4 ms·

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 fo

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.

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.