Camera Phone Tips

Darren writes "It is getting hard to find a cell phone WITHOUT a camera in it - as a result millions are flooding the internet through moblogs with camera phone images - many of which are poor quality. I'm sick of seeing poor quality camera phone images being posted to moblogs and so have collected a series of camera phone tips and links that will hopefully help us all improve our camera phone images."

Comments

Want high-quality? Get a real camera!

[LaserLyte]

It's always nice to see a photo of some random cat or an interestingly shaped rock from another continent. :)

The tips on the site seemed pretty obvious to me...get close, increase resolution, don't use digital zoom... the site even states they are obvious. From my brief look at the other linked sites, it looks like there are a few slightly more interesting points, but also a lot of repetition (between the sites).

I think if anyone is a budding photographer, interested in building a gallery on their site, they should get ahold of a "real" digital camera (a device whose primary function is as such). It seems to me that people running "moblogs" aren't going to be too bothered about having high-quality photos anyway.

Re:Want high-quality? Get a real camera!

[b06r011]

i agree, if you want some good quality images go for a single function device - i.e. a digital camera.

but for mobility, i love my camera phone. the number of times i have my phone but no other camera seems to increase. but the real bonus of having a camera in my phone is that i get a good insurance policy from my phone company (orange) so i am never afraid to take it out with me when i go drinking. i'd never be that fearless with a camera costing lots more.

oh - and lets not forget that it's probably only a matter of time before mobile phones get camera compnents the quality of a good digital camera - it'll only get better!

Re:Want high-quality? Get a real camera!

[crayz]

[b]oh - and lets not forget that it's probably only a matter of time before mobile phones get camera compnents the quality of a good digital camera[/b]

I'd actually say that's unlikely. Part of the problem with current digital cameras is that their sensors aren't big enough, and thus you wind up having a lens focusing a tiny amount of light onto the sensor.

Now, in 5 years I'm sure that you will have cell phone/PDAs with fairly high resolution cameras. But there's still going to be a lot of situations where it will be difficult to take a decent picture because:
- lack of light and no flash
- lack of ability to control aperature/shutter speed
- problems focusing

If this was all about megapixels, the 2MP camera-phones wouldn't take pictures far shittier than my years old 1.3MP digicam could.

Step 1...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't run your website from your camera phone..?

My tips

[Killjoy_NL]

Can't read the article at the moment, but here are my tips for using a mobcam.

- Take a lot of pics in different modes
- Don't be afraid to throw away the crap ones
- Don't trust the display on the phone, your monitor has a lot better quality.

Just a few simple but handy tips I use :)

Re:My tips

[Hogwash McFly]

Here's my guide for taking good quality pictures:

1) Find a subject in a well lit location
2) As far as subjects go, the shorter the skirt the better
3) Without acting too suspsicously, get as close as you can to your subject.
4) Discreetly aim the lens perpendicular to the floor level and directly between the legs
5) Snap!

Escalators can be a very handy tool.

Oh wait, you mean people take normal pictures with these things?

Re:My tips

[delus10n0]

While it may sound funny, I actually see quite a few people doing this, or trying to do this, in the malls around here. It's usually pretty obvious; well at least not to the girls, but to everyone else you look like a jackass holding your phone down low then giggling like a little kid.

Re:My tips

[mysticgoat]

Don't be afraid to throw away the crap ones

YES!

The biggest improvement an amateur photographer can make is a simple matter of self-discipline:

Throw away 8 of every 10 photos you take, before showing them to anyone.

There are many reasons why this works. If you adopt this practice now, by the end of the summer you'll have discovered several of those reasons on your own. You'll also have taken many more pictures than you would have otherwise, yet have fewer to show for it. OTOH, you'll start getting more compliments on your work.

Later on, if you decide you like this and want to go to the next level, you can start reading about digital photography and throwing away at least 9 of every 10 shots.

Lint

[tttonyyy]

I know so many people that just shove the phone in their pockets, then wonder why their lint-filled aperture gives them crappy results. Great for sending a quick pic to your mates, but not for anything else. Quality digital cameras they are not.

Too many features,

[orion41us]

If I wanted a PDA, I would get a Palm or PocketPC, If I wanted a digital camera I would get a Olympus or Kodak, How about just a plain phone where the battery actually works through the day and does not cut out every time you order Chinese takeout?

Re:Too many features,

[kev0153]

I agree. I work for a large U.S. Government Contractor and I'm required to enter secure buildings around Washington DC. Security at these buildings is not requesting that you check your phone at the front desk if it has a camera in it. Some military bases just take them from you if you are caught. Having a camera phone is not an option for me. I ended up going with a Siemens S56. It may be a niche market around DC but I bet non-camera phones sell like hotcakes around here.

Other problem...

[JoeLinux]

For those of us in the defense industry, it's mandatory that we get a phone without a camera on it. If you are working in an Open Secret area, you will be fired on the spot if you don't. I suspect that while that rule is in effect, phone manufacturers will always produce a camera-less version, lest they lose defense industry contracts.

Re:Other problem...

[halftrack]

You're allowed in with a regular cell phone at all? In Norway, AFAIK, you leave your cell at the door due to tempest security. Apparently even an switched off cell phone can be tapped.

(Leaving your phone at the door was taught at a security course and has been implemented at the places I've been.)

Re: Other problem...

[Punk Walrus]

A friend of mine at NASA shares this story that was going around the labs in the early 1990s.

Apparently, one of the research scientists working at a secured site. When he came to the gate and was inspected, they saw his beeper, and asked if it was a radio device. Now, on this site, beepers were allowed, and by "radio device," they really meant any kind of broadcasting or recording device. But being a scientist, he said, "Yes." And it got confiscated. He tried to reason with them, and explained how a beeper worked, but they said it was not allowed on site.

So after he passed through the gate, he took out his ballpoint pen and said into it with a stage whisper, "They got the radio device!"

The guards were not amused and detained him for several hours until some supervisors and management got it sorted out.

Google Cache

[RobertTaylor]

As the page is using the Nokia Webserver technology (running the site from a mobile!) here is the google cache

google cache link

Re:Select the camera with most pixels

[DrEldarion]

Just because a picture is bigger doesn't necessarily mean it's better quality.

I'd much rather have a 1024x768 picture that was good quality than a 1600x1200 picture with image flaws.

More tips

[$exyNerdie]

Original site is /.ted but here are some tips:

* Get close. Camera phones don't have telephoto lenses so if you take a photo of a person or building that's far away, the main subject will be tiny. For most photos you'll get a much better shot by filling your phone's screen with a close up of the subject.

* Send from a good cellular coverage area. If you're transmitting a photo in an area where the cellular signal is weak, it could take longer to send the photo than when you're in a strong signal area. If you're paying for airtime to send a photo, it could make a difference in the price. Although photos generally are transmitted in under a minute, if it goes over 60 seconds, you will pay for another minute.

* Beware of distortion. I just mentioned that you should move as close as possible to the main subject of your photo. You should be aware that moving very close could produce some distortion, something like a "fisheye" effect. The effect could be fun, or your subject might not like the fact that his/her nose appears much bigger than in reality!

* Enter a title for each photo. If you're not used to entering text on a keypad, it can be a frustrating and slow process. But don't skip this step or you'll have to click on each photo to determine if you wanted to see 006 or 022. Title the photos before you send/save them or wait until you go home and enter names for a bunch of them.

* Make sure you know all the file quality settings. For example, cameras phones often have three quality setting: Low, Medium and High. Snap the same photo at all the different resolutions and look at the size and quality on your phone and your computer screen to determine which resolution you prefer to use. It's easy to change the resolution, but you'll probably set it at one resolution and not change it often.

* Shoot at the highest resolution. Camera phones generally top out at 640 x 480 (except for some phones with one megapixel in Japan), and that quality is good enough for viewing on the Web. The lower the resolution, the worse it looks. Assuming the cost of transmitting a photo is the same regardless of the resolution, go for the highest resolution. It will look better.

Photos with higher resolutions produce larger files and take longer to transmit. If you're paying by the minute and/or by the number of packets, you need to compare the value of higher quality with higher costs to you.

* Clean the lens. Camera phone lenses aren't immune to dust, dirt and fingerprint. Periodically clean the lens with a lens cloth, which is easily obtainable at photo shops.

* Create "quick phrases." Most cellular phones with messaging capabilities enable you to create and store phrases that may be used for the subject or text of your messages. If you know you're going to be taking photos at, for example, Yellowstone Park, create a phrase that reads, "Yellowstone -- 8-8-03" and store it in your phone. That way you won't have to enter the same phrase for each photo.

(If you're going to Yellowstone, please take a good digital or film camera in addition to a camera phone!)

* Avoid using the digital zoom. Some camera phones include a digital zoom feature. Digital zooms employ software to increase a photo's size but they also decease the quality by merely "blowing up" a segment of the picture. Even people with multi-megapixel digital cameras typically use the optical zoom, not the digital feature. Feel free to check out digtal zoom, but you'll probably dislike the result.

* Explore the white balance. If you've never used a digital camera, you should be aware of the "white balance" feature, which changes the photo color based upon the lighting conditions: Sunny, cloudy, dark, etc. There's also an "auto" feature that works fine most of the time. But if you have time and you don't like the way the photo looks on your LCD, change the white balance to see if it makes a difference.

* Turn on the lights indoors. If you're shooting indoors, it's easy to

need non-camera phones

[spoonyfork]

Camera-enabled devices are not allowed on company property where I work. It is difficult to obtain a mobile phone with decent features that doesn't have a camera. Since a lot of companies are implementing this security policy, when can we expect the mobile phone companies to meet this need for non-camera phones?

Camera phones suck (now)

[jcostantino]

I have a Motorola V400 and the camera sucks on it. Open note to all who are looking to buy one: Unless you just want it as an emergency back-up camera like I do, don't get one for now.

The quality of camera phones out there now is way worse than the quality of very cheap digital cameras 6 years ago. Granted, the Kodak DC120 swimming in my desk drawer could probably whoop my V400's ass, it's also enormous.

Back to my point; there will be better camera phones in the next year, I've seen some (Samsung?) which will have macro mode and "real" flashes. The closest I've seen to a camphone with a flash was one that used white LED's and that was only as a framing aid.

Bottom line: don't waste your money now unless like me, you don't care about the quality of the camera because the phone is the primary function. If you want good quality, give it till the end of the year.

I'm surprised that there isn't a website (like www.imaging-resource.com) that reviews the actual camera of the phone and gives concise reviews based on quality, light sensitivity and optics. I guess camphones are still too much of a niche market for that.

It's really weird...

[Phidoux]

... how many of those pics seem to be of a person's ear?

Re:Camera phones are silly

[mccalli]

The vast majority of cell phone users use neither text messages...

Pardon?

All I can think of is that you must be in the US. In Europe, I would go so far as to say that the primary use of many mobiles sold is for text messaging. I know I send far more texts than I make voice calls.

I can't speak for Japan, but I believe there's a similar situation there. I thought that the US was going the same way, but I'm prepared to be corrected on that.

As for cameras being silly, I disagree. I often take around ten a week, and I imagine I'm only in the midrange. The reason? I have children, and I very often don't have my full-blown 5mp digital camera with me but do have my mobile on me. Snaps of my kids playing in the park are good fun for those who are interested, and utterly dull for the rest of the world. Some get kept, most get discarded.

I have other uses too. For example, on Friday an A4 sheet had been left at a railway station detailing proposed changes to the timetable and who to get in contact with to protest them (the changes are bad from this town's point of view - Maidenhead). There was only one sheet left, so I took a couple of photos with the phone and left the sheet there for someone else to pick up. I read the information later on my laptop after transferring the pictures there.

The combination of a camera phone which is bluetooth equipped and having a bluetooth'n'wifi equipped laptop (that works - I use a Powerbook, I've heard of terrible problems with MS's stack and Nokia phones) immediately opens up a world of fast snapping, fast editing and fast publishing. Don't knock camera phones - they're useful things.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Here is a good tip...

[zin]

Hey check out this photo of a guy I hit cause I was too busy talking on my cell phone. Man camera phones are cool.

This is true of most technology

[spidergoat2]

I really doesn't matter if it's a cell phone or not. People will go out and drop $1000 on a video camera, but won't spend $15 on a book about how to properly film a subject. People will spend $1000 or more on a PC, but again, won't drop $15 on a book about how to use it. I don't think that it matters if it's a table saw or a gun, most folks won't spend the tiome to learn how to use it correctly.

Re:Select the camera with most pixels

[babbage]

There's more to it than that though. The cheap plastic lens on these phones isn't really capable of taking high quality photos, even if you had a high megapixel system behind the lens. This becomes especially true after the thing rattles around in your pocket for a while and you get lint, sand, fingerprints, etc on it.

Another poster had it right: if you want good photos, get a good camera. If you're not worried about being the next Ansel Adams, use your camera phone.

The beauty of camera phones isn't that the picture quality is worth a damn -- it isn't. The great thing is that you always have the thing with you, so if something interesting happens you've got the ability to capture it on the spot without having to run home for your Nikon, by which time the moment will inevitably have passed.

If you want spontaneous pictures that are also of high quality, lug around a nice Nikon SLR -- the D70 looks fantastic. If on the other hand you'd rather not lug around an expensive camera body and a bag full of delicate lenses all the time, then the Lo-Fi, cheap-o camera on modern phones or PDAs can do in a pinch.

But don't bother mixing the two -- I can't imagine wanting to carry around a phone that doubled as a high megapixel camera. Think about it: the image sizes will be far too big to send to other camera phone users, which is a big part of the appeal with camera phones. You could have some kind of removable media, but at that point you have a crappy, expensive camera-phone hybrid that is cumbersome as a phone and inept as a camera. Why bother?

******

Composition, on the other hand, is a different matter entirely, and it has nothing to do with the quality of the image. Look at the ways movies & magazines do photography, and copy what they do. Random examples off the top of my head:

• If a photo is of a person, fill up the image with the person. Don't stand 15 feet away so that the person is just this little vague sliver down the middle of the frame -- get close, or zoom in! With traditional SLRs, my favorite lens for portrait photos is 105mm, which is roughly a 2x zoom. This is nice, because you can stand several feet away from your subject (which generally allows the person to relax & look more natural), but you still get a nice close-up effect that looks really good.
• If the photo is of a person, center the whole person in the image. That is to say, don't make the standard snapshot error of putting the face in the middle, then the torso (and maybe feet) at the middle of the frame, and then have the top half of the photo filled with ceiling or sky. If you want a picture of something in the background, then get what you want of that background into the frame and then find an interesting place for the people to get in front of it; on the other hand, if the picture is of the people and not the background, then don't give 70% of the frame to the background!
• Be aware of, but not necessarily a slave to, the rule of thirds. For those not familiar with it, the idea isn't very complicated: if you imagine a 3x3 "tic tac toe" grid over your composition, then you end up with a box in the center of your image. The rule of thumb is that the "interesting" bits of the image should be aligned with one or more of the edges of this center box. For example, if you're taking a picture of the horizon, don't put the horizon exactly across the middle of the frame; if you want to emphasize the sky a little, put the horizon along the bottom third of the photo, while if you want to emphasize what's going on on the ground, put the horizon along the top third of the photo. Likewise, shifting the subject of the photo from the center to the left or right thirds often makes a photo more interesting.
• As a corollary to the rule of thirds, when taking portrait shots, never ever put the person's face right in the middle of the image. It's boring & unflattering. It has lon

Mobloging - only for the interesting

[Little Dave]

I got in on this a few months ago. I was suddenly struck by the simplistic charm of being able to share anything you see, any time you want, with 6 billion captivated viewers.

So I fired up the old web-o-matic and cranked out an interface to allow me to upload pics and blogs with minimal effort. Bingo! Time to let the hits roll in...

Shortly after putting it on the site, I realised that nothing remotely interesting happened in my life that was worth uploading and sharing with the world.

I never came face to face with a yeti. Never saw a UFO. Never witnessed a daring bank heist. Never so much as saw a woodland animal doing a cute thing with a peice of bread.

I'm now contemplating taking the moblog bit off, because it only serves to highlight to myself how deeply unexciting my life is.

Bah!