On facebook I have as one of my likes photobox. I find photobox a very nice company for printing enlarged images and books. They also make interesting posts on facebook.
On my news feed was this post;
We’ve been having an interesting debate here on the Photobox Facebook page. Do you think mobile photography, or ‘motography’ is a credible art form? Will it ever be regarded in the same manner as photography using an SLR or DSLR?
This is an interesting question, I remember an advert when I was at uni studying photography and the new Sony Ericson k750 phone had come out with a 2 mega pixel camera. The advert showed pictures being taken in a way that could match other high end compact cameras. This statred talk in my uni house as we were all studing art courses as well as flaming debate in the classroom.
The question was really, can a camera phone be superior or on a par with professional cameras?
The answer to that question is and was no. A camera from a tablet or a phone cannot match the quality of a professional camera. The sensor in these devices are smaller than a DSLR and digital medium format cameras. In turn this means that that the number of pixels on the sensor will be smaller than on pro cameras. In the digital camera world pixels matter.
The photobox question though came in two parts, firstly being will “motography” (mobile photography) be a credible art form.
For me it doesn’t matter how you make your images, becuase the image is everything. Just becuase you have a hassalblad or Nikon/Canon DSLR also doesn’t make you a photographer.
It is not what you have but what you can do with it.
If a person does not know how to compose an image or light it in a way that conveys a message or an idea. If someone doesn’t know how to control exposure and know how to judge when to leave areas over or under exposed for effect and mood. As well the image you capture is not the end product, their is post production and then preparing the image for print. If a person cannot do this with their image than they are not a photographer either.
You could say that motography isn’t any different from lomography, in the end they are just photography using a specific technology. Lomography has in recent years become a craze though as all crazes they come and go with fashion. Motography is people using the tools they have at hand.
For me motography is to closely linked to instgram, which distracts me from looking seriously at any images. It was once the same with HDR photography which now it has calmed down and more refined and is a nice part of photography.
The second part of the question, will it ever be seen as the same as a DSLR or SLR.
My answer why should it matter, what you shoot with. People would shoot with Polariod, 5×4 land cameras, TTL cameras. It didn’t matter what you shot with as long as your image was good. Of course there were fashions and trends as with all forms of art. The same argument could be about the type of film used. Will Kodak Ultra be seen in the same light as Fuji Velia. they are tools in the belt of the photographer.
A photographer makes the best with the equipment they have at the time If I am at a party and have forgotten my compact, (I possibly would not be taking my DSLR to a party ) I would be happy to take pictures with my phone for these pictures, the same with at a concert but would I use it for photographing a wedding, no.
This whole topic makes me feel like the old arguments of film vs digital. I once would have argued film in my youth. but i have now come to realise that film has it place the same as digital. and that really the base knowledge of film gives you an edge when it comes to digital photography.
Is motography a valid form of photography, yes. It is part of the photographic evolution.
Will motography be seen in the same regard as photography with DSLR and SLR, maybe if it used as a tool in the belt but not as the sole device in the photographers hand maybe not.