[lambdasquirrel]

I think the reality is that most people who were doing photography don’t need what ILCs offer. I was talking to a sweet old lady on one of the last days I was in California. She was showing me some of her work, and TBH, small-aperture landscape / portrait photos that are to be viewed on a smartphone don’t need to be taken on an ILC. Even bokeh can be hacked for a base class of photos.

To put it in another way, ILCs were bought because saw people had to buy them, back in the day. If you wanted anything that wasn’t potato-quality, you needed an ILC.

A lot of photography was enjoyed as an accessible art. It was about being able to capture things. You don’t strictly need an ILC for that, and I think photography will evolve and adapt in that regard. There will still be a market for folks who e.g. need aperture or shutter control, simply because of market segmentation reasons. As an art-art, photography will be about being able to see things differently, and for that reason, there will be people drawn back to the knobs, switches, and lenses that ILCs offer. Some folks will say it’s about the bokeh, or the low-light, or whatever, but it was always about being able to see differently than what other cameras could see, or even what the human eye can “see.”

To which end, the marketing spin is just that. We shouldn’t discount creative folks being able to see differently with a smartphone. It’s just that there are shots that you won’t get be able to take with a small-aperture fixed lens on a smartphone sensor.

(This, and of course, applications where the bleeding edge of image quality matters.)

[twoWhlsGud]

I used to think that, but the more I take pictures with my phone the more I disagree. My iPhone is very very good at taking iPhone pictures. That is to say all the places and people I take pictures of with my phone look the same. It's a lovely seductive sameness, don't get me wrong. But my phone "knows" what pictures it wants to take and takes them. It needs me less and less.

I don't think we're all that far away from having some sort of always on camera that cuts us as directors out of the "picture" entirely.

Eventually, your phone equivalent will tell you and your friends where to stand, what to do and what to say to get the most out of the location, people and activities you have at your disposal. You won't have any choice (unless you are in that small group that is effectively allowed to self direct your own videos for Tikstagram) if you want to be competitive at projecting a successful image.

Great for the folks shoveling content around, but maybe not what you want if you are trying to develop an individual vision.

That said for a quick snap where I'm just trying to document something my iPhone is awfully handy ; )

[RcouF1uZ4gsC]

I actually think cameras in general take photos that look the same.

Painting on the other hand, that has individuality. The different pigments and brushes and brush strokes in the painting, that gives a sense of uniqueness.

In addition, you are more free to position people in paintings than with photographs.

Cameras are great for the folks shoveling content around, but maybe not what you want if you are trying to develop an individual vision.