A Tale of Two Tractor Photos

Last Sunday's visit to a farm not only presented critter photo ops, but older farm equipment opportunities as well.  May not be as fast as aircraft, but the heavy machinery is very interesting to me.  Still can't draw up in my head how a machine can scoop up a line of straw in one end and produce a squared off bale of hay out of the other.  And that was before the newer models that sport shiny paint jobs.  And seems to me that the first designed models were built to last as many can still be found.  Maybe not working anymore, but they can be found maintaining the watch.

I was lucky enough to find two such 'retired' tractors.   Both had completed their tour of duty and were retired to rightful places of honor.  Which is to say not out in the middle of a field somewhere.  These were both in a barn, somewhat protected from the elements.

And therein is the issue.  One tractor is in a doorway, sunshine in the front and shadow in the back.  And the second tractor is completely in the shadows, but has a small amount of light from a window on the front end.  Both present challenges.  And if you pass the challenge, you get a good shot.  And as always, the finished product must be better than a phone photo.  On reflection, I should have tried a phone shot.  Even if only for comparison.

The first shot, the tractor in a doorway is a classic HDR setup.  Big light differential.  You could take a tripod and take 3 to 7 shots with different settings, depending on your style.  Mine was always different speeds.  Or you could fake HDR it.  Take one shot, preferably in RAW, and expose it to different exposures and blend the results.  I did that on some shots in the past, sometimes it works.  Other times, meh.  Or you can take one shot, exposed normally, and send it through Photomatix.

I am not a Photomatix sales rep, but I will say it was the best $45 ever spent.  I think I've been using some form of it for over ten years.  In all that time, I was charged only once for an upgrade.  For me, the fastest way to solve difficult lighting situations.  With some effort you can use it and the end production will not look like the typical HDR effort.  The application has been improved over the years resulting in the ability to get an HDR file from one photo.  Better chances for a better results if you use a RAW file.  And that is the path I went on here.

I've started taking JPG shots for backup purposes, and I was doing so on Sunday.  This is a Nikon JPG set to Landscape.

I assume a camera phone would do the same.  I've tried to fake HDR with a JPG.  Results are inconsistent, but usually not helpful.  With a RAW file and some work outside the norm, this can be saved.  The goal is keep the sunlight and really bring out the shadows - while keeping the shadows looking like shadows.  I could spend a lot of time in Photoshop, but using Photomatix it was three minutes tops to help bring out the shadows.  I can add the final work with PS and a shot of Clear.  I think this looks much better.

Tractor in the Door

NIKON D850 Ver.1.20/NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR

35 mm, 1/100 sec, f/5.6, ISO 640 (AUTO)

EV 0, MANUAL Mode, Size FX

There were a few iterations of the shadows.  Either too light or too dark.  I finally settled on this, bit of a fade to dark.  Great learning experience.

For photo number two:  Almost total darkness.  I have the setting for auto ISO to limit at 6400.  And it worked.  The D850 and f/2.8 lens was the right combo for this.  And the original Nikon JPG:

That's dark.  This is straight out of the camera.  And with some of the before mentioned work:

Dark Old Tractor

NIKON D850 Ver.1.20/NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR

24 mm, 1/100 sec, f/5.6, ISO 6400 (AUTO)

EV 0, MANUAL Mode, Size FX

Again, there is a lot of back and forth working on this.  Sometimes too light, sometimes too dark.  The noise issues weren't too bad to clean up.  Again looking back, would have been excellent chance to push a few higher ISOs, just to play.

Fun to see the old machinery.  And the light challenge was fun to play with as well.

Merlin (AI) and eBird

I try to leave the paying job out of this blog as much as I can.  Usually any mention is that it is a necessary evil to fund the photography hobby or that the hours required have prevented me from attending some photo related activity.  And not that the following will shower praises on the paying job, just an interesting intersection of job and hobby.

I've spent the past few weeks taking classes, taking tests and earning certifications in the web world for both IBM and AWS.  The track I'm on is for administration, not programing.  Fascinating stuff.  Because of my relationship with IBM, I am very familiar with Watson and the technology.  Watson gained fame by competing on the Jeopardy game show - against a human.  Enter into the world of deep learning.  Artificial Intelligence.  AI.  With massive amounts of data available, you have AI to sift though the data to get the answers of the world.  And if IBM has it, so do AWS, Google, Microsoft and the rest.

For the faint of heart in privacy concerns, you may not like the following.  If you didn't know this already, facial recognition software is available to the masses.  With the stroke of a pen on a check, you to have the ability to run any kind of recognition application.  Yep, even facial.

The world of AI encompasses more than just facial.  And that's where work crosses with hobby.  It appears that many in the birding community also have a hobby of photography.  So there has to be millions of  bird photos floating around the web and other databases.  And most are probably correctly identified.  And this is where deep learning, AI and your phone all come together.  The best parts of the web, coming together.

Cornell Labs, part of the Cornell university in NY, has created a network that birders can use to log species seen plus information such as date and location.  In return, Cornell Labs has an unpaid data stream to its databases.  And eBird is born.  And that's all well and good, and here's the really good part.  Another way into the eBird database is an app called Merlin.  When I hear Merlin, I think of Wizards and Aircraft engines.  Closer to the Wizard part, this app will help you identify what flying critter you just saw.  And if you happen to have a photo of said flying critter, even easier.  All on your phone.  Easy peazy.

So I'm now a member of the eBird community.  And frequent user of Merlin.

Nikon, DSLR and Old Age

The photography interest for me started a long time ago.  My maternal grandfather took numerous photos on many world trips, either business or pleasure.  His chosen field was chemical engineering.  As I understand it, he did some of the developing himself.  My father was also somewhat of a photo bug as well.  Call it destiny.  The journey to Nikon had a much less formidable start.  I remember my dad showing me a Nikon camera he had just purchased in the 60's.  Devil made me do it, he said.  Boom, hooked.  In the early 80's, while stationed at Kadena AB I purchased a Minolta XG-1.  I was mesmerized for the 'on board' computing that gave a visual indication of the selected settings and if your exposure was correct.  And I bought the 'speed winder', a device that would automatically advance the film after a shot was taken.  The sound was hypnotic.  Three frames in two seconds.  Press the button just to hear it.

Move to the 90's, a job that provided some disposable income and need of a hobby.  The digital photography age was starting.  Bought the D80 from an appliance store.  And the digital journey started.  With no knowledge.

The decision to stay with Nikon was easy.  Top quality glass and an easy transition from the D80 to the D90, to the D7200, to the D500 and D850.  In the period starting between the D7200 and D500, started acquiring 'better' glass.  Not professional level, but better than kit.

I have a lot invested with Nikon.  To change lanes now would be a financial loss to a hobby that generates zero dollars.

Why would I think of changing lanes?  I have my dream kit.  But if someone who was just starting out would ask me what to look at or get, my answer would probably be "Not Nikon".

The answer has nothing to do with design or quality.  The answer mostly has to do with the direction of Nikon, the corporation.  

Photography, as it was ten years ago faces tremendous pressure from cell phones.  Although higher end DSLRs can produce technically much better images, who can tell the difference between a really good photo and a stunningly great photo?  Along with the cameras going digital, the presentation medium moved from print to LCDs.  I think this also favored the growth of the cell phone photography as well.

The DSLR design is changing as well.  The DSLR design came from the film SLRs.  With micro technology, it was inevitable that all that internal glass would just get in the way.  Mirrorless was on the way.

Nikon seems to have missed reading the mirrorless trend.  Nikon is now moving in the mirrorless direction with new camera models every 12-18 months.  There are 5 to 7 new Z mount lenses released every year.  Nothing on the F mount front.  But Nikon is in the also ran category for mirrorless now. As Nikon has lost DSLR market share over the last 10 years, the new announced direction is to focus more on the professional level gear.  To me, that is short term thinking.  You're not going to get a loyal following by forgoing a 'learning' or entry platform.  I could not in good conscious tell someone looking to learn photography to begin with Canon and then switch to Nikon when you go pro.

The recent news that Nikon was paring down its warranty is not good and has not been received by the Nikon nation as favorable.  I am fortunate, so far, to have never needed the services of Nikon repair/warranty.  But looking forward, that just isn't a good business sign.  I read today where a Nikon protest in Japan is scheduled at their HQ this year by international users.  That's not a good business plan.

So, where does my relationship with Nikon go from here?  Status quo.  My goal for the photography hobby was to have the dream kit built by the time I retire.  Retirement is not that far away.  Mission accomplished.  Unless I win the lottery, there isn't the time to sell the current inventory, at a loss, and go in another direction.  I like the way things are now.  I like the DSLR.  Spare me the arguments about how much better the mirrorless model is.  You might be right.  People still drive old muscle cars as well.  But I would never suggest to start there.

The Club's Covid Challenge

Almost a year ago to the day, the photo club which I participate had its last in person meeting.  At the time we didn't know that the meeting end would start a year before - well nothing yet.  There was a glimmer of hope as last night we tried a Zoom meeting.  There were a few brave souls in attendance.  It was good to see them all.

The bad news is we're not much closer to meeting in person again.  The location where we had meetings isn't open to the public yet.  Realistically, I don't see us meeting in person again until after our summer break is over in August.  Vaccinations will be had by all, and more importantly the post-meeting restaurant will be available again.

The good news.  Some of us will get together tomorrow to Eagle chase and chat.  The day is forecasted to be sunny, but brisk.  (Mid-20's but coming from a week in the low teens, brisk it is.)  We'll be outdoors so the ventilation will not be an issue.  And we'll observe the all important distance restrictions.  More than six feet, but closer than yelling distance.

And better news for me, this Eagle location will be new to me.  Intel says the Eagles are 'nesting'.  A good time is promised for all.  The location should be prime Eagle viewing area.  Flint City landfill close by and a pretty good creek in the area.  So just looked at the cameras.  Batteries are charged.  EV set to 0.  (You'd be surprised how many time I screw that up!  Or maybe not....)  I see a lot of walking in my Saturday future.

Another agenda item from the meeting was everyone 'send in' their five best Covid era  photos.  These don't have to be Covid related, thankfully, but show that at least for a few times we got out of the house.  Unless you have some bird shots from the inside.  Two months ago, I posted my best of 2020 shots.  Unless I had some better shots in 2021 - I have my pool of shots to choose from.  As it turns out, I do have a good shot already this year.  And I have more that five shots in the year end post.  And I want to spread out the interests.  So my five for the club challenge.

In May, after the initial lockdown release I made a few trips to the Shiawassee Nature Refuge.  In one of the trips I found an Eagle sitting on a dead tree overlooking the Shiawassee River.  Luckily, no one behind me.  Just stop - and enjoy the sight.  I was able to take a series of shots of the Eagle in the tree and in flight.  The Eagle flight path was almost eye level.  And because of Covid, I was still breaking in the 200-500 lens.

In May, I started going to the Michigan Barrel Racer's events.  Weather was heating up, nice to get out and about.  I made it out to three of the events.  I also made it out to some Hunter/Jumper events.  It was tough to pare down to only one photo in the horse photos.  I had some nice shots at the H/J events, but only nice to me.  I need to work on framing a better shot.  I had way too much non-subject junk in the shots.  Too much to clean up.  I did better at the Barrel events.  Again, getting to one shot was an exercise, but in the end I went with this one.  Background could be better, but that is what it is.  The subject fills the frame, by my standards anyway.  I like dirt flying, horse body defining and hair explosion in this shot.

I backed into a new subject to shoot during the summer, BMX bike racing.  Our local park has a pretty nice track.  The first time I went out, the place was alive and colorful.  Team colors and tents.  Racers all over the place.  And some were hitting the high jumps.  Close to home, I could spend an afternoon there when I was working on-call.  In November, after the published season was over, we had a nice Michigan weekend.  Plenty of sun - and a race was put together.  I had just picked up the D850, putting an end to the failed D780 experiment, and needed some shots.  At the same time, I picked up a 70-200 f/2.8 lens which also needed a test run.  It all came together.  This shot was a sleeper to me.  But I voted it the best shot of  2020.  Really looked good on the monitors.  That carries more weight than you'd think.

On New Year's Day, we had a wonderful early morning snowfall.  No wind.  Snow on the branches.  Lots of snow on the branches.  After clearing off the driveway, there had to be some photo ops somewhere.  I found my way to one of the county parks.  In the park is a bridge that crosses the Flint River.  I thought this would be an excellent view for the day.  As I was walking around, two kayakers came into view.  The shot is easily the front runner for Best of 2021.

The final entry on the Club Challenge is somewhat odd.  Again, in January the only game in town was "small" birding.  I found a nice area where small birds would congregate.  Or whatever it is called when birds of all demographics get together.  When I returned home to review the day's shots I had to look up a number of the subjects.  I am so small bird ignorant.  One I didn't have to look up was the Robin.  I was walking down the trail, having a stare down through the lens with this one when he/she/it took to the air.  Awesome effect.

Those are my five Covid Era shots to share with the club.  And maybe tomorrow - I might have to add another.

AI Gigapixel - Is it worth it?

I get a laugh from watching the internet photo gurus telling me in order to get the best possible shot, fill up the frame. Off hand, you go Duh! The guru will then pull out, I'm guessing from a back pocket, a 500 mm prime lens. The guru will then produce a fantastic shot of some colorful small subject. On one hand, if I had a 500 mm prime lens, it would be my walk around, cuz that would be my only lens.

With all due respect to the above mentioned internet guru, I support his site and have purchased some of his ebooks.

The rest of this post is for pixel peepers only. My philosophy is if it looks good at 400%, it'll look good everywhere. Software exists for a reason, to be used. And use it I will.

The rest of us have to use the poor man's 500 mm prime lens, the post processing crop tool.  For most small crops of a shot from a 20 to 25 megapixel format, there isn't a noticeable distortion.  But when the crops get more 'aggressive' the quality of the shot will suffer.  My final test is a 1920x1080 showing up crisp on a 27 inch monitor.  If I had to get a larger print, may need to do even more.  Enter Topaz's AI Gigapixel.

Piggy backing on an aggressive crop process, I will sometimes use some of the camera's image size options, of reducing the size of the active pixels by approximately 1.3%.  It is a way to turn the max reach of the 70-300 lens to 600 mm.  Fill that frame.  Problem is, you can't crop as much, if you still need to.  I tried Photoshop's enlarging processes and to be fair, they were OK.  Useable OK.  But I was up late one night and one thing led to another and the next thing you know, I have a license for AI Gigapixel.

I don't do a lot of printing anymore.  And as I pointed out, if it looks good on the monitor, it's OK by me.  Then I saw a photo I'd taken in August of 2019 (More 2019!) of a juvenile Eagle in flight.  Original post here.  Kinda far away.  And.  And I was using the D500's 1.3 frame size.  Those pixels growing out of control.  Takes a 20.9 pixel sensor to a 12.3 pixel sensor.  The D500 to a D90.  Great photo to test on.  Here we go.

The original shot.

This is the original shot, at 600 mm.  ISO was at 125 - so it's pretty clean.  And under the lucky category, it's pretty much in focus.  And the shot would be great, except I want less greenery and more bird.  Max reach of the camera, only software left to bail me out.

In the original post, I used aggressive cropping and Topaz's AI Clear.  I get lost in the math here, trying to figure out how close I am, but here is a close up of the posted shot.

Looks OK, eh?  Put that on a 27 inch monitor and you will see a lot of imperfections.  Mostly the edges between the upper edge of the bird and the greenery.  It ain't bad, but it's there.  Pixel Peeping.  I reprocessed the shot using AI Gigapixel and enlarging the shot 1.94%, then matching the same frame.  An came up with this.

If you know what to look for, you can see a much cleaner edge.  Also, looking at the leading edge of the eagle's wing, you can see definitions between the lines (?) in the wing - alternating brown and white.  And the tail had a bit more definition as well.  This is basically a 2x image growth.  I've done tests with small images on the net, blow them up to 400% - and they look OK.  Emergency use only, non subject.

I'm a big fan of Topaz's AI software.  I think the AI DeNoise does a real good job and is part of my workflow process.  I try to stay out of needing AI Gigapixel, but sometime you have to go where the situation leads.  Nice to have this in the toolbox.

The Aperture Factor - Path to a sharper image

 Over the years I've had many philosophies on how to approach my everyday photography.  With every new venture out in the field, or new subject identified, that philosophy changes.  Usually just a little bit at a time.  Some time ago, I started to drift into getting the sharpest image possible.  That sounds bad, like I started with getting the most out of focus image I could and I would be happy with it.  Like all things photography, we're talking degrees.  If we understand how and why aperture is a factor in our environment - those degrees will start to fall in our favor.  And the path to a sharper image started.

First, what is aperture?  Aperture, along with shutter speed and ISO are the three main factors that balance our images.  Aperture is what controls the amount of light in the process.  In my opinion, in most circumstances, control of aperture is the most important factor in the balance.  You would think that in shooting my favorite subjects shutter speed would be my initial consideration, but it is not.  And I'll cover how I got to that statement.  

Technically, aperture is the term associated with the opening of the lens diaphragm.  Sorry if this takes you back to high school but the opening measurement is a geometry thing.  The measurement of the opening (area) is pi = radius squared.  Same for all lenses.  That number becomes part of the focal ratio.  It is the number we control in this ratio.  The second number in the ratio is related to the focal plane and some higher level physics that honestly confuses me.  So, since I can't do much about it - I ignore it.  But the focal ratio morphs into the term we associate to aperture setting, f-number.  The f-number is the reciprocal of the relative aperture (the aperture diameter divided by focal length (1)).  And in photography slang, f-stop.

And what a photographer needs to know in the field as a camera operator is the lower the number the camera displays the larger the diaphragm opening.

And what a camera operator needs to know in the field as a photographer is how the diaphragm opening affects the photographic process.

And here is where we get into degrees.  In some of these areas, we're going to get into trade-offs.  If you gain here, you might lose something there.  

What does having a lower f-stop value do for you?  Easy answer, lets in more light.  I'm a big fan of more light.  More light, faster shutter speed and lower ISO.  It's all good - except.  Yea, that pesky Depth of Field thingie.  I could probably do an entire post on DOF but for now at the most simple definition is DOF is what is sharp in a photo.  Small f-stop number, large diaphragm opening, short DOF.  Physics, nothing artsy about it.  

The characteristics of the lens are very important.  Your purchase of a lens is based on the max aperture (largest diaphragm opening).  The max aperture is part of the lens name.  I could devote another post on how to read how lens' name.

But DOF is the easy answer when asking what does the aperture setting control.  However there are other considerations when answering that question as well.  And this is where we get into degrees.  Most of the degrees we're talking about here can't be seen, unless you are looking for them.

A camera lens is designed to let light through.  But the last object on light's way through the lens is the restricting diaphragm which is controlled by the f-stop set by the photographer.  And that's where the light gremlins strike.  A small (maybe) list of other aperture setting characteristics.

Auto-Focus:  Most newer cameras autofocus with the aperture wide open.  Right before the shutter is activated, the diaphragm moves as selected.  If your camera's auto focus does not do this, as the aperture is closed down autofocus may suffer.  When looking at reviews for the 200-500, I considered Tamron and Sigma's lenses in the same category.  Many of the reviewers would go into AF and the best situations for each lens.  Again, degrees.

Diffraction: Diffraction is a physics concept that happens when the path light takes to the sensor is altered.  Light is 'managed' through the lens by various internal lenses.  The path is is even more complicated in a zoom lens configuration.  But light is managed until it hits the diaphragm.  You can think about light going through a lens like water going through a hose.  With no attachment at the end of a hose, water flows freely in a smooth stream.  Put any attachment at the end of the hose, and the water flow is altered disrupting the smooth stream.  From this analogy you can tell that the more restrictive the opening at the end of the hose, the more the water flow is altered.  In a previous discussion we had about noise on the sensor, this also disturbs the light on the sensor.  Remember, we're talking about degrees of disruption here.  A photo shot at f/22 is still useable.  There are situations where f/22 might be a necessity such as everything needs to be in focus.  But if you're using f/22 for something else, there are probably alternatives.  Diffraction isn’t a huge problem, but it exists. For me, I try not to drift above f/8.  I try to be conscious of what my DOF needs to be and change accordingly strictly for diffraction considerations.  But if I need to make the DOF tradeoff, I will.  And the photo will still be fine.  Just when pixel peeped, not as fine.

Added diffraction note:  There is a multiplied effect on a sensor smaller than full frame.  On my D500, the crop factor is 1.5.  With a full frame lens, 50 mm is 75 mm.  With a DX lens on the D500, f/11 would be roughly equivalent to f/17 in a full frame environment.  Not sure what the effect is when I use a FX lens on a DX sensor.  As most diffraction occurs around the edges of the frame, the smaller sensor takes it's light from the center of what light is let through the lens.  Edges are not captured because it falls outside the sensor area.  The situation is probably close to a wash.  Degrees again.

Lens quality/Aberrations:  Aberrations are fun to talk about.  For me, aberrations are issues with photos that I didn't cause by poor technique or over thinking the situation.  Aberrations for this discussion can be characterized as optical issues.  Stuff you can't fix.  Hubble telescope, original version, stuff.  As mentioned in the previous paragraph, aberrations are more common in the corners of the frame.  Some common aberration types are spherical aberration, field curvature, coma, distortion, astigmatism, color fringing.  So how does the aperture setting inflict this much damage?  Simple, the diaphragm blocks light by closing the light path area from the outside.  Take light away from the outside edges.  The edges of the frame is where the disruption happens.

Dust specs:  Dust specs tend to show up more with smaller aperture openings.  For dust specs on your lens, mostly DOF.  A dust spec that close to the sensor is a bit larger that a dust spec at 10 feet.  And dust specs will show up on a sensor at f/16 before they show up at f/4.

So what does this mean?  Take a breath.  It's all good.  If you need f/16 - use it.  But know what f/16 will cost you.  The photo will still be fine.  But if you are taking a landscape shot where you need full focus, you can use f/22 - or learn photo stacking.  If you want to block light, try a neutral density filter.  I try to keep my apertures in the f/3 to f/5 area.  And as mentioned before, I'm willing to trade a higher ISO for that setting.  I set my aperture first - which would make it the most important setting.

See how I tied that up?  It's all good.

Pixel Density - Does it Matter?

Way down on my list of photo concerns when composing a shot in the field is pixel density.  After all, after the camera purchase I can't adjust it.  It's not part of the "exposure triangle".  In fact, after the advertised pixel count - what is there?  And of course, the related male driven characteristic - more is better.  Right?

Like a good geometry test question, let's start with the givens.  Sensor Size.  Sensor size, by manufacturer, is always the same size.  FX (full) and DX (APS-C) have the same dimensions.  FX = 36x24 mm.  DX = 24X16 mm.  Most everything else is a variable.

Let's get to the pixel packing.  The more cows that are in a corral, the more dense the cows are.  (With due respect to Gary Larson and the Far Side, this is physical density, not mental.)  And in the same way, the more pixels in a sensor, the greater the pixel density.  And does this matter?  Is more really better?  Or just different?

So, with the given information we can conclude that higher the advertised pixel count, the smaller the smaller the pixel and the higher the pixel density.  So now we can equate higher pixel count is a smaller pixel.  Not all pixels are created equally.  Is that a surprise?  Or something you don't think of?  

Does pixel density matter?  Very simply - YES.  Can you do anything about it in the field?  No, other than to understand the concept and be mindful.

We're in the constant search for the sharpest possible image.  There are time when we're looking for blur, but that is an artsy thing.  So let's stay for the sharp thought for now.  A sharp image is an image where points of light exist on more than one pixel.  If a point of light exists on multiple pixels - not so sharp.

And what are the best ways to eliminate blur?  Assuming the blur is motion related and not a focus issue, increase shutter speed and better technique.  

As with most situations where there is more than one element involved, there are trade offs between the elements.  More pixels simply mean a sharper shot is possible.  And if that is true, a larger shot is possible.  But the trade off is you need to do something to keep that one point of light on a single pixel, simple terms - speed.

Is this all going somewhere?  That might be helpful?  Yes.  The higher pixel counts present a number of issues.  Increased files sizes, buffer size issues.  On the plus size, sharper images on a larger end format.  Some folks still swear by their 6 mp camera.  With proper technique and a small end format it will work flawlessly.  But the fact is you will not be able to get a wall sized portrait with 6 mp.  Most enthusiasts will top out at a 11 x14 print, which means you need 3300 x 4400 for a 300 dpi image.  Theoretically, you as an enthusiast could get by with a 14 mp camera.  No cropping.  But, 18, 20 or 24 mp camera - go for it.  For digital imagery, the math get more complicated.  And I don't do that well.  But I use a 27 inch, 1920x1080 monitor.  It was gaming quality when I bought it a few years ago.  These days, pretty average.  Anyway, video drivers do a great job with my cropped shots.  The upshot is, to me quality is best defined at the print level.  Which few of us use any more.

So what's the point of this?  The more pixels, the more chance to blur an image.  Or get a sharper one that the end format will not be able to tell.  Or make a wall print.  Those are pretty indisputable facts.  

I think that the more we know how the camera works, it benefits us in many ways.  Usually, in my case, it is for forensic purposes as to why the photo was messed up.  For me, the one element I start with is speed.  When speed is not the primary concern, then it is aperture.  ISO, as discussed previously, runs a distant third.  In search for the right speed, we all start at the SWAG Reciprocal Rule.  In my 35 mm days, this worked well.  The technology is so much different now.  Now, about the only thing the Reciprocal Rule is good for is maybe to double it.  For starters.  In the 35 mm days, a 1/400 sec speed was getting in the nose bleed areas - like anything over ASA 400.  Today's cameras have evolved where speeds over 1/1000 th of a second are a starting point for me.  And it all starts with the sensor - and the pixel density.

ISO - And related side effects

In a simple conversation, there are three elements a photographer controls to capturing the correct exposure.  There is shutter speed that controls how long light is exposed to the sensor.  There is the aperture setting that controls how much light is exposed to the sensor through the lens.  And you have ISO that controls how sensitive the sensor is.  The combination or balance of these elements determine how successful the photographer is with capturing the scene.

Before I get a mass revolt to this post about motion blur and Depth of Field (DOF), this is going to stay with the subject of ISO (and related side effects).  I will say that motion blur and DOF are artistic elements that factor in to a shot.  I just want to stay a bit more on the the techie side in the hopes that if you understand how ISO works in a digital environment, the artsy part will come easier.

What is ISO?

ISO is a very technical term that is used in a lot of engineering environments.  International Standardization Organization.  Kid you not.  For photography: https://www.iso.org/committee/48420.html

What this covers:
Standardization primarily, but not exclusively in the field of still picture imaging - chemical and electronic - including, but not limited to:

Definitions for still imaging systems; 

Methods for measuring, testing, rating, packaging, labelling, specifying and classifying the dimensions, physical properties and performance characteristics of media, materials and devices used in chemical and electronic still imaging;

Specifications and recommendations of logical and physical characteristics, practices, interfaces formats and metadata for still imaging capture, processing, and output systems;

Methods, measurements, specifications, and recommended practices for storage, permanence, integrity and security of imaging media and materials, and imaging materials disposition.

What this means:  Simply, when a photographer sets 100 ISO in the camera the expectation that the sensor will perform the same in Nikon, Sony, Canon, Pentax, etc.  Sounds more like a consumer protection value?  Yep.  The sensor is rated by its base ISO setting.  The base ISO setting is the lowest numerical value before you start getting to the LO settings if your camera has them.  For the prosumer class - it is usually 100.  That being said, my D90 base ISO setting is 200, the D500 is 100 and the D850 is 64.  As a consumer, this ISO value protects your buying decision.

What you really need to know is the value of your base ISO of your camera.  Have it set correctly on your camera's menus where it is needed.  All other ISO settings are really manufacturer stuff.

That's all well and good, but how does that help me in the field?  Why does it have a setting?  It does help in the sense that if you set a ISO setting of 200 in your camera that has a base ISO setting of 100, you are adjusting the sensor in a way that is expected and designed.

Moving away from the technical descriptions, how does this work in my camera?  And why does a higher ISO have all those squiggly lines in the image?

Hold the squiggles for a moment, we'll get there.  For dialing in higher ISO values you are making the sensor more sensitive to light.  These adjustments have the same effect as slowing the shutter speed or opening the aperture for controlling the light to the sensor.  

The light that is hitting the sensor at the base ISO is the highest quality light.  The sharpest image.  This is what the design engineers set as a target.  Colors are the best.  Tones are the best.  For each ISO setting above the base ISO, you trade quality for quantity.  More light for a lesser quality.  Images can be a bit softer with higher ISO.

Let's not get carried away with lesser quality light.  Each camera is different.  On my D500, ISO 1600 is very usable without post processing.  The D90 was about ISO 800.  Still looking for the D850 value.   With post processing software, you can add to the ISO value ceiling.

But, again, what are all those squiggly lines associated with higher ISO?  Simple answer - Noise.

For now, lets separate noise from ISO.  Noise is everywhere in digital photography.  Can't escape it.  For now, let's understand it.

First we have Shot or Photon noise.  Most of us common folk don't think of light at the molecular level.  To that extent, think of light interacting with the camera's sensor as tap water filling a cup.  Place the empty cup below the tap and start to fill.  Pretty violent, eh?  That is light hitting one pixel.  Think of many taps hitting many cups.  A little more violence.  Violence in this case equals noise.  Light does not hit the pixels evenly.  And what's more, the less light that is available to the sensor, the more violent the light on the sensor.  Add more light, decrease the light violence on the sensor.  You can lower the ISO.

Another source of noise comes from the camera.  Electronics.  With each new generation of camera, the wayward electronic fields are controlled or decreased.  This is the noise that can cause 'hot' pixels.  This is more prevalent in longer exposures.  A bright cluster of pixels in a sea of cool pixels.  Think nighttime shots.

In the end, what happens is the camera and the photographer need to add as much light into the photo to overcome noise.  

I've had discussions with some in the club who think that any shot over the base ISO is no good.  I, of course, beg to differ.  In any situation with less than perfect light, you have to choose your poison.  Trade a little of this for a little of that.  I'm always willing to give more ISO to get better speed and aperture.  Usually when I get in these discussions, my opposite number assumes that I start as ISO 1600 or so.  And that would be incorrect.  I would try to get as close to base as I can.  But.  In the case of shooting at an air show, I need (would like to get) speeds of greater than 1/2500 th of a second for shutter speed.  I like my aperture to be as wide open as possible.  If the photo is fuzzy, I can't fix it.  To me, speed and aperture will get me the the sharpest image to work with.  If there is a little noise or a little softness, I can work with it.  If I'm working with a train - and I need more DOF I may not be able to sacrifice that much shutter speed.  So I'm happy to come off the base ISO if I need to.  For most situations I find myself in.

The trick is to find the combination of shutter speed and aperture setting where the ISO overruns the noise, or can be easily corrected.   Practice, Practice, Practice.

Metering

I'm going to start with a deeper dive into the camera's metering system.  Metering is one of the last things I think of when going out to shoot.  And in photo review when I get back to base, if I missed nailing the setting correctly it shows.  And a lot of times I'm left to ask myself what was the camera thinking?

One advantage of a DSLR over a 35 mm is the DSLR can measure the amount of light that is on the subject and relay that information in some form to the camera operator.  35 mm?  Not so much. 
As light makes its way through the lens and is collected by the meter, the information is is used to set the important stuff, like you know, speed, aperture and ISO in the automatic modes or displaying the information on the exposure gage when in Manual Mode.  The camera is trying its best to make you look smart.  But the camera is technical, not artistic.  So technically the light settings are correct, but.....  If we were going for just technically correct, there would be only one mode to shoot in, AUTO.  Enough said.

To help us along, we need to understand the concept of middle grey.  (Or is it gray?)  Grey is what happens when you mix equal amounts of absolute white (0, 0, 0) and absolute black (255, 255, 255).  There are many thoughts as to assigning some number to middle grey, anywhere between 10% and 20%.  Most articles I've read settle on 18%.  (I ask myself why not 50%?  Well, it has to do with concepts like reflective values and higher math.  Means versus averages.  I saw one equation with a square root symbol.  WTF?  Photography is supposed to be fun, so I'm going with the overall concept and damn the details.)

FYI: 18% grey comes from the world of print and is based on reflection. An 18% grey card reflects back 18% of the light that hits it. And it is actually the geometric mean between white paper (95% reflective) and black ink (3.5% reflective).  Wasn't that fun?

What we do need to take away from this is every camera manufacturer has it's own shade of grey that it wants to meter to.  Proprietary.  And what metering mode we choose to use plays a great part in how the camera's light meter thinks of a shot.

The camera's metering system wants to make every shot middle grey.  Understand this, grasshopper, and the rest is (relatively) easy.

Why are all my snow shots dark?  A snow shot will trick the camera to an underexposure.  The camera sees all that light throughout the photo - and tries to make it middle grey.  The meter takes light away.  Poof.  #Trash.  And the opposite occurs as well.  I've come back from a sunny day at an airshow and all the military aircraft shots were a bit overexposed.  I was metering on a flat gray paint scheme, under a wing in the shade.  The camera tried to help me.  Thanks.

The simple fix of course is becoming friends with exposure compensation and knowing how much to dial in.  Too light - dial in a -1.  Take those highlights right out.  Need a little light, dial in +1.  Bring out those colors.

The real fix of course is knowing which mode gets you in the best position to succeed.   Practice, practice, practice.

The Nikon basic metering modes: 
Center weighted (Most used, been around for ever.)
Spot
Matrix
Matrix* - Matrix on highlight.

Center weighted mode is the place to start.  Center weighted metering would look at the entire frame and give most attention to the center.  Extreme close ups would be a good use for this mode.  I usually don't shoot center weighted mode.  Most of my shots are never close ups, and after I figured out why the military aircraft shots didn't come out as I expected - I've stayed away.  It is important to note that exposure lock doesn't work in this mode.  It is the center of the view.  On my Nikons, the center can be defined through the menu system.  You can increase the center area.  Or not.

Spot metering.  Name says it all.  In my opinion, this is the most difficult to master.  In Nikons, the 'spot' is tied to the center AF spot.  If the center AF spot moves, so will the focus point.  If the subject moves and 'spot' drops off the subject, you guessed it.  The subject isn't the subject anymore.  Could be frustrating.  I have better things to do with my time that get frustrated because I missed the metering point.  Spot metering would be good if you have a somewhat larger mid toned object in the middle of our shot, or what will be primarily in focus.  This would ignore other influences.

Matrix metering.  This is why we have electronics.  Multiple sensors in the camera, fast computing and for fun, adding color inputs.  And lets not forget about talking to the lens.  All this and more in Matrix metering.  Essentially the process involves breaking up the view into segments.  In the beginning there were a few segments, like five.  Now, there are over 100.  All of the segments are evaluated and the exposure process begins.  There are inputs from the AF mode and point.  The mode will take information from the lens, if capable, from focal distance and length.  And there's more!  There are also color considerations.  All this in 1/3200 second!  Or faster.  With all this information, the Nikon computer goes to work does the computing hocus pocus and sends the information where needed.

What to use and when?  Personally, I use matrix by default.  The mode works best with a wide spectrum of tones and colors.  I'm generally in the sunshine and targeting flashy colors.  If I'm shooting in the shade, real shade like heavy canopy, I'd start looking for other options.  

There is a lot going on with metering.  If you are using an AUTO mode and shooting JPG format, this is an element that can really help your photos - or cause you to wonder what happened?  there are a lot of articles available on the web.  Most are a lot more technical, such as the placement of the sensors. 

Hopefully we'll be able to meet again as a club and chat about stuff like this.  Soon.

Post Processing - 2020

Post processing seems to be a never ending journey.  Over time software gets better, hardware gets faster.  And there are more choices and options.  And the training videos.
Shooting over 600 shots last weekend and processing all within a few hours was doable only with decent software practice enough to understand my flaws when shooting.
The blanket statement is that noting that comes out of my camera is "show" ready.  Every shot needs some 'help'.
I have a tendency to shoot off level.  I have an in view level.  Neat toy but useless, I usually don't have enough time to process that information.  At the very least, 99% of my shots need to be leveled.
Cropping:  Every shot is cropped.  My cameras are set up to shoot DX and FX.  Any other format will leave something behind.  My finished product usually comes out in 16:9 format, with 1920 x 1080 for current display monitors.  I don't do a lot of printing any more.  If I need an odd size, usually I can get it from the DX or FX original format.
Even if I wanted to shoot JPG, I still have to make these changes.  Multiple changes on a JPG file isn't a good practice.
So RAW it is and I'm committed to the process.  Even if there are a few hundred shots to process.
This is the process I use most of the time.
First, my software center is Photoshop.  Most of the work is done in Adobe Camera Raw.  I grew up on Elements and I suspect most of the terms and processes will translate to Elements easily.  I use other software where necessary.  Photoshop is all around good, but other niche software can be easier to use.

When opening a RAW file in PS, ACR (Adobe Camera RAW) opens automatically.  I like to make the ACR edits within PS as a filter.  This will be explained later.  However, there are two edits I like to make that are not available with ACR as a filter.  These edits have to be made at the Open.  One of the issues with PS is that the interfaces will change frequently.  The process names are generally consistent, but will sometimes be 'moved'.  Off the soapbox.  The two edits I like to make at the file open are found in the Optics tab.  Remove chromatic aberrations and Use profile corrections.  Chromatic Aberrations are inherent in a zoom lens, so if using a prime lens this edit is not necessary.  After selecting these two edits, open the image into PS.

After the photo is opened, the first thing I do is create a new layer to work with.  The easiest way is to use the short cut keys clt+j.  I will right click on this layer and select Convert to Smart Object.  Creating to a smart object is a very powerful tool.  This works for global changes and can limit some other edits.  But overall I use this.  What this allows is after edits are completed and saved, the layer can be edited again.  If this is not a smart object, once the edits are completed and saved, the layer is fixed.  So, I'll go through a number of edits on this layer.  If I forget one or need to remove some blue, on a regular layer I'd have to do everything all over again.  With a smart object, I can reopen the layer and make the changes to the edits.  This is such a time and process saver.

Working on my smart object, I select Filter on the top menu and select Camera Raw Filter (Shift + Ctl+ A).  This opens up the ACR module again this time as a filter.  Because I'm working on this as a smart object, all changes can be re-edited if necessary.  Had I made the changes on the file open, those changes are locked in.

Now the flow begins:

White Balance:  There are many ways to balance colors.  The easiest way I found is to use the white balance dropper to find a neutral spot in the photo.  Hover the dropper over a neutral area, read the RGB values on the histogram.  When the values are as close to even as can be, click the spot.  You will see the temperature and tint values change.  With some practice, neutral spots can be found relatively easily.

Color:  In the Edit area, find the Auto button.  This will set the Exposure, Contrast, Highlights, ect.  For my tastes, this works well.  On occasion, I will need to edit exposure or contrast.  Then I set Texture, Clarity and Dehaze.  Usually with a D500 photo I will set these to 20, 20 and 10.  With the D780, I set to 10, 10 and 5.  Vibrance and Saturation I set to 15 and 5.  Yes, these can be set as a profile that doesn't need to be entered all the time.  For color, this is where I start.

Curve:  Curve can be used for a lot of edits, but I use it mostly to 'deaden' shadows.  If I need to, I will move the Shadow slider to the right.  Once that is set, I use the rest to recover as necessary.  Yes, there is a shadow recovery penalty, but with the rest of the sliders the penalty can be quickly neutralized.

Detail:  This is where sharpening and noise reduction can be done.  ACR does a great job, but.  I use other applications for these jobs.  Absent of other applications, use these edits.

Color Mixer:  If I have a targeted color in an image, I'll select it here.  Usually I like a yellow or green pop in an image.  Sometimes a really deep blue sky will cast an overall blue haze that can be corrected here.  I won't correct a blue tint of the sky here, that will be done with a gradient later.

Geometry:  This is a biggie for me.  As I mentioned before, I am level challenged.  Usually this is a one button edit, both horizontal and vertical.  On occasion, this won't do the trick, not even close.  When it doesn't work, I just use the horizontal button.  And there are a few times, I have to do this on my own.  There is a grid feature to help out.  But 90% of the time, it is a one button click and move on.

Heal:  This is an underrated powerful tool.  On a day out at the airfield, eventually there will be some form of blemish on the shots from either dust, water or a small sunspot.  The blemish is easily seen in nice blue skies.  These are easily remedied here, using the Visualize Spots option.  One click, blemish gone.  Serious image saver.

At this point, the basic global edits are done.  Sometimes I use a more targeted edit methodology such as if an Eagle's white hood isn't exactly right, I spot edit the hood and add a small amount of exposure.  Or if a sky isn't the right shade of blue, I'll use the gradient tool to either lessen the exposure or add some blue.

At this point the ACR filter can be closed.  

To finish, I'll create another layer.  I don't have to.  Because this layer is a smart object, I could just move on to the next filter.  One of the down falls of using a smart object is if I add another filter to this layer and then go back to the ACR to make a change, it will take FOREVER to finish the layer.  So I just create a new layer.  

Depending on the image I'll use the following Topaz products.

If the image needs a lot of help, and it happens more than you'd think, I'll use Topaz AI Sharpen.  This usually happens when I'm shooting prop driven aircraft.  I have to use a slow shutter speed on a fast moving aircraft.  Sometimes I pan just right, sometimes I miss it entirely (delete) and sometimes I get it close.  I usually get it close.  AI Sharpen has three different algorithms to solve an image.  Usually the defaults on one of the three will do the job.  If the image is not salvageable, I will know at this time.  (Yes, I will often use this product first to see if i can work with the image before I sink any time into it.)

If the image needs noise reduction, I will use AI Denoise.  Easy, intuitive product to remove noise.  And with the latest version, you can target noise reduction.  For example, you can clean up the sky without touching below the horizon.  Very powerful.

And, if the image is close I'll use AI Denoise Clear option.  Usually the the process will add just enough sharpening to really clean up the image.  Best finishing product I've ever used.

At this point, the image is done.

I'll crop the finished product as necessary.

Move on to the next.

Yes, most of this can be used in a batch process.

It sounds like a lot, takes less than two minutes per shot.  Yes, practice helps.

When is 300mm really 600mm?

One of the requirements I wanted to get with the new lens was a 400mm focal length.  I have a 200 mm lens and with the D7200's trick of changing the image area, I could get to 350 mm.
The math in all this is mind boggling.
First starting with the lens.  Nothing changes in the lens.  70-300 full frame is, well, 70-300.  However, being a full frame lens it is primarily built for a full frame body/sensor.  And simply when it hits a smaller sensor, some of the light is lost around the edges.  What's that you say, some lens will get soft around the edges?  This is a cure.  Expense, but a cure.  Best I can say if you're really interested, google FX lens on DX body.  There's all sorts of people who can 'splain it better than me but in the end for Nikon there is an approximately 1.5x bump for the lens. 
So by Nikon's definition, my 70 - 300 has an equivalent focal length of 105 to 450.  Out of the box.  PFM (Pure Magic).
To get me the rest of the way, the D7200 has a cute little setting called Image Area.  This option disables some of the sensor and in the same manner as above gives the illusion of more zoom in the lens.  There is a cost, such as pixel count as represented by the reduced file size - but hey I'm an amateur and this is a hobby.  The photos are still awesome.
In the end, does anyone really know what the focal length is?  The bigger the number, the bigger the object in the field of view is.  More/bigger is better, right?  Sometimes yes, sometimes no but I'd rather have it and not need it.  Or at least have the option to use it.
So, how does the camera react to this.
This set of shots was taken in Port Huron.  One of the river vessels passed under the Blue Water bridge.  If I had to guess, the vessel was a mile away.
First image with Nikon's DX Image Size.

Focal Length in 35mm is 450.  The Image area is set to DX.  Note the lens is 70-300,

Next shot less than a minute later.  The Image Area was set to 1.3.  Focal Length in 35mm is 600.

The particulars are shown.  1/800 sec, f/8, ISO800, Manual Mode

Both shots are hand held.  Enlarged, both shots are very clear.  (OK, not as fast as aircraft, but when in Rome...)

Is Manual really worth it?

I entered into the DSLR world in 2009 with a Nikon D80 and no idea how to use it.  A few years later I picked up a D90 - and a little idea on how to use it.  In 2016, I picked up a D7200.  I have a bit of an idea on how to use it, although it does depend on who you ask.
Along the way, I've gone from the full AUTO mode through Aperture Priority to full Manual.
Take this for example:

Histogram is not too bad.

One would say that is an interesting photo.  What an interesting perspective to keep the deck rail in focus with the gulls out of focus.
Truth is, I wanted it the other way around.  
Today, I was playing around with the many, many combinations of auto focus.  In this photo, the mode was full auto.  I let the camera decide what the subject was.  
I have to ask myself, if I'm that picky to use Manual Mode for speed, aperture and ISO, why go only half way?  Why wouldn't I also do the focus?
Normally I use only one of the focus points that the camera has.  Pluck it out of the center and press.  I have a pretty good hit rate.  I tried full auto just for fun.  I was experimenting with multiple targets.  I wanted to see what the camera would do.
Like this:

Most of the gulls are in passable focus.  This is an exception.  What I'm seeing after reviewing the shots is the camera appears to be confused by the water waves.  I think because of the number of moving targets, the camera ignored the water.  Against the sky, my hit rate was much better with a single moving target.
One of the tricks I've used in the past is to find a comfortable infinity setting and it with the auto focus off.  Realistically after about 15-20 feet you're in the infinity area anyway.
I believe in Manual Mode for taking the pictures.  I'm going to get there for the focus.

The Barn Test

On the recent road trip to the eastern part of the state the goal was to test the new lens.  Testing was fairly easy, as it only works with the D7200 and not on the D90.  At least according to Nikon.
So the two units for the day are the D7200/70-300 and D90/18-200.
Traveling the back roads, I was looking for barns.  Preferably barns with some wear.
I found this one, and it seemed to be a good one to test both units.

These are RAW images.
I tried to keep most of the particulars the same.  I was using f/6.3 and f/8 most of the day to keep the results as sharp as possible.  I missed by a bit on the aperture.  And the focal length on the 70-300 was actually 85, but due to FX lens on a DX camera it comes out to 127.
I concede that fact may have improved the detail in the barn wood a bit.
Will have to try with other combinations.  
But the real interesting part of this figuring out how to line up two similar images into one image.

A Colormunki Afternoon

In the quest for better photography, some of the issues we deal with is a consistency of color, from the subject to the final medium.
When you think about it, consider the path a specific color of red goes through from the subject to the PC display, RAW/JPG or print.
Ambient light hits the color red on the subject, goes through a filter attached to the camera lens, through the camera lens (OEM or other) to the camera, processed through software to a file.  That's a lot of handshakes - and we're not across the finish line yet.  From the file the journey continues to either electronic display or print.
So - what is the possibility that that one specific color of red that started with the subject finished at the destination with the same color?  The odds probably not good.
In reality, do you really need to capture that specific color or red?  If you are OK with the way you photos turn out from your (phone) camera, and with what the manufacturer algorithm does to a RAW image in the conversion to a JPG, and how your display presents the image - then you don't need this.
If you're already on the road to the dark side, that is take the time to process your own images (RAW), then you'd probably see value in the extra time to get the original colors right.
So how to do that?
A few years ago I purchased a color card.  X-Rite's Passport to be exact.  (This is not a commercial for them, just fact.)  Once I understood the difference between a JPG and a RAW file, it only made sense to me that the only way to get a true color duplication was with a color card.  OK - if not true, then a truer color duplication.  What I found out was that my both my Nikons using OEM lens' were a little light on blue shades.
But is that really true?  Or was the blue shade not represented correctly on my monitor?
In reality, I think I have only one side of the conversation.
Now, dealing with displays only, I have the other piece to help in getting the color representation.  I purchased X-rite's Cololmunki Display.  Again not an advertisement.  In theory it should blend in with the current process I use now.
As with most tech-toys, there are lots of Youtube videos on how to set the product up.  It really wasn't that difficult.  But what was missing - or I missed, was where the profile file was used.
The Colormunki creates an .icm file, much like a printer profile.  And like a printer profile file, the file has to be 'read' by the device.  I've played around with printer profiles before, so I sort of understand the concept.  Just have to translate the knowledge to the display.
Actually, it was easier than I thought it would be.  For Windows, it is in the display settings.  DOH!.

If you have multiple displays configured, a unique profile can be created and used for each.
So - the real question is, did it help?
I can see a difference.  For me, the monitor is somewhat darker and thus the colors are not so washed out.  But the neat thing is that all three monitors, different manufacturers, are now pretty much the same.
I haven't set up my laptop yet, need something to do next weekend.  I'm expecting a big change there.

Will phone cameras ever be as good as a (D)SLR or mirrorless?

I sometimes find myself in conversations about DSLR cameras and phone cameras.  It usually happens right after Apple launches its newer and better phone unit every year.  We can save the topic of why Apple's newer units are always better than the older ones for another day.  So anyway, someone always says to me that their new Apple is better than my (insert camera name here) that I have invested/sunk (insert $$$s) in.  
Puh-lezz.
What they should really be asking me is if I think phone cameras are to the point where people think the images captured are as good those that most people can get with a DSLR.
My answer would be something like this.
Phone cameras these days are frickin' awesome!  My phone camera will even generate a RAW image.  How cool is that?  There are apps that will even manage the phone camera settings.  Image file sizes are fairly comparable between the two.  That has to be the same quality, right?
Well, it depends.
Phone cameras make good photography within the reach of most.  The $$$s required are minimal.  After all, the camera is basically paid for.  A lot of what I would call post processing software can be found for free.  Who could ask for more?
The answer begins, as always, is physics.
First, I am a hobbyist.  Not a professional.  And I didn't get too far in physics in high school.  Now that we've set the expectations, let's get on with what is possible and what is fantasy.
The heart of all image capture is the sensor.  This is the same on a phone camera and on a DSLR.
From a very high level, all sensors are the same.  The sensor captures light and translates the information to digital information.  The digital information is captured in a file and you know the rest from here.  To be sure, that is probably 100 steps condensed to 3.  We'll keep it simple.
For the sake of my answer, I'll go with the image capture at the sensor is the best it can be.
If you look up the definition of photography, every one deals with the capture of light and somehow converting that information to another medium.
The key word here is LIGHT.
For most of my friends who are photography enthusiasts, we have (can afford) equipment with what is called a APS-C class size, 23.6mm x 15.8mm for an area of 3.73cm(sq).  Most of us have dreams of hitting the lottery and going full frame which is 36mm x 23.9mm for an area of 8.6cm(sq).  Ah, the quest of light.
So, what's in a phone camera?  Without getting into the math, the APS-C sensor is roughly 18x-20x larger that what is in my phone.  That's the physics part.  I'm sure there is some law that states the bigger the sensor, the more light it will capture.

I can hear the rumble within the Apple community now, well Mr. know-it-all, how come my phone doesn't stink with that kind of math?
You have to give credit where it is due, all those phone engineers earn their money.  Apparently there are tricks in order to get the most possible light to the sensor.  Technology is a wonderful thing.
So the Apple crowd will also ask, well why don't they just put a bigger sensor in the phone?  Well, you'd have to ask Apple, but one reason is with the rush to get smaller and more powerful the constant enemy is heat.  And a sensor will generate heat.
So in the end the answer to the original question lies in, what do you want to do with the hobby?  If you are happy with your phone camera, then yes you can take just as good a picture with your phone camera as you would with a DSLR.  But my answer to the the question is no, my phone camera will not take pictures with which I would create my art.  And it never will.  And I'm OK with that.
My phone takes great 'family opportunity/travel/vacation' shots.  I'm OK with Samsung's algorithms to produce a good JPG file.  However, if I want to show off or print pictures, or as I like to say digital art, than I want the best capture of light I can get.  Or the biggest sensor I can afford.
This covers just the sensor size.  There are other aspects to this conversation as well.  What about the elements of the sensor, the pixel element?  With smaller sensor sizes comes smaller pixel elements, right?  Is smaller better?
How do you get light to the sensor?  I spend a few $$$$s on glass.  Could it be that the lenses on the camera phone are just as good?
Another discussion, another time.