As these are both objects with hard edges to them unlike people, it has worked, try it with a person and you'll see how it loses all the fine detail to the subjects extremities, like hair or jumpers.
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 Shares New Ad Showcasing Portrait Lighting Mode on the iPhone 8 Plus
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes, that might be true, but look at it from a different perspective: if you want/need to take a studio-like photo of a product, any object, this can really come in handy. To get the same result for the shoe you would have to either work in Photoshop or set up a real studio lighting with a black backdrop. Here it was a single tap. And the result is very usable.
Last edited:
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that the 99% are going to be very happy with it, chopped off bits and all. I'm sure that Tinder and Instagram will be flooded with selfies using Portrait Mode the moment that the X drops!Yes, that might be true, but look at it from a differen perspective: if you want/need to take a studio-like photo of a product, any object, this can really come in handy. To get the same result for the shoe you would have to either work in Photoshop or set up a real studio lighting with a black backdrop. Here it was a single tap. And the result is very usable.
Probably, I am just saying it can be put to good use in certain situations. The real winner for me is studio light, though.
I actually think iOS 11 is an excellent upgrade. Little usability and logic tweaks are everywhere, and to me even more welcome than major feature additions. What specifically makes you claim that all of Apple’s software is bad?And since you say “now,” what about it is so radically different as to recently become bad, as opposed to before when it was presumably good? And since you said “software design,” how did macOS and all of Apple’s apps also recently become bad?
Thanks they were both taken on the iPhone 8 Plus using portrait mode although the second one was really to highlight how dodgy the lighting mode is. The camera on this phone is stunning though.
Just tried Portrait Mode using Studio Light and then going to the mono version on a candle, you can still call me unimpressed by it. Blown out highlights and the very poor application of the masking don't do it for me, but I'm absolutely sure that the 99% will be fawning all over it.
You should try different light settings (more contrast) and manually reduce the exposure beforehand. It also helps to edit the photos for more/less contrast, more detail, etc. It will help get you better results. A little work on your own is required. The iPhone isn‘t going to magically turn every scene into a b/w studio masterpiece. You need to try, experiment. It‘s photography.
The first one was edited to the best it could become actually, mind you just in Photos as that's what the 99% are going to be using.
Here's another few, with varied results, the last one is the best of the lot, but the ghosting around the headphones makes it unacceptable to me. You can still call me unimpressed with it.
Amazing (and sad) how many people are just waiting for an opportunity to trash Apple.
The portrait lighting feature is still in beta, yet so many just can't wait to bash, as if they are serious portrait photographer expecting 100% perfection, to the level of using professional studio lights and modifiers costing $$$$. All from within a relatively tiny mobile phone.
Reasonable people (or at leas those who are knowledgeable and don't come in with an anti-Apple agenda aiming for elevated forum cred) will understand Apple is providing a capability (that's still in beta) that allows non-professional casual phone users the ability to produce results that are pretty good for the most part. And for people that will appreciate the ability to take decent photographs from a device that fits in their pocket, that's always with them, and have no desire to spend a ton of money on a dSLR with expensive lights and modifiers.
It's astonishing how far Apple has come with their phones with respect to photography, giving casual users the ability to access their creative side making excellent photographs. Speaking as a photographer...
[doublepost=1506862489][/doublepost]
Portrait lighting is still in beta. Wait...
The portrait lighting feature is still in beta, yet so many just can't wait to bash, as if they are serious portrait photographer expecting 100% perfection, to the level of using professional studio lights and modifiers costing $$$$. All from within a relatively tiny mobile phone.
Reasonable people (or at leas those who are knowledgeable and don't come in with an anti-Apple agenda aiming for elevated forum cred) will understand Apple is providing a capability (that's still in beta) that allows non-professional casual phone users the ability to produce results that are pretty good for the most part. And for people that will appreciate the ability to take decent photographs from a device that fits in their pocket, that's always with them, and have no desire to spend a ton of money on a dSLR with expensive lights and modifiers.
It's astonishing how far Apple has come with their phones with respect to photography, giving casual users the ability to access their creative side making excellent photographs. Speaking as a photographer...
[doublepost=1506862489][/doublepost]
Portrait lighting is still in beta. Wait...
Last edited:
It's the contrast that's lacking. If there's more highlighting, the more contrast may be needed to bring out the details a bit more from the surface of the object. When there's negative space being blocked out or darkened, the positive space needs to be the focus. One poster suggested using Photoshop or Pixelmator ( or similar ) to make the granular adjustments and I agree with this. The light and shadow controls on Photoshop is very deep, providing more options. That is, if you plan on making a professional impression on others.
The casual users are most likely going to just Snap and Slap it up on Instagram or other social media without giving it a thought.
With blown-out highlights the last thing I would ever do is add more contrast, contrast just pushes the shadows darker and the highlights brighter.
What about dimming the highlights down? Unless that app is doing this automatically with the filters? One other thing you could try is use natural lighting or use one source of light and shoot it old school with the phone and then apply the filters on it?
EDIT: I just saw the video and see how it's doing it automatically with chosen filters. I know it should be showing some other optional controls to manipulate the highlights and shadows, similar to Photoshop. I believe they did show a bit of it on the keynote but not much of it.
The Studio Lighting part, I think, is a bit odd showing extreme contrast (black background, strong foreground ), although the mid shadows or highlights are there. It's like it's set on 'hard light' layer style effect without soft edges, perhaps?
Last edited:
It can create a lifestream with these effects and feed it to the screen (which it is doing while . No reason it also cannot record that lifestream in principle (unless adding data compression and write-to-disk routine would go beyond the computational power budget). The effect might only be 1080P (which is needed for the iPhone Plus screen), a bit less refined and there might be a few dropped frames, but it should be possible to record a video with this effect. Otherwise, the system could also just record the video streams from both cameras and create the whole effect in post (maybe to properly create this effect it would need the full resolution of the camera and 1080P stream of both cameras wouldn't be detailed enough, bandwidth to record two full HD stream should be available since recording a single 4K stream is possible).
Somehow the video that went into the production for this ad had to be shot and I doubt they would use a completely different (video) camera for this.
In my first image of the sheep candle, the highlights were dropped back and the exposure dropped too, they are still blown-out. Blown-out highlights can't be recovered from a jpeg image, possibly from a RAW file, but the Portrait Modes don't allow RAW image saving.
And the last three of these images I shared were taken in Natural mode, then taken to the mono mode.
If it recorded the effects live through out the shoot, it would take up a lot of storage straight from the phone. That's why most of the scenes in the commercial were edited on post-production with effects added on. The last part with the guy using the iphone to choose studio lighting was probably done AFTER they took pics of her, not the guy himself. They probably had at least 5 to 10 minutes worth of shooting with retakes and then edited it down to about 40 seconds.
[doublepost=1506865281][/doublepost]
That's very interesting especially that there is no RAW format on the iPhone, to my understanding. What I found and discovered that after using the iphone for the last 5 years was that anytime I shot an image with the camera, it is always saved in 72 or 75 DPI, regardless of the resolution size.
Most digital cameras allow you to set the image resolution from low ( 72 dpi ) to high (300 for print) and yet, when I export the iPhone images to Photoshop, they always show 75 DPI when viewed on Image Size. Most of the photos shot on iPhone were nearly 2 or 4 MB, depending on portrait or landscape mode.
It's like any photo taken on iPhone were not designed to be exported to Photoshop for high resolution editing.
There are many third party camera apps that record images from iPhones as RAW (DNG) files, I think going back to the 6S. Apple has never included it in their own camera app for some strange reason.
[doublepost=1506865886][/doublepost]
In none of my DSLR's have I ever been able to set a pixels per inch rate. That is something you change with an increase of dots per inch for printing on export.
Personally, I don't edit jpegs, it's not worth the hassle for the banding, artifacting, noise, etc. that it introduces to the images. On my old iPhone 6, I was saving my images as TIFF's, on my 8+, I save my images as RAW files.
I didn't know it is also capable of video? That will be amazing if this new feature works also for video. Imagine being able to record just the subject? It also looks like a night scene when showing the people on the sides slightly lit up like that.
If you won't say it I will.
Without a strong, egoistic, mentally disturbed but yet very wise leader Apple is going to hell. The screenplay is the same. If you can't see it ... Come on, guys. This is the classic very stupid fragmentation with special features with every phone for every part of a market. This is not about the best anymore. They don't know how to move forward. They are scared. Jony can't make it alone. I am sick of it. Unfortunately nothing better is on the market but ... Am I alone here?
Without a strong, egoistic, mentally disturbed but yet very wise leader Apple is going to hell. The screenplay is the same. If you can't see it ... Come on, guys. This is the classic very stupid fragmentation with special features with every phone for every part of a market. This is not about the best anymore. They don't know how to move forward. They are scared. Jony can't make it alone. I am sick of it. Unfortunately nothing better is on the market but ... Am I alone here?
And for continuing to put the very best camera in the iPhad rather than sharing that on all of your "flagship" phones, this bird's for you Apple!!!
Many, many people don't want such a large phone.
Many, many people don't want such a large phone.
pretty bad editing - not up to apple‘s usual standards. and the fact that they are simulating the iphone‘s light simulation by using actual light and color grading is somewhat misleading.
that‘s why in the video business customers always assume you‘re excessively expensive. you‘d at least need half a day with a small crew for shooting this - and even then you‘ll only get an amateurish looking video like this.
nah, they don‘t, for the simple reason that dpi (or ppi) means nothing until you print.
Last edited: