iPhonic Imagery Photo Gallery by Dave Wyman at pbase.com

iPhonic Imagery

These photographs have been made with my iPhone, with the help of some iPhone-specific apps. The photographs were inspired by the Chase Jaravis book, "The Best Camera," by a Ken Rockwell seminar, and by Chuck Nadeau, one of the participants on my recent trip to the east side of the Sierra Nevada Mountains.

My iPhone will join me in earnest on my photography tours. Although I won't put away my "serious" cameras, I'll explore the creative potential of the iPhone, and report here on my progress from time to time.

The Chase Jarvis book of iPhone photography and the application developed in conjunction with the book are here.

A Most Unusual Apartment in the Sunset Hour	Winter at the Meyer's Barn, Foresta (Yosemite), California	Abandoned Hudson "Terraplane" Near Planada, California	Morning at the Wig-Wam Motel
"We had a great time at the Wig-Wam Motel, Wish You Were Here"	Chili Chees Fries!	A Rainy Night in Los Angeles, Viewed from my Car	Poppies - Los Angeles
Still Life: Bananas, Tangerines, and a Lemon	May Company Department Store	Beau	The Alley After the Storm
River of Tears	Toward Tejon Pass on Interstate 5	On His Afternoon Amble	Sunrise Over the Garden of Desert Delights
Cafe, Gallup, New Mexico	At McDonalds, Somewhere Between Phoenix and Flagstaff	Phil Douglis at Dinner, Phoenix, Arizona	Monster Teeth
Making Sure She's Safe	Implements of Torture	The iPhone with Macro Photography - Use Caution!	Where Others Have Gone Before Me
A Quiet Place at Arches National Park	Guides at Monument Valley	My New Friend	He Channels Johnny Depp Channeling Hunter Thompson
Zacaria	My neighbor Ralph and his '54 Chevy Truck	Woman with Bandana	The House Painters
Taking a Break (Hair Stylists, Just off Melrose Blvd., in Los Angeles)	Nora	Leonard, Worts and All	Interrupted from His Walk
A Neighborhood Gardener	Agave	Karima Reed Memorial Photo	Pumpkins, Lee Vining, California
Going Green: Cactus in Place of Grass	Flower Pot	Along the Banks of the Merced River, Yosemite	Cathedral Rocks, Yosemite
Dawn at Mono Lake	Monolith, Mono Lake	The Duplex Around the Corner	Range Rover Reflection
Looking Down the Hall	What I Saw on My Bike Ride Today	Not Such a Small Carbon Footprint	Meditation with Buddha and Bicycle

comment |

rocky		25-Mar-2010 23:57
There's some great shots in this gallery. =V=

Ali Majdfar		11-Mar-2010 11:41
Superb captures!

Guest		29-Jan-2010 23:06
Wow, just took time to read some of the comments. As a photo instructor at a very poor rural high school many of my students have cell phones with cameras built in but do not own that expensive DSLR someone touted or for that matter a cheap point and shoot. This semester we will focus on creative photography using the tools they have. They love the images they get from their cell phones. I can’t imagine telling them the images are of poor quality. In reality some are quite good. By teaching them the elements of composition and helping them improve the photos they take maybe someday they will own the expensive DSLR.

Guest		26-Jan-2010 23:43
PEOPLE ALWAYS ASK ME "HOW DID YOU GET THAT SHOT?" AND I TELL THEM, I AM NEVER WITHOUT MY CAMERAS....SO THE iPHONE IS GOING TO HELP YOU NOT MISS A SINGLE EVENT AND I THINK THAT IS SMART. YOU WILL BE AN ARTIST NO MATTER WHAT EQUIPMENT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOUR EYES. KO

Carole Scurlock		23-Nov-2009 03:05
I don't care what they say. It's the photographer's eye that matters - not the camera. I think this is a great medium because it forces you to get to the essence of your subject. Carry on!

JSWaters		02-Nov-2009 19:50
As always, Tim's comment hits the mark for me. If the iPhone drives you to push yourself as an artist, what could be better? I think we become stale and uninteresting photographers when we operate in the business as usual mode. Creativity has a voracious appetite and loves a varied diet. Jenene

Tim May		31-Oct-2009 17:15
Here's my three cents worth - first I hope you don't shut down the comments and remove them because they are a dialog on an important aspect of our art - it is almost as if VanGough and Monet were debating about the best brush, the best pigment, and the best canvas. Let the debate run (without the personal attacks.) second - I think that the thing that has only been tangentially referred to here is the issue of art. I believe that we as photographers are creating art - art in my definition is the use of a medium to make a statement about the nature of human existence on this glorious planet and to hopefully evoke a feeling or response from the viewer. The viewer is as crucial to the art as the creator (in my view.). As I have been exploring other mediums in an attempt to broaden my way of seeing, (There's nothing like a Thomas Moran painting to change the way I view the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone) I have discovered that "ART" is a fluid and expanding field of human endeavor. Within the past few months I viewed galleries of the works of Ansel Adams and Georgia O'Keefe, Robert Frank, and Richard Avedon in the same afternoon. Let me tell you that was an eye opening afternoon in just showing the range of what is seen as photographic art. Dave's venture into iphonic imagery is another example of pushing the boundaries of photographic art - of using a tool to (a new brush) to share his unique vision and way of seeing the art around us. So, continue to yammer about the "brush" if you wish, but I'd rather enjoy the art.

Gary		31-Oct-2009 02:10
Excellent photographs! I've tried using my iphone more and I've tried PS mobile app. I've stopped lusting after the M9. :-)

Tim O'Donoghue		30-Oct-2009 20:16
Dave - great topic. I went through a similar scene a few years ago - I was tired of the DSLR, tired of the megapixel race, tired of the gear-acquisition escalation. I started walking around the work 'hood (downtown Seattle) with 2 megapixel cameras, looking for inspiration. Conclusion? Same as yours: It's 90:10 photographer:camera, vision:image, moment-captured:encyclopedic knowledge. Corollary? Get out there with a camera, any camera, and create photographs. Like any other medium, you need to know the nominal boundaries of that "device" and then nudge them, push them, break them. Keep up the good work, and always try something new.http://www.pbase.com/tjod/streets_around

Guest		30-Oct-2009 16:01
Feels like a few of those posting here are missing the point. For me, photography is capturing a moment in time that will never occur in exactly the same way again, holding on to a memory, evoking an emotion. Of course if one looks deep enough and really wants to find fault, they will find it. In any photograph. Digital photography has made capturing and retaining these memories easier for me. Last week I sold my prize DSLR to purchase wood to heat my home this winter. An iPhone is not an option for me. I pulled out my old banged up SRT201 I hope it still works so I can capture that sparkle in my wife’s eyes, the sun glistening on ice laden trees and everything else that I want to remember or relive. It’s not the image that counts it’s what the image makes you feel.

Ernest Y. Koe		30-Oct-2009 13:46
Respectfully, Ed, relax. Some of the best photos today are made with some of the lamest gear. Who cares what gear anyone uses. You are confusing and conflating all kinds of things here. The quality of one's photographic "vision" has almost nothing to do with the quality of equipment or format one chooses. I am surprised you aren't shooting with a digital Hassie since by your own standards that seems to be what one has to do or risk ruining photography writ large.

Andy Willinger		30-Oct-2009 01:10
Dave: These are really nice shots. In my opinion, the iPhone is the SX-70 of the 21st Century. I am sorry that the trolls came out of their caves to hate on you. There were those that found shooting Polaroid impure as well. Keep up the great work, and leave the tripod at home! -AW

sunlightpix		30-Oct-2009 00:20
I can't get into Dave's head, and I can't speak for him, but I think he was upset with your early posts which made personal attacks on him. I know I'd be upset. You specifically said, "The point is--I think--you feel as a pro that you can rub two sticks together and produce great art". Dave has never indicated that. He asked you to show where that was so, but you've stayed quiet about that. And you claimed Dave puts down tyros for buying expensive camera gear and for learning more about photography through books and the web. He asked you to show he'd done that, too, and again you have been silent. Your last comments should have been your first. And Dave's first comments, introducing his gallery, made no claims about artistic merit.

Ed Rollins		29-Oct-2009 21:33
No Dave, I don't disagree with your post when you say you'll give me the last word. You post was open and undefensive. What bothered me for the longest time is the deterioration in the quality of photos found acceptable to post on professional sites once the digital age struck. Convenience trumped quality where 5 mp digital images reduced to 72 dpi were taken seriously compared to great 35 mm scanned images found on sites like Mengelson and others, and some of the fantastic photos as Rockwell's medium format stuff. Digital gives me more capability to make some shots (I have a Nikon D90) because of the 1.5 lens factor, and auto ISO up to the top 800 I use, but the overall quality still is lacking when seen against even a scanned 35 mm high saturation film such as Velvia. Then I look at similar shots taken with my Mamiya 67Z, and they blow away even the 35mm. I felt the digital thing was ruining photography. However, the newer full frame DSLR seems almost as good--for what I shoot--as a 35mm with good film. To me, photography is almost a religion. That is, as often as possible I try to be perfect in composition, focus, color, saturation and everything else obviating the need for post processing, which bores me and never gets done. I used tripods, good film, good lenses and flashes and reject most of my photos. I saw this new trend as even a further cheapening of photography, where worse becomes better because it is a new art form. Sorry you were so offended. Ed

Dave Wyman		29-Oct-2009 18:20
Guest" asks about post-processing software. While I could have used the software in my computer, my post-processing here was made on the iPhone itself. The apps for the iPhone seem as numerous as grains of sand on a beach. My familiarity extends to only a few. The ones used for the photos in this gallery include: - "Best Camera" - this was my primary app, with 14 adjustments (color, contrast, brightness/darkness, etc); the app is akin to Apple's iPhoto program for the Mac computers. - For the three photos that look like Polaroid prints (from the oversize frames), I used an app called Polarize. - Mill Colour allows for more precise adjustments in color and contrast, and I used it for the reflection picture of the house in the car window. - I may have used "CropForFree" which does just that. In addition, I've used Perfectly Clear, which includes some basic controls, including a one-touch, "best guess" make-over, although I don't think I used it for any of the images here. Although I have several other apps for iPhone photos, the ones above are those I seem to use the most.

Dave Wyman		29-Oct-2009 17:53
Tangolimagolf wrote: "There is a substantial difference in the quality of the output of more capable cameras. My sense of this thread is that Dave Wyman thinks that is true too" No, I don't. "Quality" doesn't have to have anything to do with "capability." To miss this central assertion means missing the point of this gallery, as well as missing the meaning of the back-and-forth discussion that's ensued.

Stuart McNair		29-Oct-2009 15:26
Dave, As a professional photographer, I applaud your decision to show shots made with an iPhone. It shows people that you do not need to spend thousands of dollars on equipment to take a perfectly usable photograph. People see me with my pro body dslrs and big white lenses and think that's all you need to take a good shot. You, Ken and Chase are doing more for photography by showing it's not in the equipment than any glossy Nikon or Canon ad will ever do. Keep up the good work. Stuart

Guest		29-Oct-2009 14:06
Hello Dave, I have a simple question that I don't think has been either asked or answered here: "Which iPhone/iPod touch app(s) do you use to post-processing the pictures taken with your iPhone?" I have the feeling you've been using Chase's 'Best Camera', but I can't be sure there isn't other one(s) from your pics, which are lovely by the way (love the banks and the portraits). Thanks. Stéphane

Kertesz		29-Oct-2009 12:53
Can I just ask tangolimagolf a question before the comments are closed. Why, if you're a photographer, is it easier to be carrying a mobile phone with you than a small camera when the gap toothed moment arrives?

lwm		29-Oct-2009 04:06
I am so baffled by this comment string! Can't an accomplished photographer have some fun and be creative with a new toy? Just because Michael Phelps goes swimming in the river for fun one day does it take away from his Olympic gold performances? These are great photos and it's interesting to see what the iphone can do! (I'm not a photographer, just an admirer of photography, so hopefully my analogy wasn't offensive)

Guest		29-Oct-2009 02:36
hey Dave: Love your pick dawn at mono lake, and tools are only tools, we are the photographer, and if you cant make it with an iphone what makes you yhink you can make it with a d3x. From the caribbean jewel Dominican Republic. Alll the best. CSosa

Carl		29-Oct-2009 02:24
I just got an iPhone and bought Chase Jarvis's book. I have been having a lot of fun with it and the video of the 3GS isn't bad either. I really like your iPics Dave. I always have my phone with me and have found more opportunities to take pictures by having it. For instance driving home the other day I passed a field where there were 30 or so wild turkeys standing by the side of the road. Unremarkable except that I live in New Jersey in a built up subdivision and have no idea how these turkeys have managed to survive. So keep up the good work and thanks for sharing your pics with us. And to your critics just say "Bite Me" and you'll be an Official New Jerseyan.

tangolimagolf		29-Oct-2009 01:45
One more comment and then I am done. I do not advocate people should replace their DSLRs or SLRs with cell phone cameras. There is a substantial difference in the quality of the output of more capable cameras. My sense of this thread is that Dave Wyman thinks that is true too. No one ever suggested iPhone or other cell phone photos are high-quality artistic forms. The important thing to remember is the photo not taken is a memory forever lost. My web site, thisispicturethat.com has a gallery of cell phone photos. They are simply snapshots but at least the memories are there. Since I shoot nothing but film (and have done so for over 50 years with no plan to change now) with ancient Nikons the digital age is passing me by except for the little snapshot taker in my pocket.

tangolimagolf		29-Oct-2009 01:36
Ever since cell phone got cameras I have been advocating to all those folks who "never have a camera" they have one as long as they have the cell phone. Then the excuse is they need a "good" camera. What on earth could possibly be a better camera than the one you are carrying when the girl child shows her gap-toothed smile at church or when the Scotty dog gives you "that stare" while helping you drive to town for groceries? More power to those folks who are not looking for excuses and finding a terrific way to remember life's daily delights!

Dave Wyman		29-Oct-2009 00:40
As per Ernest's suggestion, I should probably refrain from commenting further, and perhaps I should just delete all the entries. I've come to the conclusion our differences are like those between choice and anti-choice advocates, conservatives and liberals, believers and non-believers - ships passing in the night, and never the twain shall meet. I will answer Bruce's remarks, which I think were couched civilly, and because I asked him a question. Yes, an iPhone is technically challenged, and I have no plans to leave my "real" cameras home the next time I look for a moose or bison or bear to photograph. For the purpose of producing a photograph that goes beyond mimicking reality, I don't think the kind of camera matters, though. That was driven home when I perused a copy of "The Best Camera." My all-time favorite "fine art" photographs were made with the lowly Holga, wonderful photographs that capitalized on the Holga's supposed shortcomings. While I can't photograph a moose with an iPhone, at least not easily, I can photograph my 97 year-old neighbor, the gardener, tufa towers and my little dog in a way that satisfies my own creative appetite, without recourse to my "serious" cameras, even if I'm carrying one over my shoulder. We're not really so far apart. OK - I'm going to give Ed the last word, if he wants it, and then I'll probably close down the comments and I'll probably delete all of them. Send me private notes, those of you who feel the need to continue the conversation.

Ernest Y. Koe		29-Oct-2009 00:10
The tenor and kvetching of this entire thread is baffling to me. Who cares what camera anyone uses to make pictures? Are we all so narcissistic and insecure that that we have internalize Dave's own exploration of the iPhone as a critique of our choices of 'gear' we choose to use? For my part, I love the exploration of 'democratic' mediums/tools by serious photographers. Seriously, Dave, there is no need to answer every silly, half-baked attack here.

Kertesz		28-Oct-2009 23:22
I do indeed see your point, Dave. The reference to the LX-3 wasn't really about that particular model but would apply equally to any small camera that is about the same bulk as an iPhone regardless of what zoom range it has. I also take your point about slightly bigger cameras not being that much more inconvenient than an LX-3 but there are not many of them that you can strap to your belt in a little pouch! "Better" to me means a camera that gives you the option of higher technical quality output - if you want it. I know the image is the important thing but the quality - artistic quality aside for a moment - from an iPhone is limited. I may be wrong here but I doubt that the iPhone will be the only camera you take with you on your photography tours. If that's the case, then I would ask why are you taking anything other than the iPhone? At the end of the day, though, you're dead right when you say that we all set our own photographic goals and projects and if these are to be sincere then they must be of and by ourselves and not influenced by outside considerations. Minimalism is as valid an approach as any other. Unless, as you say, we're being paid!

Dave Wyman		28-Oct-2009 23:14
Dave Wyman PM reply \| hide \| delete 28-Oct-2009 22:53 "Ed Rollins" - edsworkerscomp@gmail.com - has chimed in with another comment, one which I must regrettably censor in large part again because of unsuitable content. Here is a sample of what I can let through from Ed, who claims to be a psychologist: "I am not even a professional photographer, so how could I be jealous of Ken's success?" Ed, as a psychologist, you should be amply able to look to yourself for the answer to that question. I'm sure the answer is obvious to everyone else. "look at those photos below " Ed - the photographs are above. You aren't paying attention to my photographs. You're interested in justifying your own deficiencies concerning another photographer, using my web page as a springboard for your thoughts. "I usually don't carry a camera with me expecting to see something worth photographing any moment of the day" "Usually?" What, sometimes you DO expect to see something worth photographing any moment of the day? ;-) Or shall I let that pass an example of a casual thought process? With a camera in hand, any kind of camera, the ability to create a photograph, representational or artistic, is indeed a possibility any moment of the day, whether or not the moment ever arrives. Without a camera, we are forever doomed to miss that potential moment. F/8 and be there, Ed. Fate means being there, with a camera. You're a psychologist? You must recognize the need some of us have to chart our own course of action, at least from time to time. We humans have a need to express ourselves in ways that come from below the ordinarily conscious level of thought. That's part of what makes us human. We have a need to connect in artful ways with the world around us. Some of us do that with religion, with music, with relationships, with photography, and sometimes it's a combination of these things. You're hung up on the success of another photographer, and on the desire to own expensive camera equipment, which explains your intemperate comments. These truths also explain your seeming inability to understand the underpinnings of the urge to transcend ourselves, with a crayon, an iPhone, or a view camera.

Bart Bobbitt		28-Oct-2009 22:43
Dave, you've done great work. On a scale of 1 to 10, probably an 11 or 12. Good photographers do great work with any tool (camera + lens + sensor/film + composition + lighting = tool). Some tools are easier to learn how to use; others a piece of (your favorite) cake. Fewer than one in a million know what make, model and version of paint, brush and canvas those great painters of centuries ago used, but they all enjoy what they put up for us to see and put multi-million price tags on. All cameras can produce great pictures. None is really better than another. They're just all different from each other. Artists and photographers have to learn how to use their tools to be successful. And you've done really nice work with your "iTool!" Bart

Dave Wyman		28-Oct-2009 22:14
Hi, Bruce, You wrote: "wouldn't it be better, if weight and convenience are issues, just to strap a Panasonic LX-3 onto your waist?" It wouldn't be. But it might depend on what you mean by better. What does "better" mean, Bruce? As it is, your suggestion cuts both ways. Why not carry a digicam with a super zoom, rather than the severely limited zoom on an LX-3? The difference would be slight. Why not carry one of the new, extremely compact DSLRS? The difference over a digicam would be slight? Why not carry a Canon or Nikon DSLR? The difference over a compact Sony or Panasonic would be slight. We could go on like this forever. By the way, poke around my web pages and you'll discover that I've made plenty of photographs with digicams, too. What's a photographer to do? The answer is a photographer can do anything, with any piece of equipment, or with almost no equipment. The only requirement, I think, is that there be some mimetic function to a created image - a painting, a sculpture, an image created only with Photoshop isn't a photograph. And a photographer can make a technically sharp image or not, a photographer can try for a photograph that represents reality, or not. The very point of the exercise I've created for myself on this web page is to do with as little as possible in the way of equipment. It's the same creative urge that drives people who enjoy using their Holgas and Dianas and pinhole and Polaroid cameras. I'm out to make something beyond a snapshot. Usually I like to think I can do it with my DSLRs. I use those cameras when I need to get paid for a photograph, or at family events. However, the basic rules of photography are out the window in this gallery - for me. It's the impact of the image that counts, decoupled from the usual need - desire? - to use expensive equipment. To suggest, as you have, Bruce, that a little bit more is better, is beside the point, for me. A lot more would be better, too, but it would be a different kind of better. Artistic endeavors can be attempted with a camera like an iPhone, or a full-frame Nikon, Canon, Sony, with a Rolleiflex or a Wista field camera, with a Holga or an Instamatic. Whether or not I've created art, and whether or not others think I've created art, is emphatically beside the point - for me. I see your point, Bruce - do you see mine?

Kertesz		28-Oct-2009 20:03
Hi Dave, These are lovely, creative pics and probably as good as anyone could have done with an iPhone. But wouldn't it be better, if weight and convenience are issues, just to strap a Panasonic LX-3 onto your waist? You can take something like that with you everywhere. It offers better quality if you want that or you can use similar apps to the ones on your iPhone to get a similar look. I understand the philosophy that the best camera is the one you have with you but, as a mad-keen photographer, I'm far more likely to have a camera with me than a mobile phone!

Paul Marsh		28-Oct-2009 16:50
Yay! Wyman's caught the bug! I'm aware of your work as a regular reader of Rockwell's site - and when I saw he linked to this gallery of yours, I was really excited to see another pro photographer who has caught the iPhone bug. I don't know either of you, but as Rockwell said, he's "too cheap" to pay for the service, otherwise I'd gather (as he also admits) HE'D abandon his gear and shoot almost exclusively with the iPhone himself. Again, I don't claim to know him, but I'd reckon he'd probably post some sort of pixel-peeping MTS curve rant w/r/t the iPhone's lens and compare it with some $8,000 Leica optic... To make a looooong story short - I sifted through a few point-n-shoots until I found a camera for my belt. It worked better because it was always with me and while it was limited compared to my more powerful cameras, it allowed me to start focusing LESS on the camera and MORE on the image. It challenged me to really pay attention to the artistic side of the photography equation. Then I got my iPhone 3Gs. About that same time, I'd caught wind of Chase's evangelism of the iPhone's camera as a serious tool, and when I finally got one in my hands, it completely changed my photographic vision. Indeed to answer an earlier commenter's question - the camera in the 3GS is noticeably better. We bought my wife the 8-gig 3G and I bought the 3GS the first day it was introduced. My first phone had a QC issue with the camera so it delayed my enthusiastic embracing of the iPhone as a legit photography tool. But now that issue has been resolved, I'm completely on board the bandwagon. Because it's all about simplicity. It's all about the image itself at times. Certainly I'm not going to abandon using my DSLRs. And, I'm even trying to re-capture my synchronicity with the magic of medium-format film work (I used to do MF a lot in college, but with MUCH lesser gear than I have now). Different tools for different purposes. The iPHone, however, has become an important weapon in my arsenal since indeed it's always with me. And its quality is good enough so as not to prevent me from being able to express my vision through the medium of photography. In fact, if anything, it has enhanced it by stripping away the "fluff" and allowing me to focus more on the image itself. Indeed the post-processing apps allow you to work around the challenges of not being able to control the technical things before you press the 'shutter' -- and allow you to enhance the image in post-production to further express your vision. With my film background, I'm sort of biased in that personally I don't find a photograph "done" until it looks good printed (and, even better, matted & framed and hung on a wall). These digital "chromes" are great, and certainly can be eye candy, but to me, it's important for an image to look good with light bouncing off of it, not coming from behind it. I have to say that I've printed several of my iPhone images, and they've more than past this test. One image in particular as carefully printed on my Epson 2200 has just as much richness (if not moreso) and is more appealing, quality-wise, than anything I ever printed (including my medium-format prints) in the chemical darkroom: (see flickr - photos/paulmarshphotography/4015479271 - won't allow me as a guest to post hyperlinks). Several of the other photos in my iPhone Flickr set have passed this quality test as well. Anyways, sorry about the rant (it was longer, but wouldn't let me post). I'm just happy to see more and more pro photographers embrace the iPhone as a legitimate tool.

Dr. Biggles		28-Oct-2009 16:26
Hey, The Meat Guy here from your last Steinbeck trip. Thank you for starting up the iphone images. To me it feels like a step aside, a different point in time from lugging around a larger camera. Being able to catch a point in time that would have normally just flown by. Cheers! Dr. Biggles

Bruce Bisenz		28-Oct-2009 16:17
Dave, you are a much better photographer than an iPhone. You can find wonderful photos where others can see none (I saw it happen on your Monterey tour). Your photos should be displayed on billboards-so "Green" your talent (unless you intend to montage 20-100 tiny iPhoto files into a mural).

Dave Wyman		28-Oct-2009 16:06
Brian wrote: "I own the first generation iPhone and think the camera in mine is hardly worth the effort. Is the the new 3Gs version (3MP?) much better?" Brian, at least in my case, the difference is like night and day. The photos that came from my 1G iPhone were usually muddy and not particularly sharp. The opposite is true of my 3Gs. Of course, photographs made with pinhole cameras, Polaroid cameras, and most cell phone aren't particularly sharp, either, yet lots of people make beautiful images with those cameras.

Dave Wyman		28-Oct-2009 15:56
c.d.embrey wrote: "Have you tried printing 8x10? Either an inkjet or better yet a Costco film print." I haven't printed any images made with an iPhone. Given that they were made with a 3 megapixel camera on the phone, they would print well as 8x10s. However, my intent with my iPhone photographs here is to share them the way millions of other people do with photographs made on their phones, which is solely online. "did you know that the new Motorola Droid has a built-in flash?" Although I've owned a variety of flashes over the years, I prefer using available light for the kind of photography - nature and travel - that I like. I do pop up the flash on my DSLRs when photographing family events, and I think a flash on an iPhone would be a worthy addition for the camera.

John		28-Oct-2009 15:56
Dave, I specially like your photo of the Merced River bank. The problem that Kerima and Ed may have is that you show that it isn't the gear that does it. As a novice with to much expensive gear myself this is a bit disconcerting to me as well. Still would like an M9, though.

Guest		28-Oct-2009 15:28
Photography is a creative process and the iPhone and apps like the one from Chase Jarvis are just tools for the artist to use. I just added an iPhone gallery to my website, and I'm using the first generation iPhone. Kudo's to Dave and others for showing what a good photographer can do with any camera/phone.

c.d.embrey		28-Oct-2009 15:21
First a comment. Always use the right tool for the job. For "Carbon footprint" it looks like the iPhone was the right tool! The shot would not have been as good if it were made with a H3D II. The more tools you have the better, DSLRs, Holga,s, etc all have there place. Now the question. Have you tried printing 8x10? Either an inkjet or better yet a Costco film print. BTW did you know that the new Motorola Droid has a built-in flash? So if you like Terry Richardson ...

Dave Wyman		28-Oct-2009 15:11
"Guest" wrote: "I think you would be better off sticking with your Nikon dslr equipment for the great majority of your work and confine use of the iPhone to casual occasions where photographic quality is not a high priority." Hmmm..........I have thousands of photographs posted online here, made with DSLRs. So far, 15 made with an iPhone are here, too. "Guest" has exhibited a knack for stating the obvious. ;-) However, it's early in the game and I expect to have a lot of fun adding more photographs made with my iPhone. "You are a much better photographer than these photos would suggest!" Thanks, "Guest," for the lovely backhanded compliment. As we don't know your name, and haven't seen your photographs, you save me from offering you the same judgement of your own photographic abilities. ;-)

Dave Wyman		28-Oct-2009 15:10
Vernon wrote: "Does the app you use make the photos any different?" It does, Vern - it adds several effects (e.g. boosts color, fades color, vignettes, etc). It's like a mini-version of Apple's iPhoto. And I agree, the shutter button can be a pain to find and activate. Thanks for sharing some of your own photographs. I see we're in the same city. Perhaps we'll bump into each other one day (if we don't take our eyes off of our phones).

Guest		28-Oct-2009 14:27
Dave, I agree that some of Ed's comments are a bit over the top, but I think he has a point in recommending use of better gear when making photos for public display . After reviewing these photos it's obvious to me that the iPhone just doesn't produce results worthy of your talents. You are a much better photographer than these photos would suggest! I think you would be better off sticking with your Nikon dslr equipment for the great majority of your work and confine use of the iPhone to casual occasions where photographic quality is not a high priority. Best wishes for continued success in your photographic endeavors.

Vernon		28-Oct-2009 13:20
Nice photos! Does the app you use make the photos any different? Inspiring. Only thing I don't like about the iPhone is the shutter button. It's hard to find especially if doing a self-portrait. Why Apple couldn't assign it to the side-button is beyond me. But yeah the basics of a photo are easiest to capture the more simpler your camera. So good stuff. I'd definitely use my phone more but my Blackberry Bold has an absolutely useless camera. Hahaha. I have some photos too on my site, check em out. www.lacityphoto.com (It's a work in progress, still working on it)

Adrian Diaz		28-Oct-2009 12:49
Did you also bring a regular dedicated camera on these photo shoots?

Brian		28-Oct-2009 12:28
I think that answer to the question about why do superior composition with inferior equipment is that sometimes the shot is there but the +2kg 3-5 thousand dollars worth of gear isn't with you but your crap iphone camera is. I find this happens all the time to me... :) Having said that I have a question... I own the first generation iPhone and think the camera in mine is hardly worth the effort. Is the the new 3Gs version (3MP?) much better? It does seem to me that the image quality is much better. Sometimes I still get something worth keeping with the 1st Gen iPhone but most of the time i don't. Oh, and my grandmother years ago took all of her shots with a waist level viewfinder camera using replaceable bulbs and never had throw away pictures. It is eery to think of how many shots I delete compared to what she did decades ago. Thanks, Brian.

Ernest Y. Koe		28-Oct-2009 11:59
very cool photos. A bit of friendly advice. Don't censor the comments. Transparency gives you more credibility, not less. You'll have plenty of defenders regardless and the trollish stuff will be clear enough to most people.

GibbP		28-Oct-2009 11:48
There are some very nice images here. CLEARLY, being able to see is more important than the equipment used.

Rob K		28-Oct-2009 09:30
Dave, Your photos are great - some real gems in there. The images remind me of those taken with the old Polaroid cameras. They inspire me to get out and do some of my own! Rob K (Melbourne, Australia)

Mike		28-Oct-2009 09:28
Excellent! "Nora": stunning! "Agave": incredible! "Going Green: Cactus in Place of Grass": stunning lighting! I really wish there were workshops/tours in my area.

Dave Wyman		28-Oct-2009 08:52
"Kerima Reed" writes: "These are the quality of pics I'd expect of my 83 year old mother using an old 35 mm point and shoot throw away. What are you trying to prove?" You have proved you know how to put down the elderly, including your own mother. Age doesn't necessarily diminish a person's creativity. Frankly, if your 83 year old mother can make pictures with any camera, she earns a tip of my cap. She loses points for raising such a rude child. As you've presented no photographs of your own, you're hardly in a position to cast aspersions on anyone. In that sense my photography, which you say is as good the photography of the mother you disparage so lightly, is lightyears better than your photography, "Karima." ;-)

Dave Wyman		28-Oct-2009 08:49
Ed, you made your point, which I censored - why are you coming back here to continue your rant? Because you're a troll looking for a fight? You're mean-spirited, as well as a troll. You've presented, so far, none of your own photographs, your true identity is unknown, and thus your thoughts are without standing. To wit: "what is the point of taking second rate photos that do have compositional merit, but which could have been much better with a camera with better lenses, definition, color saturation and speed?" Logically extending your argument, any images made with DLRS (or in the quaint terminology in your censored post, SLRs) are "second rate," because of the obvious superiority of medium and large format cameras. "you [are] knocking novices who spend a lot of money on equipment" Ed, or whoever you are, show me where I've put down novices who have purchased expensive camera equipment. Of the thousands of photographs I have posted here, only the 14 so far on this page were made with anything less than a traditional camera. I don't hide the fact - visible all over my gallery pages - that I use expensive DSLRs and medium format cameras all the time. You write that I'm knocking novices who read books "and the Internet in order to get better photos." Point out to me, please, where in these galleries I've "knocked" novices who read books and go online. If I've done so, it's only in your mind. On the other hand, novices who come here to obtain better photographs might indeed glean some useful ideas. I'm going to put you into that category: you've presented no photographs of your own, so I'm assuming you're a novice. Hang around and look what's in my other galleries and see what helpful hints you can pick up. If you're so inclined, leave a nice comment, as most other people have done over the years. "Isn't Rockwell always bragging that the camera does not matter" Let's be straight - you're jealous of Ken Rockwell's success. That's why you've latched onto my web page. And no, he isn't "bragging" that the camera doesn't matter - he's stating an opinion. You're misusing the word, "bragging." The phrase, "It's not the camera, it's the photographer," wasn't given birth by Ken Rockwell - it's probably been around about as long as there have been cameras. I would think most contemplative photographers are aware that the saying is true. This would include the likes of Chase Jarvis, Freeman Patterson, Thomas Mangelsen, etc., all of who own and use expensive camera gear, as well as the legions of Holga and pinhole photographers, and those who are still using 35mm film as their medium of choice. "Damn. He used to do great stuff when he was using medium format, but now he uses $9 throw aways from Costco." Your opinion of Ken Rockwell has nothing to do with this web page. It is a mean-spirited comment, though, just like your last comment on this page that I've hidden. And your statement is untrue, as Rockwell uses the newest, most expensive cameras he can get his hands on - currently a digital Leica. His use of disposable film cameras has been limited to one in the past four years. "Have you all thought you have exhausted the capability of medium format?" I'm not a spokesperson for others, although thanks for thinking I am. You, though, are a jealous, mean-spirited troll, with an axe to grind over the opinions and success of Ken Rockwell. You have issues you need to work through to achieve a sense of peace with yourself; take them up with Ken Rockwell. They've got nothing to do with me. For sure come back here often to see what I've done to your comments, and feel free to peruse the rest of my galleries. ;-)

Ed Rollins		28-Oct-2009 07:39
You thought my comments mean spirited because I criticized the minimalist movement and said you'd get much better photos with an SLR? My God that is thin skinned. I ask you, what is the point of taking second rate photos that do have compositional merit, but which could have been much better with a camera with better lenses, definition, color saturation and speed? The point is--I think--you feel as a pro that you can rub two sticks together and produce great art, while knocking novices who spend a lot of money on equipment and reading books and the Internet in order to get better photos. Isn't Rockwell always bragging that the camera does not matter, it is the photographer, and "proves" it to himself with his minimalist posts on his site? Damn. He used to do great stuff when he was using medium format, but now he uses $9 throw aways from Costco. Have you all thought you have exhausted the capability of medium format?

Guest		28-Oct-2009 06:51
What happened to the anti-iPhone comments that were posted earlier?

newelly		28-Oct-2009 06:12
nice iphone shots

Walter Otto Koenig		27-Oct-2009 19:11
Great results with the iPhone, you really got some quality shots.

Paolo Peggi (aka Bracciodiferro)		27-Oct-2009 18:58
very excellent pics! My vote! Paolo

click on thumbnails for full image

Type your message and click Add Comment

It is best to login or register first but you may post as a guest. Enter an optional name and contact email address. Name
Name Email
help	private comment

Type your message and click Add Comment

It is best to login or register first but you may post as a guest. Enter an optional name and contact email address. Name
Name Email
help	private comment