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

Understanding ProRAW

blog.halide.cam

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 114 posts

Re: Understanding ProRAW

#81

Post by cageface »

tambourine_man wrote: post #78
lmilcin wrote: post #13

I find people misunderstand what RAW is about and what and who it is for. If you think your pictures are better, you are deluding yourself the same way audiophiles moan about qualities of their high end, thousand dollar per feet audio cables. I use RAW files and full manual because I have an actual workflow where I shoot a bunch of photos in similar setting and want to be able to create Lightroom preset and apply to…

Oh dear. I'm sorry, but you are objectively wrong on so many levels it's hard to know where to start. But I guess I'll try nevertheless :) - Sharpen/noise reduction: If you want to avoid over-denoising and over-sharpening you need RAW, there's no way around it. I find Apple's rendering (and most other phone makers) distasteful. Anything above ISO 800 is just trash on JPG but pretty good on RAW. It's the reason I lef…

Smartphones have gotten very good at handling shots with huge dynamic range but I’m not sure if I really like these kinds of photos. Having everything in the photo in range looks very artificial sometimes.

Re: Understanding ProRAW

#82

Post by boromi »

I do hope we see similar features from the Galaxy and Android world, altough I'm not holding my breath, based on how tight the software, hardware integration needs to be to pull this off. It might be a very long time until we see something similar, which would probably be half-baked regardless.

Re: Understanding ProRAW

#83

Post by tambourine_man »

cageface wrote: post #81
tambourine_man wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh dear. I'm sorry, but you are objectively wrong on so many levels it's hard to know where to start. But I guess I'll try nevertheless :) - Sharpen/noise reduction: If you want to avoid over-denoising and over-sharpening you need RAW, there's no way around it. I find Apple's rendering (and most other phone makers) distasteful. Anything above ISO 800 is just trash on JPG but pretty good on RAW. It's the reason I lef…

Smartphones have gotten very good at handling shots with huge dynamic range but I’m not sure if I really like these kinds of photos. Having everything in the photo in range looks very artificial sometimes.

It’s poorly done most of the time. Especially with people. Skin color gets wacko

Re: Understanding ProRAW

#84

Post by vmception »

redvenom wrote: post #74
vmception wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The iPhone 12 Pro is better than EVIL & DSLR cameras, and that mostly comes down to software. Introducing ProRAW in a software update is already going to solidify that. If digital cameras want to compete here is what they need to do: - add live photos as a default If photography enthusiasts wants to gatekeep: - buy an older camera and stick with that... collectible. If Apple wants to continue making their devices mor…

The iPhone 12 may have some cool auto computational features, but in no way is it better than an ILC camera like a DSLR. If you actually compare image quality side by side, a DSLR typically will smoke an iPhone. Not to mention there is no way to go past ~100mm on even the best phones.

Oh I forgot, I only do portraits and stopped taking interchangeable lens cameras with me places over half a decade ago. I don't do landscapes or wildlife photography, nor did I ever have a desire to to make rivers look like smudges with a long exposure.

For portraits, iPhone 12 Pro in okay lighting is the first one where I say, yeah good enough and often times better.

I don't care about DXOMark, I care about what humans think, and across mediums a photo from an iPhone 12 Pro absolutely is good and great enough.

Re: Understanding ProRAW

#85

Post by mullingitover »

tambourine_man wrote: post #78
lmilcin wrote: post #13

I find people misunderstand what RAW is about and what and who it is for. If you think your pictures are better, you are deluding yourself the same way audiophiles moan about qualities of their high end, thousand dollar per feet audio cables. I use RAW files and full manual because I have an actual workflow where I shoot a bunch of photos in similar setting and want to be able to create Lightroom preset and apply to…

Oh dear. I'm sorry, but you are objectively wrong on so many levels it's hard to know where to start. But I guess I'll try nevertheless :) - Sharpen/noise reduction: If you want to avoid over-denoising and over-sharpening you need RAW, there's no way around it. I find Apple's rendering (and most other phone makers) distasteful. Anything above ISO 800 is just trash on JPG but pretty good on RAW. It's the reason I lef…

> That camera doesn't matter motto never dies, it seems. Tools are extremely important. They don't work on their own, of course, but are definitively part of the equation.

I've attended a lot of photo meets, and if I had a dollar for every shooter who showed up with the latest and greatest gear, only to post poorly composed, poorly lit, overprocessed dreck weeks later...

I think a better analogy is bicycles. You can have the fanciest, lightest racing bike in the world, but if you're not a trained athlete it's not going to help you much. If you are a trained athlete, you can crush nearly any amateur with a $150 bike from Walmart. All other things being equal, gear matters. It's rare that all the other things are equal, though.

Fancy cameras on phones are awesome, but what I really wish they'd give us is the ability to control off-camera lighting.

Re: Understanding ProRAW

#86

Post by sudosysgen »

vmception wrote: post #84
redvenom wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The iPhone 12 may have some cool auto computational features, but in no way is it better than an ILC camera like a DSLR. If you actually compare image quality side by side, a DSLR typically will smoke an iPhone. Not to mention there is no way to go past ~100mm on even the best phones.

Oh I forgot, I only do portraits and stopped taking interchangeable lens cameras with me places over half a decade ago. I don't do landscapes or wildlife photography, nor did I ever have a desire to to make rivers look like smudges with a long exposure. For portraits, iPhone 12 Pro in okay lighting is the first one where I say, yeah good enough and often times better. I don't care about DXOMark, I care about what hum…

Well, if you take one single kind of image that the software is optimized to almost fake, yes you can get close. But you'll never get to the level of, say, an a7iii+85mm1.4 even for portraits, even in good light.

In any case, good enough and better are two very different words. I really enjoy taking pictures on an ILC much more and the results I get are noticeably better even in portraits, including by people that don't know what I took it with. For example, good luck emulating the look of a 135mm f/2.8 (at night) with an iPhone if we're talking about portraits, or good luck doing better than a 50mm 1.4 for street, good luck doing better than a 70-200 2.8, and so on.

But yes, it has a much lower skill ceiling and often more consistent results, and it really does get close.

Re: Understanding ProRAW

#87

Post by Auracle »

vmception wrote: post #84
redvenom wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The iPhone 12 may have some cool auto computational features, but in no way is it better than an ILC camera like a DSLR. If you actually compare image quality side by side, a DSLR typically will smoke an iPhone. Not to mention there is no way to go past ~100mm on even the best phones.

Oh I forgot, I only do portraits and stopped taking interchangeable lens cameras with me places over half a decade ago. I don't do landscapes or wildlife photography, nor did I ever have a desire to to make rivers look like smudges with a long exposure. For portraits, iPhone 12 Pro in okay lighting is the first one where I say, yeah good enough and often times better. I don't care about DXOMark, I care about what hum…

This is going to sound unintentionally confrontational but I’ll put up one of my DSLR portrait shots against your phone shots any day.

Good enough? Maybe. Better than a much larger sensor and better lens? No way.

Re: Understanding ProRAW

#88

Post by latenightcoding »

vmception wrote: post #84
redvenom wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The iPhone 12 may have some cool auto computational features, but in no way is it better than an ILC camera like a DSLR. If you actually compare image quality side by side, a DSLR typically will smoke an iPhone. Not to mention there is no way to go past ~100mm on even the best phones.

Oh I forgot, I only do portraits and stopped taking interchangeable lens cameras with me places over half a decade ago. I don't do landscapes or wildlife photography, nor did I ever have a desire to to make rivers look like smudges with a long exposure. For portraits, iPhone 12 Pro in okay lighting is the first one where I say, yeah good enough and often times better. I don't care about DXOMark, I care about what hum…

knowing that you only do portraits makes me disagree with you even more, no way your iphone can come close to a portrait shot with an 85mm or 135mm lens. Also the bokeh effect on iphones looks super unnatural

Re: Understanding ProRAW

#89

Post by vmception »

Auracle wrote: post #87
vmception wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh I forgot, I only do portraits and stopped taking interchangeable lens cameras with me places over half a decade ago. I don't do landscapes or wildlife photography, nor did I ever have a desire to to make rivers look like smudges with a long exposure. For portraits, iPhone 12 Pro in okay lighting is the first one where I say, yeah good enough and often times better. I don't care about DXOMark, I care about what hum…

This is going to sound unintentionally confrontational but I’ll put up one of my DSLR portrait shots against your phone shots any day. Good enough? Maybe. Better than a much larger sensor and better lens? No way.

And what do you use those photos for?

I’m only going to sound realistic

Re: Understanding ProRAW

#90

Post by vmception »

sudosysgen wrote: post #86
vmception wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh I forgot, I only do portraits and stopped taking interchangeable lens cameras with me places over half a decade ago. I don't do landscapes or wildlife photography, nor did I ever have a desire to to make rivers look like smudges with a long exposure. For portraits, iPhone 12 Pro in okay lighting is the first one where I say, yeah good enough and often times better. I don't care about DXOMark, I care about what hum…

Well, if you take one single kind of image that the software is optimized to almost fake, yes you can get close. But you'll never get to the level of, say, an a7iii+85mm1.4 even for portraits, even in good light. In any case, good enough and better are two very different words. I really enjoy taking pictures on an ILC much more and the results I get are noticeably better even in portraits, including by people that do…

I enjoy the a-series but that’s exactly what I’m moving on from

I think I’ll get a gimbal and some contraption to trigger flash and maybe some adapter lenses as they trickle out for this form factor

Yes, the consistency in such a wide range of lighting situations is what’s attractive. Along with the built in non-destructive editing. Soon, ProRAW for even more of that. Live Photos by default which “captures the moment” more than the composition itself, and a software and syncing pipeline that supports that seamlessly. With the nearest replacement being an entire tool-belt and bags of gear.

I think at this point we will see the market choose, and often times I ahead of the accepted trend on that. A daguerreotype was probably superior processing technology than film and paper but it wasn’t convenient enough to remain an option. Same went for film and dedicated digital cameras. I think this is where we are now with the iphone 12 pro and ProRAW, even for photo enthusiasts.

Post reply on HN