Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple unveils the best photos from the Shot on iPhone Macro Challenge

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 165 posts

Re: Apple unveils the best photos from the Shot on iPhone Macro Challenge

#151

Post by astrange »

dylan604 wrote: post #149
astrange wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't actually do any of those, people just hear "computational photography" and make up things in their heads. "Real digital cameras" also have computational photography a.k.a. sharpening, auto exposure and auto white balance.

"real digital cameras" have all of those features you mentioned as options. "real photographers" set up their camera with the settings they prefer and develop in post. i'm deliberately using quotes there as photo journalists have been forced to do certain things that would go against the norms as mandates have come down upon them. These mandates are meant to ensure claims about mainipulation in post has a little grou…

So do phones, but if you set everything to full manual that doesn't mean you're going to do any better. (Even autofocus can work a lot better than manual.)

Part of that developing is taking 10x the number of actual photos you want so you can delete the ones that're overexposed or too blurry. And you have to deal with all the data of keeping uncompressed RAWs around.

Re: Apple unveils the best photos from the Shot on iPhone Macro Challenge

#152

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

HidyBush wrote: post #121
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #2

The trick to getting the best out of camera phones is to shore up their weaknesses with external devices. Cell phone cameras are multiple stops slower than "real" cameras (i.e. they take in 1/4 to 1/8th as much light). So you add light to the scene to shore up that weakness. Most of these pictures were probably lit very carefully with high quality lights, or else were taken in bright daylight, and the phone was proba…

>Cell phone cameras are multiple stops slower than "real" cameras (i.e. they take in 1/4 to 1/8th as much light). this is not true. the iPhone camera's sensor receives the same density of light from its f/1.8 lens than any old traditional camera using an f/1.8 lens. this means the stops are identical. of course the total amount of light that passes through the iPhone's lens is much smaller than a normal camera's, but…

You mentioned that the stops are identical, but then you said that the phone photos are noisier at the same ISO. You didn't mention this, but there will also be a deeper focus plane. So they aren't identical -- at least under the sense of the word "identical" that's useful to me. You need to use a much slower shutter to get the same noise level. Or a much faster aperture at the same shutter speed.

That difference is exactly what I'm talking about. You'll generally find that a cell phone photo has about the same noise once if you divide the ISO by the square of the relative crop factor (and set exposure accordingly). Coincidentally, you also need to use an aperture that's faster by the relative crop factor to get the same level of background blur.

Re: Apple unveils the best photos from the Shot on iPhone Macro Challenge

#153

Post by fleddr »

I've been doing macro photography with the big gear for over a decade, very actively, in the range of 1:1 to 5:1 and anything in between. I've also been using the macro mode on the iPhone13 Pro on the side, so I'm in the position to judge and compare.

The positive conclusion is that relatively speaking, when reasoning from a smartphone without any macro capabilities, it is a meaningful breakthrough. And this matters as for many people it's their only camera. If you enjoy current smartphone photography, macro is no gimmick, it's perhaps the style of photography that is most creative, fun, and full of untapped potential to get unique shots.

When comparing to the big gear, this should be seen as a start at best. It drastically falls short in many ways.

As a first example, the "Sea glass" photo. Which is wonderfully misleading. The photo is artistically attractive but technically crap. It lacks real sharpness and definition, there's the plastic-like noise reduction, and you'll see "trails" in parts of the image, a result of computational processing of multiple exposures.

Whilst you might not care in this case because the artistic quality distracts you from those glitches, they are a real issue in many photos. Macro photography is defined by a lack of light. The mobile workarounds are extremely aggressive and create tons of glitches all the time.

My second point is on the flowers. They are very large. And that's one of my conclusions, macro mode works pretty decently (for a phone) on decently sized subjects. It's closeup photography, not macro photography. To illustrate the difference in capability, the smallest flower is photographed is 3mm. I'm filling the frame with it and then still have 40-50MP of cropping space. And details are actual details, not some computed blur or guess.

Still, for a lot of people closeup photography is a new capability. I'm just saying to not think it rivals macro photography.

Finally, in macro photography subject isolation is important, clear details with a smooth and soft background. Macro mode does not do that, it fakes the blur and often gets it wrong. In particular it computes some kind of half-state: soft but still with details, which is optically impossible and looks crap.

Don't let my words discourage you though. It a step up in mobile photography, good to have this capability in your pocket. Let it make you fall in love with the endless possibilities of closeup/macro photography, and some of you might take it beyond the phone.

Re: Apple unveils the best photos from the Shot on iPhone Macro Challenge

#154

Post by Auracle »

m463 wrote: post #104
Auracle wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say most really good insect macro images are done with dead insects anyways, as they need to be stacked to get a decent depth of field. The “how to light it” is probably a bigger point. Even with a ~100mm lens, dealing with the lens’ shadow can be annoying.

why wouldn't a future phone camera macro lens have a ring light?

That would light it, but you don’t necessarily want every image to have “flat” lighting. It’s ok for portraits and for documenting things, but usually directional light is more interesting.

Re: Apple unveils the best photos from the Shot on iPhone Macro Challenge

#155

Post by Spooky23 »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #2

The trick to getting the best out of camera phones is to shore up their weaknesses with external devices. Cell phone cameras are multiple stops slower than "real" cameras (i.e. they take in 1/4 to 1/8th as much light). So you add light to the scene to shore up that weakness. Most of these pictures were probably lit very carefully with high quality lights, or else were taken in bright daylight, and the phone was proba…

The whole point of a contest is to push the boundaries. I get your point, but at the same time the quality of casual shots on an iPhone is better than any camera I’m gonna see.

Hell, the iPhone 13 camera can take night shots better than what I can see in some cases.

Re: Apple unveils the best photos from the Shot on iPhone Macro Challenge

#157

Post by geoduck14 »

camillomiller wrote: post #123
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #2

The trick to getting the best out of camera phones is to shore up their weaknesses with external devices. Cell phone cameras are multiple stops slower than "real" cameras (i.e. they take in 1/4 to 1/8th as much light). So you add light to the scene to shore up that weakness. Most of these pictures were probably lit very carefully with high quality lights, or else were taken in bright daylight, and the phone was proba…

Dude, have you ever even used an iPhone 13 Pro? Believe me, the macros you take with this phones are stunning. And lighting and stabilization are a determining factor for macro even with cameras, actually even more so for cameras than phones. These pictures btw were not taken this way. The reason I know is because I talked to the Italian winner and Apple about exactly that. Check this one out: https://www.icloud.com/…

>F 1.8

1/83 sec

1.57 mm

ISO 320

No flash

For something taken at dusk, I'm surprised of the lack of sunset colors in the background. I would absolutely believe that shutter speed would produce that sharpness. And the depth of field looks like it would be aligned with a macro shot.

Re: Apple unveils the best photos from the Shot on iPhone Macro Challenge

#158

Post by camillomiller »

geoduck14 wrote: post #157
camillomiller wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dude, have you ever even used an iPhone 13 Pro? Believe me, the macros you take with this phones are stunning. And lighting and stabilization are a determining factor for macro even with cameras, actually even more so for cameras than phones. These pictures btw were not taken this way. The reason I know is because I talked to the Italian winner and Apple about exactly that. Check this one out: https://www.icloud.com/…

>F 1.8 1/83 sec 1.57 mm ISO 320 No flash For something taken at dusk, I'm surprised of the lack of sunset colors in the background. I would absolutely believe that shutter speed would produce that sharpness. And the depth of field looks like it would be aligned with a macro shot.

The sun had just set behind the clouds in Cabo Sao Vicente. The blue you see in the background is the Atlantic Ocean from the top of a high cliff.

Re: Apple unveils the best photos from the Shot on iPhone Macro Challenge

#159

Post by nathias »

buttersbrian wrote: post #85
nathias wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know you think what you're doing is "elevating" conversations, but ... "calling out" people for the slightest bit of negativity is an extremely toxic behavior. Quality discourse requires negativity and fosters a healthy span of tolerance for it. Your interpretation is also very narrow and passive aggressive itself, to me it seems completely neutral that in a case when someone has a strong opinion based on ignorance…

Disagree. Attack the arguments, not the person. Why did that person feel the need to attack the poster? What did they gain from it? How did it help the argument? I don't think there's a single benefit from that line other than to be self-serving statement that says "i know more than you" when their rebuttal did that more effectively while staying on topic.

That was far from a personal attack. A personal attack is when you attack a specific attribute of that person or use this person itself as an argument for something. It is not if a person does something wrong and you say hey person, you shouldn't do that thing.

Re: Apple unveils the best photos from the Shot on iPhone Macro Challenge

#160

Post by HidyBush »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #152
HidyBush wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Cell phone cameras are multiple stops slower than "real" cameras (i.e. they take in 1/4 to 1/8th as much light). this is not true. the iPhone camera's sensor receives the same density of light from its f/1.8 lens than any old traditional camera using an f/1.8 lens. this means the stops are identical. of course the total amount of light that passes through the iPhone's lens is much smaller than a normal camera's, but…

You mentioned that the stops are identical, but then you said that the phone photos are noisier at the same ISO. You didn't mention this, but there will also be a deeper focus plane. So they aren't identical -- at least under the sense of the word "identical" that's useful to me. You need to use a much slower shutter to get the same noise level. Or a much faster aperture at the same shutter speed. That difference is…

I never claimed taking photos on a minuscule sensor with a plastic lens is identical to doing so with a high end DSLR. Stops refer to exposure and noise and depth of field have no bearing on a photo's correct exposure. It seemed to me that parent was spreading a common misconception about how exposure works across different sensor sizes so I wanted to correct/clarify that. The whole topic of noise equivalency or depth of field equivalency is completely separate and I just mentioned it to make it clear what part of a camera influences which characteristic (light density for exposure, pixel density/pixel size for noise, sensor size for depth of field)
Post reply on HN