3 ms·
Are they talking about how they've improved skin tone representation for all people, in which case I would expect more variation of skin tone in those photos, o
by freeAgent 5y ago
Are they talking about how they've improved skin tone representation for all people, in which case I would expect more variation of skin tone in those photos, or are they saying that they improved representation of skin tones which contain more melanin? They literally said "all people," but I assume they actually mean the latter based on the representative photos.
- wffurr 5y agoThey already took fantastic pictures of light skinned folks.
- freeAgent 5y agoI disagree. I hate taking photos with my phone when I have the opportunity to use a my full-frame Sony camera. It's also very easy to mess up skin tones in tricky lighting situations, whether we're talking about light or dark-skinned people. Having multiple temperatures of light in the frame is probably the biggest issue (e.g., window light plus light from an incandescent bulb). It can really unbalance the rendering of skin tone. I did a bit of searching just now and found that Google is calling this update "Real Tone." https://store.google.com/intl/en/discover/realtone/ https://store.google.com/intl/en/discover/realtone/ From what I can tell, they have likely improved things for people of all skin colors, but probably moreso for those with darker skin due to increased focus on ML training. They include a person with fairly light skin on that page in comparison to the product page.
- wffurr 5y agoDo I really have to specify "for a phone"? Obviously you can get better pictures with a $2000 full frame camera...