Marginal OT- are today's phone cameras that good?? Some great grocery pics of late.

lousubcap

I have noticed that either my eyes are getting better with age or the food pron quality pics are improving almost every day.  I'm assigning the quality to the one who takes the shot but the clarity and rich color schemes seem to be measurably better of late.  Recent phone upgrades in the mix or am I off base here?  (For the record, I am several generations behind in smart phone technology.)

The Cen-Tex Smoker

Yes. Crazy good. iPhone 7 here

The Cen-Tex Smoker

Btw- how did the brisket turn out last night?

bhedges1987

It's the phone camera... I don't do it, but I have noticed a lot of folks here use filters to further enhance.  Enhanced up top.  Normal on bottom.

Heres a difference.

theyolksonyou

Just personal observation, eyes don't generally get better with age. 

Mattman3969

It's the phones Cap along with some basic editing apps. I generally just run thru the phone unless I have a pic in serious need of help the I use an app called Snapseed that @hapster told me about awhile back 

lousubcap

@The Cen-Tex Smoker It was excellent.  I did catch a finish-line pic but there was no way I was gonna slow down the feeding frenzy without undo crap.  The measure was the family inhaled it.  But I am still working to get to the consistency of any of the well-known Austin stops.  
Would I "go for the gold" again- yup but probably not more than once a year.  I am good with the Black around 5-6 times a year with no complaints from SWMBO.  I can live well in that place.  
Thanks for asking-but you Austinites have an idea of how good you have it-but you don't really can't appreciate it til you leave Texas.  

tarheelmatt

lousubcap said:

I have noticed that either my eyes are getting better with age or the food pron quality pics are improving almost every day.  I'm assigning the quality to the one who takes the shot but the clarity and rich color schemes seem to be measurably better of late.  Recent phone upgrades in the mix or am I off base here?  (For the record, I am several generations behind in smart phone technology.)

The dynamic range of newer camera sensors "see more light", if that makes sense. Not so much the megapixels, but the sensor.  You can bring more shadows out and with more detail.

Editing software or apps help. Snapseed is a great tool.  

gmac

theyolksonyou said:

Just personal observation, eyes don't generally get better with age. 

Mine sure haven't. Bought my first pair of cheaters the other day. 

I know that they are getting better but I still think a good camera is the way to go personally. Maybe I just don't like looking like someone taking a selfie. 

The Cen-Tex Smoker

lousubcap said:

@The Cen-Tex Smoker It was excellent.  I did catch a finish-line pic but there was no way I was gonna slow down the feeding frenzy without undo crap.  The measure was the family inhaled it.  But I am still working to get to the consistency of any of the well-known Austin stops.  
Would I "go for the gold" again- yup but probably not more than once a year.  I am good with the Black around 5-6 times a year with no complaints from SWMBO.  I can live well in that place.  
Thanks for asking-but you Austinites have an idea of how good you have it-but you don't really can't appreciate it til you leave Texas.  

I do 3-4 SRF black a year and maybe 3-4 local scores when I see a good one. Still never done a gold. 

I don't use filters on the phone cam btw. Point and shoot is all I got

lousubcap

@The Cen-Tex Smoker - if I had daily access to your brisket groceries I doubt I would  be screwing around with Q.  As well traveled as you are you know what you have.  I am sure you hear it from several but the joy of nailing an Austin quality brisket is about the top of the mountain for me.   I don't get there very often but when it happens it is worth all the screw-ups on the way.  I will again make the road-trip some day and you will be forewarned.  

The Cen-Tex Smoker

lousubcap said:

@The Cen-Tex Smoker - if I had daily access to your brisket groceries I doubt I would  be screwing around with Q.  As well traveled as you are you know what you have.  I am sure you hear it from several but the joy of nailing an Austin quality brisket is about the top of the mountain for me.   I don't get there very often but when it happens it is worth all the screw-ups on the way.  I will again make the road-trip some day and you will be forewarned.  

I don't nail them as often as I would like but I am probably more critical since I live in the belly of the beast. I do have access to good groceries when it comes to beef bbq though. My local had unlabeled wagyu for $5.99 lb this weekend. The only way I knew is everything else in the cooler was $2.69 (prime) and $3.99 (Meyer all natural choice). That's the way it is here. Prime is cheaper than all natural choice- and the all natural choice is way better. Not even close. IT said "american Kobe" in tiny print on the price label. Otherwise it looked like a commodity piece of meat.  

lousubcap

@The Cen-Tex Smoker  as a sailor by background I could give you a few words to live by.  Decorum and the forum will save us.  Your background obviously enables you to find a great cut for a great price.  Knowing what to look for makes the search that much easier.  Every time I see your (or someone else from central Texas) post about a great brisket score I just subscribe that to "better to be lucky than good" but that only works for a while.  Central Texas, the pinnacle of brisket- tough to find a moniker that means more.  Have a great week-

DoubleEgger

Calling it a phone is old school. The phone is probably the least used feature these days. 

lousubcap

@DoubleEgger -guilty as charged.  That said, I don't see the marketing/advertising using another descriptive term.  Could be missing that as well.

DoubleEgger

lousubcap said:

@DoubleEgger -guilty as charged.  That said, I don't see the marketing/advertising using another descriptive term.  Could be missing that as well.

I call it a phone too. 

Ozzie_Isaac

Its the phones.  My S6 (2 generations old) takes better pics than my first DSLR did.

YukonRon

Ozzie_Isaac said:

Its the phones.  My S6 (2 generations old) takes better pics than my first DSLR did.

That is an awesome shot.

northGAcock

theyolksonyou said:

Just personal observation, eyes don't generally get better with age. 

A wealth of knowledge coming out of North Georgia. 

Focker

For me, the S7 gets the job done.
Before that it was a great Canon S95.

I have learned through the years, lighting is equally important.
Between the daylight hitting the sacrificial altar, new brighter subway tile, and addition of soft lights above the sink and PAR 20s in the range hood, my pics have improved significantly.

Filters, apps, water marks, are like using parchment for pizza. Lol

tarheelmatt

Focker said:

For me, the S7 gets the job done.
Before that it was a great Canon S95.

I have learned through the years, lighting is equally important.
Between the daylight hitting the sacrificial altar, new brighter subway tile, and addition of soft lights above the sink and PAR 20s in the range hood, my pics have improved significantly.

Filters, apps, water marks, are like using parchment for pizza. Lol

Don't think so Tim, but what do I know. Filters not so much, but post work is just as critical as your image. WaterMark is a coin flip. Makes it somewhat harder for others to use. 

Focker

tarheelmatt said:

Focker said:

For me, the S7 gets the job done.
Before that it was a great Canon S95.

I have learned through the years, lighting is equally important.
Between the daylight hitting the sacrificial altar, new brighter subway tile, and addition of soft lights above the sink and PAR 20s in the range hood, my pics have improved significantly.

Filters, apps, water marks, are like using parchment for pizza. Lol

Don't think so Tim, but what do I know. Filters not so much, but post work is just as critical as your image. WaterMark is a coin flip. Makes it somewhat harder for others to use. 

RTFFT is an acronym I try and live by.
Natural sunlight rules.

Some photos, like maybe some you have posted, are so overdone it's obvious.  The vivid orange achiote-like but achioteless rub colors for one example.  Glowing gold tortillas another.  Too bright, too artificially vivid.  You're one step from cutting your ear off, and painting the grill marks on, water marks appropriate at that point.

Ozzie_Isaac

YukonRon said:

Ozzie_Isaac said:

Its the phones.  My S6 (2 generations old) takes better pics than my first DSLR did.

That is an awesome shot.

Thanks!  Falls squarely in "even a blind squirrel finds a nut" camp

tarheelmatt

Focker said:

tarheelmatt said:

Focker said:

For me, the S7 gets the job done.
Before that it was a great Canon S95.

I have learned through the years, lighting is equally important.
Between the daylight hitting the sacrificial altar, new brighter subway tile, and addition of soft lights above the sink and PAR 20s in the range hood, my pics have improved significantly.

Filters, apps, water marks, are like using parchment for pizza. Lol

Don't think so Tim, but what do I know. Filters not so much, but post work is just as critical as your image. WaterMark is a coin flip. Makes it somewhat harder for others to use. 

RTFFT is an acronym I try and live by.
Natural sunlight rules.

Some photos, like maybe some you have posted, are so overdone it's obvious.  The vivid orange achiote-like but achioteless rub colors for one example.  Glowing gold tortillas another.  Too bright, too artificially vivid.  You're one step from cutting your ear off, and painting the grill marks on, water marks appropriate at that point.

Lol..   If someone says "watermarks aren't needed", means no one has wanted your pictures before.  

Ozzie_Isaac

tarheelmatt said:

Focker said:

tarheelmatt said:

Focker said:

For me, the S7 gets the job done.
Before that it was a great Canon S95.

I have learned through the years, lighting is equally important.
Between the daylight hitting the sacrificial altar, new brighter subway tile, and addition of soft lights above the sink and PAR 20s in the range hood, my pics have improved significantly.

Filters, apps, water marks, are like using parchment for pizza. Lol

Don't think so Tim, but what do I know. Filters not so much, but post work is just as critical as your image. WaterMark is a coin flip. Makes it somewhat harder for others to use. 

RTFFT is an acronym I try and live by.
Natural sunlight rules.

Some photos, like maybe some you have posted, are so overdone it's obvious.  The vivid orange achiote-like but achioteless rub colors for one example.  Glowing gold tortillas another.  Too bright, too artificially vivid.  You're one step from cutting your ear off, and painting the grill marks on, water marks appropriate at that point.

Lol..   If someone says "watermarks aren't needed", means no one has wanted your pictures before.  

I hate watermarks.  So many nice photos ruined by low resolution uploads and watermarks.  How am I supposed to use those in my cook books, like Steven Rainchlen does?

theyolksonyou

Ozzie_Isaac said:

tarheelmatt said:

Focker said:

tarheelmatt said:

Focker said:

For me, the S7 gets the job done.
Before that it was a great Canon S95.

I have learned through the years, lighting is equally important.
Between the daylight hitting the sacrificial altar, new brighter subway tile, and addition of soft lights above the sink and PAR 20s in the range hood, my pics have improved significantly.

Filters, apps, water marks, are like using parchment for pizza. Lol

Don't think so Tim, but what do I know. Filters not so much, but post work is just as critical as your image. WaterMark is a coin flip. Makes it somewhat harder for others to use. 

RTFFT is an acronym I try and live by.
Natural sunlight rules.

Some photos, like maybe some you have posted, are so overdone it's obvious.  The vivid orange achiote-like but achioteless rub colors for one example.  Glowing gold tortillas another.  Too bright, too artificially vivid.  You're one step from cutting your ear off, and painting the grill marks on, water marks appropriate at that point.

Lol..   If someone says "watermarks aren't needed", means no one has wanted your pictures before.  

I hate watermarks.  So many nice photos ruined by low resolution uploads and watermarks.  How am I supposed to use those in my coombooks, like Steven Rainchlen does?

I typically try to crop them out if possible. 

ToTheMax

More and more I've been using my phone camera over my SLR (5DIII with a bunch of glass).

Not because it's better, but because it's more convenient. Unless I know I'm going to print something, and printing it large (i.e. 24"x36"), I don't see the point of dragging out the SLR.

As several people up-thread have stated, lighting is crucial.

rifrench

We have one choice at home for internet, a mobile hot spot from our provider (starts w/a V). In fact, it has it's own cell phone #. Some of the photos on this forum and others are in such high resolution that the download is so slow I have to pass them by. Add the fact that we are on the very fringe of 4G service. If there are any suggestions to speed up service, I would appreciate them.   

tarheelmatt

rifrench said:

We have one choice at home for internet, a mobile hot spot from our provider (starts w/a V). In fact, it has it's own cell phone #. Some of the photos on this forum and others are in such high resolution that the download is so slow I have to pass them by. Add the fact that we are on the very fringe of 4G service. If there are any suggestions to speed up service, I would appreciate them.   

For me, I resize most of my post cooks for this very reason and link it to the post instead of attaching in the post.  

rifrench

I appreciate that you do that, tarheelmatt! Kudos to you and anyone else considerate enough  to go through the extra step !

TN_Sister_State

My Nexus 6p takes amazing photos with it's auto focus and hdlr processing. Phone cameras have come a long way for sure.