PHONECAMS
The Camera Becomes Invisible ( How Phonecams Change Digital Photography)
Recently, I've been surveying the Web to see what people were saying about the phonecam phenomenon, but more importantly I've been using the camera on the Treo 600 for the past two months, shooting over 850 images, posting the results on my Web site and then on my Treocam text america site.
I first have to take a step back and mention that the purpose of this blog is to examine the issues surrounding the design and implementation of converged handheld devices for the mobile professional/citizen. Initially I balked at the idea of including a camera, but was immediately clued-in by Alan Reiter who is passionately pursuing this topic on his blog, Reiter's Camera Phone Report...
He's basically right, and phonecams will help quash the myths of digital photography:
1. More Megapixels Mean Better Pictures - I think most already are catching on to the misunderstanding and are settling for 2.5 - 3 megapixels cameras as ideal portable cameras. But what was the initial rationale for this myth? The assumption was that we would look over our snapshots and select the better ones to blow-up into enlargements that we could proudly display. Fact is, you can't consider resolution the only element in determining the quality of an image, and when you start enlarging either a film or digital image to even 5" x 7", things such as camera shake, poor composition, bad lighting and contrast, etc. quickly become apparent. Shooting for an eventual enlarged image is better served by having control of all these elements.
Becoming more popular is foregoing the print and produces images for screen display. If you can economize and reliable produce smaller images that produce the impression you want but then also can be attached to an email or sent through your cell provider to a moblog. Minimizing file size speeds up the entire process and saves space in archiving. While my Treo provides VGA or 640 x 480 pixels, I routine rescale these images to 320 x 240, which is format I've settled on for screen display.
2. Bad Camera vs. Good Camera - This is the most pervasive and pernicious. In one flyer, a camera manufacturer uses the slogan, "If the picture matters, the camera matters." One review is quoted as saying about this company's cameras, "The [xxx] lets beginners nail tough shot thanks to 14 presets."
All these presets with their requirement to that you fully read and memorize the manual won't fix bad lighting or any other element of a photography I mentioned above. These cameras offer hardware and software complexity as a solution to what essentially is a outcome based on aesthetics. Do or don't I like this PHOTOGRAPH. Phonecams are simple, with little or no adjustments available. It's a camera you carry with you at all times, that can whip out in any situation that appeals to your aesthetics and that you might want to share with others. There's no learning curve, no manual, and if you're so motivated, you can produce a steady stream of images that you can later evaluate and refine your approach to whatever aesthetic you want to explore. Besides aesthetics, even technical photography such as photographing a wiring layout for an electrician, is especially dependent upon lighting techniques.
There are those who claim that they have no interest in anything else but getting a snapshot, just as there are those who subscribe to the George Forman school of cooking.
3. Photoshop Fixes All - My personal view of Purgatory and probably Hell is working for any prolonged period of time squinting at the pixels of an image trying to "correct" a set of images. I use an imaging program that is meant for preparing images for the Web, Macromedia Fireworks. It offers rudimentary imaging adjustment features found in any freeware program, but also allows for batch processing which again is a time saver.
In reality, if you begin to use better photographic technique, a set of images that you shoot will have more consistency and less need for attempted correcting through Photoshop. Trying to control all the elements, in camera even before you pull the camera from its case, is the challenge of photography.
This brings us to the new myths that are developing (maybe at one time this could considered a pun) about phonecam photography. There's some good thoughts about phonecams at Cheesebikini's Phonecams: Beyond the Hype. This is where I began to catch onto the "reporting" aspect of phonecam photography. True, you have the ability to record an event as an eyewitness and then publish an image to the web. A photographer is more than a reporter, just as journalist is more than a reporter. We can't fall into the misunderstanding that these spontaneous images are truthful or can't be manipulated into giving a wrong impression of an event. This is not even considering that digital images can easily be manipulated (thanks to Photoshop), and might even be used for propaganda, much less automatically to be considered evidence.
In summary, I think the popular impression of photography including digital photography has involved an obsession with the mechanical instrument, with much discussion about what is the best camera, promoting the assumption that this is the prime factor in determining the quality of the image that is produced. The camera manufacturers help perpetuate this myth adding endless menus, offering a myriad or presets and programs that further remove photography from a study in aesthetics. Phonecams immediately take photography to a rudimentary level plus offering ease of use and the ability to share the images with networking on the Web. Some comment on this and call it "deconstruction," in reality its an opening to photography as means of personal expression.
12:56:16 PM 
|
WIRELESS HANDHELDS