The Reading Vent & Rant Thread

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Cellphone camera have become good. The problem could be the person taking the photo.

If I was taking a photo of a book cover and got an image smeared with the flash, I'd either turn up the light or move to a room with more light to take the picture.

Yes. I have done this with a few books, not using the flash. The result was pretty good, but I did do some post-processing on the PC.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by nabsltd

I blame this on cell phones becoming hammers ("when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail").

The vast majority of images captured are now done with cell phone cameras, even if there are better tools (like a flatbed scanner for book covers). People even use them as copiers (take a picture of a document with their cell phone and then print it out).

Well, if I only ever need a copy of something a handful of times in my entire life, I'm not going to buy an expensive dedicated tool. I've taken a photo of my paper book covers maybe 3-4 times in 15 years. I'm not going to buy a scanner for that.

[nana77]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Cellphone camera have become good. The problem could be the person taking the photo.

If I was taking a photo of a book cover and got an image smeared with the flash, I'd either turn up the light or move to a room with more light to take the picture.

Not wanting to feel recursive (I know, I am) but iirc camera nowadays have lot of megapixels, but that's means little if there is not a proper light capture.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by nana77

Not wanting to feel recursive (I know, I am) but iirc camera nowadays have lot of megapixels, but that's means little if there is not a proper light capture.

Well, they are generally quite good. I often take photos of my cats in different ambient lighting; 15 years ago I had to use a dedicated camera, 8 years ago the quality was still merely adequate, now I can say it's quite good. I don't have very expensive phones, but middle tier or so. My current phone is over 4 years old, but I'm satisfied with the camera.

Of course, most photos require post-processing. I think most people don't do that.

[nana77]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

Well, they are generally quite good. I often take photos of my cats in different ambient lighting; 15 years ago I had to use a dedicated camera, 8 years ago the quality was still merely adequate, now I can say it's quite good. I don't have very expensive phones, but middle tier or so. My current phone is over 4 years old, but I'm satisfied with the camera.

Of course, most photos require post-processing. I think most people don't do that.

There are some from years ago, like the Nokia Pure View:

The 9 PureView uses a penta-camera system with ZEISS optics, 2 of which are RGB sensors and 3 of which are monochromatic sensors. All 5 lenses are identical 12 MP f/1.8 units (Sony Exmor RS IMX 386).
[...]
The 9 PureView is the only Android phone to have a penta-camera system.

I don't really know how the combined cameras count, but (Amazon says):

A revolutionary, next generation camera with an incredible five cameras and Zeiss Optics complete with two color sensors that provide accurate vibrant color images and three panchromatic sensors that allow the array to collect up to 10-times the amount of light resulting in sharp, incredibly atmospheric still shots with blur effects and Google Photos integration alongside rich and vibrant UHD 4K HDR video with spatial audio capture.

For the prices I see it on ebay, I would choose it other than a newest within same price; within that real good sensors and camera I see the Vivo phones, priced.
Since it's the rant thread, my perseverance on that is about when Microsoft bought the license from the Nokia (N9) to use it as for its mobile OS, within an exclusivity - for 10 years - that made some good phones as the Lumia (1020, 2050..) also within those nice optics. Thought besides them making fail projects like the "Meego" OS, just now Nokia is starting to make newest, middle and high end devices, although while using another manufacture.
So yep, there were mid range device within absolute cameras , and imho some from just some years ago might be still worth the buy (imho).
(Thanks for your forbearance ).

[maddz]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

Well, if I only ever need a copy of something a handful of times in my entire life, I'm not going to buy an expensive dedicated tool. I've taken a photo of my paper book covers maybe 3-4 times in 15 years. I'm not going to buy a scanner for that.

About the only time I use photographs for book covers is when the book won't physically fit on the scanner and I can't find a decent image on the web. Also, for LP covers (12"x12") where Discogs has only got a crap image...

So once in a blue moon. I did invest in a clamp stand though.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by maddz

About the only time I use photographs for book covers is when the book won't physically fit on the scanner and I can't find a decent image on the web. Also, for LP covers (12"x12") where Discogs has only got a crap image...

So once in a blue moon. I did invest in a clamp stand though.

I have very, very few books for which I couldn't find a decent cover image online. A couple of the cases where I took a photo of the paper book cover were because I wanted a specific image, not because there weren't any to be found. But then I read mostly modern books, not older ones.

So there's no point for me to get a scanner. It would just gather dust 99,999% of the time.

[Apache]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

I have very, very few books for which I couldn't find a decent cover image online. A couple of the cases where I took a photo of the paper book cover were because I wanted a specific image, not because there weren't any to be found. But then I read mostly modern books, not older ones.

So there's no point for me to get a scanner. It would just gather dust 99,999% of the time.

I rarely use the phone light. Direct light straight on tends to lead to harsh and or washed-out photos. I take photos of jewelry as part of my business. I used to have to have use expensive cameras and very expensive macro lenses. Right now, I use a Samsung S24 and it has macro. It is automatic and I wish it wasn't. It produces excellent results with very fine detail, even when need to enlarge a photo.
Apache

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

I have very, very few books for which I couldn't find a decent cover image online. A couple of the cases where I took a photo of the paper book cover were because I wanted a specific image, not because there weren't any to be found. But then I read mostly modern books, not older ones.

So there's no point for me to get a scanner. It would just gather dust 99,999% of the time.

We have a scanner. It's part of the printer.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

We have a scanner. It's part of the printer.

I haven't used a printer for 20 years, I think.