5 ms·

Not that I’ve had either phone but I would say you’re likely in the minority. I have the iPhone 12 and have always been happy with the iPhone cameras. It’s not

Not that I’ve had either phone but I would say you’re likely in the minority. I have the iPhone 12 and have always been happy with the iPhone cameras. It’s not like it even comes close to my DSLR but they’re decent for phones. I haven’t had a lot of Androids either but all of the ones I owned had terrible cameras. You don’t need to shoot in RAW to get good results. I’m curious what your complaints are?

solardev 4y ago
The Pixels are a standout among the usual Android crapfest. Google has really good computational photography. The images are much better balanced, not oversaturated, much sharper, night mode is awesome, etc. Even with the 48 MP sensor I'm getting subpar results. Apple might have better hardware but their computational photography hasn't quite caught up yet. Here's a sample gallery (not mine) https://imgur.io/a/vG6Yskx https://imgur.io/a/vG6Yskx I was expecting a major upgrade going from the Pixel 5 to the 14 Pro. It's actually a slight downgrade.
- jiggawatts 4y ago
  Keep in mind that it is borderline impossible to show iPhone photos in full fidelity in a web gallery. The benefit you get out of iDevices is the wide gamut and HDR photo format. Converted to sRGB SDR JPG images, there's not much difference compared to every other phone manufacturer. This is my point: Apple is far above the lowest common denominator.
  - solardev 4y ago
    If I'm hearing you right, it's possible to capture higher-fidelity photos on iPhone, but then you require either special hardware to view it correctly and/or a special workflow to make a better end product for web viewing by tweaking the values yourself? Whereas the Pixels just make better web-ready photos from the get-go, not because their hardware is better, but because their algorithms are. That seems a lot more useful to me because you can actually capture good photos nearly every time, with zero effort, and send them to anyone. If you have a specialized professional workflow, I entirely believe that you can -- with effort -- generate a better end product. But that's not what most people use their phones for. "Dynamic range" doesn't mean anything to the average person, and if they use HDR it's to create that 2000s-like super amplified gimmicky lighting effect. There's not really even a way to get real HDR to properly/intercompatibly show on most consumer computing devices anyway... same with gamut and color spaces. IMO (only) making it look good on the average device should be a more important goal than making a workflow that only professionals with specialized knowledge and software can utilize.
    - jiggawatts 4y ago
      You are misunderstanding. > special hardware Any iPhone, or any Mac device. The other vendors refusing to support HEIC and/or HDR image formats is their prerogative. Keep in mind that the Apple formats are just h.265 still frames, not some bizarre propriety standard! > special workflow I press the shutter button and send the result via iMessage. Is that some esoteric professional workflow? Again, “web ready” means precisely: the lowest common denominator supported by browsers as far back as NetScape Navigator 4. Apple decided not to limit themselves to 1990s era standards. Google is content to remain hobbled.
      - expensive_news 4y ago
        Yes, this is also what I most appreciate about Apple’s approach. They’re the only company that care about calibrated displays on consumer products. Even top-end TVs like LG OLEDs ship with terrible default settings. The only display that’s as color accurate out-of-box as Apple’s are the ones on my professional camera. If I edit a photo and I send it to someone with an iPhone I know the colors will look exactly like how I intended it to look. You can’t say the same about Androids because the screens often aren’t even trying to be color accurate. I’m never sure if some of the photo file types are an extension of Apple’s “walled garden” approach or if other companies just make lazy products. But the rarity of consumer displays that aren’t tuned for maximum blue-light emission is maddening and other companies really need to step up their game in this area.
        brokenmachine 4y ago
        >Even top-end TVs like LG OLEDs ship with terrible default settings. I'm sure LG and all the other manufacturers know what they're doing. Consumers must prefer the garish vivid mode, aka "torch mode". Implying that they shouldn't seems to disregard their preferences.
      - brokenmachine 4y ago
        My Samsung phone can take HEIF pictures and HDR10+ video, but both of those are disabled by default.

solardev 4y ago

The Pixels are a standout among the usual Android crapfest. Google has really good computational photography. The images are much better balanced, not oversaturated, much sharper, night mode is awesome, etc. Even with the 48 MP sensor I'm getting subpar results. Apple might have better hardware but their computational photography hasn't quite caught up yet. Here's a sample gallery (not mine) https://imgur.io/a/vG6Yskx https://imgur.io/a/vG6Yskx I was expecting a major upgrade going from the Pixel 5 to the 14 Pro. It's actually a slight downgrade.

jiggawatts 4y ago
Keep in mind that it is borderline impossible to show iPhone photos in full fidelity in a web gallery. The benefit you get out of iDevices is the wide gamut and HDR photo format. Converted to sRGB SDR JPG images, there's not much difference compared to every other phone manufacturer. This is my point: Apple is far above the lowest common denominator.
- solardev 4y ago
  If I'm hearing you right, it's possible to capture higher-fidelity photos on iPhone, but then you require either special hardware to view it correctly and/or a special workflow to make a better end product for web viewing by tweaking the values yourself? Whereas the Pixels just make better web-ready photos from the get-go, not because their hardware is better, but because their algorithms are. That seems a lot more useful to me because you can actually capture good photos nearly every time, with zero effort, and send them to anyone. If you have a specialized professional workflow, I entirely believe that you can -- with effort -- generate a better end product. But that's not what most people use their phones for. "Dynamic range" doesn't mean anything to the average person, and if they use HDR it's to create that 2000s-like super amplified gimmicky lighting effect. There's not really even a way to get real HDR to properly/intercompatibly show on most consumer computing devices anyway... same with gamut and color spaces. IMO (only) making it look good on the average device should be a more important goal than making a workflow that only professionals with specialized knowledge and software can utilize.
  - jiggawatts 4y ago
    You are misunderstanding. > special hardware Any iPhone, or any Mac device. The other vendors refusing to support HEIC and/or HDR image formats is their prerogative. Keep in mind that the Apple formats are just h.265 still frames, not some bizarre propriety standard! > special workflow I press the shutter button and send the result via iMessage. Is that some esoteric professional workflow? Again, “web ready” means precisely: the lowest common denominator supported by browsers as far back as NetScape Navigator 4. Apple decided not to limit themselves to 1990s era standards. Google is content to remain hobbled.
    - expensive_news 4y ago
      Yes, this is also what I most appreciate about Apple’s approach. They’re the only company that care about calibrated displays on consumer products. Even top-end TVs like LG OLEDs ship with terrible default settings. The only display that’s as color accurate out-of-box as Apple’s are the ones on my professional camera. If I edit a photo and I send it to someone with an iPhone I know the colors will look exactly like how I intended it to look. You can’t say the same about Androids because the screens often aren’t even trying to be color accurate. I’m never sure if some of the photo file types are an extension of Apple’s “walled garden” approach or if other companies just make lazy products. But the rarity of consumer displays that aren’t tuned for maximum blue-light emission is maddening and other companies really need to step up their game in this area.
      - brokenmachine 4y ago
        >Even top-end TVs like LG OLEDs ship with terrible default settings. I'm sure LG and all the other manufacturers know what they're doing. Consumers must prefer the garish vivid mode, aka "torch mode". Implying that they shouldn't seems to disregard their preferences.
    - brokenmachine 4y ago
      My Samsung phone can take HEIF pictures and HDR10+ video, but both of those are disabled by default.