iPhone Camera Hype? Look — it's NOT a good camera!

I have a beef with the heavily marketed notion (by Apple, Canon and Nikon in particular and in that order) that every person must have some sort of camera at the ready at all times. The Nikon D700 mated with almost any modern lens ever made by Nikon, represents a pinnacle of technical achievement which leaves only the photographer at 'fault' for capturing poor light, poor balance, poor composition or boring subject matter. The D700 is a bit of a load and it's therefore not glued to my hip 24/7. Sometimes, despite my enthusiasm about photography in general, I actually wander around without a camera (gasp!).

Chase Jarvis' insistence (along with Ken Rockwell, Scott Kelby, Steve Simon and dozens of other respected photography proponents, all of whom earn as much of a living from the sales of books and instruction courses as they do from photography and product endorsements) that "The Best Camera is the One You Have With You" is all well and good, but speaks to me of some urgent push to purchase an iPhone rather than any sort of genuine need to be in possession of a camera at all times.

Frankly, iPhone photos are mostly only marginally well focused, vaguely color accurate, and offer only limited dynamic range. The same is true for the vast majority of point & shoot cameras in conventional form factors. They're all perfectly useful in varying degrees of limited shooting conditions. So we snap shots, at every opportunity, of mundane things which catch our eye, and then spend yet more time sorting, approving, collating, cataloging and classifying hundreds (or thousands) more photos? For what purpose? To what end? Do we refine our photography eye in this way? Not with an iPhone.

Apple successfully promotes and supports a lot of surreptitiously effective marketing. "The Best Camera is the One You Have With You" is another example. I liken it to the widespread promotion and sale of MP3 music on iTunes and so many other music sites. MP3 files, even on the best reproduction systems, represent to me far too little of the originally produced CD or DVD. Given that even a cheap stereo system is capable of reproducing more detailed and accurate music from an original CD than any typical MP3 purchased through iTunes, what on earth have we accepted as a standard? MP3 is a huge step backwards.

Similarly, broad acceptance that "The Best Camera is the One You Have With You" motivates us to snap away at anything, secure in the knowledge that the average focus and average general image fidelity of a photo made with an iPhone is just fine because, well, everybody is doing it. Score another one for Apple.

The point is that a D40 will do just as well to extend our abilities as photographers as a D700. In my opinion, an iPhone will not. So we're being told what by Apple (through intermediaries such as Chase Jarvis)? That an iPhone is just as effectively creative as any dedicated camera on the shelf? Apple can and does do anything and everything it can to sell its products. So does RIM. So does Sony. So do all the others. But let's not allow reality to be warped by any arch notion that we should divide our precious time still more because we really should be looking at millions of 'wonderful' photos being made with iPhones.

The world is awash in digital photos, most of them being family photos (which are not at issue here). As usual, 90% (or more) of everything besides family photos is complete junk, of vague interest mainly to the photographer who saw something and captured it in some blurry, unbalanced or poorly composed way. But he got the shot! Thank you iPhone? I think Apple has done a successful job of making us turn our heads from time to time away from quality and toward mere convenience. The iPhone and its photos are like MP3 players and files - poor stand-ins for the real thing. We've even come to accept iPod audio quality which is measurably, and more important, audibly inferior to competing players.

Saving money, considering all the alternatives, then carefully choosing a fine camera (from a used Nikon D70 or Canon Rebel XT on up) with which to pursue the hobby, avocation or amateur pursuit of photography, is a wonderful process which almost always includes the gradual acquisition of more knowledge about the art and craft of photography. In my opinion the iPhone speaks to none of that. My BlackBerry Curve 8330 is capable of capturing the same absence of photographic quality as the iPhone, so its handiness is just as perfect for snapshots of things which need to be remembered (mistakes, wine bottle labels, notes, etc., etc.). It's only a creative tool if we force it to be. The only way to do that, it seems, it to spend so much time using it (to capture only softly focused shots of limited dynamic range) that we have no energy left for a walkabout with a camera that is capable of fully reproducing what we observe. In other words, we make an inferior choice.

Ken Rockwell, Chase Jarvis and many others would have us believe (in my opinion, mainly to drive retail clicks on their web sites) that as long as light and composition are just right, well, that's that - it's a great photo. Nonsense! Most of Jarvis' photos - indeed most of his iPhone photo collection - is just like an episode of Seinfeld: all about nothing.

Rockwell and Jarvis and many others would have us believe that we can rock our world with tiny point & shoots, iPhones and put away the Nikon D700 or Canon 5D MKII forever. But when the newest cameras and lenses are released, there are all the boys reviewing and writing madly and ensuring that B&H Photo and Adorama links are prominent all over the place. What self-serving nonsense they all promote! Of course they're entitled to promote their 'fortunes' and I think they do it well. But an iPhone is just another piece of semi-useful gadgetry to suck dollars out of our pockets and into Steve Jobs overflowing treasure chests.

Step out of the hype for a moment and walk around without a camera. No D700, no iPhone, nothing. Find things - observe things, inevitably - which capture your attention. Return when it's convenient with the least expensive Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus, Panasonic or Sony digital SLR and almost any lens you can put your hands on to shoot the subject. Leave the iPhone at home (no phone calls to distract you). Carry the digital SLR and a small lens instead. You'll be much happier with the results.

I think that if a Nikon D700 (or even an old D70, D40 or P6000/P90) are all just too bulky or too much weight for you some days, that you're really not in the right mood to be making photos in the first place. Once again, step outside the Apple (and Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus, Panasonic or Sony) hype and leave both the iPhone and the digital SLR at home. The change will do you good.

Not to be outdone by any of the other guys, we're happy to push good cameras too. Our favorites these days are the Olympus EP-1 & EP-2, Nikon D300s, Canon Rebel XSi, Nikon D5000, Canon 7D, and the Panasonic GF-1.

It's not the Camera, It's the Photographer

Make the statement "It's not the camera, it's the photographer" during any discussion or debate on the relative merits of one piece of camera gear over another and you will surely end up in some sort of argument. Really.

We don't advocate any attempt to use semi-operational used gear which only possesses the virtue of being cheap to acquire. We don't advocate throwing a top-of-the-line digital SLR (or any other top-rank SLR) at a novice photographer. We do advocate that photographers should educate themselves about the art and craft of photography at every opportunity, and regularly consider how well their gear is serving them. Buy the best you can afford, but buy only what you can afford.

Professional photographer Ken Rockwell posted an article on his web site about this subject. Professional photographer Michael Reichman posted a rebuttal article on his own web site. Unfortunately, neither photographer seems to be able to engage in the debate without resorting to hyperbole. So since I've been making photographs longer than Rockwell (but not quite as long as Reichman), it's time for a moderating opinion.

Pros, semi-pros and amateurs are working with Olympus, Pentax, Sony, Nikon, Canon, Leica, Kodak and Sigma digital SLR bodies attached to all manner of lenses. All of these photographers make great photos with all of this equipment. Occasionally, even great shots taken with compact and so-called prosumer cameras manage to sneak through. Whether or not a photo is sharp enough and large enough to be creditably reproduced at some large size in a high-end coffee table book or on an art poster is not, in my opinion, the measure of its value as a good (or bad) photo, and the lack of gear to capture such a photo is not a measure by which to judge your existing equipment. Sorry Mr. Reichman. On the other hand, moderately attractive balances of composition, color and subject in moderately good focus during the brief and only time of day in which some cheap compact has any chance of capturing a decent photo is not the measure of a truly versatile camera or satisfying photography experience or a useful choice of gear. Sorry Mr. Rockwell. I think Reichman and Rockwell both use excessive amounts of what can only be described as hyperbole which serves to inflame the debate rather than qualify it. They're both doing a creditable job of attracting traffic to their respective web sites.

Using only the best gear you can afford has a very special effect on most people. As you engage in a photography experience which is based on an affordable start, it has the effect of bringing you closer to your gear in ways which make it easier for you to judge which exposure settings will achieve the best result. The longer you work with your chosen, affordable gear the more you'll find out about its flaws and the more you'll find ways to make better and better photos. Use that gear for a couple of years and you may never part with it. Ever. The reason? It's mainly because you will certainly use that gear at some point to make some photos which have deep and emotional meaning and value for you. Not meaning and value worthy of posting and adoring comments on photo.net or redbubble.com, but rather meaning and value for you personally. That's the wonderful thing about photography though — it can be shared or not shared.

Our quest for public approval of so much of what we do has extended to photography no doubt. The problem is that photography in and of itself is often a very personal experience. My father-in-law has posted a rather close-up photo of an elephant on his photo.net page. The photo is nice enough, but not great. It's just a photo of an elephant. But listen for a few minutes to my father-in-law's story about how the huge wild elephant surprised them by lumbering out of dense bush just a few meters away, how his guide and photography partner & friend reached immediately for the rifle in case the obviously tense bull elephant charged them, and how the situation diffused rapidly after the bull determined they were no threat and then turned to lumber down to a herd near a watering hole creates a different effect altogether. All of a sudden you turn to the photo and look at it with new eyes. Wonderful. The point is that the photo could have been taken with almost any vaguely decent camera, but you had to be physically in that location in Zimbabwe to actually make the shot.

That last point is what really separates good photographers from snapshooters. You have to go to your subjects — they don't come to you. Travel, drive, walk, ride or scoot to wherever and bring whatever gear will do the job. You don't bring a compact point & shoot to a landscape trip; you don't bring a huge lighting setup to a kid's party. Buying and using the gear you can afford never means buying the cheapest used gear that still technically qualifies as camera equipment. Rather it means buying the best gear you can afford which is also appropriate to your photography needs. After that, it's all you.

The Best Graphics Cards for Photo Editing (but there's a catch)

Wondering what sort of graphics card to buy for photo editing? The good news is that it does not involve anything close to the sort of 2D or 3D polygonal rendering horsepower (among other things) needed to properly display and run 90% of the video games on the market. You don't need a $500 gaming card.

ATI/AMD, nVidia and Matrox make mid-priced chip sets and video cards which will do an admirable job of sending more colors to your monitor than it can display. If you run two monitors, buy a mid-range card with 256MB of on-board DDR (or faster) RAM. If you run one monitor (even a 30" monster) a mid-range card with 128MB of RAM will usually do just fine.

There are some interesting technical issues in play which really (and surprisingly for most people) make your monitor the technical 'bottleneck' in the photo editing display equation. Here's how it works:

1. Take a photo with your digital camera which will, depending on whether its a decent compact or a more advanced prosumer or digital SLR, capture between 8-bits of data per RGB color channel up to 14-bits per channel.
   
2. Transfer the photo to your computer. Your mid-priced video card is capable of putting out anything up to about 16-bits per channel (depending on the card model).
   
3. Load the photo into your favorite photo editing software (ACDSee, Photoshop Elements, Corel PaintShop Pro, etc.) and your monitor will display the photo in a maximum of 8-bits of data per RGB color channel.
   

That's right. Standard LCD color monitors have significant limits. So-called enhanced displays are better, but still don't offer the same amount of color data per channel boasted by the best digital camera sensors and the good quality, mid-range graphics cards. On top of that limitation, color is transmitted to your eye by a monitor, not reflected to your eye (or to your camera sensor) as it was originally seen and captured. The difference? Most importantly, transmitted color is limited by the varying capabilities of the electronics and materials used to do the transmitting, while reflected color is affected by the type of light available to do the reflecting (direct sunlight, overcast/diffused sunlight, incandescent, metal halide, sodium, fluorescent, etc.). That's partly why the subject you originally observed before taking a photo seems different (usually better) than the photo displayed on your monitor.

So what's the best graphics/video card for photo editing? As of this writing, literally anything in the $175-$225 price range manufactured in the last five years by ATI, ATI/AMD, nVidia or Matrox with 128MB-256MB of on-board DDR (or faster) RAM will do perfectly well. We're not kidding. Graphics card makers such at Matrox, which specialize in cards strictly for digital photo, video and CAD/CAM work, may be the very best choice as long as the computer is not going to be used for serious gaming. Dedicated photo, video and CAD/CAM graphics cards such as the ATI/AMD FireGL, nVidia Quadro and Matrox Parhelia cards are also superb, but cost a lot more than a perfectly good $200 consumer card.

Don't buy a Matrox Parhelia, ATI/AMD FireGL or nVidia Quadro card unless you're also going to spend $1,500 or more on a dedicated graphics monitor capable of 12-bit per RGB channel display.

So what's the catch? The answer is something which escapes a lot of photographers: MONITOR CALIBRATION!

If you ever thought for one moment that the color being displayed on your monitor was accurate, you'd be dead wrong. There isn't a monitor working anywhere in the world right now which is out of adjustment by any less than 10% (unless it has been regularly calibrated). Most monitors being used to edit photos at home are out by a lot more than 10%. You can get used to some awfully poor color display quite easily because your eyes/brain adjust to accommodate what they usually initially recognize as inaccurate. The solution is something called a Monitor Calibrator. ColorVision, X-Rite and GretagMacBeth make excellent, automatic monitor calibrators starting at about US$90. They're easy to use:

1. Install the utility software supplied with the calibrator.
   
2. Plug the calibration device into a USB port and run the software.
   
3. Turn off the lights in the room, then hang the device over top of the monitor so that the device sensor is resting against the screen in the middle of the display.
   

After that, the software takes over, displays colors, makes adjustments according to what the sensor picks up, then creates a custom monitor color profile which is then used as the default every time you start your computer.

The whole calibration process takes about 5 minutes. Because all monitors drift, repeat the process once a month. You'll get the most out of your photos, and you'll be much happier. Once you've done your first monitor calibration, load some photos you haven't displayed in a while. You may be surprised at how much better they look! You will for sure be surprised at how much better your monitor and graphics card combo work.

All of the following graphics cards work very well for photo editing and almost everything else you do on your computer except serious or intensive 3D, high resolution gaming. Several models are also air-cooled, which also makes them completely silent:

• nVidia: Any GeForce card with a 7600, 8400 or 8500 chip set and 128MB or more of on-board RAM
  
• ATI/AMD: Any Radeon card with an X1650 Pro, X1800, X1900 or X2600 chip set and 128MB or more of on-board RAM
  
• Matrox: Any Millennium P-series card with 128MB of on-board RAM
  

Happy editing.

Start 2008 the Right Way . . . Buy Smart

On the DPReview discussion forums this week there was a hot thread about the variety and number of fly-by-night online digital camera dealers. One of the posters, Don Wiss, has done a terrific amount of cycling around New York City/Brooklin taking photos of the street addresses of dozens of online merchants. Some of the storefronts are shockingly awful. Dozens of online merchants are traced back to mailbox stores. Some of them trace back to false addresses. The general feeling among many of the respondents to the Don's post was simply that they'd rather see low prices on merchandise than merchants plowing money into nicer looking storefronts. Well boys, it doesn't work that way!

A well kept store demonstrates how much a storekeeper wants to present his customers with a pleasant place to shop. The effort that goes into a well kept store is also often reflected in the storekeeper's bookkeeping and, most important, his customer service. Most often too, the best kept stores are populated by owners and staff who are generally better informed. Smart, energetic and informed people generally want to work in a pleasant environment. Exceptions may exist, but those are the rules.

Any half-witted schmuck can create a snappy looking web site that leaves visitors with the impression that they're dealing with a serious business. The fact remains though that online purchasing can be a snake pit. The BBB and dozens of other consumer protection organizations are overloaded with screeching complaints from literally tens of thousands of customers who have been ripped off by horrible online merchants.

The best thing about shopping for quality & service rather than price alone is that it may force people necessarily into formal business relationships with brick & mortar local merchants. I think that's the best relationship to create if we want to ensure the best possible service and support from knowledgeable dealers. Some online merchants are safe, obviously, because they're big enough to carry the weight and overhead of exceedingly expensive online operations. Almost all the other online players are either kibitzers or outright thieves. Buyer beware.

We frequently hear complaints from ripped off consumers about the difficulty of checking out the quality and/or honesty of online merchants. My response is simply that absence of good quality information about any online merchant should be a big red flag in the first place. Don't deal with such a merchant. The better the ridiculously low priced deal, the lousier the merchant - another rule which applies 95% of the time. Figuring out which of the remaining 5% are legitimate deals is too much of a headache for most people, and the personal time consumed by people trying to figure out which witch is which is often worth more than any possible saving on a purchase. Buyer beware.