Experiment

[MsAli]

@jamessp

Here is the difference between the Samsung Galaxy S8+ and the Samsung Galaxy Tablet

I think there is a big difference with the cell edging out the tablet
Photo 1 Tablet

[MsAli]

Nov 22, 2017 11:12:47 GMT -5 MsAli said:

@jamessp

Here is the difference between the Samsung Galaxy S8+ and the Samsung Galaxy Tablet

I think there is a big difference with the cell edging out the tablet
Photo 1 Tablet

Here is the cell photo

[MsAli]

This is playing with the stock vs. The HD camera app on the cell
Photo 1 HD
Photo 2 stock

[MsAli]

I can get closer to object with cell stock than I can with HD app
#1HD app
#2 Stock camera

[rockjunquie]

I'm fixing your tag for you.  jamesp

I have the tablet, but I don't use it for pictures. I have dedicated cameras.

[MsAli]

Nov 22, 2017 12:10:20 GMT -5 rockjunquie said:

I'm fixing your tag for you.  jamesp

I have the tablet, but I don't use it for pictures. I have dedicated cameras.

Thank you Tela
The tablet did not perform like I thought it would. While a decent photo it isn't as good as the cell. Maybe I need to play with it more. Also found it harder to stabalize

[jamesp]

Classic case of spherical aberration with cell phone wide angle lenses.



No problem:

1) You can crop the edge out
2) You can back up from the subject some and crop it for magnification. Shooting with phone set at ZERO magnification.
And to a degree, magnification by cropping can cause other distortions. So magnification by cropping has limitations.


Me ? I would shoot the subject within the center of the "sweat spot" where there is no spherical aberration on the edges at zero magnification(zoom on camera) setting.
Then crop out the blur from the spherical aberration.

Those photos within the spherical aberration boundaries are totally acceptable crisp fine photos.
Well done Ali.

The limitations you are facing is mostly limitations of the lens issues, rarely can software improve that problem.
Hinting to you that the app cannot improve spherical aberration.

[jamesp]

Whatever you did here(cell I believe). Note depth of field(great focus up close and far away).




The closer you p[ut the camera to the subject the less focus you have up close and far away.



some how some way cell phones have great depth of field

[jamesp]

Your stock camera did a darn good close up here. Close ups this close tells a lot about your camera performance.

[jamesp]

spherical abberation(will make you nauseated). LSD etc

[jamesp]

Get intimate with your camera Ali. Easy than dealing with a lover.
Have had my expensive Nikon D70 for 11 years. It has limitations but are well known.
I think knowing the limitations of a camera is the way to taking great photos.
No comments on lovers.

With a case of menopause in the household I am going with this scenario:

[jamesp]

I laid the tablet(pad) on the table with the camera corner overhanging the edge of the table on next set of photos.
That made cameras dead stable.
Then brought subject to camera corner from below. 5 to 7 inches away at zero mag setting yielded best photos.
Same method works for phone.
at least at table height the screen is easy to see whilst you compose subject(s).
I fire the photo edit w/pad and then send straight to flickr in the pad, so it is available at desk top. Lazy photos.

[woodman]

I like the ability to control the depth of field with a camera. It is critical on specimens. My canon cameras do a good job for me, I am still learning something about them every day.

[MsAli]

Nov 23, 2017 12:15:09 GMT -5 jamesp said:

Get intimate with your camera Ali. Easy than dealing with a lover.
Have had my expensive Nikon D70 for 11 years. It has limitations but are well known.
I think knowing the limitations of a camera is the way to taking great photos.
No comments on lovers.

With a case of menopause in the household I am going with this scenario:

You are too funny....  As far as lovers go well, I'll keep all  comments and thoughts to myself on that subject. 😣 
I have to play with the phone camera more but was pretty impressed with it. 

[MsAli]

Nov 23, 2017 12:43:46 GMT -5 woodman said:

I like the ability to control the depth of field with a camera. It is critical on specimens. My canon cameras do a good job for me, I am still learning something about them every day.

It is amazing how advanced they have become. I really have a need for one. I would like a underwater camera for when I snorkel back home but that's a want and not a need right now

[jamesp]

Lighting is a big player in photography.
With a nice sized screen it helps to compose lighting. Pads and cell phones do have those big LCD displays that help to see the lighting.
They also have accurate auto focus for those of us that need reading glasses.

[MsAli]

Nov 24, 2017 7:17:39 GMT -5 jamesp said:

Lighting is a big player in photography.
With a nice sized screen it helps to compose lighting. Pads and cell phones do have those big LCD displays that help to see the lighting.
They also have accurate auto focus for those of us that need reading glasses.

I like taking the pictures outside with natural light.
I do feel at times it doesnt get the true representationo f the colors and the autofocus to me sometimes doesn't work that well especially with closeups. I find I need to back the camera up for the picture and then crop it smaller. 
(And you mean you NEED glasses but won't go to the eye Dr. because the readers are cheaper and work just fine?? ) 🤔

[jamesp]

Nov 24, 2017 9:49:02 GMT -5 MsAli said:

Nov 24, 2017 7:17:39 GMT -5 jamesp said:

Lighting is a big player in photography.
With a nice sized screen it helps to compose lighting. Pads and cell phones do have those big LCD displays that help to see the lighting.
They also have accurate auto focus for those of us that need reading glasses.

I like taking the pictures outside with natural light.
I do feel at times it doesnt get the true representationo f the colors and the autofocus to me sometimes doesn't work that well especially with closeups. I find I need to back the camera up for the picture and then crop it smaller. 
(And you mean you NEED glasses but won't go to the eye Dr. because the readers are cheaper and work just fine?? ) 🤔

Tinker tinker tinker. About the best advise I know.
Natural light is hard to beat and cameras tend to be tuned to it for amateurs.
Lot of rockers here go for the artificial. Lot of buyers like buying jewelry displayed in artificial light.

The focus thing. The fancy Nikon has an adjustment for failing eyes for the viewfinder.
But what you view and what the true focus is can be different.
This issue is frustrating.
One solution is to depend on the autofocus. Hooray, the pad has great autofocus.

Got eagle eyes at distance. Welding eyes up close. Curse of the close up eye sight loss.
When you hit 40 you will probably find out about it

[MsAli]

Hahaha way over 40 and have gone to bifocals (which I don't wear)
So far my jewelry attempts are not sell worthy so I don't have to worry about taking pictures of those. If this batch ever gets to the point where I want it, I will play with the camera some more.

[jamesp]

Nov 24, 2017 11:46:37 GMT -5 MsAli said:

Hahaha way over 40 and have gone to bifocals (which I don't wear)
So far my jewelry attempts are not sell worthy so I don't have to worry about taking pictures of those. If this batch ever gets to the point where I want it, I will play with the camera some more.

Sorry you share the misery of readers. What a curse.

1.25's for rock hunting
1.5's for welding and shop work
1.75's for reading
2.0's for computer
3.0's for close work

no readers for over 6 feet away.

Do they have quadrafocals ? I guess those progressive lenses would do from 1.1 to 3.0