Earlier quoted context omitted.
"you will have the average complexion and you will like it" rofl
who are you quoting?
it seems you accept having your skin color changed by the iPhone algorithm... I do not accept that so was making light of it
iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras
71–80 of 519 posts
Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras
#72"in the iPhone photo, the player is "leaning". His (long) feet are on the left and his head is on the right of the image. In the right image, the image accurately portays his balanced and confident stance. " The subject seems to have moved. His expression is different, how he holds the stick is different. Hard to believe that the stance remained the same meanwhile.
the player in green has a substantial lean as well. Download the photo and crop and you can see it.
Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras
#73Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really. Look at the sky, it's very different between the two. This is something I've noticed constantly with iPhones in particular. To the point where I don't bother trying to take photos that focus on the sky or sunset as it heavily processes the results (extreme oranges and deep blues).
Those are the colors people like. Go and look at how photographers usually try to make skies more dramatic for clients in all kind of photoshoots (weddings, events, postcard pictures, etc.). That's what the market wants. You can disagree, but it's not like smartphone companies are incompetent and don't know how photography works (not that you have made this claim)
I don’t think we disagree. It’s the broader point of phones now doing the editing for you. If you enjoy photography then this is “worse” as you would prefer to do that yourself in Lightroom. If you don’t enjoy photography this is “better” as your result look great without additional effort (for me it’s the former).
Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
who are you quoting?
it seems you accept having your skin color changed by the iPhone algorithm... I do not accept that so was making light of it
All cameras imprint their own color signature to photos, so I really don't understand what you're talking about. Some people buy exclusively Canon cameras because their JPEG profiles give "good" skin tones straight out of the camera. Does that mean they are "accepting" Canon's opinion of what skin should look like?
Yes. Everyone does, with every manufacturer, and Apple evidently has determined their visual style. At least they also provide you with an optional semi-raw output you can freely edit if you so desire.
Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras
#76My entry-level mirrorless camera with its kit lens can take photos that blow my recent-model iPhone out of the water. Add a nice lens and there's no comparison. However: - The iPhone is always in my pocket (until I crack and buy a flip-phone) - The iPhone picture always turns out, but the Canon takes a modicum of skill, which my wife is not interested in, and I'll never be able to teach passers-by when they take a gr…
I've had passer-bys take group photos with a real camera, no problem. What issues do you run into?
Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those are the colors people like. Go and look at how photographers usually try to make skies more dramatic for clients in all kind of photoshoots (weddings, events, postcard pictures, etc.). That's what the market wants. You can disagree, but it's not like smartphone companies are incompetent and don't know how photography works (not that you have made this claim)
I don’t think we disagree. It’s the broader point of phones now doing the editing for you. If you enjoy photography then this is “worse” as you would prefer to do that yourself in Lightroom. If you don’t enjoy photography this is “better” as your result look great without additional effort (for me it’s the former).
Phones have always been designed for "normal" people, nonetheless manufacturers are actually giving pros more tools than ever. Smartphone photography might have been less processed in the early 2010s, but the outputs were difficult to edit and jpeg only. At least nowadays the big players allow you to shoot also in raw formats. Before smartphones, "normal" people who wanted to take photos without bothering too much would have simply shot in JPEG and blindly trusted the color decisions from the camera manufacturer, or by the chemical engineers at the film/development/printing factory.
Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras
#78"in the iPhone photo, the player is "leaning". His (long) feet are on the left and his head is on the right of the image. In the right image, the image accurately portays his balanced and confident stance. " The subject seems to have moved. His expression is different, how he holds the stick is different. Hard to believe that the stance remained the same meanwhile.
There's so much wrong with this article it's difficult to know where to start, but the fact that they didn't bother to take the photos at the same time with an equivalent focal length makes the entire thing pointless.
Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras
#79"in the iPhone photo, the player is "leaning". His (long) feet are on the left and his head is on the right of the image. In the right image, the image accurately portays his balanced and confident stance. " The subject seems to have moved. His expression is different, how he holds the stick is different. Hard to believe that the stance remained the same meanwhile.
There's so much wrong with this article it's difficult to know where to start, but the fact that they didn't bother to take the photos at the same time with an equivalent focal length makes the entire thing pointless.
How do you take a 45mm focal length photo with iPhone?
Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras
#80My entry-level mirrorless camera with its kit lens can take photos that blow my recent-model iPhone out of the water. Add a nice lens and there's no comparison. However: - The iPhone is always in my pocket (until I crack and buy a flip-phone) - The iPhone picture always turns out, but the Canon takes a modicum of skill, which my wife is not interested in, and I'll never be able to teach passers-by when they take a gr…
I put a 90mm prime [1] on my Sony, set it to aperture priority, put the strap over someone's head and deputize them to get headshots ("frame it up with the viewfinder and push the button") and they do OK so long as the light is predictable. I wish I could tell the auto mode to let the ISO go higher than it will because I do noise reduction in developing such that there is no real quality loss at 6400.
[1] takes lovely portraits and no focus to deal with