'All pictures are unnatural' - David Bailey

September 22, 2005 8:00 AM

Hu's Gallery in the Sky :: interesting and amazing cameraphone photos.
posted by anastasiav (14 comments total)

Excellent. Ideas, composition, and lighting are often way more important in photography than fancy gear.
posted by driveler at 8:14 AM on September 22, 2005

Whoa! My camera phone sucks....
posted by Gooney at 8:32 AM on September 22, 2005

Amazing.
posted by stbalbach at 8:50 AM on September 22, 2005

Interesting? Some. Amazing? None.
posted by Qubit at 9:26 AM on September 22, 2005

Every photo in Gallery 1 looks like a 4AD record cover.
posted by davebush at 9:42 AM on September 22, 2005

"what u see is what was shot - no digital manipulation just daylight cut wuth talent."

The site shouldn't be called "hupix." It should be called "hubris."
posted by crunchland at 9:56 AM on September 22, 2005

I particularly liked the first gallery.
posted by apis mellifera at 10:02 AM on September 22, 2005

Brilliant. This is the sort of thing that has stopped me spending a small fortune on a digital SLR and work harder n making the most of the equipment I already have.
posted by Frasermoo at 12:12 PM on September 22, 2005

I'm fondly drawn back to PenCam
posted by Frasermoo at 12:14 PM on September 22, 2005

great stuff, thanks
posted by Substrata at 1:26 PM on September 22, 2005

no digital manipulation

there's some good stuff, but more than a few shots look Photoshopped to death
posted by matteo at 4:06 PM on September 22, 2005

are you talking about the pics in gallery 2? Because they're probably the result of a technical glitch. I ran into similar results early on with pencam.
posted by crunchland at 4:43 PM on September 22, 2005

Wow, I gotta get me one-a them Sharp GX20 camera phones - they take great pictures ... he musta got a good one, though, just like that Henri Cartier-Bresson got one-a th' good Box Brownies 'coz his camera took great pictures too ...
posted by kcds at 6:27 PM on September 22, 2005

I am not a world class photographer, crunchland, but I am pretty sure the effect is an exaggeration of color banding which can be achieved by combinations of overcompression and underexposure. So maybe it's possible he forced the camera into low light situations with small image sizes. Just guessing.

I'd be more interested in how he got some of the washouts with color isolation like in gallery 3. Any ideas?
posted by surplus at 11:35 AM on September 23, 2005