7 ms·

Very nice write up. However, who is the audience? The demographic that this info is relevant to must be infinitesimal. A serious photographer will try to maxim

Very nice write up. However, who is the audience? The demographic that this info is relevant to must be infinitesimal. A serious photographer will try to maximize quality with camera gear that starts out with strong baseline IQ potential - Pro camera, large sensor, quality lenses. People who subscribes to the value prop of iphone 12 pro max, do not lean towards this model for the above reasons.

altarius 6y ago
Honestly, I went out to Marin Headlands this morning to photograph the sunrise, brought my 60mpix fullframe camera and some amazing lenses. But while waiting for the best light or long exposures I snap off a couple pictures on the phone. And I was just thinking, if I'd just post to Instagram and not print, I probably wouldn't even bother with the fullframe camera - a nice hike without 20lbs of gear and as great photos if you don't need the resolution/detail. HDR+ and the other computational photography goodness makes for great photos straight out of the phone and a tiny bit of editing then goes long way. I bet if you showed 20 non-photographers 2 images a phone screen, one from the phone and one fullframe edited, most wouldn't appreciate the difference. That said, I wouldn't give up my camera for many shots but I can understand why many people do. Post-processing camera raws is definitely more cumbersome than quickly editing photos on a phone.
- jordache 6y ago
  i don't doubt the use case you brought up. For your use case, are you going to pixel peep and compare RAW file formats differences? As if that knowledge would somehow materially affect your Instagram photo result.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    >As if that knowledge would somehow materially affect your Instagram photo result. People don't just read things that "materially affect" their results. If we did we would read 10% of what we actually read in HN...
  - altarius 6y ago
    You're right, my point was a little lost in my long-winded answer. RAW files just give you more latitude after the fact, and editing can either really eek out the last 20% or allow the photographer to better express their "artistic vision" and achieve a look (eg split toning or color grading). All this worked before on jpegs even, but raw just closes the camera/smartphone gap a tad bit more - especially when it's easily available to everyone. You might be right that it's currently a niche, but if the UX improves, widespread adoption might happen.
- centimeter 6y ago
  I agree that most non-photographers probably couldn’t reliably predict if a 3x3” image came from a phone or larger-format camera, but my suspicion is that subconsciously people will think the image with features like true narrow DoF “look better” even if they can’t articulate why.
- redvenom 6y ago
  This highlights the difference between someone who cares about image quality and someone who just cares about reactions and likes.
  - foldr 6y ago
    Almost no-one who matters cares about "image quality". It's something that just needs to be good enough. It's not a particularly important aspect of making a good photo. OP's story highlights a much more important aspect: being in the right place at the right time. I guess I'm getting old, but I can't help but observe that the image quality provided by a smartphone today is superior to anything available even to rich amateurs when I was a kid in the 90s. This is especially so when you look at color accuracy and dynamic range as well as resolution (which is much less important, but much more often obsessed over).
    - redvenom 6y ago
      Good thing I don't care at all what most people care about. If everyone had your attitude we'd all be listening to pop music instead of classical as well.
      - foldr 6y ago
        I'm not sure I follow. The musical analogy would be obsessing over "audio quality", which has nothing to do with music genre.
heavymark 6y ago
While I love shooting in RAW on Sony A7RIV which of course the iPhone can't hold a candle to (except maybe in full right for non moving objects that don't need a shallow depth of field). That being said far more often that not, I don't have that camera with me, or the ability to grab it and take a photo in seconds when a moment is fleeting, so certainly use my iPhone camera very often since it's always with me, always on. And being able to get more out of those photos in raw editor that I would use for my normal mirrorless photos, is a great benefit. So while of course shooting raw in general is niche and shooting proraw would of course be more niche, certainly don't think it would be infinitesimal in any respect.
_alex_ 6y ago
They run a sustainable business selling a power-user camera app for the iphone. People who like that app like this information.
coldtea 6y ago
>Very nice write up. However, who is the audience? Any pixel-peeping digital photographer, so millions... >A serious photographer will try to maximize quality with camera gear that starts out with strong baseline IQ potential - Pro camera, large sensor, quality lenses.* You'd be surprised. There are other elements "serious photographers" sometimes optimize for, including weight, stealth, convenience, and so on.
- dylan604 6y ago
  Stealth is a bigger part than most would think about, but it is a big benefit with most camera bodies being a dark color. Holding it close to your body instead of extended arms allows that dark color to blend in especially if the photog is also wearing dark colors.
- ghaff 6y ago
  If a pro photographer is on an assignment, sure they're almost certainly going use a high-end camera--probably a full-frame DSLR/mirrorless. But a ton of "serious photographers" aren't always on a photographic mission and, for them, something they have on them anyway that they can take good photos with anyway is pretty attractive. I'm "serious" for some definitions of the word and I definitely don't bother to haul around a dedicated camera as much as I used to.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    >If a pro photographer is on an assignment, sure they're almost certainly going use a high-end camera--probably a full-frame DSLR/mirrorless. And even here, "almost certainly" is the key term. E.g. Alex Majoli shot wars for Magnum Photos with compact digital cameras (this one: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/9257233153/olympusc5060 https://www.dpreview.com/articles/9257233153/olympusc5060 ) and won awards. And of course tons of pro photographers have shot with the iPhone and such phones. Even more so in photojournalism, street photography, documentary photography etc. Now, ad work, wedding, magazine portraiture, etc will of course mostly use their medium formats or $10K mirrorless setups...

altarius 6y ago

Honestly, I went out to Marin Headlands this morning to photograph the sunrise, brought my 60mpix fullframe camera and some amazing lenses. But while waiting for the best light or long exposures I snap off a couple pictures on the phone. And I was just thinking, if I'd just post to Instagram and not print, I probably wouldn't even bother with the fullframe camera - a nice hike without 20lbs of gear and as great photos if you don't need the resolution/detail. HDR+ and the other computational photography goodness makes for great photos straight out of the phone and a tiny bit of editing then goes long way. I bet if you showed 20 non-photographers 2 images a phone screen, one from the phone and one fullframe edited, most wouldn't appreciate the difference. That said, I wouldn't give up my camera for many shots but I can understand why many people do. Post-processing camera raws is definitely more cumbersome than quickly editing photos on a phone.

jordache 6y ago
i don't doubt the use case you brought up. For your use case, are you going to pixel peep and compare RAW file formats differences? As if that knowledge would somehow materially affect your Instagram photo result.
- coldtea 6y ago
  >As if that knowledge would somehow materially affect your Instagram photo result. People don't just read things that "materially affect" their results. If we did we would read 10% of what we actually read in HN...
- altarius 6y ago
  You're right, my point was a little lost in my long-winded answer. RAW files just give you more latitude after the fact, and editing can either really eek out the last 20% or allow the photographer to better express their "artistic vision" and achieve a look (eg split toning or color grading). All this worked before on jpegs even, but raw just closes the camera/smartphone gap a tad bit more - especially when it's easily available to everyone. You might be right that it's currently a niche, but if the UX improves, widespread adoption might happen.
centimeter 6y ago
I agree that most non-photographers probably couldn’t reliably predict if a 3x3” image came from a phone or larger-format camera, but my suspicion is that subconsciously people will think the image with features like true narrow DoF “look better” even if they can’t articulate why.
redvenom 6y ago
This highlights the difference between someone who cares about image quality and someone who just cares about reactions and likes.
- foldr 6y ago
  Almost no-one who matters cares about "image quality". It's something that just needs to be good enough. It's not a particularly important aspect of making a good photo. OP's story highlights a much more important aspect: being in the right place at the right time. I guess I'm getting old, but I can't help but observe that the image quality provided by a smartphone today is superior to anything available even to rich amateurs when I was a kid in the 90s. This is especially so when you look at color accuracy and dynamic range as well as resolution (which is much less important, but much more often obsessed over).
  - redvenom 6y ago
    Good thing I don't care at all what most people care about. If everyone had your attitude we'd all be listening to pop music instead of classical as well.
    - foldr 6y ago
      I'm not sure I follow. The musical analogy would be obsessing over "audio quality", which has nothing to do with music genre.

heavymark 6y ago

While I love shooting in RAW on Sony A7RIV which of course the iPhone can't hold a candle to (except maybe in full right for non moving objects that don't need a shallow depth of field). That being said far more often that not, I don't have that camera with me, or the ability to grab it and take a photo in seconds when a moment is fleeting, so certainly use my iPhone camera very often since it's always with me, always on. And being able to get more out of those photos in raw editor that I would use for my normal mirrorless photos, is a great benefit. So while of course shooting raw in general is niche and shooting proraw would of course be more niche, certainly don't think it would be infinitesimal in any respect.

_alex_ 6y ago

They run a sustainable business selling a power-user camera app for the iphone. People who like that app like this information.

coldtea 6y ago

>Very nice write up. However, who is the audience? Any pixel-peeping digital photographer, so millions... >A serious photographer will try to maximize quality with camera gear that starts out with strong baseline IQ potential - Pro camera, large sensor, quality lenses.* You'd be surprised. There are other elements "serious photographers" sometimes optimize for, including weight, stealth, convenience, and so on.

dylan604 6y ago
Stealth is a bigger part than most would think about, but it is a big benefit with most camera bodies being a dark color. Holding it close to your body instead of extended arms allows that dark color to blend in especially if the photog is also wearing dark colors.
ghaff 6y ago
If a pro photographer is on an assignment, sure they're almost certainly going use a high-end camera--probably a full-frame DSLR/mirrorless. But a ton of "serious photographers" aren't always on a photographic mission and, for them, something they have on them anyway that they can take good photos with anyway is pretty attractive. I'm "serious" for some definitions of the word and I definitely don't bother to haul around a dedicated camera as much as I used to.
- coldtea 6y ago
  >If a pro photographer is on an assignment, sure they're almost certainly going use a high-end camera--probably a full-frame DSLR/mirrorless. And even here, "almost certainly" is the key term. E.g. Alex Majoli shot wars for Magnum Photos with compact digital cameras (this one: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/9257233153/olympusc5060 https://www.dpreview.com/articles/9257233153/olympusc5060 ) and won awards. And of course tons of pro photographers have shot with the iPhone and such phones. Even more so in photojournalism, street photography, documentary photography etc. Now, ad work, wedding, magazine portraiture, etc will of course mostly use their medium formats or $10K mirrorless setups...