Johnly
Retired Moderator
Re: Does anyone else think the camera sucks?
Fixed it lol.
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
Fixed it lol.
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
Samsung Galaxy Note 3 - Does anyone else think the camera sucks?
- Thread starter amariem
- Start date
zmann
Well-known member
Re: Does anyone else think the camera sucks?
Oops,, I actually hit like twice by mistake,, that being said he just made a joke using a little sarcasm. He did not write a diatribe. Seems you care a bit more.
THE BEAST,,NOTE 3. SIZE IS EVERYTHING!!!
You're clearly interested in advocacy, not discussion. It's odd behavior for an adult. If somebody levies a legitimate criticism at a smartphone, you become enraged like a child or a pea-brained puppy. You treat this as something far more important and personal than it should be.
The Note 3 does not take good low light pictures. I regret writing as much as it has rattled you and your "Note 3 Warriors."
Android Central: the war path of the unimportant, the ineffectual, the inadequate.
sent from my Note 3
Oops,, I actually hit like twice by mistake,, that being said he just made a joke using a little sarcasm. He did not write a diatribe. Seems you care a bit more.
THE BEAST,,NOTE 3. SIZE IS EVERYTHING!!!
Re: Does anyone else think the camera sucks?
I'm not a Note 3 warrior. It's simply a product I like. Its not perfect but so far I'm happy with the compromises Samsung made in realizing it.
Nexus 7
I'm not a Note 3 warrior. It's simply a product I like. Its not perfect but so far I'm happy with the compromises Samsung made in realizing it.
Nexus 7
Re: Does anyone else think the camera sucks?
The fanaticism is appreciated, but I must draw the line at that "Note 3 Warrior" tramp stamp, even if it's done up in Samsung Note 3 font...... bad taste man!!
The fanaticism is appreciated, but I must draw the line at that "Note 3 Warrior" tramp stamp, even if it's done up in Samsung Note 3 font...... bad taste man!!
Johnly
Retired Moderator
Re: Does anyone else think the camera sucks?
Don't take that note 3 warrior to serious now. No phone is perfect but it is miss informing to say the note 3 camera is worse than the note 2. Having used both I find the camera a nice bump up in quality and don't have any low light gripes. The note series of phones get many things right. That is why I have decided to stay though a 32 gig wood backed moto x temps me.
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
Don't take that note 3 warrior to serious now. No phone is perfect but it is miss informing to say the note 3 camera is worse than the note 2. Having used both I find the camera a nice bump up in quality and don't have any low light gripes. The note series of phones get many things right. That is why I have decided to stay though a 32 gig wood backed moto x temps me.
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
Re: Does anyone else think the camera sucks?
Let the accessorizing begin.....
I actually have a pair of faux-wood earbud earphones that I bought for under $10.00 I bought them more as a gag gift, but surprisingly enough, they have a decent sound to them.
Let the accessorizing begin.....
I actually have a pair of faux-wood earbud earphones that I bought for under $10.00 I bought them more as a gag gift, but surprisingly enough, they have a decent sound to them.
Johnly
Retired Moderator
Re: Does anyone else think the camera sucks?
Those don't look to bad.
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
Those don't look to bad.
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
Re: Does anyone else think the camera sucks?
I'm personally a little partial to these as far as appearance goes, but what I've learned in the past is if a company puts a lot of money into the aesthetics of a product, that generally means they skimped a little on the internal hardware.
I'm personally a little partial to these as far as appearance goes, but what I've learned in the past is if a company puts a lot of money into the aesthetics of a product, that generally means they skimped a little on the internal hardware.
Johnly
Retired Moderator
Re: Does anyone else think the camera sucks?
Do they have those in the *silver bullet* version?
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
Do they have those in the *silver bullet* version?
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
Re: Does anyone else think the camera sucks?
Munitio SITi S 001 Nine Millimeter Bullet Earphones (silver) Accessories T9SITiS001 | PickYourShoes.com
Munitio SITi S 001 Nine Millimeter Bullet Earphones (silver) Accessories T9SITiS001 | PickYourShoes.com
LunatiqueRob
Well-known member
Re: Does anyone else think the camera sucks?
The color temperature of the flash in only one of the two problems associated with flash photography. The other problem is the light source being both very small and directly in front of the subject, causing the modeling of the forms to be very harsh and casting unappealing shadows. In lighting, the larger the light source, the softer the light quality, which casts soft and diffused shadows. This is why a sunny day under the sun causes very harsh shadows, but standing in the shade gives you very soft shadows, since in the shade, you are only being lit by the ambient bounced light from the sky dome, which is essentially a giant soft box made by Mother Nature. This is also why photographers use soft-boxes, or sun diffusers.
Traditionally, skilled photographers would bounce the flash onto a nearby wall or ceiling, or use a flash modifier such as the famous Sto-Fen's Omni-Bounce, Gary Fong's Lightshphere, Demb's Flip-it, Dana Ng's Wing Light, etc. This creates a much softer/diffused lighting from the flash, which blends with the scene's original lighting much better and is far more flattering. If there are no surfaces to bounce the flash off of, the photographer would have to either resort to just dialing the flash exposure compensation down and make sure the flash isn't too bright and dominate the scene's lighting too much, or use the flash modifier to make the flash head appear as a larger light source, thus softening the direct lighting from the flash somewhat. I have used quite a few of the the commercial flash diffusers on the market and also made a few DIY one's of my own, and currently the best one is Dana Ng's Light Wing--it lives on my flash.
Unfortunately, these flash diffuser products can't be used with a smartphone's flash, since phone flashes cannot be rotated like a traditional hotshoe flash. While some people try to diffuse the phone flash anyway with a piece of wax paper, or semi-transparent tape, or a piece of semi-transparent plastic, the fact is, it's mainly the size of the light source that dictates how soft the light quality is, so trying to scatter the light source while maintaining a tiny size doesn't make nearly as much of a difference.
That's mainly just people's ignorance. Anyone who understands photography and the current state of technology in the world of photography already knows that you cannot get decent low-light results when the sensor is too small. Hell, even in the world or "serious" photography, being able to get nice looking high-ISO is a relatively new phenomenon. It's only in the last five years or so the technology has suddenly shot forward, allowing shots at ISO 12800 and 25600 to look pretty damn amazing (though this is only true on large sensor cameras such as the 5D Mark III and its peers).
That is ALWAYS the goal, isn't it? When I upgraded from the Canon 1D Mark II to the 5D Mark III, I really "felt" like I had night vision, since I was able to shoot in ridiculously low light and still get decent results. My hope is that as technology advances, smartphone cameras will one day be at the same level of quality as today's high-end DSLR's. If we look at how far digital cameras have come, today's smartphone cameras are outperforming a lot of "serious" digital cameras from several years ago.
What? Don't all romantic couples take low-light photos of each other when they are looking adorable while sleeping? How about your adorable baby or pets while they are sleeping? What about at a romantic restaurant lit only by a candle light at the table? What about a moody shot of a lonely looking person sitting on the sidewalk lit only by the distant street lamp or a neon light from across the street? You guys need to think beyond the mundane and try to open up your artistic vision and see the world from a more creative/imaginative point of view. I understand that not everyone has artistic aspirations, but having a bit more creativity in our thinking will go a long way in making our lives more interesting.
There are so many interesting low-light situations that are worth taking photos of, and much of my own photography covers the low-light situations. I can talk your ears off about why low-light performance of any camera matters, but as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words, so I'll show some examples of the low-light shots I've taken over the years (with various cameras--from smartphones, consumer point & shoot, to professional DSLR's):
(These shots all have been post-processed. Originally they were all much darker and had more noise.)
And I want to make a simple point about why low-light shots matter so much. This next photo is one of my most treasured photos in my life thus far:
By technical/artistic standards, it is nothing special at all, and was taken in very low light by the iPhone 4 (if you look at the EXIF data embedded, you'll see that it was at ISO 1000, 1/15, f/2.8). But it is very special to me because of the moment I captured. My wife (AKA Kitty Cat, as seen in the photo diary on my website) and I were reading in bed before going to sleep, and when she closed her book, I thought she was just going to turn out her side of the lamp and go to sleep, but instead, she turned out the light and then crawled between my legs and rested her head on my tummy, and immediately fell asleep. It was the cutest thing ever, and the only camera I had close to me was my iPhone, so I snapped a couple of photos. (Obviously, the photo's been post-processed to appears brighter and less noisy).
I hope I have made a pretty good case for why we should care about low-light performance of our cameras, regardless if it's on a smartphone or not. There are just so many situations in life that happens in low-light environments.
The color temperature of the flash in only one of the two problems associated with flash photography. The other problem is the light source being both very small and directly in front of the subject, causing the modeling of the forms to be very harsh and casting unappealing shadows. In lighting, the larger the light source, the softer the light quality, which casts soft and diffused shadows. This is why a sunny day under the sun causes very harsh shadows, but standing in the shade gives you very soft shadows, since in the shade, you are only being lit by the ambient bounced light from the sky dome, which is essentially a giant soft box made by Mother Nature. This is also why photographers use soft-boxes, or sun diffusers.
Traditionally, skilled photographers would bounce the flash onto a nearby wall or ceiling, or use a flash modifier such as the famous Sto-Fen's Omni-Bounce, Gary Fong's Lightshphere, Demb's Flip-it, Dana Ng's Wing Light, etc. This creates a much softer/diffused lighting from the flash, which blends with the scene's original lighting much better and is far more flattering. If there are no surfaces to bounce the flash off of, the photographer would have to either resort to just dialing the flash exposure compensation down and make sure the flash isn't too bright and dominate the scene's lighting too much, or use the flash modifier to make the flash head appear as a larger light source, thus softening the direct lighting from the flash somewhat. I have used quite a few of the the commercial flash diffusers on the market and also made a few DIY one's of my own, and currently the best one is Dana Ng's Light Wing--it lives on my flash.
Unfortunately, these flash diffuser products can't be used with a smartphone's flash, since phone flashes cannot be rotated like a traditional hotshoe flash. While some people try to diffuse the phone flash anyway with a piece of wax paper, or semi-transparent tape, or a piece of semi-transparent plastic, the fact is, it's mainly the size of the light source that dictates how soft the light quality is, so trying to scatter the light source while maintaining a tiny size doesn't make nearly as much of a difference.
That's mainly just people's ignorance. Anyone who understands photography and the current state of technology in the world of photography already knows that you cannot get decent low-light results when the sensor is too small. Hell, even in the world or "serious" photography, being able to get nice looking high-ISO is a relatively new phenomenon. It's only in the last five years or so the technology has suddenly shot forward, allowing shots at ISO 12800 and 25600 to look pretty damn amazing (though this is only true on large sensor cameras such as the 5D Mark III and its peers).
That is ALWAYS the goal, isn't it?
When I upgraded from the Canon 1D Mark II to the 5D Mark III, I really "felt" like I had night vision, since I was able to shoot in ridiculously low light and still get decent results. My hope is that as technology advances, smartphone cameras will one day be at the same level of quality as today's high-end DSLR's. If we look at how far digital cameras have come, today's smartphone cameras are outperforming a lot of "serious" digital cameras from several years ago. My whole argument (sarcastically presented btw
What? Don't all romantic couples take low-light photos of each other when they are looking adorable while sleeping? How about your adorable baby or pets while they are sleeping? What about at a romantic restaurant lit only by a candle light at the table? What about a moody shot of a lonely looking person sitting on the sidewalk lit only by the distant street lamp or a neon light from across the street? You guys need to think beyond the mundane and try to open up your artistic vision and see the world from a more creative/imaginative point of view. I understand that not everyone has artistic aspirations, but having a bit more creativity in our thinking will go a long way in making our lives more interesting.
There are so many interesting low-light situations that are worth taking photos of, and much of my own photography covers the low-light situations. I can talk your ears off about why low-light performance of any camera matters, but as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words, so I'll show some examples of the low-light shots I've taken over the years (with various cameras--from smartphones, consumer point & shoot, to professional DSLR's):
(These shots all have been post-processed. Originally they were all much darker and had more noise.)
And I want to make a simple point about why low-light shots matter so much. This next photo is one of my most treasured photos in my life thus far:
By technical/artistic standards, it is nothing special at all, and was taken in very low light by the iPhone 4 (if you look at the EXIF data embedded, you'll see that it was at ISO 1000, 1/15, f/2.8). But it is very special to me because of the moment I captured. My wife (AKA Kitty Cat, as seen in the photo diary on my website) and I were reading in bed before going to sleep, and when she closed her book, I thought she was just going to turn out her side of the lamp and go to sleep, but instead, she turned out the light and then crawled between my legs and rested her head on my tummy, and immediately fell asleep. It was the cutest thing ever, and the only camera I had close to me was my iPhone, so I snapped a couple of photos. (Obviously, the photo's been post-processed to appears brighter and less noisy).
I hope I have made a pretty good case for why we should care about low-light performance of our cameras, regardless if it's on a smartphone or not. There are just so many situations in life that happens in low-light environments.
Last edited:
Johnly
Retired Moderator
Re: Does anyone else think the camera sucks?
I agree man. Low light photos can be quite dramatic. I just don't agree that the note 3 took a step backwards. There are enough tools on the software to *capture* a low light moment on the note 3 if that is all you have. I don't think the note 3 camera and its Sony sensor are a *bad* camera. From my shots and many good blogs it is evident that for a cell phone camera the note 3 packs a great shooter.
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
I agree man. Low light photos can be quite dramatic. I just don't agree that the note 3 took a step backwards. There are enough tools on the software to *capture* a low light moment on the note 3 if that is all you have. I don't think the note 3 camera and its Sony sensor are a *bad* camera. From my shots and many good blogs it is evident that for a cell phone camera the note 3 packs a great shooter.
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
LunatiqueRob
Well-known member
Re: Does anyone else think the camera sucks?
I won't receive my Note 3 until after the first week of November (ting is getting their Note 3's in on November 6th), but as soon as I get it, I'll take plenty of low-light shots with it, and I'll do my due diligence on how to squeeze every last drop of low-light performance out it, and I'll share my findings with all of you, so you guys can also get the most out of your Note 3's.
I won't receive my Note 3 until after the first week of November (ting is getting their Note 3's in on November 6th), but as soon as I get it, I'll take plenty of low-light shots with it, and I'll do my due diligence on how to squeeze every last drop of low-light performance out it, and I'll share my findings with all of you, so you guys can also get the most out of your Note 3's.
Johnly
Retired Moderator
Re: Does anyone else think the camera sucks?
I think you should start a *how to get the best* out of your note 3 camera thread. I would subscribe. I haven't taken the time to really dive into the note 3 camera as much as I want to. I think you will find it has a pretty good camera for what it is.
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
I think you should start a *how to get the best* out of your note 3 camera thread. I would subscribe. I haven't taken the time to really dive into the note 3 camera as much as I want to. I think you will find it has a pretty good camera for what it is.
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
zmann
Well-known member
Re: Does anyone else think the camera sucks?
Oh man, with all due respect the women in them pictures is absolutely breathtaking.
THE BEAST,,NOTE 3. SIZE IS EVERYTHING!!!
Oh man, with all due respect the women in them pictures is absolutely breathtaking.
THE BEAST,,NOTE 3. SIZE IS EVERYTHING!!!
Re: Does anyone else think the camera sucks?
I can see your point. My only contention was with the picture of the stool in the dark room and other similar pictures. I can understand taking one under certain conditions, but to take one under those conditions to claim the phone is an abomination is a little heavy handed. I just took an indoor picture, pointed at the floor, just spontaneously. No lighting, except from a draped window.
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk 2
The color temperature of the flash in only one of the two problems associated with flash photography. The other problem is the light source being both very small and directly in front of the subject, causing the modeling of the forms to be very harsh and casting unappealing shadows. In lighting, the larger the light source, the softer the light quality, which casts soft and diffused shadows. This is why a sunny day under the sun causes very harsh shadows, but standing in the shade gives you very soft shadows, since in the shade, you are only being lit by the ambient bounced light from the sky dome, which is essentially a giant soft box made by Mother Nature. This is also why photographers use soft-boxes, or sun diffusers.
Traditionally, skilled photographers would bounce the flash onto a nearby wall or ceiling, or use a flash modifier such as the famous Sto-Fen's Omni-Bounce, Gary Fong's Lightshphere, Demb's Flip-it, Dana Ng's Wing Light, etc. This creates a much softer/diffused lighting from the flash, which blends with the scene's original lighting much better and is far more flattering. If there are no surfaces to bounce the flash off of, the photographer would have to either resort to just dialing the flash exposure compensation down and make sure the flash isn't too bright and dominate the scene's lighting too much, or use the flash modifier to make the flash head appear as a larger light source, thus softening the direct lighting from the flash somewhat. I have used quite a few of the the commercial flash diffusers on the market and also made a few DIY one's of my own, and currently the best one is Dana Ng's Light Wing--it lives on my flash.
Unfortunately, these flash diffuser products can't be used with a smartphone's flash, since phone flashes cannot be rotated like a traditional hotshoe flash. While some people try to diffuse the phone flash anyway with a piece of wax paper, or semi-transparent tape, or a piece of semi-transparent plastic, the fact is, it's mainly the size of the light source that dictates how soft the light quality is, so trying to scatter the light source while maintaining a tiny size doesn't make nearly as much of a difference.
That's mainly just people's ignorance. Anyone who understands photography and the current state of technology in the world of photography already knows that you cannot get decent low-light results when the sensor is too small. Hell, even in the world or "serious" photography, being able to get nice looking high-ISO is a relatively new phenomenon. It's only in the last five years or so the technology has suddenly shot forward, allowing shots at ISO 12800 and 25600 to look pretty damn amazing (though this is only true on large sensor cameras such as the 5D Mark III and its peers).
That is ALWAYS the goal, isn't it?
What? Don't all romantic couples take low-light photos of each other when they are looking adorable while sleeping? How about your adorable baby or pets while they are sleeping? What about at a romantic restaurant lit only by a candle light at the table? What about a moody shot of a lonely looking person sitting on the sidewalk lit only by the distant street lamp or a neon light from across the street? You guys need to think beyond the mundane and try to open up your artistic vision and see the world from a more creative/imaginative point of view. I understand that not everyone has artistic aspirations, but having a bit more creativity in our thinking will go a long way in making our lives more interesting.
There are so many interesting low-light situations that are worth taking photos of, and much of my own photography covers the low-light situations. I can talk your ears off about why low-light performance of any camera matters, but as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words, so I'll show some examples of the low-light shots I've taken over the years (with various cameras--from smartphones, consumer point & shoot, to professional DSLR's):
(These shots all have been post-processed. Originally they were all much darker and had more noise.)
http://www.ethereality.info/etherea...sions_of_china/rain_riders/rain_riders-06.jpg
http://www.ethereality.info/etherea...sions_of_china/rain_riders/rain_riders-04.jpg
http://www.ethereality.info/etherea...ortfolio/still_life_&_products/radioclock.jpg
http://www.ethereality.info/etherea...y/1DMKII_portfolio/elena/elena4/elena4-10.jpg
http://www.ethereality.info/ethereality_website/photography/c3030z_portfolio/inna/inna_6.jpg
http://www.ethereality.info/etherea.../c3030z_portfolio/elena/elena_3/elena3_06.jpg
http://www.ethereality.info/etherea...na/elena_in_shanghai/elena_in_shanghai-01.jpg
http://www.ethereality.info/etherea...tty_cat_diaries/2004/kitty_cat_diaries-39.jpg
http://www.ethereality.info/etherea...tty_cat_diaries/2005/kitty_cat_diaries-55.jpg
http://www.ethereality.info/etherea...tty_cat_diaries/2005/kitty_cat_diaries-46.jpg
http://www.ethereality.info/etherea...itty_cat_diaries/2011/kittycat_diary-1136.jpg
And I want to make a simple point about why low-light shots matter so much. This next photo is one of my most treasured photos in my life thus far:
http://www.ethereality.info/etherea...itty_cat_diaries/2011/kittycat_diary-1166.jpg
By technical/artistic standards, it is nothing special at all, and was taken in very low light by the iPhone 4 (if you look at the EXIF data embedded, you'll see that it was at ISO 1000, 1/15, f/2.8). But it is very special to me because of the moment I captured. My wife (AKA Kitty Cat, as seen in the photo diary on my website) and I were reading in bed before going to sleep, and when she closed her book, I thought she was just going to turn out her side of the lamp and go to sleep, but instead, she turned out the light and then crawled between my legs and rested her head on my tummy, and immediately fell asleep. It was the cutest thing ever, and the only camera I had close to me was my iPhone, so I snapped a couple of photos. (Obviously, the photo's been post-processed to appears brighter and less noisy).
I hope I have made a pretty good case for why we should care about low-light performance of our cameras, regardless if it's on a smartphone or not. There are just so many situations in life that happens in low-light environments.
I can see your point. My only contention was with the picture of the stool in the dark room and other similar pictures. I can understand taking one under certain conditions, but to take one under those conditions to claim the phone is an abomination is a little heavy handed. I just took an indoor picture, pointed at the floor, just spontaneously. No lighting, except from a draped window.
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk 2
LunatiqueRob
Well-known member
Re: Does anyone else think the camera sucks?
Hahaha--thanks man. With the exception of that one Russian girl, the photos are of Elena (AKA Kitty Cat), my wife. I've been keeping a photo diary of her for about 12 years now, in the photography section on my website, called "KItty Cat Diary." You can check out my photography at my site here:
Robert Chang: Artist | Composer | Photographer| Writer/Director
Hahaha--thanks man. With the exception of that one Russian girl, the photos are of Elena (AKA Kitty Cat), my wife. I've been keeping a photo diary of her for about 12 years now, in the photography section on my website, called "KItty Cat Diary." You can check out my photography at my site here:
Robert Chang: Artist | Composer | Photographer| Writer/Director
Re: Does anyone else think the camera sucks?
As I stated earlier in the thread, the majority of my pictures are taken in low light as well. Your post couldn't have illustrated it any better. Well done sir! :thumbup:
tap'n
Thank you for explaining it so perfectly!
As I stated earlier in the thread, the majority of my pictures are taken in low light as well. Your post couldn't have illustrated it any better. Well done sir! :thumbup:
tap'n
LunatiqueRob
Well-known member
Re: Does anyone else think the camera sucks?
I downloaded you photo to see what the EXIF says, but there was nothing, just like the dark stools shots I tried to check previously, and I recall reading somewhere that Samsung wipes all EXIF information embedded in the photos as to not allow anyone to know what the limitations of its camera are. That's really annoying, isn't it?
But yeah, I agree with you. The stool in the dark is really an extreme example. There is a certain limit to any camera's capability, and to push it that far would get you really crappy photos. You have to learn to work around your camera's limitations. Even with that better photo from the Note 2 he posted, it's still a low enough lighting that you'd need a really compelling reason to be taking a photo with that kind of lighting; it better be a profound Kodak Moment or some crime-in-progress photo.
I remember in the past, there were situations where I saw something I wanted to take photos of, but knowing how limited the high ISO performance was on the camera I was using, I knew it would just be a dark, noisy mess, so I didn't even bother. Now, with the advances in digital imaging, lens design, software, and computers, they allow me the chance to be brave and take the shot anyway and then see how much I can improve the photo in post-processing. There are now very, very few situations where I feel like I shouldn't even bother taking the shot. My philosophy now is to take the shot and see how far I can take it in post-processing. It's better than not having a shot at all.
I downloaded you photo to see what the EXIF says, but there was nothing, just like the dark stools shots I tried to check previously, and I recall reading somewhere that Samsung wipes all EXIF information embedded in the photos as to not allow anyone to know what the limitations of its camera are. That's really annoying, isn't it?
But yeah, I agree with you. The stool in the dark is really an extreme example. There is a certain limit to any camera's capability, and to push it that far would get you really crappy photos. You have to learn to work around your camera's limitations. Even with that better photo from the Note 2 he posted, it's still a low enough lighting that you'd need a really compelling reason to be taking a photo with that kind of lighting; it better be a profound Kodak Moment or some crime-in-progress photo.
I remember in the past, there were situations where I saw something I wanted to take photos of, but knowing how limited the high ISO performance was on the camera I was using, I knew it would just be a dark, noisy mess, so I didn't even bother. Now, with the advances in digital imaging, lens design, software, and computers, they allow me the chance to be brave and take the shot anyway and then see how much I can improve the photo in post-processing. There are now very, very few situations where I feel like I shouldn't even bother taking the shot. My philosophy now is to take the shot and see how far I can take it in post-processing. It's better than not having a shot at all.
Johnly
Retired Moderator
Re: Does anyone else think the camera sucks?
Nice blog.
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
Nice blog.
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
Similar threads
Trending Posts
-
News What color Google Pixel 8a should you buy?- Started by AC News
- Replies: 0
-
-
Question tablet reset didn't work and won't move past start screen
- Started by hulkjr77
- Replies: 1
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram