6 ms·

That's insane how well the faces are exposed given the dynamic range of the light in that shot. With an SLR the correct exposure is like walking a tightrope. De

That's insane how well the faces are exposed given the dynamic range of the light in that shot. With an SLR the correct exposure is like walking a tightrope. Definite postprocessing required to get a result near the L16 image.

saiya-jin 11y ago
with lightroom, you'll get this by moving few sliders left or right in 10 seconds, given pic is coming from half-decent dslr, full frame ideally. all promotional photos anywhere are carefully photoshopped anyway.
unicornporn 11y ago
That doesn't seem insane at all. There's not much light from the sun that has already set, there's light from the bulbs above and there looks to be light coming from behind the photographer. Also I see extreme amounts of noise even though it's downsampled to 1920 on the long side, especially in the black guys shirt. There seems to be lots of lost detail and and also loss of information in the shadows. Of course it would help to have full res images to say something substantial, but it doesn't look all that promising to me.
alkonaut 11y ago
I don't see the problem with exposing that on an SLR. Just meter for the faces? It looks just like any noisy high-ISO SLR image to me?
- moron4hire 11y ago
  Any modern full-frame Canon with the ol' "nifty fifty" (cheap fixed 50mm, 1.8f lens) could get a shot like this. I've taken portraits in-doors in candlelight with mine.
  - jerich 11y ago
    It took me a few looks at this picture to pick up on the fact that it is all in focus, whereas the depth of field of the f/1.8 lens is going to give you one of the subjects' eyes in focus. I was a little disappointed in the amount of noise and the noise reduction in this pic until I started thinking about how it would look with other cameras. Probably a blurry, noisy mess with cellphone or compacts. To get the same effect as this pic with a DSLR, you'd have to massively stop down that 50mm lens and would end up boosting the ISO so high that even a modern full-frame DSLR wouldn't be that much better.
    - moron4hire 11y ago
      You won't get both the front and the back of the table in focus, but given how far back you'd have to sit to get all three people in frame, you'd probably be able to get all three people in focus, especially if the guy in the back leans in a little. Also, I mentioned Canon because their high ISO modes are particularly low noise these days, even before noise reduction. And Nikon might have caught up as well, I haven't reviewed lately. But that's actually not the most important part. The most important part is that there are only two cameras in my life: my "good" camera and my smartphone, aka the camera I use when I know I'm going to be taking photos, and the camera I have on me all the time. Since this image is probably boosted and noise reduced and photoshopped to make it the most presentable representation of the product, I really think the same amount of effort would get you better results, for less money, out of a DSLR. If you're into spending money, the right DSLR and lens combo would get you far, far better results. On the other hand, yes, DSLRs are bulky and you don't want to carry them everywhere. But the Light is not a smartphone, so it's yet another device to have to remember and carry around, so while it's smaller, I'm still likely to leave it home because I just don't think to bring cameras with me everywhere. I've got an older smartphone (Galaxy Note 3) that can take photos pretty near this quality in its fakey HDR mode. I've seen some shots out of the newest iPhone that very much rival this sort of photo. And that iPhone is cheaper than the Light, plus it's not an extra device.
      - alkonaut 11y ago
        That's why it's most interesting as a concept and not a product. I'd really like my next iPhone (the iPhone 8S if if past shopping behaviour is any indication) to have 3-4 lenses and sensors, if it meant it could be more sensitive in low light or use different focal lengths in good light, and still not be bigger than my current iPhone is. So this company should just make a showcase product, and then wait to be bought by sony/apple/samsung.

saiya-jin 11y ago

with lightroom, you'll get this by moving few sliders left or right in 10 seconds, given pic is coming from half-decent dslr, full frame ideally. all promotional photos anywhere are carefully photoshopped anyway.

unicornporn 11y ago

That doesn't seem insane at all. There's not much light from the sun that has already set, there's light from the bulbs above and there looks to be light coming from behind the photographer. Also I see extreme amounts of noise even though it's downsampled to 1920 on the long side, especially in the black guys shirt. There seems to be lots of lost detail and and also loss of information in the shadows. Of course it would help to have full res images to say something substantial, but it doesn't look all that promising to me.

alkonaut 11y ago

I don't see the problem with exposing that on an SLR. Just meter for the faces? It looks just like any noisy high-ISO SLR image to me?

moron4hire 11y ago
Any modern full-frame Canon with the ol' "nifty fifty" (cheap fixed 50mm, 1.8f lens) could get a shot like this. I've taken portraits in-doors in candlelight with mine.
- jerich 11y ago
  It took me a few looks at this picture to pick up on the fact that it is all in focus, whereas the depth of field of the f/1.8 lens is going to give you one of the subjects' eyes in focus. I was a little disappointed in the amount of noise and the noise reduction in this pic until I started thinking about how it would look with other cameras. Probably a blurry, noisy mess with cellphone or compacts. To get the same effect as this pic with a DSLR, you'd have to massively stop down that 50mm lens and would end up boosting the ISO so high that even a modern full-frame DSLR wouldn't be that much better.
  - moron4hire 11y ago
    You won't get both the front and the back of the table in focus, but given how far back you'd have to sit to get all three people in frame, you'd probably be able to get all three people in focus, especially if the guy in the back leans in a little. Also, I mentioned Canon because their high ISO modes are particularly low noise these days, even before noise reduction. And Nikon might have caught up as well, I haven't reviewed lately. But that's actually not the most important part. The most important part is that there are only two cameras in my life: my "good" camera and my smartphone, aka the camera I use when I know I'm going to be taking photos, and the camera I have on me all the time. Since this image is probably boosted and noise reduced and photoshopped to make it the most presentable representation of the product, I really think the same amount of effort would get you better results, for less money, out of a DSLR. If you're into spending money, the right DSLR and lens combo would get you far, far better results. On the other hand, yes, DSLRs are bulky and you don't want to carry them everywhere. But the Light is not a smartphone, so it's yet another device to have to remember and carry around, so while it's smaller, I'm still likely to leave it home because I just don't think to bring cameras with me everywhere. I've got an older smartphone (Galaxy Note 3) that can take photos pretty near this quality in its fakey HDR mode. I've seen some shots out of the newest iPhone that very much rival this sort of photo. And that iPhone is cheaper than the Light, plus it's not an extra device.
    - alkonaut 11y ago
      That's why it's most interesting as a concept and not a product. I'd really like my next iPhone (the iPhone 8S if if past shopping behaviour is any indication) to have 3-4 lenses and sensors, if it meant it could be more sensitive in low light or use different focal lengths in good light, and still not be bigger than my current iPhone is. So this company should just make a showcase product, and then wait to be bought by sony/apple/samsung.