Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
i know but they insinuate it...hence the shot on an iphone. What makes it different? I mean I take my 6s+ everywhere and use it to take shots. But what makes it different? The commercial make no mention of anything that makes the shots different. No specific features that could only be done while using an iphone.

Of course you can feel free to insinuate whatever you want :) . I just believe that Apple is going the regular route of pushing the product name / brand itself instead of features, specs etc. that compare. It's simply putting the name of their product out there and keeping the brand present. And yeah, it's helpful to have people look at pics that they perceive as pretty, in that context. At that point the whole "they are saying that this only works on iPhone!!!11!!" is kind of hilarious anyway, considering the quality loss on the large scale of the media they are advertising in/on, I'm pretty sure that they are aware of that quality loss at Apple, what do you think?
 
Of course you can feel free to insinuate whatever you want :) . I just believe that Apple is going the regular route of pushing the product name / brand itself instead of features, specs etc. that compare. It's simply putting the name of their product out there and keeping the brand present. And yeah, it's helpful to have people look at pics that they perceive as pretty, in that context. At that point the whole "they are saying that this only works on iPhone!!!11!!" is kind of hilarious anyway, considering the quality loss on the large scale of the media they are advertising in/on, I'm pretty sure that they are aware of that quality loss at Apple, what do you think?
I agree with you that they should not get bogged down with specs. It's a waste of time on the general consumer.
 
there's no "feature list", or "MHZ battle". it's simple. It's telling people "Look, we have great photos". When a simple user, who doesn't know a Megahertz from a Megabyte, or a pixel from 4GLTE-doohicky. They just know they want to take photos, and hey, the photos in the commercials look good.

So when they go to buy a phone, Apple is on their mind. Voila, Marketing campaign success. In their minds, they equate the iPhone with the high quality photos that they see on the commercials/billboards.

Right. And when they get into the Apple store, they look at the iPhone 6S and the identical-looking 6 sitting right next to it for $100 less, and remember Apple ran the exact same campaign last year for it, and equate just as good photos with the cheaper 6, then the feature list is going to quickly become a selling point.

And at that point, unless they went to an Apple store, the salesman, might just as eagerly offer to show them the new Android that has even better specs for taking photos, and costs less than either the 6S, or last year's technology 6. So no matter how you slice it, unless the customer cares about the feature specs, they are likely to walk away spending $100 less than Apple wants them to, or buying an Android, especially if they needed a billboard to get them looking at iPhone's to begin with.

Ideally, with a marketing campaign, Apple wants the customer coming into the store with one thing on their minds -- buy an iPhone 6S, or 6S plus. Because it's the exact same campaign used with the 6 last year, with absolutely nothing to distinguish it from the previous model, then it doesn't matter whether the customer buys the latest and greatest, especially if all they care about are the pictures it can take.
 
So no smartphone maker should advertise their camera because all smartphones have decent cameras?



The point is they were taken with an iPhone, not something else. These weren't special photographs Apple commissioned, they're curated from social media. All Apple's campaign is saying is look at the amazing photos people have taken with their iPhone.

What this campaign has always conveyed to me is the much more subtle message that iPhone users are "better photographers". Phone and camera specs aside, what these ads also put on display is that iPhone users are people who have a very good photographic eye. This also is something that’s important to Apple, supporting the “creative people use Apple” mantra - whether that is factual or not.
 
Last edited:
What this campaign has always conveyed to me is the much more subtle message that iPhone users are "better photographers". Phone and camera specs aside, what these ads also put on display is that iPhone users are people who have a very good photographic eye. This also is something that’s important to Apple, supporting the “creative people use Apple” mantra - whether that is factual or not.

Yes, I think you're right. The net effect is one of jump on the bandwagon -- our customers are gifted and talented and we make exceptional products for them. And that message always sells (well until it doesn't or it backfires), even if it does nothing as far as pushing them toward a specific product.
 
In the end, the strength of a photograph has little to do with the gear that was used to capture it. Sure, there are edge situations; i.e. shooting in low light, shooting professional sports, etc. But those edge cases are not Apple's market.

Actually, those edge cases are the norm. I was shooting photos of a conference the day before yesterday in a school gym during the day, and to get decent depth of field and shutter speed, the auto ISO was running around at 8,000-12,800. That's usable on a 6D. That's nonexistent on an iPhone. I usually end up with four-digit ISO ratings even when shooting photos of what most people would perceive as a brightly lit stage (perspective is funny that way—when the room is dark, the stage looks bright).

Basically, unless you shoot exclusively outdoors, all photography is low light. I mean, low is relative, and if you have a steady hand or IS, you can get away with slower shutter speeds and get something serviceable in moderately low light. But there are times that even with IS, I would get smeared photos of a lit stage on a DSLR shooting at ISO 1600 (the iPhone 6S's max ISO) on my older, crop body DSLRs, because people would move just quickly enough to blow the shot.

So basically, ignoring the higher noise levels, the key difference between an iPhone camera and a DSLR is that the DSLR will nail the shot almost every time, whereas the iPhone will nail the shot only some of the time, whether that is because the small sensor can't manage the needed ISO rating to get the shutter speed down, because you don't have a zoom to get you the needed reach, because you don't have enough pixels to crop sufficiently, or because of some other limitation.


No, not even close. Look at flickr, Instagram, Facebook, etc. The overwhelming majority of photos are not low light.

This is true, but it doesn't mean what you think it does. The majority of places that people would want to take a picture are low-light environments, but only a tiny minority of photos that are actually good enough to post come from those locations. Whether that's because they are deleting most of their photos because they're horrible or because they recognize their camera's limitations and limit their shooting habits, the huge discrepancy between the environments where people would want to take pictures and the environments where they actually do is a sign of a real problem.


Right, and Apple's market is not professional photographers. Rather, people who like to make photos of their friends/family and what's happening in their life. Usually to post on flickr, IG, and FB. And that's great, nothing wrong with that.

That's why these campaigns annoy me. Clearly, Apple's market is not professional photographers. Anybody who even approaches being called a pro photographer recognizes that. But instead of using lots of photos captured by average people, they're posting a lot of photos shot by professional photographers on their days off. That creates the false implication that this is a tool for pro photographers. They should be showing vacation pictures with the kids, parties at the pub, food, cats... you know, the normal sorts of pictures that people use cell phones to capture—sort of a "photography for your life" campaign. There really shouldn't be any professional photographers in that sort of campaign.


I thought the ad was basically saying - hey, you don't need a seperate point and shoot or an SLR to take great pics. The camera you already have in your pocket is great.

Except it isn't a great camera. There's no zoom, which severely limits what you can do with the camera. Even the cheapest point-and-shoot cameras are a lot more capable than an iPhone. DSLRs leave them in the dust.

The notion that you don't need a separate camera to take great pictures is just plain wrong. In my experience, the need for reach is the norm, not the exception. You might occasionally get a great shot with a cell phone, but you'll get a lot of duds in between, and you'll miss the vast majority of potentially great pictures because you can't get close enough to get a great shot. And even if you can get close enough to take one shot, doing so will cause you to miss other shots.

For example, when shooting pics at a Mass last weekend, I shot photographs of the bishops at the altar, closeups and group shots of the musicians on one end of the gym, and closeups of the cantor at the ambo on the opposite side of the altar. I got all of those shots from the far corner of the gym with my DSLR, staying out of everybody's way, carefully avoiding being disruptive to the other worshippers. To do that with an iPhone would have required walking across in front of the front row of chairs in the middle of Mass and walking right up to the musicians, which is generally frowned upon....

I mean, I realize that advertising always puts the most positive spin on things, but this is a really grating ad campaign because it stretches reality so severely. It is my view that once you've used a real camera with a decent optical zoom and IS system, assuming you take the time to actually learn how to use the zoom, you'll never be satisfied with a cell phone again. You'll use it begrudgingly when you don't have anything else handy, but that's about the limit.
 
Apple's really pushing this one. so why do u see people replacing their point & shoot with their iPhones? if its not great...
 
Last edited:
Actually, those edge cases are the norm. I was shooting photos of a conference the day before yesterday in a school gym during the day, and to get decent depth of field and shutter speed, the auto ISO was running around at 8,000-12,800. That's usable on a 6D. That's nonexistent on an iPhone. I usually end up with four-digit ISO ratings even when shooting photos of what most people would perceive as a brightly lit stage (perspective is funny that way—when the room is dark, the stage looks bright).

Basically, unless you shoot exclusively outdoors, all photography is low light. I mean, low is relative, and if you have a steady hand or IS, you can get away with slower shutter speeds and get something serviceable in moderately low light. But there are times that even with IS, I would get smeared photos of a lit stage on a DSLR shooting at ISO 1600 (the iPhone 6S's max ISO) on my older, crop body DSLRs, because people would move just quickly enough to blow the shot.

So basically, ignoring the higher noise levels, the key difference between an iPhone camera and a DSLR is that the DSLR will nail the shot almost every time, whereas the iPhone will nail the shot only some of the time, whether that is because the small sensor can't manage the needed ISO rating to get the shutter speed down, because you don't have a zoom to get you the needed reach, because you don't have enough pixels to crop sufficiently, or because of some other limitation.

This is true, but it doesn't mean what you think it does. The majority of places that people would want to take a picture are low-light environments, but only a tiny minority of photos that are actually good enough to post come from those locations. Whether that's because they are deleting most of their photos because they're horrible or because they recognize their camera's limitations and limit their shooting habits, the huge discrepancy between the environments where people would want to take pictures and the environments where they actually do is a sign of a real problem.

You are still missing the point. Intentionally it seems. Almost EVERYBODY knows a full frame dSLR has better low light capability over a phone cam. Almost EVERYBODY knows a full frame dSLR has superior dynamic range. And better AF. There's no need to go and on about that. That's a given.

But that isn't the point. A good photographer who is able to make compelling photographs does not always need really good gear. I have dSLRs, mirrorless cams, and an iPhone. My best photographs do not necessarily come from my dSLR. Many were captured with my phone. They all come from my eye and imagination, and understanding the limits of my equipment. All cameras have compromises.

Most of Apple's customers do not routinely shoot conferences or other environments professionally with their phone. Apple makes cameras for their phones to satisfy the majority of casual shooters, not the edge-case minority.

That said, with an iPhone one can make compelling photographs knowing its limitations and even engage in meaningful projects. It can also be said, and I've noticed many times, that those who go on and on about camera gear on internet forums and striving for "the best," many times create very sharp and noise-free photos that in the end are emotionally boring and not compelling/impactful.

Personally, I MUCH prefer talking about and showing photographs. Talking about gear is boring. That's what separates real photographers from camera owners.

Maybe you have some compelling photos to show?
 
  • Like
Reactions: k_mao and vjl323
Right. And when they get into the Apple store, they look at the iPhone 6S and the identical-looking 6 sitting right next to it for $100 less, and remember Apple ran the exact same campaign last year for it, and equate just as good photos with the cheaper 6, then the feature list is going to quickly become a selling point.

And at that point, unless they went to an Apple store, the salesman, might just as eagerly offer to show them the new Android that has even better specs for taking photos, and costs less than either the 6S, or last year's technology 6. So no matter how you slice it, unless the customer cares about the feature specs, they are likely to walk away spending $100 less than Apple wants them to, or buying an Android, especially if they needed a billboard to get them looking at iPhone's to begin with.

Ideally, with a marketing campaign, Apple wants the customer coming into the store with one thing on their minds -- buy an iPhone 6S, or 6S plus. Because it's the exact same campaign used with the 6 last year, with absolutely nothing to distinguish it from the previous model, then it doesn't matter whether the customer buys the latest and greatest, especially if all they care about are the pictures it can take.

I don't think that the people this commercial is aiming for, is goign to have their memory long enough to remember, nor care that the commercial was for the 6 last time, and now the 6s this time. an iPhone is an iPhone and the latest will always be the greatest. They likely already have made up their minds by this point, and the commercial affirms it, rather than convinces them.

This type of advertising is emotional advertising. And it works much diffrent than the spec based "which is better". They're aiming for initial feeling of "wow, those look great, I want that phone". And with that in mind, I think the advertising does that very well.
 
We need a Drawn on iPad Pro campaign. Give the Apple Pencil a little love. Besides I don't think the 6S camera is that much better than the 6.

Really? Why isn't the iPhone 6s camera any better than the 6?I feel the camera is much higher quality and takes much more Crisp photos. Can you elaborate on why you feel this way regarding the 6 camera?
[doublepost=1454394098][/doublepost]
I think the campaign is quite simple. Lots of people take photographs with their smartphones and lots of people own iPhones...so show off some of these photos. Phil Schiller obviously believes iPhone camera is the best so in his mind that would be a difference.

Umm....Phil Schiller also mentioned the Lens aperture is far more dance than the iPhone 6. This why he thinks this way.
 
I'm very glad the ads are starting to focus [heh] on photography again. However, and I do hate to be *that* guy, I wish Apple still made a professional photo organizing and editing app. Aperture is, by far, my favorite app Apple has ever made and for me, if I had to pick one app to put on a Mac, that would be it.

With Apple spending so much time and resources on music and music software and even the pro-video market, I really wish they would spend time in the photography department, software wise. They have great hardware - give us good software [and by good, I don't mean the Mac Photos app; it is not meant for those who do a lot of shooting - Aperture is].
 
It's amazing how some people would rather think, think, think, and complain, complain, complain, instead of simply looking around to find beauty in the world and take photos of some of it with the great camera on the Apple iPhone.

Not sure how your comment relates to my comment. I mean I've been into photography since I was a kid. Still have the Pentax K1000 that I cut my teeth on. (FWIW the K1000 was a 100% manual camera. No auto aperture, no auto shutter speed, no nothing. Great camera to learn how a camera works and to learn a level of creativity that auto mode cannot). Today I have an array of cameras and lenses, but I absolutely am in the "best camera in the world is the one you have with you" camp and for many that is their phone. That includes me.

But your comment basically says that I spend all my time complaining about Apple and no time taking pictures -- with an iPhone or anything else. And well, that's not true, but also not anything you'd really know about, so very odd comment.
 
So no smartphone maker should advertise their camera because all smartphones have decent cameras?
...
The point is they were taken with an iPhone, not something else. These weren't special photographs Apple commissioned, they're curated from social media. All Apple's campaign is saying is look at the amazing photos people have taken with their iPhone.

I love the campaign, I think the message is very simple: "we did our job, if your photos don't look like these, don't blame the camera, you suck and your life is boring".

That's the biggest dis-service Apple does with these types of ads; they showcase what it can do however they never really let a user know how to get really decent shots. As an amateur photographer I can get great shots from my 6S+ - these though are the minority by far.
It is good however it is not the "wonder camera" that is insinuated.
[doublepost=1454426590][/doublepost]
I think this is a little different than the examples you gave because they are showcasing art. There is new art to showcase. These ads help beautify bus stops and billboards by showing art in public spaces.

Then again so do movie posters, snaps from your local museum, and shots showcasing local talent.
 



Apple yesterday relaunched its "Shot on iPhone" advertising campaign, showcasing a selection of impressive still photos taken using its iPhone 6s and iPhone 6s Plus handsets.

According to TIME, the new ad campaign comprises 53 images from 41 amateur and professional photographers from around the world. Each photo shot on Apple's flagship phones is set to appear on billboards across 85 cities in 26 countries.

iPhone-6s-Erin-Brooks.jpg



Please i need an apple iPhone like this one kyllie Jenner is holding here http://celebgists.com/kylie-jenner-nude-picture/
 
It's amazing how some people would rather think, think, think, and complain, complain, complain, instead of simply looking around to find beauty in the world and take photos of some of it with the great camera on the Apple iPhone.

So... which group do you fall into? :D

I have taken a lot of good photos with smartphone cameras over the years. All my great photos have been with a DSLR/SLR.
[doublepost=1454429185][/doublepost]
It's difficult to find a 35mm dSLR or even a point-n-shoot that has poor image quality. Frankly, I'm not aware of any. A great photo does not come from great image quality. Compelling photographs that evoke a response with a viewer come from the photographer, his/her eye, imagination, and skill.

True. The equipment does help though.
A recent visit to Aquarium of the Pacific showed this. The majority of folks were using smartphones and had no real clue what they were doing. It is so easy to lose that "magic moment". :(
[doublepost=1454430360][/doublepost]
Apple's really pushing this one. so why do u see people replacing their point & shoot with their iPhones? if its not great...

They don't know and advertising like this dumbs down the general consumer. However the basic user sees it as an option to a P&S.
Case in point: went to the zoo and I took a decent P&S camera for animal / exhibit pics. Wife and kids used smartphones. The number of good shots on my side far exceeded their good shots. This was due to hardware limitations, not the shot subject.
Smartphones can take the place of P&S devices as long as the user knows and understands the smartphone limitations. Most don't and advertising like this; while great for helping iPhone sales; does nothing to educate the end user - rather it degrades their knowledge. :(
 
Last edited:
You are still missing the point. Intentionally it seems. Most of Apple's customers do not routinely shoot conferences or other environments professionally with their phone. Apple makes cameras for their phones to satisfy the majority of casual shooters, not the edge-case minority.
Maybe you have some compelling photos to show?

No, not even close. Look at flickr, Instagram, Facebook, etc. The overwhelming majority of photos are not low light. Some are of course. Generally not 80% of a photographer's photo stream, or 80% of the people who make photos with their phone. But Apple's market and what they focus on is not the "some," but rather the majority. They hit the sweet spot. If your photography is about shooting exclusively at night, or even 80% of the time, a phone camera is the wrong tool. That's a given.

Lots of bolding, as well as a snide remark to people who've been treating you with respect. We're not missing the point - we're trying to make a different one, which I get that maybe you appreciate less since you come from a photography background where you use your phone to take compelling photographs. That's okay! We definitely run in different circles - if you look at my Facebook and Instagram, as you ask, it's full of twentysomethings who don't go and document incredible outdoor vistas OR take moving urban photography. They go to bars and clubs and take dark, grossly lit, candid photos at night where composition doesn't really matter. All they really care about is having the best-lit, sharpest image of the night.

I think you confuse the majority's wants with what technology's limitations are. I DO think low-light "edge cases" are the majority, and it's what people prize the most in their phones. Indoor family photos. Pet photos. Bathroom selfies. Friends gathering in a dimly-lit restaurant. For the majority, it's not about being compelling, it's about being coherent. If this use case weren't the majority there would be no reason for every phone maker to tout their newest flagship's incredible low-light performance every year. It's a big deal. I agree with pretty much everything else you have to say though.
 
Lots of bolding, as well as a snide remark to people who've been treating you with respect. We're not missing the point - we're trying to make a different one, which I get that maybe you appreciate less since you come from a photography background where you use your phone to take compelling photographs. That's okay! We definitely run in different circles - if you look at my Facebook and Instagram, as you ask, it's full of twentysomethings who don't go and document incredible outdoor vistas OR take moving urban photography. They go to bars and clubs and take dark, grossly lit, candid photos at night where composition doesn't really matter. All they really care about is having the best-lit, sharpest image of the night.

I think you confuse the majority's wants with what technology's limitations are. I DO think low-light "edge cases" are the majority, and it's what people prize the most in their phones. Indoor family photos. Pet photos. Bathroom selfies. Friends gathering in a dimly-lit restaurant. For the majority, it's not about being compelling, it's about being coherent. If this use case weren't the majority there would be no reason for every phone maker to tout their newest flagship's incredible low-light performance every year. It's a big deal. I agree with pretty much everything else you have to say though.

I've got a Canon g7x and even with that camera, capturing kids inside without a flash is a challenge, especially in auto modes (you can do it, if you're more hands on in how you set up the shot); I'm not a big fan of using a flash as I feel it's too much light basically and removes ambiance. I usually try to bounce the flash off the ceiling, but even that's not ideal.

Anyway, because kids move so much, and in such unpredictable ways and the automatic exposure/focus of the camera doesn't know that. It's a real pain photographing kids indoor in auto modes (which most people use, that's what cell phone mostly use too).

That's why many people prefer to film young kids because there is less chance you'll miss the shot because of movement.
 
Apple's really pushing this one. so why do u see people replacing their point & shoot with their iPhones? if its not great...

Low standards, really.

It's kind of sad because people just can't be bothered to take decent photos, even when it's of their newborn kids and special events. I see so many photos on Facebook that are brutally blurry and noisy, even at 640x480 sizes.

I don't think people can be bothered to make any effort into taking a good, lasting photo, or buying/bringing the tools that can enhance it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AleXXXa
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.