I don't have a problem with computational photography per se, it's a really interesting thing and it'll definitely help most users get better photos - but my issue is that it's a black box and I...
I don't have a problem with computational photography per se, it's a really interesting thing and it'll definitely help most users get better photos - but my issue is that it's a black box and I don't know how it works. If I know how my cameras work, I can take better pictures with them. If I have a magic box in my phone into which light goes and images come out, that's likely to get in my way, or at least annoy me. If I could open up the box and tweak it then I'd be really happy - like I do with Fuji's film simulation presets on my grown-up camera - but if it remains closed then I'm probably not interested.
In this particular case, the smoothing on those out-of-the-box XS images (both in the linked article and others I've see) is mostly pretty horrible. They've clearly got some smart tech going on under the hood but they need to make it go on a little less. Hopefully Apple will throttle that back or at least offer a slider for people to use like Samsung do.
You're the exact user Halide is designed for: one who wants to make the image as opposed to take the image. The vast majority of everyday iPhone users don't want to fiddle around with settings too...
You're the exact user Halide is designed for: one who wants to make the image as opposed to take the image.
The vast majority of everyday iPhone users don't want to fiddle around with settings too much. They want to take a picture and maybe throw a filter on it. They're not into tweaking every parameter.
I've shot SLR since the '80s, and I love to tinker, see how low I can push the ISO for less noise, choose my aperture based on the scene, but it's great to have a really well-done camera in my pocket at all times that takes really fantastic images without a lot of work on my part.
I'm not quite the exact user Halide are looking for because I have never and will never buy an Apple product. But I am close. I get this is good for most users and that's great news for most...
I'm not quite the exact user Halide are looking for because I have never and will never buy an Apple product. But I am close.
I get this is good for most users and that's great news for most users. I also like having handy automagic tools available to me (especially in my pocket) but I tend to find the more magic they use, the more they annoy me. Medium amounts of magic, I'm totally down with.
As an aside, a lot of my German and Dutch friends use the phrase 'make a photo' rather than 'take a photo' and I've always preferred that way of saying it.
To disable Smart HDR in the Camera app, tap HDR at the top of the and choose Off (or disable HDR imaging permanently in your camera settings). To tweak it, you are going to have to wait, there...
To disable Smart HDR in the Camera app, tap HDR at the top of the and choose Off (or disable HDR imaging permanently in your camera settings).
To tweak it, you are going to have to wait, there currently isn't an app for that.
Really great article about this whole issue that helps shed some light on what exactly is happening. A big reason I updated this year is because it really seemed like the camera was a big focus...
Really great article about this whole issue that helps shed some light on what exactly is happening. A big reason I updated this year is because it really seemed like the camera was a big focus and I've really wanted a phone with a powerful enough camera that I don't need to bring my DSLR everywhere.
My first selfie on it was just gorgeous. The subject, not so much, but I was completely blown away by just how good it played with the like, created the faux long lens effect and all that stuff compared to my 6S. I can see why some more serious photographers would be concentred about how much processing is being done by the phone rather than by the photographer in post, but at the same time, I really don't think any professional photographer should be relying on their phone for any of their work unless they specifically want the phone camera look.
This is really exciting stuff. It's now theoretically possible to take a regularly exposed photo, and save an "underexposed" photo without any additional exposure time. The underexposed photo can...
This is really exciting stuff.
It's now theoretically possible to take a regularly exposed photo, and save an "underexposed" photo without any additional exposure time. The underexposed photo can then be used to recover the colors of a beautiful blue sky.
I think it is going to be hard for traditional camera manufacturers to keep up with smart phones.
I don't think this is the case. The iPhone/Galaxy/etc take reasonably nice photos in quite a selection of conditions but put them next to a proper camera and they're not in the same league. Put...
I think it is going to be hard for traditional camera manufacturers to keep up with smart phones.
I don't think this is the case. The iPhone/Galaxy/etc take reasonably nice photos in quite a selection of conditions but put them next to a proper camera and they're not in the same league. Put them into a difficult situation and they're not even close. Sure, you can do lots in software but a nice stack of high quality glass and a big sensor behind it will always outperform a tiny phone camera.
For example: "It's now theoretically possible to take a regularly exposed photo, and save an "underexposed" photo without any additional exposure time." - my Fuji XE2 can do this already, and that's a five year old camera. It can expose different pixels using different ISO values in a single exposure. That given it an extra 4 stops of dynamic range, which is so much that I generally turn it down because it can be a bit excessive. The Fuji does this without "cheating" (forcing high shutter speeds/high iso/multiple exposures/etc) like the iPhone does, so it can do it better and in more situations.
Not to mention a lot of the processing being done is being done precisely to make the tiny crappy sensor/lenses in the phone appear to perform more like a real camera. Artificial depth of field effects, increased dynamic range and so on.
What's going to happen is Instagram snaps will keep getting better as phone cameras get better, and professional cameras will keep getting better as well. The cheap digital camera market will continue to shrink and ultimately probably vanish, but the pro and prosumer stuff will keep being ahead.
What I find interesting is thinking about what could be done with computational photographic techniques and high quality hardware. When Sony put this tech into their Alpha cameras, for example.
It's just the dynamic range setting. Top row of the Q menu iirc. When you set it higher than 100% it uses dynamic ISO adjustment to increase range as required. If you set it to 400% you then can't...
It's just the dynamic range setting. Top row of the Q menu iirc. When you set it higher than 100% it uses dynamic ISO adjustment to increase range as required. If you set it to 400% you then can't set the overall ISO higher than 2400 (I think) because it needs the extra ISO overhead to cover the dynamic adjustment. Sorry if I've got some of the details wrong, I don't have my camera on hand to double check.
I don't have a problem with computational photography per se, it's a really interesting thing and it'll definitely help most users get better photos - but my issue is that it's a black box and I don't know how it works. If I know how my cameras work, I can take better pictures with them. If I have a magic box in my phone into which light goes and images come out, that's likely to get in my way, or at least annoy me. If I could open up the box and tweak it then I'd be really happy - like I do with Fuji's film simulation presets on my grown-up camera - but if it remains closed then I'm probably not interested.
In this particular case, the smoothing on those out-of-the-box XS images (both in the linked article and others I've see) is mostly pretty horrible. They've clearly got some smart tech going on under the hood but they need to make it go on a little less. Hopefully Apple will throttle that back or at least offer a slider for people to use like Samsung do.
You're the exact user Halide is designed for: one who wants to make the image as opposed to take the image.
The vast majority of everyday iPhone users don't want to fiddle around with settings too much. They want to take a picture and maybe throw a filter on it. They're not into tweaking every parameter.
I've shot SLR since the '80s, and I love to tinker, see how low I can push the ISO for less noise, choose my aperture based on the scene, but it's great to have a really well-done camera in my pocket at all times that takes really fantastic images without a lot of work on my part.
I'm not quite the exact user Halide are looking for because I have never and will never buy an Apple product. But I am close.
I get this is good for most users and that's great news for most users. I also like having handy automagic tools available to me (especially in my pocket) but I tend to find the more magic they use, the more they annoy me. Medium amounts of magic, I'm totally down with.
As an aside, a lot of my German and Dutch friends use the phrase 'make a photo' rather than 'take a photo' and I've always preferred that way of saying it.
To disable Smart HDR in the Camera app, tap HDR at the top of the and choose Off (or disable HDR imaging permanently in your camera settings).
To tweak it, you are going to have to wait, there currently isn't an app for that.
Really great article about this whole issue that helps shed some light on what exactly is happening. A big reason I updated this year is because it really seemed like the camera was a big focus and I've really wanted a phone with a powerful enough camera that I don't need to bring my DSLR everywhere.
My first selfie on it was just gorgeous. The subject, not so much, but I was completely blown away by just how good it played with the like, created the faux long lens effect and all that stuff compared to my 6S. I can see why some more serious photographers would be concentred about how much processing is being done by the phone rather than by the photographer in post, but at the same time, I really don't think any professional photographer should be relying on their phone for any of their work unless they specifically want the phone camera look.
This is really exciting stuff.
It's now theoretically possible to take a regularly exposed photo, and save an "underexposed" photo without any additional exposure time. The underexposed photo can then be used to recover the colors of a beautiful blue sky.
I think it is going to be hard for traditional camera manufacturers to keep up with smart phones.
I don't think this is the case. The iPhone/Galaxy/etc take reasonably nice photos in quite a selection of conditions but put them next to a proper camera and they're not in the same league. Put them into a difficult situation and they're not even close. Sure, you can do lots in software but a nice stack of high quality glass and a big sensor behind it will always outperform a tiny phone camera.
For example: "It's now theoretically possible to take a regularly exposed photo, and save an "underexposed" photo without any additional exposure time." - my Fuji XE2 can do this already, and that's a five year old camera. It can expose different pixels using different ISO values in a single exposure. That given it an extra 4 stops of dynamic range, which is so much that I generally turn it down because it can be a bit excessive. The Fuji does this without "cheating" (forcing high shutter speeds/high iso/multiple exposures/etc) like the iPhone does, so it can do it better and in more situations.
Not to mention a lot of the processing being done is being done precisely to make the tiny crappy sensor/lenses in the phone appear to perform more like a real camera. Artificial depth of field effects, increased dynamic range and so on.
What's going to happen is Instagram snaps will keep getting better as phone cameras get better, and professional cameras will keep getting better as well. The cheap digital camera market will continue to shrink and ultimately probably vanish, but the pro and prosumer stuff will keep being ahead.
What I find interesting is thinking about what could be done with computational photographic techniques and high quality hardware. When Sony put this tech into their Alpha cameras, for example.
I did not know that.
What is this feature called on the Fuji XE2? I am having difficulty finding any reference to it.
It's just the dynamic range setting. Top row of the Q menu iirc. When you set it higher than 100% it uses dynamic ISO adjustment to increase range as required. If you set it to 400% you then can't set the overall ISO higher than 2400 (I think) because it needs the extra ISO overhead to cover the dynamic adjustment. Sorry if I've got some of the details wrong, I don't have my camera on hand to double check.