Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Showcases 'Shot on iPhone 6' World Photo Gallery on Homepage [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What these photos and I see Samsung has also posted Galaxy S6 samples, show, is how good Sony are at making the sensors, now if only Sony could make the photo processing as good as Samsung and Apple can?
For me, like other alterations with originals, what are the rules, where do you stop and who is watching what is being done?
This, for me is THE problem.
It's either a photo direct from a device, and it could be ANY device, not just an Apple product, and that photo is the genuine article.
Once you give it to someone, esp. a professional, and they start to tweak it, well, as they can in effect change every single pixel in the entire image, if they wanted where exactly are you going to draw the line, say stop, set when they must stop adjusting or changing it.
I would rather have and see the real image that's left alone.
Can it be made a bit better with some professional adjustment, yes of course it can, just like a 400lb women could be made into miss surfing beauty 2015 with photoshop.
And this is to any maker of any brand of any device.
Let's compare real unaltered images please.
I'm sure there is no real need to edit them.
This, for me is THE problem.
It's either a photo direct from a device, and it could be ANY device, not just an Apple product, and that photo is the genuine article.
Once you give it to someone, esp. a professional, and they start to tweak it, well, as they can in effect change every single pixel in the entire image, if they wanted where exactly are you going to draw the line, say stop, set when they must stop adjusting or changing it.
I would rather have and see the real image that's left alone.
Can it be made a bit better with some professional adjustment, yes of course it can, just like a 400lb women could be made into miss surfing beauty 2015 with photoshop.
And this is to any maker of any brand of any device.
Let's compare real unaltered images please.
I'm sure there is no real need to edit them.
i'm calling BS. they must be using some prototype iPhone 6 camera. I'm not professional photographer but I've owned a DSLR for years and know how to use it. I really liked my iP5 camera but the iP6 has been a disappointment with the quality of photos. see this thread.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1790221/
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1790221/
Fancy the iPhone Pro and iPhone Air distinction?
Pro: Better battery life, better performance. Slightly thicker.
Air: Slim, lighter.
1.) I didn't look at them.
2.) You don't really know whether they've been compensated. You are assuming.
THIS LINK IS TRUE
The iPhone 6 actually drove me to finally purchase a DSLR. iPhone 6 shots are definitely cleaner than 4S shots, but when you start really looking for detail you realize that the iPhone 6 is using over excessive noise reduction and it ruins fine details like leaves, grass, and fur. The 4S shots were nosier, but retained detail.
The thing is, I think Apple just wants the shots to look good on the phone or small Facebook or Instagram shots. I've even had moments when I'd look at a picture I took on my phone and say "Wow, that's a clear shot." But when I zoom in or look at it on a big display at home I realize how rapidly the quality drops.
Sadly, this article will get brushed over because of the Samsung announcement article.
imagine the PPI of an 8 megapixel photo on a billboard.
I used to think more megapixels were pointless, but after getting a retina iMac and seeing the photos I take fill up only half of the screen, I'd love a 15 megapixel iPhone camera...
I used to think more megapixels were pointless, but after getting a retina iMac and seeing the photos I take fill up only half of the screen, I'd love a 15 megapixel iPhone camera...
Distance. You're not standing close to a billboard so you won't notice many defects. If you blow your pictures to full screen and step back on your rMac you won't see issues either.
I agree that more megapixels are indeed nice, but only when accompanied by a proper sensor.
Right... Because they've invented a new sensor tech in the last year... The S5 also was supposed to be "magic". Didn't turn out so well did it?
Its simple, the only way to get a much better picture is improving the sensor sensitivity while keeping the noise down (not talking resolution here) and improving the lens optics considerably. No point in having a much better sensor if the lense cannot resolve that level of precision.
Increasing the sensor size (one easy way to improve quality), needs a thicker phone. They haven't done that in the S6.
Since Samsung didn't do any of this 1 year ago, and didn't do that in the Note, I'm doubting they'll do it here.
----------
16MP is not pointless in general, it is pointless in a smart phone because of the limitation on sensor size and optics of the format.
Your 16MP Iphone photo would look pretty much the same as your 8MP photo, the added "details" would merely be noise, or interpolation.
----------
THIS LINK IS TRUE
The iPhone 6 actually drove me to finally purchase a DSLR. iPhone 6 shots are definitely cleaner than 4S shots, but when you start really looking for detail you realize that the iPhone 6 is using over excessive noise reduction and it ruins fine details like leaves, grass, and fur. The 4S shots were nosier, but retained detail.
The thing is, I think Apple just wants the shots to look good on the phone or small Facebook or Instagram shots. I've even had moments when I'd look at a picture I took on my phone and say "Wow, that's a clear shot." But when I zoom in or look at it on a big display at home I realize how rapidly the quality drops.
Sadly, this article will get brushed over because of the Samsung announcement article.
Yes, the Iphone is ideally suited to its purpose
; like everything else Apple. But, obviously shooting raw with a DSLR is the way to go if you actually care for photography. Supposedly the low light performance from 4S to 6 is vastly improved. Did you shoot the same thing in the same lighting conditions?
Precisely!
I find the camera on my iP6+ quite nice for run of the mill photos.
Yet I too am very used to RAW, as I've used it for so long via my dedicated cameras. Like anything else once one develops methods and habits, changing those just to accommodate a phone with a camera is quite a compromise.
I'm also biased towards the very comfortable ergonomics that nearly any brand of prosumer or higher DSLR camera features. I'm by no means a pro, but I am a long time serious amateur that chooses the iPhone camera as a secondary unit. I always carry one of my smaller DSLR models at all times so I don't have much of a reason to use anything else.
In regard to the ongoing commentary on post production:
Unless your photograph is used for photojournalistic purposes, the final product is whatever the artist, and/or client, decide it is. This is true for digital, and was just as true for when we all shot film. Post production has always been an important part of photography.
I have a friend who refuses to shoot RAW as "he wants to get it right in camera". But, he happily adjusts his in camera jpg settings (i.e. +2 sharpening, -1 contrast, +1 highlights, a specific film simulation, B&W versus color, etc). He doesn't see the irony that he is actually editing the photo... he is just using software inside is camera to do it as opposed to an Adobe product.
The only time I'll go with post production being a bad thing is if it is used to compensate for sloppy camera skills (i.e. not getting exposure right in camera). A photographer should not be lazy just because the option of post exists. Other than that, create the art you want to create!
Unless your photograph is used for photojournalistic purposes, the final product is whatever the artist, and/or client, decide it is. This is true for digital, and was just as true for when we all shot film. Post production has always been an important part of photography.
I have a friend who refuses to shoot RAW as "he wants to get it right in camera". But, he happily adjusts his in camera jpg settings (i.e. +2 sharpening, -1 contrast, +1 highlights, a specific film simulation, B&W versus color, etc). He doesn't see the irony that he is actually editing the photo... he is just using software inside is camera to do it as opposed to an Adobe product.
The only time I'll go with post production being a bad thing is if it is used to compensate for sloppy camera skills (i.e. not getting exposure right in camera). A photographer should not be lazy just because the option of post exists. Other than that, create the art you want to create!
Precisely. I am assuming. Which is why I said, "I think it's safe to say" the photographers were compensated.
And, unlike you, I did look at the gallery. So at least my assumption is based on an educated guess.
swingerofbirch
macrumors 68040
Before I had a smartphone, the common refrain I would hear was that people with smartphones stop using their point and shoot cameras because smartphone cameras are that great. Last summer I got an iPhone 5s (my first smartphone). I've used it a lot as a camera, but I haven't been that impressed with the picture quality. The phone I had previous to that was an LG Dare (not smartphone) from 2008 or so and the picture quality didn't seem remarkably different. The iPhone pictures are wavy, and they're almost never in sharp focus due to the lack of image stabilization.
I was committed to keep using it and hoping I would get better at taking good pictures with it. But then I went back to my Canon S110 (a point and shoot) and the difference is night and day. There's no struggling to focus. No difficulty with macro shots.
I'm not quite sure how they got these photos with an iPhone, but my guess is that it was very, very carefully.
Also my only other experience with a smartphone camera was my dad's Nexus 5. I actually thought that took better pictures than the iPhone 5s. It focused much better.
I was committed to keep using it and hoping I would get better at taking good pictures with it. But then I went back to my Canon S110 (a point and shoot) and the difference is night and day. There's no struggling to focus. No difficulty with macro shots.
I'm not quite sure how they got these photos with an iPhone, but my guess is that it was very, very carefully.
Also my only other experience with a smartphone camera was my dad's Nexus 5. I actually thought that took better pictures than the iPhone 5s. It focused much better.
Precisely. I am assuming. Which is why I said, "I think it's safe to say" the photographers were compensated.
And, unlike you, I did look at the gallery. So at least my assumption is based on an educated guess.
My suspicion is based upon recent lawsuits against Apple for violating or pilfering intellectual property. #
Just another thread with an unscientific showcase followed by ego fueled technical mumbo jumbo. Enjoy, lol.
The ones that only used the Camera app are SOOC shots (straight out of camera shots).
Agreed. It is defining quality down. The way many have given up on CD quality sound for streaming convenience, many gave up photographic quality for picture taking convenience.
These are the best cameras ever in any smartphone. Nothing comes close. The coupling of this incredible hardware with insanely great software probably makes iPhone the most powerful camera in the world.
I'm sure all the 50MP camera users say the same about us 20MP and under users too...
Struggling to focus? How can that be?
I am not a professional photographer by choice. I have shot with an SLR with a great selection of lenses for a decade now. I have shot demanding events for friends, but I don't do it for money because it's not the kind of work I want to do for a living.
A lot of things about the iPhone camera are debatable, but I can't imagine focusing is an issue. The tiny sensor results in photos with very significant depth of field. I have taken photos in condition so dark that my eyes have trouble seeing everything, yet my iP6 focus almost instantly. I don't remember having any trouble with the 5 either.
If you visit a popular photography forum like preview.com, you will see numerous threads about SLRs and PS cameras and lens having focusing problem. I would say that my 6 and prior to it my 5 both focus better than many SLRs and lenses combo, and better than any PS cameras I have used. I have been to many events and because of my reputation, people who know me would occasionally hand me their camera and ask me to shoot (I don't shoot as much as I used to). It was always a challenge using a camera that's slow to focus. You have to guess what's going to happen before it happens so to you can time it right.
I would say that the photos on display in this thread were pretty good, but by no mean outstanding. Many of the shots are good because of the composition and good lighting. The 6 is definitely more than capable of producing these shots in the right hand.
But it's just a tool. You can't hand anyone a pencil and expect a great story.
Last edited:
