Covers for TIME Magazine Special Series Shot Entirely on iPhone

[definitive]

I love to see this kind of news. It shows that the iPhone evolves to a proper camera; one to people react differently than to a DSLR (even though the quality is better). And you can shot with both eyes open and not be glued to the viewfinder

Indeed, but a $100-$200 Canon (or similar) pocket camera is a much better solution than an iPhone, which over time costs much more to own.

 

[fourthtunz]

There are two things I find amusing about the inevitable "it doesn't look as good as the same photo taken with a DSLR would have":

One is that, to the vast majority of people who look at that cover or other photos taken by the artist, they look like interesting, engaging photos. Most--and most by far I would guess--people don't look at photos like these and say "it looks flat" or "the micro-contrast is weak" or "it's not sharp enough" or "there isn't enough subject isolation" or whatever else. They see an interesting photo, and appreciate it.

And the other is the more salient point from an artistic perspective: Indeed it's true that if you took the exact same photo with an EOS-1D X mk II and an expensive lens it would be sharper, higher resolution, and have more dynamic range. It would almost certainly look better.

Except it's quite possible that the photographer couldn't take that exact same photo with an EOS-1D X mk II. As noted in the description, the subject might well have reacted differently to a photographer holding a huge camera with the shutter clicking away, or she never would have been in that particular location carrying a large camera, or whatever other nuances of the actual act of photographing another human being in situ might have come out differently.

It's the same if the photographer had tried to take the same shots with a large flash kit versus only natural light--the photo might be better lit, but what the person in it is doing would probably be less natural, and depending on the intent of the photo, less interesting.

If you've got a tripod, sufficient time, and are photographing a landscape or model, sure, a large-sensor, large-lens camera is going to produce a better photo than an iPhone in every way. And sure, there are photos that an iPhone is incapable of taking for technical reasons--available light, field of view, depth of field, bokeh. But following around a human trying to take a certain kind of photo, the act of photography itself changes the result, possibly for the worse.

Heck, I'm just a casual photographer and I've noticed it plenty of times just taking street photos while on vacation. I hold up a smartphone to take a picture, nobody even notices. I hold up my bigger camera, people look at me, stiffen up, react like they're being photographed. Occasionally the effect can be positive, but more often it results in odd expressions and less natural behavior.

Exactly! People make the same kind of comments for audio production, that this or that song would have sounded better if they had used this or that mic or amp etc.
The wanna bees criticize and meanwhile people are taking TIME magazine covers with iPhones and producing hits on iPads

 

[laz232]

You're missing the point. The focus of photography should be the subject, not the file format or the pixels.

As stated from the post


What's the point of having a DSLR setup when the subject becomes uncomfortable? A pro should be able to perform with the tools he/she has at the moment.
[doublepost=1504849198][/doublepost]
Not really. Sure, spec wise, even a traditional point-n-shoot (we're talking about JPEG only regular point-n-shoot, not pro cameras like the RX100) should perform better. Thing is, Apple has the upper hand in image processing, and Apple continually improves the software. Regular digital cameras are stuck with whatever programmed on their chipsets during manufacturing, and usually that is not updated for years.

I have various point-n-shoot from Olympus, Panasonic, etc, and although their 1/2.3" sensor are bigger, their image quality are worse/not any better than my 6S simply due to the aging image processing those cameras have.

Look, any photographer worth a damn does some PP in Lightroom. I run my iPhone jpgs through LR.

This is just a promo piece for the photographer whose portraits would be fairly 'meh'* apart from being shot on an iPhone - and it's published in an effort to make Time magazine relevant.

Most pros in any field use the right tool for the job. If you're hiking, or for street photography, the iPhone might be the right tool (though Ansel Adams hiked with a view camera). For portraits I would argue a compact DSLR is better suited, perhaps with something like a 40mm pancake lens.

Whatever, hopefully some people get enjoyment from the photos...
Peace.

*here is other inspiration: http://www.boredpanda.com/top-10-photographers-for-travel-portraits/

 

[KAZphoto]

Maybe I'm just doing it wrong, but at this point, I think I've tried every app capable of shooting RAW under the sun, and none of their output looks as crisp or noiseless as the stock camera app. Now I realize that the purpose of RAW is to capture exactly what the sensor is capable of, but IMO the majority of the output I received was just plain bad.

VSCO, ProCamera, RAW, Manual, ProCam, Manual Cam, Camera+, 645 Pro, Lightroom...

That's interesting. I should probably rephrase what I said and say that I don't actually get any better quality per se but I get much more latitude as far as exposure adjustments among other things. This is mostly a problem with the highlights in my opinion. I agree very much though that the stock camera app is the best and is usually my go to app, especially for quickness to catch a moment. I do find that I am able to get more out of photos captured with the default camera in a third party program. My absolute favorite at the moment and has been for a while is Snapseed. I recommend it if you haven't tried it yet.

 

[H3LL5P4WN]

That's interesting. I should probably rephrase what I said and say that I don't actually get any better quality per se but I get much more latitude as far as exposure adjustments among other things. This is mostly a problem with the highlights in my opinion. I agree very much though that the stock camera app is the best and is usually my go to app, especially for quickness to catch a moment. I do find that I am able to get more out of photos captured with the default camera in a third party program. My absolute favorite at the moment and has been for a while is Snapseed. I recommend it if you haven't tried it yet.

Snapseed has been my go-to since before Google bought them.

I was just surprised that a RAW image, which is supposed to be better, would look so much worse than one captured with the stock app. I guess it goe to show you just how good Apple's image processing code is.

 

[luftweg]

I've heard a rumor that the photographer actually brought a Canon EOS 1DX II, and was planning on using it, until Hillary showed up late for the photo-shoot. The photographer then jokingly asked Hillary, 'What Happened', and Hillary went into a rage and smashed the EOS 1DX II. So, the photographer had to use an iPhone.

 

[luftweg]

Indeed, but a $100-$200 Canon (or similar) pocket camera is a much better solution than an iPhone, which over time costs much more to own.

* I have both an iPhone 8+, and an EOS 1DX Mark II (and an EOS 5DSR) with an assortment of many 'L' lenses.... The iPhone is no match, in terms of color, dynamic range, depth, etc.. (In fact I have an EOS 1DX Mark I, which only does 1080P video, not 4K -- but the video is still much better than the iPhone's supposed '4K').

* The big advantages of the iPhone are that it is far more portable (smaller, lighter), and less intimidating, and of course, it's cheaper.
The iPhone is NOT quicker at all; the 1DX II can focus and take a picture much faster, as long as you have it in your hands or hanging around your neck, in standby mode -- it 'wakes up' in a fraction of a second.

There are many types of photography that the iPhone cannot do at all;
There is a reason you see an army of EOS 1DX's (or Nikon D5's) on the sidelines of a football game, at a really important press-conference, at the Indy 500, and almost every professional high-action event.... IF the iPhone COULD do the same thing, the photographers and media would not wasting $10-15K on such camera/lens setups....
So, if at this photo-shoot, they wanted to get shots of Hillary riding motocross, or playing soccer, then the 1DX would be brought out.

* Note: the iPhone 8+ has 2 lenses, a fixed telephoto and a fixed wide-angle.... I'm not sure, but I think any focal length between the 2 extremes has to be DIGITAL zoom, and not optical zoom; this would degrade the image somewhat, as compared to the extremes, with their native optical focal length.

 

[definitive]

* I have both an iPhone 8+, and an EOS 1DX Mark II (and an EOS 5DSR) with an assortment of many 'L' lenses.... The iPhone is no match, in terms of color, dynamic range, depth, etc.. (In fact I have an EOS 1DX Mark I, which only does 1080P video, not 4K -- but the video is still much better than the iPhone's supposed '4K').

* The big advantages of the iPhone are that it is far more portable (smaller, lighter), and less intimidating, and of course, it's cheaper.
The iPhone is NOT quicker at all; the 1DX II can focus and take a picture much faster, as long as you have it in your hands or hanging around your neck, in standby mode -- it 'wakes up' in a fraction of a second.

There are many types of photography that the iPhone cannot do at all;
There is a reason you see an army of EOS 1DX's (or Nikon D5's) on the sidelines of a football game, at a really important press-conference, at the Indy 500, and almost every professional high-action event.... IF the iPhone COULD do the same thing, the photographers and media would not wasting $10-15K on such camera/lens setups....
So, if at this photo-shoot, they wanted to get shots of Hillary riding motocross, or playing soccer, then the 1DX would be brought out.

* Note: the iPhone 8+ has 2 lenses, a fixed telephoto and a fixed wide-angle.... I'm not sure, but I think any focal length between the 2 extremes has to be DIGITAL zoom, and not optical zoom; this would degrade the image somewhat, as compared to the extremes, with their native optical focal length.

The DSLR you've mentioned is not iPhone's competition. I was referring to the cheaper Elph/Powershot type of cameras which fit into your pocket, and are meant to be a quick point and shoot solution.