Advances in smartphone photography

CharlesDAMorgan said:
I know a number of pros. As yet none shoot phones for work, but one does all his shooting outside of work on an Iphone 11, another mostly and a third when he hasn't got his film camera to hand (he mostly works in film).

I hate the feel and the shape of it all, it's not for me (but then digital largely passes me by). I wonder about the camera companies totally missing the trick - where is the camera that Apple could make - all this bulk and black plastic reminds me of grey plastic laptops before Macbooks arrived. Why no ultra premium digital status symbol camera? Where's their marketing? Everyone can have a phone - why no attempt at real exclusivity in a compact package.
Click to expand...


Oddly, I was remarking recently how it has become inverted in journalism. You can spot the working folks as they all have iPhones with an xlr mic kit plugged in. The only ones sporting the big 1d mkwhatever are on pool gear from 5 years ago ;)

I ran into a BBC crew in West Africa a while back and the were all on iPhones too.
 
emraphoto said:
Oddly, I was remarking recently how it has become inverted in journalism. You can spot the working folks as they all have iPhones with an xlr mic kit plugged in. The only ones sporting the big 1d mkwhatever are on pool gear from 5 years ago ;)

I ran into a BBC crew in West Africa a while back and the were all on iPhones too.
Click to expand...

Yeah I’ve wondered what the pros use. Very good photojournalism exists, but lately I have spotted increasing numbers of very ugly HDR-like effects with local contrast haloes (on people as subjects) in the NYT. I don’t know where those come from but I get something like that if I select HDR on my Ricoh GR. (It is not really HDR, more like a local contrast dialed way too high.)
 
Yup, some super camera that ip11pro.
Now, if Appel could just make it in the shape of a camera so we have something to hold onto.

Edit; Another thought, why not link all that computational power to the mic so you could just tell the phone what you envision the photograph to look like, you know something like....

‘Okay iPhone, I’m taking a picture of my great auntie Prudence. Now, I’m thinking of a kind of Yousuf Karsh
treatment here, but with a touch of Salgado thrown in.’

Then you make the exposure and wind up with you favorite aunt recognizable but with faint (but dramatic) overtones of Winston Churchill thrown in.
 
Maybe they were all BBC issued phones, so the crew had no choice. My issues company is an iPhone. 50% of people like them, the other 50% don't. I take it apple still use a Sony camera in their phones!
 
Smartphones are certainly capable cameras, and they are only going to improve. This said, even if I shot solely digital, I wouldn’t use one for anything other than quick snaps and documentation because of the abhorrent ergonomics involved. This is obviously a subjective matter, as is the fact that I don’t just shoot to get the image, whereby tactile considerations weigh heavily on my preferred choice. As such, in matters of user experience, there is nothing obsolete about 'ancient' cameras.
 
I think there's no question that smartphone image quality has come a long way. With most modern smartphones, careful shooting and editing can yield very good results. Whether or not you like them as an image making tool is a matter of personal preference.

Here are two photos of the same subject, taken a few minutes apart. One was taken with a smartphone, post-processed on that same phone, and uploaded to the web. The other was taken with a Leica M5, developed and digitized at home. The results are closer than I expected. Without clicking through and peeking at the details on Flickr, can you tell which is which? Which do you prefer?




 
Okay, I’ll bite. Would be almost critical to know what film and how it was processed, as film can be doctored to look “digital”, if over processed in PS, but I’m saying the second image is the iphone image because the default processing Apple uses is to provide what they think “people want”, i.e. bumped up contrast and sharpening.
 
I prefer the top photo because the distant background appeals to me more - but that may be because the light has actually changed despite the photos being made minutes apart.

EDIT: actually, the positioning of the background seems different. There's also a second, larger, puddle in the lower photo. So a few things have changed a bit. Looking just at the boat, I prefer the less contrasty top image of it.

But what I'd prefer seeing is a print on paper.
 
Pál_K said:
...But what I'd prefer seeing is a print on paper.
Click to expand...

This is the crux of the matter; if we are talking prints 2 or 3 feet wide then the camera matters but when nothing's over 4x6" then most cameras turn out the same shot.

Same goes for digital when everyone is posting 800 pixels wide...

Regards, David
 
The second has way more detail but to be honest, the film would have too, but needs to be processed more / printed to bring out more contrast and highlight detail.
 
Posted by RichC
"But I totally disagree with your next statement..."
I admit my wording was imprecise
Of course lots of pro use smartphones!
I more modestly would say, without the risk of standing corrected, that I love shooting with the like of a Leica M5 or a Nikon F etc or a top level digital.
By contrast, using a phone, I can't stand the way I compose (no viewfinder and in addition oftentimes the screen is invisible so I shoot blindly), the way I actuate the shutter, the awkward way I grab the phone to avoid including my finger in the photo, the lack of manual control.
But first and foremost the joy and fun that using those mythical cameras provides is for me a primary motivation for going on shooting at 75.
 
A decent camera pgone as back, Yes. But as a main camera! I agree with sjones. Iwould rather take a photo with my MPP Vii (handheld) than my smartphone. But for putting photos in electronic documments/emails etc. Smartphone is great. But what will be tge next development in smartphones?
 
PaulDalex said:
Posted by RichC
"But I totally disagree with your next statement..."
I admit my wording was imprecise
Of course lots of pro use smartphones!
I more modestly would say, without the risk of standing corrected, that I love shooting with the like of a Leica M5 or a Nikon F etc or a top level digital.
By contrast, using a phone, I can't stand the way I compose (no viewfinder and in addition oftentimes the screen is invisible so I shoot blindly), the way I actuate the shutter, the awkward way I grab the phone to avoid including my finger in the photo, the lack of manual control.
But first and foremost the joy and fun that using those mythical cameras provides is for me a primary motivation for going on shooting at 75.
Click to expand...
I can't argue with that! We all have our reasons for how and why we use cameras and make photographs... :)
 
I dunno. I use my iPhone camera a lot, just like I use all my cameras a lot. Do they replace each other? In some ways, yes. In other ways, no.

Each camera has its way of seeing. My goal as a photographer is to understand what a particular camera sees and use that knowledge to make photographs that depict what I intend.

As a snapshooter looking for maximum convenience, the smartphone camera does a wonderful job. As a photographer looking to make wall sized exhibition prints, not so much. As a videographer looking for context clips, a smartphone is a wonderful tool. For the same videographer creating a feature film, a smartphone is a bit limited.

None of my other cameras can make a phone call or book my seats at the movie theater, so there's a place for a smartphone regardless. :D

G
 
I find it amazing that I can use my Apple watch 5 as a remote control for my iPhone 11Pro including live-view on the watch face. That feature coupled with the 3 lens system, including a real wide angle, normal and tele focal length, and the vastly improved low light performance opens up many new photo opportunities that would have required some expensive high end gear just a few years ago.
 
Larry Cloetta said:
Okay, I’ll bite. Would be almost critical to know what film and how it was processed, as film can be doctored to look “digital”, if over processed in PS, but I’m saying the second image is the iphone image because the default processing Apple uses is to provide what they think “people want”, i.e. bumped up contrast and sharpening.
Click to expand...

You got it, Larry. :) The second one is the smartphone image, but taken with the Google Pixel 2 and not an iPhone. I post processed it using Snapseed, aiming for a film-like look, whatever that means. The film photo was taken with a Leica M5, Canon 50mm f/1.4 LTM, ORWO N74+, developed in LegacyPro L110 at 1:31 for 6.5 minutes. Very minimal post processing in LR. My only edits were dust spotting, setting the black and white points from my digital scan, and Clarity +10.

Pál_K said:
I prefer the top photo because the distant background appeals to me more - but that may be because the light has actually changed despite the photos being made minutes apart.

EDIT: actually, the positioning of the background seems different. There's also a second, larger, puddle in the lower photo. So a few things have changed a bit. Looking just at the boat, I prefer the less contrasty top image of it.
Click to expand...

The photos were taken around sunset (smartphone EXIF says 6:20pm), so the light was changing and fading fast. Plus, I had to wait for some people who were tromping around on the shipwreck to leave. The framing is slightly different as you noted, since I was experimenting with different compositions. And perhaps the different lens focal lengths account for the differences in background compression. I used the Pixel 2's Portrait Mode, without the fake bokeh. Portrait Mode crops down to ~40mm equivalent, so closer to the 50mm lens on my film camera.

CharlesDAMorgan said:
The second has way more detail but to be honest, the film would have too, but needs to be processed more / printed to bring out more contrast and highlight detail.
Click to expand...

No printing capabilities yet, but yes, I think with a different film, different digital post processing, or skillful darkroom work, you could get more contrast and highlight detail. I found ORWO N74+ to have more grain (with some sharpness lost to that grain) compared to other 400 speed films like HP5+ or Tri-X.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom