SweetPoison
iPF Noob
I don't think that these pictures are bad at all!
http://www.ipadforums.net/ipad-2-forum/35698-post-picture-you-took-your-ipad.html
http://www.ipadforums.net/ipad-2-forum/35698-post-picture-you-took-your-ipad.html
SingingSabre said:Try out Bump. It's cross platform, super easy to set up and use, and actually kinda fun to use. Oh, and it's for the low, low price of free.
My camera has totally shut down the screen shot is the closed shutters. While I do not intend to use my iPad as a camera I do expect that all the functions will work properly. Has anyone found a fix to the problem short of the restart/reset or just taking it back to Apple?
SingingSabre
iPF Noob
fbbdab said:
I'm not understanding your problem. Perhaps you should post it under a new thread for technical assistance or search for your problem?
SweetPoison
iPF Noob
Excellent idea. Let's not hi-jack this thread, please.
SweetPoison
iPF Noob
Ronfromcocoa
iPF Noob
camera
I love the pics I get with my ipad , but then again I did not expect a nikon quality............
I love the pics I get with my ipad , but then again I did not expect a nikon quality............
I occasionally read about how cumbersome and bothersome it is to use the iPad as a camera. Something about holding that large flat thing being too difficult. Coming from a Graflex/Crown Graphic background, a large sized "camera" like the iPad 2 is a walk in the park. Some of you are so young, you think all cameras must be small and measured in megapixels. So very sad, Smiley.
Try schlepping a vintage steel, wood, and cast iron tripod up the hill along with an 8 x 10 view camera and a bag of film holders and get back to me. Smiley.
As for the camera its'self, it is not very good in my view. Remember, I am old and crabby, so you kids better listen to your Uber-Elders for we know.
Welcome to the Forums.
Isn't your IMAC a desktop computer? Not the same as a camera. The camera in your iPad has a lens, a something else, and several Keebler Elves working hard to create image magic. Not sure your comparison is fair because your iMac is not a camera. Or is it?
Quality depends on many things and when you have lots of experience in the lab and you spent your youth behind truly fine cameras, no digital camera is good enough. For some, their multi-thousand digital wonder takes spectacular images. They are happy. For others, it is not even close when they compare Apples and Robots to Linhofs and Kodak Master View Cameras with Ektars.
Not sure Apple intends their iPad to be a camera. Rather, it is Facetime oriented. It is terrible way to take good images, but the word 'good' is in itself a problem depending on what is meant by good.
The problem with these debates is this: everyone has different needs and requirements and what works for me likely will never, ever work for you.
To say the camera quality is sub-par is something I can do because I know what a great image looks like and what it often requires to produce. And I am comparing the digital images to images on film and looking at things like highlights and shadow detail, sharpness, depth of field, etc. But that is just me.
For those with lesser needs, most modern cameras are workable. The camera in the iPhone is a good one but it would never be my choice.
I always opt for film, but film is not as fast as digital. By fast, I mean from camera to upload or print. No stinky chemicals and few here likely know their way around a darkroom, Smiley. They do not need to these days because their digital cameras do not need a darkroom. One could go for a large format film camera for quality, but after processing, the images must be scanned and that removes film from most people's consideration.
To say this is better than that requires further information; to say the quality of this is better than that also requires definition so we know what quality means to you.
To say the camera quality is sub-par is something I can do because I know what a great image looks like and what it often requires to produce. And I am comparing the digital images to images on film and looking at things like highlights and shadow detail, sharpness, depth of field, etc. But that is just me.
For those with lesser needs, most modern cameras are workable. The camera in the iPhone is a good one but it would never be my choice.
I always opt for film, but film is not as fast as digital. By fast, I mean from camera to upload or print. No stinky chemicals and few here likely know their way around a darkroom, Smiley. They do not need to these days because their digital cameras do not need a darkroom. One could go for a large format film camera for quality, but after processing, the images must be scanned and that removes film from most people's consideration.
To say this is better than that requires further information; to say the quality of this is better than that also requires definition so we know what quality means to you.
