5 ms·
> In the end, this tech just takes control from you. In these difficult scenarios, the alternative photo I'd get using such a small camera without this kind pr
by frogblast 3y ago
> In the end, this tech just takes control from you.
In these difficult scenarios, the alternative photo I'd get using such a small camera without this kind processing would be entirely unusable. I couldn't rescue those photos with hours of manual edits. That may be "in control", but it isn't useful.
- andrei_says_ 3y agoIs an argument about corner cases where computational improvement does make sense an argument in good faith when used as an excuse to take away control in all cases?
- jack_pp 3y agoAfaik there are photo apps on the iphone that let you have all the control you want so you can use those when you want control and use the default when you just want a quick photo knowing the pros/cons.
- kaba0 3y agoHow is that different from a noise removal algorithm? Is it also taking away control from you!
- andrei_says_ 3y agoThe Apple algorithm visibly and significantly changes color, contrast, and likely curves, for every image, including in RAW format. Without my consent and with no option to opt out. The Apple camera app is accessible quickly without unlocking the phone and I use that feature most of the time when I travel. So I end up with thousands of crappyfied images. Infuriating.
- kaba0 3y agoYou buying the device which makes proper images in low-light/moving situations despite its small sensor size is your goddamn consent. Buy a shitty cellphone from 2004 if you want shitty photos. Or throw some blur and noise on an iphone photo if that makes you happier.
- autoexec 3y agoFor decades people have had the ability to get great photos using cell phones that included useful features like automatically adjusting focus, or exposure, or flash all without their phones inventing total misrepresentations of what the camera was pointed at. I mean, at a certain point taking a less than perfect photo is more important than getting a fake image that looks good. If I see a pretty flower and want to take a picture of it, the result might look a lot better if my phone just searched for online images of similar flowers, selected one, and saved that image to my icloud, but I wouldn't want that.
- bawolff 3y ago> Are you saying that you're just bad at photography? That is a bit harsh. The vast majority of all people are worse at photography than apple's algorithm.
- autoexec 3y agoThe claim was that any camera without this feature is "entirely unusable" and the photos couldn't be saved even with "hours of manual edits". The fact is that for decades countless of beautiful photos have been captured with cell phone cameras without this feature and most of them needed no manual edits at all. Many of those perfectly fine pictures were taken by people who would not consider themselves to be photographers. Anyone who, by their own admission, is incapable of taking a photo without this new technology must be an extraordinarily poor photographer by common standards. I honestly wasn't trying to shame them for that though (I'll edit that if I still can), I just wasn't sure what else they could mean. Maybe it was hyperbole?
- adgjlsfhk1 3y agotraditionally phones took good photos in good light but as the light decreases so does photo quality (quickly). the point of the ai photography isn't to get the best photograph when you control the lighting and have 2 minutes before hand to pick options, it's to get the best photograph when you realize you need the best possible photo in the next 2 seconds