Just trying out a new toy... Now to see if it'll post photographs !
I post from my iPhone all the time. It's actually easier to do pictures from my phone since that's usually what I used to take them. Then I don't have to email them to myself and get them onto the computer. Plus, using Simple Resize I just pick the picture I want, 2 taps, and presto new copy of pic that is just the right size for posting.
Now for a different one
Seth I'm using an android phone, Anthony has dumbed down the camera quality until it'll work but he wonders if there's an easy resize for this thing... It might have it do for now.
I don't know how the apps work on an Android phone but if you have an app store look for "Simple Resize" as I think it is probably available for more than just the iPhone.
You open it, then touch "photo" and it takes you to all of your pictures. You select the one that you want and it opens it in the app. Then you select with a slider what size it's going to be. Once you set the slider it stays in the same place every time you open the app. Then you hit "save" and it makes a new smaller copy of the photo. I can have a bunch of pictures ready to post in seconds.
Although honestly, if you just leave the camera on your phone like that it works great! There's nothin' wrong with those pics.
Is there a phone camera that will take sharp pictures?
These are two speedo swivels I acquired recently. One is 2.5 to 1 ratio to suit T. The other is 6 to 1. Can anyone advise on the manufacturer of the one with the tapered locknut? It is the T one.
Allan from down under.
Steve, are the swivels sharp enough? I am amazed, and a little fazed by this technology.
Allan from down under.
I agree, that's pretty good. I've seen so many fuzzy phone pictures I figured they were all like that. Good to see a really sharp one.
Steve, most of the higher end smart phones have very good cameras. Here's one taken on my Samsung Note 3. It's a Champion!
Steve I might try this photo gag as well.
My phone has a 21megapixel camera... but I've found a resizer so we can slim them down a bit from there;)
21! That's impressive! If the lens quality matches the potenital for details, you could probably shoot murals with it. It seems that digital photography is where film was forty years ago, when you had both real cameras and crappy little Instamatics.
All things being equal (user, light, subject, etc). The number of pixels is much less important than the quality of the sensor, the processor, and the lens. The number of pixels a camera has, has just become an easy marketing tool.
Pixel count IS everything. My first digital camera in 1998 was VGA quality. Enough to recognize people but hardly good enough to count shirt buttons.
I have had Nikons that couldn't take a good shot, let alone take a great one. I currently use a under-$350 40X Fuji that produces beautiful color depth.
Too bad you can't try-before-you-buy. I've found that a good test is to try taking a closeup shot of the moon. That Nikon couldn't do it in daylight or darkness and this Fuji does it effortlessly.
I had an expensive Canon Powershot that could take killer photographs at highway speeds. I used to practice taking shots of trailer hitches on vehicles going the other way. Once I got the timing down they'd always come out great.
Compare photos between cameras just 5 years ago to what's available today - the quality is amazing. If you want basic shots then anything under $100 will work good for you. From there you can quickly work up to a small fortune for a professional setup that can be matched in some conditions by an under $500 camera.
Learning how to take good shots takes a lot of sweat and practice. The dauntless geezer photos spread throughout this Forum are what everyone strive to match.