8 ms·

A common opinion among software engineers, but less common among serious photographers. "Portrait mode" looks like a cheap instagram filter. To be fair, it does

by glup 7y ago

A common opinion among software engineers, but less common among serious photographers. "Portrait mode" looks like a cheap instagram filter. To be fair, it does let a much larger population experiment with effects that otherwise take a bit of specialized gear and knowledge.

jayd16 7y ago
We can just make a lens that's unfocused at every depth and merge the two as needed. Joking aside, I wouldn't doubt this creeping into the film industry or other professional photography. Everything already goes through so much post processing, color correction, etc etc.
ansgri 7y ago
Modern phones get you 90% there. The bokeh quality apparently wasn't a priority until very recently. For indoor applications, a Huawei P20 Pro with artificial bokeh and good onboard image processing beats my APS-C-format Sony camera with an F/1.4 lens most of the time — not even counting cases when the depth of field of said F/1.4 is too shallow! No way can that mobile thing compete with a good lens in good lighting though. But soon that won't be because camera hardware isn't competitive; rather, the phone's computational photography pipeline and lack of dedicated controls wouldn't allow enough flexibility in shooting techniques. Again, the mobile phone manufacturers are just starting advancing to higher-end photography — the science and computing power is basically there, you can do a lot with deep learning combined with real understanding of image formation and photography. I wouldn't call myself anything serious as a photographer; OTOH some serious photographers whom I follow start turning more into 3D artists or videographers. Photography as a profession seems to be in a crisis: not that it's not needed, it's that many adjacent things (3D, video, design, marketing) are also needed, not unlike in programming: there's almost no such thing as a senior (e.g.) Python developer, there are senior Web, Data, etc. developers which primarily use Python along with other tools (JS, sql, etc).
- altcognito 7y ago
  Yes, you get where I'm coming from, and I think both of us agree that nothing will ever replace a photographer who knows how to compose a photo. Taking a picture is different!
whichquestion 7y ago
They’re not wrong. Software does fill in many gaps for photographers. Photoshop is a great example of this. Amateur astrophotography is a good example of where software is utilized to fill in gaps in the hardware all of the time. Color correction and focus stacking are often done in software, star tracking mounts are using software, and so on.
altcognito 7y ago
No, I totally get where you're coming from. But I would also argue that even for photographers, there is a lot more freedom and creativity in having everything in focus and working with it later. But yes, the best photographers are generally trained to spot exactly the right framing and composition from the moment the moment the photo is snapped.
ken 7y ago
As someone who owns an SLR and an f/1.4 lens, I can sympathize, but anytime I hear some popular new technique being derided as not ideal among "serious" practitioners, I know it's going to take over the world. Remember when "personal" computers weren't fashionable among "serious" programmers? Or GUIs, or scripting languages, or the web? Whenever the choice is "software that's only 80% as good" or "more expensive hardware", the former will win every time.

by glup 7y ago

jayd16 7y ago

We can just make a lens that's unfocused at every depth and merge the two as needed. Joking aside, I wouldn't doubt this creeping into the film industry or other professional photography. Everything already goes through so much post processing, color correction, etc etc.

ansgri 7y ago

Modern phones get you 90% there. The bokeh quality apparently wasn't a priority until very recently. For indoor applications, a Huawei P20 Pro with artificial bokeh and good onboard image processing beats my APS-C-format Sony camera with an F/1.4 lens most of the time — not even counting cases when the depth of field of said F/1.4 is too shallow! No way can that mobile thing compete with a good lens in good lighting though. But soon that won't be because camera hardware isn't competitive; rather, the phone's computational photography pipeline and lack of dedicated controls wouldn't allow enough flexibility in shooting techniques. Again, the mobile phone manufacturers are just starting advancing to higher-end photography — the science and computing power is basically there, you can do a lot with deep learning combined with real understanding of image formation and photography. I wouldn't call myself anything serious as a photographer; OTOH some serious photographers whom I follow start turning more into 3D artists or videographers. Photography as a profession seems to be in a crisis: not that it's not needed, it's that many adjacent things (3D, video, design, marketing) are also needed, not unlike in programming: there's almost no such thing as a senior (e.g.) Python developer, there are senior Web, Data, etc. developers which primarily use Python along with other tools (JS, sql, etc).

altcognito 7y ago
Yes, you get where I'm coming from, and I think both of us agree that nothing will ever replace a photographer who knows how to compose a photo. Taking a picture is different!

whichquestion 7y ago

They’re not wrong. Software does fill in many gaps for photographers. Photoshop is a great example of this. Amateur astrophotography is a good example of where software is utilized to fill in gaps in the hardware all of the time. Color correction and focus stacking are often done in software, star tracking mounts are using software, and so on.

altcognito 7y ago

No, I totally get where you're coming from. But I would also argue that even for photographers, there is a lot more freedom and creativity in having everything in focus and working with it later. But yes, the best photographers are generally trained to spot exactly the right framing and composition from the moment the moment the photo is snapped.

ken 7y ago

As someone who owns an SLR and an f/1.4 lens, I can sympathize, but anytime I hear some popular new technique being derided as not ideal among "serious" practitioners, I know it's going to take over the world. Remember when "personal" computers weren't fashionable among "serious" programmers? Or GUIs, or scripting languages, or the web? Whenever the choice is "software that's only 80% as good" or "more expensive hardware", the former will win every time.