5 ms·

Their results are quite bad compared to a passably competent Photoshop user willing to spend 2 minutes per picture. But if you need the computer to do all the

Their results are quite bad compared to a passably competent Photoshop user willing to spend 2 minutes per picture. But if you need the computer to do all the color adjustment for you, so you can post your snapshot on facebook or print it at the local drug store with no manual intervention, this might be a good enough result.

windexh8er 9y ago
I think you are missing the point with improvements of this nature. Take for example: you have kids. You're at an event with said kids. While I still own a mirror-less micro 4/3rds, I often time don't have it with me. It's easy to snap hundreds of photos in random life events with a good smart phone camera. I personally have almost 2TB of family photo and video and I've got a long way to go. Can you imagine me spending 2 minutes, per picture, on even a fraction of that? Not only have you discounted the "sharability" aspect, the "instant gratification" aspect, and ultimately the tradeoff of results over time. When phones started to wield cameras I intentionally avoided them because of less-than-potato level quality. Now a phone I'm buying must have a fast, quality shooter. I own both Google and Apple products and the Pixel has pushed the bar up significantly in my personal opinion. Do I occasionally edit (mostly in-phone)? Sure. Simple grading and some vignetting goes a long way. Is it professional? No. But the point is I'm not shooting the pictures to win anyone else over. It's an investment in preservation. If I have all of that overhead, as you suggest, it will never get done. I have more useful things to spend time on than editing a few dozen photos on my computer, after I transfer them, then upload them SmugMug and then send out an email or note about it. Instead I can send a group message on Signal and everyone gets the gist in a fraction of the time. This thread seems to be filled with amateur professionals thinking that their iPhone or Pixel will magically do something optically it can't (yet?). It's good enough, and in some cases a spectacular ROI (both Apple/Google/Samsung/LG/etc) for the price. The photography giants wouldn't sell or develop new products if they felt a lot of pressure in this space. You shouldn't have an expectation that your $1000 phone competes with a few thousand in camera, glass and filters in the right hands. It won't. Edit: words
- matwood 9y ago
  > This thread seems to be filled with amateur professionals thinking that their iPhone or Pixel will magically do something optically it can't (yet?). This is key. I own some decent camera gear and I'm amazed at what is coming out of all of the top end phones. Of course I can critique and find faults, but the pictures that non-photographers can take with their phones in a matter of seconds are down right amazing. I actually wonder if the gear heads feel their domain threatened? I'm waiting for the day when I don't have to lug around my camera and multiple pounds of lenses in order to get all the shots I want :)
  - ggus 9y ago
    ..or for the day that we have all those magic baked into our "decent camera gear"!
    - matwood 9y ago
      And the problem is that it's mostly software. The main camera people (Cannon/Nikon) are terrible at software. From what I understand Cannon is a bit better, but all of the software I use from Nikon is horrible. I love the lenses, and my Nikon body, but anytime I have to use their software I cringe. I also don't see how they fix this anytime soon. It's just not part of their DNA.
  - ksk 9y ago
    > but the pictures that non-photographers can take with their phones in a matter of seconds are down right amazing. But that simply highlights that simply owning good gear doesn't mean you can shoot good pictures. You still need to learn lighting, composition, posing your subjects, etc etc, which was always the case!
    - matwood 9y ago
      Absolutely. Every photographer should be focused on those things as job one. My point above was that many wannabe photographers just focus on gear, and they are very quick to be critical of what phones are producing. My point was that phones can and are making great pictures without requiring a bag full of gear, and that it's highlighting that gear is secondary to the skills you listed.

windexh8er 9y ago

I think you are missing the point with improvements of this nature. Take for example: you have kids. You're at an event with said kids. While I still own a mirror-less micro 4/3rds, I often time don't have it with me. It's easy to snap hundreds of photos in random life events with a good smart phone camera. I personally have almost 2TB of family photo and video and I've got a long way to go. Can you imagine me spending 2 minutes, per picture, on even a fraction of that? Not only have you discounted the "sharability" aspect, the "instant gratification" aspect, and ultimately the tradeoff of results over time. When phones started to wield cameras I intentionally avoided them because of less-than-potato level quality. Now a phone I'm buying must have a fast, quality shooter. I own both Google and Apple products and the Pixel has pushed the bar up significantly in my personal opinion. Do I occasionally edit (mostly in-phone)? Sure. Simple grading and some vignetting goes a long way. Is it professional? No. But the point is I'm not shooting the pictures to win anyone else over. It's an investment in preservation. If I have all of that overhead, as you suggest, it will never get done. I have more useful things to spend time on than editing a few dozen photos on my computer, after I transfer them, then upload them SmugMug and then send out an email or note about it. Instead I can send a group message on Signal and everyone gets the gist in a fraction of the time. This thread seems to be filled with amateur professionals thinking that their iPhone or Pixel will magically do something optically it can't (yet?). It's good enough, and in some cases a spectacular ROI (both Apple/Google/Samsung/LG/etc) for the price. The photography giants wouldn't sell or develop new products if they felt a lot of pressure in this space. You shouldn't have an expectation that your $1000 phone competes with a few thousand in camera, glass and filters in the right hands. It won't. Edit: words

matwood 9y ago
> This thread seems to be filled with amateur professionals thinking that their iPhone or Pixel will magically do something optically it can't (yet?). This is key. I own some decent camera gear and I'm amazed at what is coming out of all of the top end phones. Of course I can critique and find faults, but the pictures that non-photographers can take with their phones in a matter of seconds are down right amazing. I actually wonder if the gear heads feel their domain threatened? I'm waiting for the day when I don't have to lug around my camera and multiple pounds of lenses in order to get all the shots I want :)
- ggus 9y ago
  ..or for the day that we have all those magic baked into our "decent camera gear"!
  - matwood 9y ago
    And the problem is that it's mostly software. The main camera people (Cannon/Nikon) are terrible at software. From what I understand Cannon is a bit better, but all of the software I use from Nikon is horrible. I love the lenses, and my Nikon body, but anytime I have to use their software I cringe. I also don't see how they fix this anytime soon. It's just not part of their DNA.
- ksk 9y ago
  > but the pictures that non-photographers can take with their phones in a matter of seconds are down right amazing. But that simply highlights that simply owning good gear doesn't mean you can shoot good pictures. You still need to learn lighting, composition, posing your subjects, etc etc, which was always the case!
  - matwood 9y ago
    Absolutely. Every photographer should be focused on those things as job one. My point above was that many wannabe photographers just focus on gear, and they are very quick to be critical of what phones are producing. My point was that phones can and are making great pictures without requiring a bag full of gear, and that it's highlighting that gear is secondary to the skills you listed.