soft to the ear"
Yes.

I've no intention of doing the research , but I think "analogue sound & sight" work better with our analogue bodies.

Cheers for now,
Simon

 

[Nick5]

I’m the opposite when it comes to LP vs. CD.
Early on my CD collection consisted of my old LP’s.
First no cleaning the old records and no pops and crackles.
Also loved in quiet passages in say a piano solo and band about to reenter and the drummer engages the snares…..
Plus the Brush strokes.
Safe to say I’m a CD guy.

 

[Joedlh]

I'm JOMO.

And enjoying it very much. Perhaps my brain produces enough dopamine to keep me high.

I have a smartphone, but I view it as a necessary evil. I only use the camera when I need a record of something. Like the phone number on a service tag for a fire extinguisher, which I have been seeking for months so that I can recharge my fire extinguishers.

I print or display photos large. So I think I'll miss something if I edit on a tiny screen. Plus the tiny lens and sensor of a smartphone have some optical characteristics that do not please me.

Talking about things that drive you nuts. I can't stand it when there's something on the news that clearly calls for a landscape format and all they could get were vertical shots taken by numbnuts holding their phones aloft.