Oppenheimer was objectively wrong to use nixie tubes in the 1940s. I can't get over that. Sod the recording medium.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
'28 Years Later' to Be First Blockbuster Movie Shot on iPhone
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Oppenheimer was objectively wrong to use nixie tubes in the 1940s. I can't get over that. Sod the recording medium.
I guess if you don't understand photography as an art, you would say this.
I don't think people like Henri Cartier-Bresson would agree with you, I know I sure don't.
Dorothy Lang and Robert Cappa could take an amazing war torn photograph with film cameras that are way clunkier and harder to use than many of today's extremely easy to use "better" bottom level DSLR's. But all of that is irrelevant when its the quality of the photographer, not the camera that is the key.
So the equipment is what is important to you? Or at least 60% of it. I'd say it's time to skill up and use a more basic camera as a starting point. Maybe do a legitimate photography course, like a proper diploma and you might get there. Hang in there... Good vibes coming your way. 🙏
Thank you. Yes. No matter what that medium is. Emulsion based images and each of its formats (glass, cellulose, tin type) not to mention the different types of processes; Digital and its different resolutions and colour grading and qualities. Each is different and lends itself to an artists interpretation. To even suggest iPhone video isn’t one of those is completely naive and contrary to the entire principle of art.
You only have to look in the Synthesiser world to see that "more capable" does not mean better.
Marcel Duchamp and his Ready Mades proved his "Fountain" was very much in that theme that art can be from anything. He would have approved of the iPhone.
So, we can agree. Artists understand the medium AND are able to interpret its use to great effect. But you are suggesting this is the case for all except the iPhone? How So? Surely that’s an artistic decision, and no different to those choosing any other photographic medium.
Last edited:
This is exactly my point.
I am explicitly stating that the iPhone has different compromises to other cameras. And those compromises directly affect the output. And I identified one of the compromises.
And that some photographers emit the usual palavering to write off this point.
You think "Shot on iPhone" means made with some guy just holding up the phone? Not really... 
I'll stick with the claims I made above.
The strength of a photograph and its power to stimulate narrative and conjure a story in a viewer's mind comes from the photographer and his or her vision. And not the camera.
I've seen soooo many photographs, made with expensive cameras, that are technically perfect, but fall flat in their ability to communicate anything interesting to viewers. Resulting in photographs that say absolutely nothing. For those photographers, photography always seems to be about owning the best cameras/gear, with little interest in making strong photographs that communicate to viewers. Over, and over, and over.
I went through that phase looong ago, owning and using various film SLRs, an ARCA-SWISS F-Field 4x5, dSLRs, etc, and mirrorless cams that I still use today when the occasion calls for it. And of course iPhones.
When I come across photographers on the street or in other places, I always ask: "What do you shoot?"
If the answer is "I shoot with a Sony a7R V, a couple of Canon and Nikon dSLRs, etc." my response is usually, "That's great!" And I move on. Last thing I want to do is talk about gear and owning the best.
If instead the answer is something like, "I'm into photography projects, one of which is documenting how marginalized people get by living on the streets in San Jose." My response might be, "Tell me more, maybe over a beer. I'd like to tell you about my projects, and bounce a few ideas off you for my next one."
Sadly, for many, it's all about owning the best gear. Or their quest for someday owning it.
I'd much rather spend that money on photo books of photographers I admire and can learn from. Such as Richard Avedon, Robert Frank, Manuel Alvarez Bravo, Dorothea Lange, HCB, Diane Arbus, Hiroshi Sugimoto, Irving Penn, Cindy Sherman, Elliot Erwitt, Andre Kertesz, Garry Winogrand, Sally Mann, Greggory Crewdson, William Klein, and on and on. I learned about the art/craft of photography and making photographs by being inspired seeing their photographs. Not by owning great gear.
Last edited:
100% my view as well. Although, I am in Singapore after the F1 this weekend and when I walked past a Leica shop, my wife said, "not today" 😂
If they're smart.. not at all. If, for some reason, the phone does get too hot.. just swap out the camera in the rig. If their DP and grips were smart about their setups it would be a matter of seconds to do that and get going again.
If they were even smarter they'd just have something to cool the camera between takes/when not in use (just like how modern digital bodies run their fans when they're not rolling)
Exactly no different to all cameras. Whether it’s film, or digital, they all need maintenance between shoots.
People are just looking to troll on iPhones for some reason.
I don't disagree with you here at all.
I'll be a bit bitchy here. All art is plagiarism at this point of the human species, and it's really difficult to plagiarise the techniques of other artists when the tools aren't half as good as the ones they used despite assurances from the shiny tool vendor.
Well you can throw “crap glass” on any DSLR or mirrorless camera too, and sadly many do just that! Related, not all high end lenses are well suited for video use if I am permitted to be as picky. Also, not many entry level DSLR cameras shot 4k in 2014 period!
I happen to still own a mid grade 7D MKII From 2014, and can assure you even the older 13 pro will outperform that (non base model) DSLR in many (not all) forms of video. The 70D is far from Canons base model, yet lacks 4k, in 1080p it is also unable to film faster than 60fps which limits use for slowing down action sports.
I got my 7D in 2015, and fully used my iPhone 6S during occasions where I knew I needed to slow things down, and even that phone did acceptably in video back then
What the DSLR did offer was ability to do far superior wide open Rack focus shots with my high end lenses and a tripod. The image quality ( provided enough light was used to kill noise ) was excellent and easily outperformed the iPhones in 1080p. That said, I am actually impressed with cinematic mode on the 13 pro onwards. They actually got that function right out of the box with less issues than their first attempt at portrait mode in the iPhone 7+.
While great in their day, the tiny sensors in more modern phones are far more capable, have better AF logic, and achieve great quality images (even in low light) for how small they are.
We don't really need a photographer to tell us a dedicated camera is better than what a small phone can do.
There is definitely a place for these new shiny tools. Drones for example, create new opportunities for photographic or video-graphic views unlike anything we've had before. Techniques like Matrix style shots done with a robot instead of 100 D1’s or whatever they used. iPhones are so versatile that enable shots not like anything that has been done. The big advantage with massive rigs used with them in addition to smaller setups is that colour grading and workflows can be more efficient.
Saying All Art Is Plagiarism, may indeed be correct ??? Dunno. But I live in hope of new ideas and directions.
Its because it doesn't make sense. This is being done for marketing only, a similarly priced mirrorless camera would have worked better.
You honestly think Cillian Murphy, Ralph Fiennes and Danny Boyle have signed up for an advertising gimmick? Personally, I rate them higher than that.
Can you name a mirrorless camera for less than $1200 that has better video capability than an iPhone 15 Pro Max?
Thanx... But I strongly disagree that all art is plagiarism.
That suggests one's imagination and ideas are limited, with fixed bounds. And is that way for everyone keeping it safely stored in a locked box, never to be added to.
Human imagination and creativity are essentially boundless, unless one chooses to play it safe and keep it bounded, unwilling to explore new ideas.
It's not about the quality of tools.
Bah. Color grading is easy if you only have two colors.
Meaningless.
This is argument by extremism. Cjsuk did not say that the gear was irrelevant, just that the skill of the photographer is more important.
Dr Who is a good example. The ropey 1970's stuff famously captivated everyone, despite its limitations. The recent era piled on bokeh and "cinematography" with a shovel, while the stories were nonsense and the characters unlikable.
They are limited with fixed bounds. It becomes exponentially more difficult to come up with something notable as our population grows. Most of us are doomed to some variety of the infinite monkeys theorem. Only our relatively small locality gives us out self proclaimed individuality and independence. But we’re not that good really, even the best of us.
Most artists only became notable because of some probabilistic event or a combination of hype and scarcity. That includes our much beloved popular photographers.
I suspect everyone is really romanticising creative professions and the arts but it’s no different to anything else. The majority of people involved are slacking away in some dead end job trying to differentiate themselves from some probabilistic outcome. There are a few lucky ones but someone else has done what they did already and no one noticed.
That is of course not to strike down personal enjoyment which if you throw my reductionist philosophy out of the window is fine. Nihilism is so freeing