Really! I can't imagine going to a website just to crap on something I don't own!
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 Studied Paintings and Shined Light on People to Perfect New Portrait Lighting Feature
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
$50 a month? I doubt it. We're talking about the phone plan and the device price on top of it per month. The X is nearly $50 a month with the plan included which comes close to $100 or more.
Thats exactly what Ive been feeling ever since they first showed it on stage. Im sure the tech behind it is amazing but the results look cheap and artificial. (And its going to get less and less impressive as more people post these shots)
Anyway, i like the tech. I just dont like the results.
You seem to know a lot about photography. Care to elaborate why you think it looks terrible?
There fixed that for you. A Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR Camera (Body Only) retails for $3299 while the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM Lens goes for $1999.
Unfortunately you have to pay for the phone plan but with incentives/trade ins you're only paying a little extra a month.
Its all in how you want to spend your month obviously.
How much are you paying a month if you decide to have a newer auto etc?
That may be the case, but it's a lazy 'shortcut' for the average user not well versed in Photoshop or image editing applications. If you shoot video or do photography professionally, the phone's not the way to edit images for self portraits. You should be using software that has more depth with granular control.
As for DSLR cameras that don't have 3D capabilities, see this: http://www.kula3d.com/
It works on many devices and cameras. There are other products like it so they've been around for some time before Apple did that.
[doublepost=1506096490][/doublepost]
That's what I'm saying. The trade-in plus the monthly plan is on the first bill. After that, you're paying the phone plan AND the phone itself ( ranging between $20 to $50 on average ) which totals to nearly $80 to $100 a month. And that's just for one phone number.
I'm for one looking forward to these, and I don't consider myself lazy at all. I have a professional 9-5 job, 2 small kids, a happy and wonderful wife, AND I'm going back to college to earn a 3rd college degree. I am the type of person who is looking forward to the "shortcut" to making my kid's photographs look really nice. For the record, I have a decent DSLR and a newer Mac Pro and a new Macbook Pro with a butt-load of photography programs, but not enough time to go through them. I simply don't have time to shoot raw, import it into photoshop, edit it, and then upload it to FB so family can see it. I can't wait for my 8+!
![]()
"It's all seamless; the camera just does what it needs to," said Schiller. "The software knows how to take care of it for you. There are no settings."
I find this quote from Schiller indicative of Apple's cavalier attitude towards photography. Over the past several years the focus has been entirely on built-in consumer level functionality to make it easy to take rather crappy photos people will like and love on social media for seconds at a time. And, yes, these images look good as they scroll past in in your feeds, but are full of dozens of horrid problems when closely examined at full resolution. Seldom are the spectacular photos you see advertised as "shot on an iPhone" right out of the phone without a ton of additional hardware and lighting effects (check the web, plenty of excellent articles on this subject).
Sometimes I wonder if Apple's drive towards doing everything for you inside the phone is their way of justifying killing Aperture and doing relatively nothing to deliver on their promise to evolve Photos into a platform for both consumer and pro customers.
This technology will only really become mature when it can either determine where light and shadow should fall based on the existing light and shadow in the scene, or let the user control the lighting direction with a positional avatar.
As it stands, these sample photos look like they’re just adding arbitrary shadow and highlight based on an algorithm of the topography of the human face, with no regard as to the direction of the actual lighting of the image. This makes everything look like mush.
When the software can not only ascertain the topography of the face, and accentuate the lighting based on the specific lighting conditions of the scene, then we’re talking amazing.
As it stands, these sample photos look like they’re just adding arbitrary shadow and highlight based on an algorithm of the topography of the human face, with no regard as to the direction of the actual lighting of the image. This makes everything look like mush.
When the software can not only ascertain the topography of the face, and accentuate the lighting based on the specific lighting conditions of the scene, then we’re talking amazing.
The camera isn't only a slight camera upgrade:
http://austinmann.com/trek/iphone-8-camera-review-india
Last edited:
Well... for portraiture on a budget, you could go with a Nikon D3400 for $500 (normally $550) and an AF-S NIKKOR 85mm f/1.8G for $480, for a total a touch under $1000 - but you're right that this doesn't include any lighting gear.
Alternatively, there's the AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G for $280, leaving just enough budget to throw in a SB-R200 Wireless Speedlight for $165...
(Now, you're a Cannon fan obviously, and there's nothing wrong with that - whether you consider the above Nikon kit 'good' or not I will not argue...
)
Ok, so don't buy a phone ;(
I don't buy expensive lattes or buy new cars! Pick yer poison! good luck!
Well, it’s a step in the right direction. Eventually computational photography will displace traditional methods. The problem right now is Apple needs more sensors and/or larger sensors. It’s marketing puffery to say this removes the use case for a DSLR/mirrorless. For most people, and for static subjects, it does. But that market is already owned by smartphones.
What’s more interesting is the possibility Apple might put out a professional camera. That was always something on Steve’s list of To-dos. I would be very interested to see what Apple would do with a real camera with a solid form factor/ergonomics with larger sensors and more flexibility with lenses.
What’s more interesting is the possibility Apple might put out a professional camera. That was always something on Steve’s list of To-dos. I would be very interested to see what Apple would do with a real camera with a solid form factor/ergonomics with larger sensors and more flexibility with lenses.
And the best camera is the one you have with youWell... for portraiture on a budget, you could go with a Nikon D3400 for $500 (normally $550) and an AF-S NIKKOR 85mm f/1.8G for $480, for a total a touch under $1000 - but you're right that this doesn't include any lighting gear.
Alternatively, there's the AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G for $280, leaving just enough budget to throw in a SB-R200 Wireless Speedlight for $165...
(Now, you're a Cannon fan obviously, and there's nothing wrong with that - whether you consider the above Nikon kit 'good' or not I will not argue...
Unless you are doing pro work, a phone camera is more than good enough.
And now they're taking TIME magazine photos with phone cameras.
Exciting times
IIRC, iOS 11 is opening up the portrait depth maps to third party apps, and if that's true you can certainly expect apps with more granular control.
I agree. Highlights look blown out and the colour photos look like a bad photoshop job.
Would I swap my DSLR and 50mm prime for an iPhone 8? No. But given that the camera you have with you is the one that takes the pictures I'm feeling more and more relaxed about leaving my DSLR at home and being satisfied with the lag and simplicity of carrying an iPhone around for many picture opportunities. And if some of these portrait options can save me time in Lightroom to get something better than ordinary I'll take that.
All very nice, but I'd prefer that Apple invested their time in one of two things (that always happen in maturing markets): more and better features (not just shining lights) or reducing prices, or ideally both.
I'm curious what the sensor size is in the new 8 / X? I keep hearing the camera sensors are larger in the iPhone 8 Plus and X, but haven't found the actual size listed anywhere. Larger sensor with same pixel density will typically result in lower noise. Add a wider aperture and the improvement is even more. Would love to see some 1:1 comparisons with the 7 Plus and comparison of the sensor size.
[doublepost=1506097741][/doublepost]
It is ridiculous to assume one needs a 5D Mark IV and a 16-35 F2.8L lens to get significantly better than the iPhone. A 5 yr old outdated rebel with an APS-C sensor and a kit lens on the used market for $400 would provide significantly better results.
[doublepost=1506097741][/doublepost]
It is ridiculous to assume one needs a 5D Mark IV and a 16-35 F2.8L lens to get significantly better than the iPhone. A 5 yr old outdated rebel with an APS-C sensor and a kit lens on the used market for $400 would provide significantly better results.
I think Face ID will be easy and intuitive. I think the other advantage to Face ID, is you won't even have to pick up your iPhone if you don't want to unlock your device as long as you're looking at it. Touch ID is great, but I think Face ID will be a success with the security measures and how it adapts to your Face with changes as well.