Photography and phone-photography

I had a little discussion with an enthusiast on how the public perceives that mobile phones have killed digital cameras.
Then the discussion turned to what is photography...
I wrote:
Once a person acquires a phone with a camera (pretty much any current offering) he/she becomes a photographer. I don't know anybody that has not taken an image on their phone, or others', myself included (I regard phones as phones, not as cameras!).
Then comes the difference: are we just happy recording and sharing or are we driven by the desire to create unique art, with little to no intention to record an event/place for memory/history sake?
I think the latter might be better served by a tool that is dedicated to create images versus a multitasking tool that acts primarily as a mobile phone and happens to have a lens in-built too. While incredible (yes, I use the right word: hard to believe) work has been created on the iPhone (great marketing from them) I just can't bring myself to get in the frame of mind to create something photographically that doesn't make me wish I had a better tool.
Documenting is no longer my priority...


adapted Helios 44-7 58mm f2  1/1600sec

Semantically anybody that makes images is a photographer but I distinguish between mere recording and consciously be driven by the passion to create an image. Occasionally I am just recording but it doesn't feel right; I am more in tune with myself when I "create".
Any camera however is just a tool, although the line blurs sometimes when I hear people defending their choices like it's religion ;-)
So, if it's a tool, I view the phone as a multi-tool affair with screwdriver, pliers, wrench cutting blade and god-knows-what else in one place. A dedicated camera (ideally with interchangeable lenses) is to me a finely tuned job-specific tool.
I know which one I prefer if I want to find pleasure and satisfaction in doing the task hoping for a decent result.

.

Social isolation

I saw this image of original artwork from a gallery: some found it funny but it actually made me sad.

On a recent Sunday, a beautiful sunny day, I walked around my city's urban park; it was crowded with families and (real, not virtual) friends, some were in groups.

But there was a disturbing trend: I rarely saw direct interaction...

adapted Cosmicar 50mm f1.4   1/160sec

Are we too driven by social media to actually be social?

.

Micro Four Thirds day

Apparently the 03APR is international Micro Four Thirds day.
Kind of ironic to use that day as it seems a very small percentage of the world refers to the 3rd of April by writing the date with the month first followed by the day... anyway I wanted to stretch my imagination and use an use my camera to celebrate such date.
I have switched to Micro Four Thirds about 2 years ago and so far is the only system that is good enough for me.
Minolta, Nikon, Leica and Hasselblad that I have/still do own don't come close to what I can create with my diminutive Olympus mirrorless.
While the Hasselblad was close in image quality (resolution) to my current sharp lenses, my images were lacking quality (creativity).
The ability to take a small camera to more places than a large DSLR is noted. I would never be able to go on extended remote trips with a large camera system: I just would't have the space or the strength to schlep all that weight.

In a city I don't stand out and I am barely noticed with my small camera that looks like something from the point-and-shoot of film days. People don't freeze up and become self conscious when I fiddle with my swivel screen viewfinder unaware that I am actually taking a candid image of them. I look more like a tourist than a photographer :-)

There are so many more advantages for me to use a smaller camera and since the sharpness and results way exceed my expectations I see no point in the so-called "upgrading" to something a bit more... professional?  I am have been there: professional is a hype created by the lack of skills where I thought having the ultimate tool will lead to better images. How fool of me to think that: the professional cameras I used did nothing to my skills and imagination. Freedom of movement, ability to play unrestricted has however changed the way I create images.

So on the 03APR I went out and took a lot of images. But the one I like the best comes from a refitted lens from an old 110-film pocket camera, placed it in a PVC fitting.
Happy Micro Four Third day.


refitted 26mm f2 from a Canon 110ED

.

Authenticity

A photograph isn’t necessarily a lie, but nor is it the truth. It’s more of a fleeting, subjective impression.   Martine Franck 

That pretty much sums up my view on the truth about photography.
I find that I can never capture the authenticity of a place for each of us has a different view of the world. What I feel in a particular place and moment that "moves" me might not match somebody else's feelings. ​


M.Zuiko 40-150 R   f5.6  1/350sec

The question often arises on what a "real" photograph is.
To some that like to profess themselves as purists, is an image that was created purely in camera.
I often read the defensive statement: "no Photoshop here!" where the author touts that the image is straight out of the camera (SOC).

But what is photographic reality? The two dimensional representation that we have become accustomed to call "un-manipulated image"?
Some call it photojournalism where not much has been done to an image after the shutter was pressed.
Occasionally I can work on images long enough (out-of-the-camera rarely does it for me) to bring back at least the view that I had in that moment.
But does it still count if the shutter was pressed more than once (multiple exposures), or if the shutter was open long enough to create images our eyes can not see?


swirly effect created by wind,  M.Zuiko 40-150mm R   f6.7  1/30sec

Little we know what the real story is behind an image: was it staged? is the clever cropping and isolation of subject making it appear something that is not? .... selective views can do tricks to our minds.
The scene of the image above of the little girl on the beach was selectively cropped; just out of the frame was a large group of people and a marquee. If I were to include those subject in the scene I would get a very different feel from that image.

How about a moment frozen in time that our vision can not capture? a shutter speed so fast or so slow that creates a view that is not "real" reality? I have never seen star trail with my naked eye...
Particular lenses create images that certainly are very different than the human eyes sight.


OOC: Meyer Optik Trioplan 50mm f2.9 1/1500sec

Cameras can see in the dark, can bring objects into view that our own eyes can not, create a mood that might no truly represent what I felt and saw at the time. A good article on the subject here.
And the future might totally change how photographs are made; here is just a snippet.

Should we instead pause and don't tout a holier-than-thou when in reality all we do is set different parameters to our reality, that is far from anything but.
A photograph will never ever be "real" (the purpose to represent reality) as it is to the author to interpret what the light created in that moment when the shutter was pressed.
I like to treat photographs as an artistic expression aided by light and form; anything else is open to interpretation.

"All photographs are accurate, none of them the truth" ~ Avedon

.