Beginner Photographer's pictures would compare better if they used a wider depth of field so the background objects are sharp, like the iPhone pics. But, conversely, how do you do the narrow(er) depth-of-field in the iPhone when you want it?
The iPhone blurred background is completely synthetic. It uses multiple cameras to build a depth map of the scene, and then blurs whatever isn't at the depth of the subject of the photo. If you're asking "how do you do", you can select "portrait" when taking the photo, or go to the photo in your gallery after the fact, pick "edit", pick "portrait", and choose a fake aperture ("f/1.4") and focus point to use. The resu…
iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras
381–390 of 519 posts
Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras
#382Earlier quoted context omitted.
I fully agree with your observations, and would add the irony of such a pursuit by phone makers is that serious hobbyist/amateur/professional photographers and videographers understand that cameras are inherently inaccurate , and that what we’re really capturing is an interpretation of what we’re seeing through imperfect glass, coatings, and sensor media to form an artistic creation. Sure, cameras can be used for acc…
I don't spend too much time thinking about cameras or lenses but this kind of conversation makes me wonder... when I take photos of receipts or street signs or just text in general, is it possible that at some point the computational photography makes a mistake and changes text? or am I being paranoid?
See https://www.runpulse.com/blog/why-llms-suck-at-ocr and its related HN discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42966958
Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras
#383Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am amazed at the eye professional photographers have. A shot of a building that is suddenly really interesting, versus my shot of that building. Colour. Angle. etc. I just don't have the eye for it, despite having a decent amateur setup. BUT, yes, lots of people might look at a random photo on their phone and not notice skintones, or the fisheye etc. If you then give them a pile of 10 photos from a pro, versus 10 f…
> I just don't have the eye for it, despite having a decent amateur setup. Checkout this book by the late† Bryan Peterson, where he shows photos taken by his students as well as his own of the same location, and explains the differences in techniques/settings: * https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/54228164-bryan-peters... His Understanding series of books are also good ( Exposure is worth checking out if you know…
Way back when, I bought a couple of his books, probably on the recommendation of someone or other in an online photography forum - 'Understanding Exposure' and 'Learning to see creatively'. The latter in particular was wonderful for someone who had the technical aspects of photography more or less sorted, but was - ahem - deficient in the artistic department.
Anyway, I felt his style was incredible - down-to-earth, but not afraid to go into a bit of background if needed - so I sent off a brief letter of thanks through his publisher.
Lo and behold, got a very nice letter back, thanking my for the kind words and encouraging me (I had mentioned that I shot both film and digital, seeing as at the time, a wonderful film camera like the F5 could be had for a fraction of what even an entry-level APS-C DSLR cost) to experiment A LOT using the DSLR, as the instant feedback provided would help my analog hit rate progress leaps and bounds.
I was already thinking a bit along those lines, but became a lot more conscious about trying to improve my skills using the DSLR upon his encouragement - and my photos improved a lot over the following years as a result.
Thanks, Bryan.
Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras
#384Earlier quoted context omitted.
I fully agree with your observations, and would add the irony of such a pursuit by phone makers is that serious hobbyist/amateur/professional photographers and videographers understand that cameras are inherently inaccurate , and that what we’re really capturing is an interpretation of what we’re seeing through imperfect glass, coatings, and sensor media to form an artistic creation. Sure, cameras can be used for acc…
I don't spend too much time thinking about cameras or lenses but this kind of conversation makes me wonder... when I take photos of receipts or street signs or just text in general, is it possible that at some point the computational photography makes a mistake and changes text? or am I being paranoid?
Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras
#385There are lots of areas where there is a ‘convenience’ / ‘art’ split. One I recognized early was houses that were ‘architected’ and those that were just ‘built’. Looking at cabins from the 1800’s vs houses you can really see a cabin is practical, it is focused on utility that is easily built with a wide variety of materials at hand and skill sets of the builders. Whereas homes that were architected and built used a lot of craftspeople, bespoke materials, etc.
My dad was a professional photographer and he would take pictures and I would take pictures and his looked great and mine looked ‘ordinary’? I was just capturing the view in a given direction and he was composing a view to have various elements in relation to make a picture.
Phone cameras are “free” in that you bought a phone and it happened to come with a camera, and you carry it with you everywhere because phone. So a lot of the image capturing that is done is what you see. People do compose shots, and I’ve seen great photographs from phone cameras. But it is pretty clear that a photographer using a phone works harder to get their shot than someone who just wants a snapshot, and it goes the other way too, a person who just wants a snapshot works a lot harder to figure out how an SLR works, “just to take a picture” while the photographer seems to effortlessly bring it up to take a wonderful shot.
So if you take the whole set of people who are using a tool, you optimize for the largest portion of that population which is where the culture aspects kick in it seems. People grabbing snapshots with ‘one button activation’ vs people taking photographs composing with scenes and light.
Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras
#386Earlier quoted context omitted.
I fully agree with your observations, and would add the irony of such a pursuit by phone makers is that serious hobbyist/amateur/professional photographers and videographers understand that cameras are inherently inaccurate , and that what we’re really capturing is an interpretation of what we’re seeing through imperfect glass, coatings, and sensor media to form an artistic creation. Sure, cameras can be used for acc…
I don't spend too much time thinking about cameras or lenses but this kind of conversation makes me wonder... when I take photos of receipts or street signs or just text in general, is it possible that at some point the computational photography makes a mistake and changes text? or am I being paranoid?
Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras
#387Computerized phone photography is not for desktop viewing, printing, etc. It appears to look "amazing" on phone displays - probably optimized for that.
And nowadays unless you professionally shooting photos for a billboard, bedroom poster or newspaper advert - that is clearly enough. 99%+ of photo viewing is done on a phone or tablet screen.
If my phone photos did bother me, I would turn on RAW mode and do the processing myself.
My "real" camera is a 15 year old Canon Rebel XSi. It's big and can't do a lot of the things my iPhone can and the photos are about the same quality (which is impressive because the Rebel is only 12 megapixels).
Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras
#388I'm generally annoyed with the amount of processing going on in modern phone cameras, they often take pictures that "look fine" on the screen, until you zoom in to native resolution and discovered most of it is some fever-dream of approximations, it's amazing that we (people) are accepting this.. Lots of fine memories degraded by cheating cameras.. It's annoying especially because at a glance, the pictures taken by m…
It's because the consumption side has completely changed. Most people now don't even own a PC so they're not likely to even notice this problem.
Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras
#389Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras
#390Even so, though, 5 or 7 years ago it became clear that I could absolutely use some iPhone shots as part of my travel sets. Yeah, you could tell they weren't from the full-frame Sony, but the delta was small enough that it was okay. Now that delta is narrower.
But the BULK of the photos I end up sharing are still from a real camera. Some of that is the lack of distortion, and some of that is likely the intentionality of Using A Camera vs. whipping out one's phone, and a good chunk of is the level of control a competent shutterbug has with a proper camera that is mostly absent, or at least harder to manipulate, on a phone (aperture, shutter, ISO, etc).