Apple is currently running an advertising campaign with the theme “Shot on iPhone 6.” I suppose the message Apple is trying to promote is that the iPhone 6 is a capable camera. (The same aim is probably true for previous iPhone models.) Taking a look through the gallery linked above, and acknowledging that the contents of the gallery might change over time, a couple of points stand out to me from the pictures currently on display:
- Few of the photographs appear to have been shot in low light. The only low light pictures I see are landscapes, which place relatively light demands on the equipment. (Set your camera up on a tripod. If you are hand-holding your camera, brace yourself against a wall or other solid object to help stabilise the camera.)
- None of the photographs are of action in low light. There are no indoor sports pictures at all. I’m not saying that we couldn’t shoot some decent indoor sports photographs with an iPhone, but any mobile telephone would not be my first choice for this type of shooting! The sensor (and hence, potential image quality), degree of control, and frame rate would be far superior with a DSLR.
For all of the pictures currently on display in Apple’s iPhone 6 gallery, the camera is probably the least important factor—the same photographs could have been shot with even less capable cameras than an iPhone. Instead, the individual photographer’s artistic vision and skill are the most important factors in making the pictures as distinctive or beautiful as they are.
This is consistent with what many other photographers have said before, and it ties in with some articles I read recently on The Online Photographer (edited by Mike Johnston). First, there’s Should You Ever Work for Free? (posing the age old question that all serious photographers have probably faced), and following on from that is The Hawkins Axiom. These posts, and the associated comments, raise some of the issues photographers face when being asked to work for no financial compensation.
I think the general undervaluing of photographers’ skills comes down, in part, to not appreciating how much work is actually involved in creating an excellent photograph. Aiming the camera and pressing the shutter release button are just the tip of the iceberg. Another recent article, The Unspoken Reason Why Wedding Photography is So Expensive (Pavel Kounine, 3 February 2015), sets out some of the considerations involved from a professional wedding photographer’s point of view.
Reflecting on my own (amateur) experience to date, I have shot a few weddings for family and friends (at no cost to them), both as principal photographer and as a supplementary photographer. As far as most observers would have been concerned, I probably spent just a few hours shooting at the wedding and the reception. In reality, many more hours went into sorting and post-processing the source images to create the polished final set of images.
The most demanding event involved shooting the wedding and the reception—around three hours’ work—followed by a full 32 hours of intensive post-processing over two days (i.e., 16 hours of work per day for two days). The aim was to get a good selection of images ready as quickly as possible after the wedding—so that they could be shared in person with the newlywed couple’s extended family, who had flown in for the wedding and were returning overseas. In this case, the amount of time spent shooting was less than a tenth of the time taken for the project as a whole. A wedding photographer’s job is not an easy one!
At this point, I’ll make a recommendation if you’re in Perth and looking for a wedding photographer par excellence.
I selected Erica Serena from a range of first-class professional photographers whose work I surveyed some years ago, I’ve entrusted her with the most important photographic work in my life since that time, and I personally refer my family and friends to her without hesitation.