4 ms·

Here are two examples: https://postimg.cc/gallery/g8kzGHB https://postimg.cc/gallery/g8kzGHB https://postimg.cc/gallery/ChSgbdd https://postimg.cc/gallery/ChS

Here are two examples: https://postimg.cc/gallery/g8kzGHB https://postimg.cc/gallery/g8kzGHB https://postimg.cc/gallery/ChSgbdd https://postimg.cc/gallery/ChSgbdd

crazygringo 2y ago
Thanks! Which is which? Are you saying you prefer the bottom ones?
- superultra 2y ago
  In the mountain photos, IMG_1187 and IMAGE 2024-12-03 08:31:09 are the iphone photos. I think they're fine. But the alternate images (which are by a Canon PowerShot S50) convey better the lighting of how the scene actually looked IRL.
  - bitcurious 2y ago
    The Canon shots are also more zoomed in, shot with a longer focal length on the lens. The obvious effect of focal length is zoom, but it’s the change in foreground-background distortion that makes the photos look weird or good. Flat, wide lenses like the one used for the iPhone photo exaggerate the foreground and shrink the background. As you lengthen the lens you shrink the distortion and pretty soon you hit a point where it matches the distortion of your eyes’ lenses. That’s when photos look most natural.
  - pdpi 2y ago
    The iPhone photo of the mountain has a really nicely balanced dynamic range. The Canon one has blown out highlights where the clouds meet the peaks, and really dark shadows with almost no discernible detail. From a purely technical point of view, the iPhone picture is a "better" photo, but this serves as a perfect example of how "technically better" and "artistically better" are not the same thing. Ultimately, photography is less about the quality of the equipment, and more about what you do with it (cliché, I know), and phone cameras are pretty high quality but clip your wings by taking all control away from you. Your kids might benefit from an entry-level Sony a6000 or a6100 (the a6000 is ancient but shockingly capable) or equivalent, and some practice with raw processing software (Lightroom Classic is the default choice here, but Darktable is great if you don't want to give Adobe your money. Apple Photos is a pretty damn decent beginner option too).
    - Suppafly 2y ago
      >Your kids might benefit from an entry-level Sony a6000 or a6100 (the a6000 is ancient but shockingly capable) That's what I hate about cameras, the 'ancient' model is still $450 used and ~$850 new.
  - mkehrt 2y ago
    Wow, I thought it was really obvious which was which, which I found surprising (and I guessed before I read this comment). The thing that gives it away is that the post processing means there's a uniform amount of illumination throughout the picture, which rally makes it look like an iPhone picture. I'm never going to be bale to unsee this.
    - crazygringo 2y ago
      The poster said they "convey better the lighting of how the scene actually looked IRL." I dunno... I've never seen anything like the photo of the mountain (IMG_6491) in real life. The reality is that our eyes have an extremely wide range of contrast. But in that photo, the clouds are blown out and all the immediate scenery is essentially black. In real life, clouds don't get blown out, and you can see everything around you just fine in every situation where there's a big blue sky above you. The iPhone photo is a much more accurate approximation of what our eyes perceive. And the poster claims the mountains feel like more massive objects on the older camera. I'll respectfully disagree -- on the older camera, I can't judge their size because I can't see any of the landscape leading up to them for comparison. Whereas on the iPhone, I intuitively feel how massive they as my eye is drawn up the road, up the valley, up into the sky. I have full context for comparison. Of course, there's no arguing with taste. :) But maybe I can never unsee this either -- I appreciate the iPhone even more now...

Here are two examples: https://postimg.cc/gallery/g8kzGHB https://postimg.cc/gallery/g8kzGHB https://postimg.cc/gallery/ChSgbdd https://postimg.cc/gallery/ChSgbdd

crazygringo 2y ago

Thanks! Which is which? Are you saying you prefer the bottom ones?

superultra 2y ago
In the mountain photos, IMG_1187 and IMAGE 2024-12-03 08:31:09 are the iphone photos. I think they're fine. But the alternate images (which are by a Canon PowerShot S50) convey better the lighting of how the scene actually looked IRL.
- bitcurious 2y ago
  The Canon shots are also more zoomed in, shot with a longer focal length on the lens. The obvious effect of focal length is zoom, but it’s the change in foreground-background distortion that makes the photos look weird or good. Flat, wide lenses like the one used for the iPhone photo exaggerate the foreground and shrink the background. As you lengthen the lens you shrink the distortion and pretty soon you hit a point where it matches the distortion of your eyes’ lenses. That’s when photos look most natural.
- pdpi 2y ago
  The iPhone photo of the mountain has a really nicely balanced dynamic range. The Canon one has blown out highlights where the clouds meet the peaks, and really dark shadows with almost no discernible detail. From a purely technical point of view, the iPhone picture is a "better" photo, but this serves as a perfect example of how "technically better" and "artistically better" are not the same thing. Ultimately, photography is less about the quality of the equipment, and more about what you do with it (cliché, I know), and phone cameras are pretty high quality but clip your wings by taking all control away from you. Your kids might benefit from an entry-level Sony a6000 or a6100 (the a6000 is ancient but shockingly capable) or equivalent, and some practice with raw processing software (Lightroom Classic is the default choice here, but Darktable is great if you don't want to give Adobe your money. Apple Photos is a pretty damn decent beginner option too).
  - Suppafly 2y ago
    >Your kids might benefit from an entry-level Sony a6000 or a6100 (the a6000 is ancient but shockingly capable) That's what I hate about cameras, the 'ancient' model is still $450 used and ~$850 new.
- mkehrt 2y ago
  Wow, I thought it was really obvious which was which, which I found surprising (and I guessed before I read this comment). The thing that gives it away is that the post processing means there's a uniform amount of illumination throughout the picture, which rally makes it look like an iPhone picture. I'm never going to be bale to unsee this.
  - crazygringo 2y ago
    The poster said they "convey better the lighting of how the scene actually looked IRL." I dunno... I've never seen anything like the photo of the mountain (IMG_6491) in real life. The reality is that our eyes have an extremely wide range of contrast. But in that photo, the clouds are blown out and all the immediate scenery is essentially black. In real life, clouds don't get blown out, and you can see everything around you just fine in every situation where there's a big blue sky above you. The iPhone photo is a much more accurate approximation of what our eyes perceive. And the poster claims the mountains feel like more massive objects on the older camera. I'll respectfully disagree -- on the older camera, I can't judge their size because I can't see any of the landscape leading up to them for comparison. Whereas on the iPhone, I intuitively feel how massive they as my eye is drawn up the road, up the valley, up into the sky. I have full context for comparison. Of course, there's no arguing with taste. :) But maybe I can never unsee this either -- I appreciate the iPhone even more now...