I like how they draw a lens with a smartphone matrix, especially at long exposures or at long focus. Instead of hyperrealism and crazy detail of the SLR camera, it turns out impressionism, where reality goes far away and turns out like a painting. Cameras have always tried to convey a picture as accurately as possible corresponding to reality. And the task of the photographer in this reality is to find some interesting subjects that people in everyday life do not pay attention to.
On the smartphone, the camera draws scenes that often do not correspond to reality.
This can be both a minus and a plus.
Very often I come across the fact that I cannot repeat the same frame on the DSLR.
This is all because of the physical properties of the cameras, which are very different.
Due to the tiny matrix, the smartphone has an excessively large depth of field even at long focus, thanks to which you can create interesting spotty scenes that are inaccessible to a SLR camera with a telephoto lens.
A smartphone camera is still the same means of transmitting reality as other photographic equipment.
If we recall the very beginning of photography as a whole, then it was possible to convey at least something with the help of some photosensitive element.
Over the years, the quality has grown not just to realism, but even beyond that: different panoramas, large format, overlapping of several frames into one, etc.
But also over the years, photography began to flow from realism closer to painting.
That is, we came from sur to precision, and now we are rolling back back to sur.
I'm not a fan of such a direction as low quality photography (photographing with low-quality cameras), but sometimes I like how artificial intelligence draws in cameras.
This is especially noticeable at long exposures and long focus. It is a pity that physics does not yet allow the implementation of a telephoto lens on modern smartphones, but there is already a breakthrough.
If I had a smartphone like this, in film times, then I probably would never have switched to a digital mirror.
For many years, I would have had enough of the quality that the device gives out.
By the way, I haven't connected to the frequency of film photography for a long time.
Apparently, this is a completely different atmosphere.
Film photography in the modern world seems to me not about art, but about technology.
Art is when there is not even the slightest thought about what you are shooting for, what filter you will apply, how you will process it.
I don't want to use technical techniques, but creative ones.
And film for me has been a technical technique for a long time.
Because if we talk about creativity, then modern digital cameras can make a much better and better frame.
Why do you need a film if even a smartphone shoots a hundred times better at night?
They say there is a soul in the film, a lampiness.
No, there is a soul in all of us, and a camera is a means of conveying a state of mind.
But if the medium does not convey the way I would like, then this medium is not good enough.
I can't explain it, but I feel it, and I feel it not only for myself, but I imagine it through other film makers.
The film is either posturing, or you are very rich and can afford a positive (slide) film, perhaps even on an average format.
But I don't touch on such too narrow circles of film photographers, because it's expensive and sooo rare.
To buy a Kodak Gold 200 in a store and charge it to Zenith (yes, even an autofocus Canon) is pampering.
There is no genre where cheap (and even expensive) film would be in demand more than digital technology.
I'll get my smartphone out faster and make a decisive shot or even a series and instantly send it to the media, even to a friend.
And everyone will know that some kind of event has happened.
And if it is an artistic frame, then everyone will admire the picture online.
To be continued...