3 ms·
On the leaf image: “The reason I like this so much is the obvious layering. The depth of field created with the iPhone here very clearly shows you what the foca
by jclardy 4y ago
On the leaf image:
“The reason I like this so much is the obvious layering. The depth of field created with the iPhone here very clearly shows you what the focal point is, and represents a fantastic example of how good the software is at completely isolating the foreground, leaving the background blurry. A perfect example of computational depth of field.” — Peter McKinnon
Is this correct? From what I've shot in macro on my DSLR, the blur is natural because the focus plane is so thin. I realize the phone has a much smaller sensor, but is the blur in macro mode computational? I thought that effect was only applied in portrait mode shots.
- dylan604 4y agoAt this point, I don't know how to apply any natural photography rules to camera phone results. There is so much processing going on that it is hard to even try to do things the "old" way. From the skin softening, to the pushing of the contrast/color balance/saturation, to the correcting of content replacing a person's face with a leaf type examples, etc, I really don't want to use the damn camera at all from a purist point of view.
- jitl 4y agoThe leaf was actually a leaf. https://twitter.com/mitchcohen/status/1476951534160257026?s=21&t=Y26LcIOuc4EdKofupaTuYg https://twitter.com/mitchcohen/status/1476951534160257026?s=... Using Halide or similar with RAW substantially improves your control.
- astrange 4y agoIt doesn't actually do any of those, people just hear "computational photography" and make up things in their heads. "Real digital cameras" also have computational photography a.k.a. sharpening, auto exposure and auto white balance.
- dylan604 4y ago"real digital cameras" have all of those features you mentioned as options. "real photographers" set up their camera with the settings they prefer and develop in post. i'm deliberately using quotes there as photo journalists have been forced to do certain things that would go against the norms as mandates have come down upon them. These mandates are meant to ensure claims about mainipulation in post has a little ground to stand on, but the people making those mandates don't understand what they are mandating with their PHB directives.
- astrange 4y agoSo do phones, but if you set everything to full manual that doesn't mean you're going to do any better. (Even autofocus can work a lot better than manual.) Part of that developing is taking 10x the number of actual photos you want so you can delete the ones that're overexposed or too blurry. And you have to deal with all the data of keeping uncompressed RAWs around.
- Arkadin 4y agoI believe every photo on iPhone 13 pro is enhanced. https://www.newyorker.com/culture/infinite-scroll/have-iphone-cameras-become-too-smart https://www.newyorker.com/culture/infinite-scroll/have-iphon... You're right though that this isn't a "perfect example of computational depth of field" as the background leaf looks far enough away where you could have achieved the effect optically on iPhone sensor with right aperature. That being said the blurring does look unnatural to me as it is not even across the background leaf despite similar distance from lens. It's not clear cut though.
- JoBrad 4y agoYou can shoot RAW photos on the iPhone. Don’t think most laypeople do, though.
- camillomiller 4y agoThis is the stupidest, laziest, and less informed article I’ve ever read from the New Yorker. I honestly don’t know how it got published.
- formerly_proven 4y agoAt that magnification I would expect some amount of blur, and the bokeh in the shot is very nervous, so I'd say it's mostly optical. Phone camera lenses generally have very poor bokeh, though you can rarely see much of it.
- uuyi 4y agoYep. The iPhone 13 Pro bokeh is miserably bad. On point sources, you're lucky if you can get any out of it and if you do it's got a hole in the middle. Example here: https://imgur.com/a/cPG3YSP https://imgur.com/a/cPG3YSP