Samsung A55-5G Macro image of Mango Blossom at night: What's wrong? if anything?

[wombat]

On 2/10/2025 at 2:23 AM, GammaGlobulin said:

 

Please keep me in the Pub, where I belong....

 

Thank you.

That explains the shake in the blossom photo

[Wuvu2]

On 2/10/2025 at 2:23 AM, GammaGlobulin said:

 

Please keep me in the Pub, where I belong....

 

Can we vote on that?

[newbee2022]

On 2/10/2025 at 2:23 AM, GammaGlobulin said:

Dear Folks, 

 

I am very, VERY pleased with the A55-5G phone, for what I normally use it for.

Great amount of RAM, 12GB

Adequate internal memory storage: 256GB

Very reasonable cost, quite undeniably!

 

However, when it comes to photography...haha....because...

IMHO, it's still a JOKE compared to my old camera which I purchased...back in...1978.

 

This is why, anytime anyone asks me why I use my camera phone to take, mostly, nothing but images of store-purchase receipts, or maybe the neighbor's cat in my yard, I just say that it does not measure up to my 50-year-old camera, made by Nikon.

 

For example, just a few minutes ago, I noticed that my mango tree was blossoming early this year.

I decided to document it by recording an image of said blossom.

 

I turned the camera on the phone to MACRO, and got up close, but not too close.

Still, here is what the phone camera recorded....

 

What's wrong with this picture?

Or, what's wrong with the camera of the phone, for that matter?

 

Here is an image of my Nikon F2AS, a camera which I loved....so deeply.

Also, it was a film camera, another thing I loved....so deeply.

 

Do you even think that a Nikon would take such as sorry photo of a mango blossom as you see, above you?

It never would.

It never did.

 

On the phone-camera, there is no way to focus the lens.

Everything seems automatic.

And, so, sometimes, the images turn out like this.

 

I am not one to take many photos, daily, as I once thought I might.

 

Still, when a mango blossom image turns out like this...then...it's such a let-down.

 

Also, just look at the difference in the size of the lens!

This is a 50mm lens, a NORMAL lens, on the Nikon.

 

Gods only know what kind of creepy lens is in my Samsung phone.

 

I must admit, the Nikon F2AS, back in 1978, cost about....

 

Today, the price of the F2AS would be about....

 

Therefore, I have absolutely NOTHING to complain about.

 

I am ONLY asking and wondering about....

 

What's wrong with this mango-blossom picture?

 

Next time, I hope to do better.

 

Thank you.

Regards,

Gamma

 

 

Note:  Although this might, at first, seem like an Agricultural Topic, or a Photography Topic,  or even a PHONE Topic....still.....

 

Please keep me in the Pub, where I belong....

 

Thank you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you know there are better camera phones on the market?

You can adjust manually (I use Oppo real me 13 pro)😃

[Dexxter]

On 2/10/2025 at 5:30 AM, GammaGlobulin said:

 

Correct.

This is why I used two bars of my favorite hand soap.

 

If only you had used my favourite brand of soap you would have had better results.

[GammaGlobulin]

On 2/10/2025 at 10:42 AM, KhunLA said:

Nobody in their right mind shoots macro with an expected depth of field

 

In one's right mind, did you say?

 

Also, that spider was nice.

But, do you have a macro image of a Chinese hourglass spider?

 

How about a Brown Widow spider?

 

IMHO, spiders make almost as good photographic subjects as birds.

Also, easier to find.

 

[KhunLA]

35 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

In one's right mind, did you say?

 

Also, that spider was nice.

But, do you have a macro image of a Chinese hourglass spider?

 

How about a Brown Widow spider?

 

IMHO, spiders make almost as good photographic subjects as birds.

Also, easier to find.

 

 

More than a few snaps of spiders & dragonflies.

 

Along with bees, hornets, ants, butterflies, or any critters I can actually see and stays still long enough.

 

 

[GammaGlobulin]

13 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

 

More than a few snaps of spiders & dragonflies.

 

Along with bees, hornets, ants, butterflies, or any critters I can actually see and stays still long enough.

 

 

 

I read, recently, on TV that lizards will stay still if you spray them a bit with Ant Spray.

 

[KhunLA]

Just now, GammaGlobulin said:

 

I read, recently, on TV that lizards will stay still if you spray them a bit with Ant Spray.

 

If they think the 'camouflages' is working, and don't think you see them, then yea, they'll stay put as long as they feel safe.  I've been surprised how close I've gotten to them.

 

Or, how fast they took off to hide. or simply went much higher than me.

 

With my lenses, I really don't need to be close.  If I can see it, I'll usually get a decent snap.

 

Snapped a Purple Heron the other day, too far to actually see, but saw it land on top of tree.  So that was easy.  If didn't see it flying and landing, would have never new it was there.   Posted in 'Birds in Garden' thread.

[IsaanT]

Mobile phones can take close-up photos.

 

This is a plastic cap on a 600ml water bottle, chosen as something we're all familiar with.

 

I concur with what someone else has said that manual camera apps can give a degree of control that the standard manufacturer-supplied app doesn't (because that's not their target audience).

 

However, for this shot indoors under artificial light I used the standard phone app (Pixel 7a, 2x zoom).

[GammaGlobulin]

19 minutes ago, IsaanT said:

Mobile phones can take close-up photos.

 

This is a plastic cap on a 600ml water bottle, chosen as something we're all familiar with.

 

I concur with what someone else has said that manual camera apps can give a degree of control that the standard manufacturer-supplied app doesn't (because that's not their target audience).

 

However, for this shot indoors under artificial light I used the standard phone app (Pixel 7a, 2x zoom).

 

 

The Samsung does very well on bottle caps, actually.

One image is the MACRO setting.

The other image is the default setting.

I forget which is which.

 

No tripod used.

My hands were shaking from trying to hold the heavy Samsung.

The cap was left unwashed and dusty, intentionally.

 

Would have been better with more light, a tripod, and smaller aperture.

But, the Samsung does well on bottle caps, which is what I mostly photograph, on an average day.

 

This is a small image, meaning less than One MByte.

 

[IsaanT]

I'll have a go with my manual camera app in the morning in natural light.  I know I've had good results in the past.

[GammaGlobulin]

1 minute ago, IsaanT said:

I'll have a go with my manual camera app in the morning in natural light.  I know I've had good results in the past.

 

OK

Will it be bottle caps, again?

 

If bottle caps, then let's go for it.

I will take a few images of bottle caps in direct sunlight, which should be bright enough for my purposes.

Then we shall see what we shall see.

 

[Clapped out]

I have a many years old ( not Sammy ) Android phone ( rev GOK ).

Put app 'Bacon Camera' on it way back for goofing around like y'all are doing now

To my tiny mind its pretty deadly so long as you avoid a few things that crash it

 

Qs:

Can you still get that app ?

If so :

How does it fare compared to what goes on today ?

[GammaGlobulin]

3 hours ago, Clapped out said:

for goofing around like y'all are doing now

 

YES!

 

Goofing around.

This is why this Topic is in the Farang Pub.

 

And, this is why this Topic is NOT in any serious TV-sub-forum, such a the Farming forum.

 

[fondue zoo]

It's out of focus....

 

Were you trying to photograph a Bigfoot behind the flower?

 

 

 

 

 

[GammaGlobulin]

1 hour ago, fondue zoo said:

It's out of focus....

 

Were you trying to photograph a Bigfoot behind the flower?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scotland!

On my way.

 

[IsaanT]

I tried again with my manual app but, unsurprisingly, the minimum focus distance is the same at about 10cm.

 

To achieve this image I used 8x digital zoom.

 

Manual camera apps are still worth investigating for better camera control (ASA, shutter speed, etc.)

[GammaGlobulin]

1 hour ago, IsaanT said:

I tried again with my manual app but, unsurprisingly, the minimum focus distance is the same at about 10cm.

 

To achieve this image I used 8x digital zoom.

 

Manual camera apps are still worth investigating for better camera control (ASA, shutter speed, etc.)

 

 

Both images captured with the Macro Button On (they say it's a Macro Lens...but I think they are just joking.)

 

This is not really a fair competition because:

a. No tripod. (Tomorrow, I will order a tripod from Lazada, my go-to retailer.)

b. Your cap is a different and better color.

c. I forgot to capture image at High Noon, when there might have been decent and adequate light from the Sun. (Not enough light, in my case.)

d. My hands were shaking from holding up heavy camera.

e. Also, most importantly, the base of the bottle kept swaying back and forth. Not flat. I had to hold onto the bottle and the camera at the same time I used thumb to activate "shutter", even though my phone-camera has no shutter.

 

Still, what should one expect from a very cheap phone.

The phone is good for what Samsung intended....IMHO.

 

Suggestion:  If you really want a fair competition, then maybe use a smaller subject with more detail.  THEN, we will be able to separate the Men from the Boys....  Just a suggestion.

 

 

b. 

[IsaanT]

I should point out that my shots are all hand-held - no tripod used.  The shutter speed on the most recent one was 1/100th of a second.

Here's a photo I took last year when I really wanted to get close in on the detail, which I think is a good representation of what is possible with a standard phone camera.  I do like the really narrow depth of field that is possible.  Regarding tripods, I seem to recall I was holding the spark plug in one hand, the phone in the other, and had to use the self-timer because I'd run out of hands.

Apologies that the subject matter isn't more interesting - no convenient spiders here at this time...


 

[GammaGlobulin]

7 minutes ago, IsaanT said:

I should point out that my shots are all hand-held - no tripod used.  The shutter speed on the most recent one was 1/100th of a second.

Here's a photo I took last year when I really wanted to get close in on the detail, which I think is a good representation of what is possible with a standard phone camera.  I do like the really narrow depth of field that is possible.

Apologies for the subject matter - no convenient spiders here at this time...


 

 

You are the photographer.

Therefore, no need for you to apologize for choosing your subject.

All great photographers exercise this freedom.

 

Note: Maybe I can borrow a spark plug from a neighbor.  Will try.

 

[IsaanT]

1 minute ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

You are the photographer.

 

Indeed I am.

Slightly off topic but I also had a nice 35mm film camera once (I still have it in a box somewhere).  It was a Pentax MX.  At the time the Pentax ME Super was very popular but I wanted a fully-manual camera.  It had a good light meter with half-stop over/under lights and full-stop over/under lights.  Naturally, one twizzled the aperture and shutter speeds until the green aperture light lit.

This was about 45 years ago and I remember at the time being very aware that the cost of film and developing meant that each shot cost me about 40p.  It made me very selective about pressing the shutter.  This was great training for composition, focus, light, subject matter, etc., etc., because nobody wants to see duds when they come back from the developers.   So, I don't take snaps - I take photos.

I'm British, and we used to have a great fashion photographer called Norman Parkinson (1913-1990).  He would sometimes be commissioned to do royal portraits, for which he used a plate camera.  I remember in an interview he stated that he took two plates to each assignment, just in case something went wrong with the first one.  That's the way to do it.

p.s. If you're interested (and you obviously are), have a look at NP's archive at https://www.normanparkinson.com/  Very inspiring.

[Stocky]

I've got the A53 5G - Macro works fine

 

 

 

[GammaGlobulin]

1 minute ago, Stocky said:

I've got the A53 5G - Macro works fine

 

 

 

 

The images is GREAT.

The spider leaves much to be desired.

 

I think I need to practice using the A55-5G photo app.

 

Other than imaging, I am extremely pleased with this phone..

As I have stated previously, several times.

 

(Meaning, I am please with the phone, but not the clerk who sold it to me.)

 

[IsaanT]

This is from Norman Parkinson's archive.  There are many great photos there but I liked the composition of this one...
 

[GammaGlobulin]

Just now, IsaanT said:

This is from Norman Parkinson's archive.  There are many great photos there but I liked the composition of this one...
 

 

That reminds me of the film....

 

FLIGHT OF THE PHOENIX.

 

 

 

[IsaanT]

16 minutes ago, Stocky said:

I've got the A53 5G - Macro works fine

 

 

 

How big is this spider, exactly?  🙂

[IsaanT]

5 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

That reminds me of the film....

 

FLIGHT OF THE PHOENIX.

 

 

 

Great film.

They actually flew the plane in the film that they constructed but sadly the professional pilot was killed because it didn't do landings very well.

The pilot was Paul Mantz.  The story goes that while performing a low-level take-off (aren't all take-offs low-level?) in the Arizona desert, the aircraft struck a small sand dune, breaking apart on impact.  The impact was fatal for Paul Mantz.  His co-pilot , Bobby Rose, survived but suffered serious injuries.  Frank Tallman, Mantz's longtime business partner, completed the remaining flying sequences for the film.
 

[Stocky]

16 minutes ago, IsaanT said:

How big is this spider, exactly?  🙂

[IsaanT]

Inspired by all this photography mullarkey, I just wandered into the garden to see if I could find anyting of interest.  This was taken on 8x zoom again, and I was at the closest focus (I was literally pulling the phone back and forth until the focus looked right).  It's not perfect but it's representative of what is possible.
 

[IsaanT]

3 minutes ago, Stocky said:

Thanks for the clarification! 🙂