Low Light and High Dynamic Range photography in the Google Camera App

Autofocus in the iPhone is much faster than the majority of Canon (or Nikon) DSLRs, regardless of the number of focus points. Partly because it's a lot easier to focus a lens that has nearly infinite depth of field! Most photographers are also gear heads, which is another dangerous thing to say, just like saying (quite correctly) that most serial killers are keen photographers. which true, it doesn't necessarily add much to the conversation.

why we have this obsession with resolution is largely because of computers. In the "old days" I would make contact sheets and then prints, mainly 8x8" (from a Hasselblad, pre instagram-square-hipness), and they would (and do) look stunning, to use object oriented speak, a fiber print IS-A photograph, where as a digital print HAS-A photograph on the paper surface. They are different, when silver crystals are in (vs on) the medium it becomes something altogether different. In these modern enlightened times we put a photo up on a retina big screen and stare at it from 2' and of course we're going to see imperfections, this creates a cycle of obsession with sharpness. But of course it doesn't matter, would a painting be any better if it was created with a smaller brush? This is all a very classical philosophical debate, it's the medium is the message all over again.

From my perspective this work is impressive, does it make better photos? No, but it does make the photos more representative of what the taker was looking at. Over time we are subtracting the technology component from photography, eventually we will have the ability to record easily any visual experience we have. For me this comes from having enough experience in using equipment and eeking the most out of it, but in contrast my daughter is frustrated by cameras (both her Canon DSLR and her iPhone), she will see something like the solar eclipse and wonder why simply pointing the camera at it won't bring about a photo that looks the same as the one that the Mt Hamilton took on their 36" reflecting telescope, or why a photo at her friends candle lit birthday party didn't look how she remembered it. Her generation will grow up with sufficiently advanced technology that a lot of the inconvenience of photography's technical side has been automated. Just as I grew up in a time when emulsions were capable of exposing in a few hundredth's of a second rather than minutes.

Features like megapixels, 51 phase detection AF points, face detection metering and other goodies all allow real people to capture better, more memorable images than cell phone cameras.

1. https://www.flickr.com/photos/jemfinch/8594571664/in/set-721... could not have been captured with a cell phone camera. I was holding my DSLR in my offhand and pushing him on the swing with my other hand.

2. https://www.flickr.com/photos/jemfinch/9326415006/in/set-721... could not have been captured with a cell phone either. My wife was holding him and he was peeking out over her shoulder then switching to the other shoulder immediately when I brought the camera up. With a cell phone's shutter lag, he'd have been on the other side before the picture was taken.

3. https://www.flickr.com/photos/jemfinch/8582319362/in/set-721... no cell phone camera in the world could have captured this in such low light so successfully.

4. https://www.flickr.com/photos/jemfinch/9012492563/in/set-721... there are a hundred fleeting moments a day like this, and no cell phone in the world is fast enough to capture them.

It's easy to take a picture of an abandoned alley or cats lying on blacktop with a cellphone camera. Try doing that with a newborn's first smile, or a mischievous preschooler's momentary smirk.

There is, however, a marked tendency in photography to obsess about the technical. In the recent series of books "100 ideas that changed..." that also covers fields like art, graphic design, fashion, architecture and film, the photography book ("100 ideas that changed photography") is notable for its focus on technical developments. The other creative fields have their idiosyncrasies, and each book has a different editor, so this is hardly a well-designed study, but photography stands out as the most concerned with the purely technical. That seems to be just the way it is.

Nobody would suggest that wobbliness or "looking like its about to fall down" are good ideas for architecture, but for some reason people coming from the art world like the idea of messing with photography's technical perfection. Maybe it's a personality thing.

The strange black dots you find in the shadows are noise. Simple no data to produce any results.

The key part to in camera HDR is, automatic. No manually fixing your camera to tripod, copying them onto computer and the loading into software capable of HDR and finally manually processing them.