I’m not much for fads. It’s just my preference to stay with tradition…more or less. I’ll take advantage of technology alright but a lot of what folks are doing now is fine for them, but in most cases I’ll pass. I’m more of a morning person, so no milky way shots despite their beauty and no in camera motion despite their abstract appeal. I love what other folks are doing but it’s for them and not me.
Generally, I am not going crazy for iphonography either. But every once in a while I’ll grab a shot. Yesterday morning I was doing some long exposures…you got me-I’m going with that fad…of the Quabbin at dawn. I was in the middle of 8 minutes…4 of exposure and 4 of noise reduction…when I noticed the light over Quabbin Hill. Since most of the 8 minutes remained, the phone came out and did its thing along with the Snapseed app from Nik/Google.
So as soon as the big camera was done, I recomposed for this scene and got off a shot.
Of course, after 8 or so minutes the light had changed. As well, I had the Big Stopper (10 stops of Neutral Density) and a polarizer on board too. So the difference is a combination of things as the polarizer and long exposure affect the color and, of course, the texture or lack thereof in the water. Each has its charms. The second from the 5D Mark II shows the tower more clearly and the tree line is better defined as well as the clouds are somewhat more interesting. But the phone image has more warmth for sure.
Do you have a preference or is each able to stand on its own for you?