iPhone XS Max I don't get why a $1000+ phone takes such HORRIBLE pictures!

[spinedoc77]

The OP used the 6mm lens, which is the wide angle and equivalent to 52mm. There are all sorts of exif readers for photos, but the info in Photoshop says the 35mm zoom equivalent was 190mm. That's approximately 4x digital zoom, which accounts for the poor quality. SS was 1/100 and ISO was 125. That shutter speed would be easy to add camera shake to, but really it's the zoom here that's the biggest factor now that I look at the exif data. It's such a tiny sensor in the phone cameras, there just isn't enough resolution to crop that heavily.

View attachment 844783

View attachment 844784

OK thank you for that, I wasn't aware I was zooming. I'm pretty sure I wasn't, but I can't deny it if the exif data shows differently so may have pressed the zoom inadvertently. So that does explain a lot, I'm going to dig up the other pics and see if I was zooming in them also.

 

[jagolden]

I'm still not agreeing, but I've put this on hold until I can get some pics with my 3 XL. If the 3XL takes better pictures then this doesn't make sense to me. First I asked what, as a photographer, I could do to take better pictures, but haven't received any real answers. Secondly I don't have unrealistic expectations. Ignoring Apple's marketing on how nicely their pictures turn out, in addition to all the review sites, I honestly do not think the first picture I posted should be a realistic expectation. The room was very well lit, I was fairly close to the subjects, there was a minimum of motion (both the subjects and my hands) and there was no zoom. As to the whole "don't use a smartphone" thing, I'm confused why it's so difficult to understand that we all don't carry around cameras all the time. In that particular situation I had my Gi on with all my clothes in the locker room and had my phone because my daughter uses it while I take my class. Even that crappy grainy picture is tons better than no picture at all.

As to your 2nd paragraph what could I have done to take a better picture? And is my first picture truly what we should all expect? I'm not expecting professional results, but at the same time a Flintstones camera could have taken a better picture. Of course crappy hardware can take crappy pictures. For the record I'm not denying that I didn't have any fault, but what I'm confused on is what I did wrong. I'm not going to setup professional equipment to take a picture, and Apple doesn't let you change any settings in its camera app, so what else is left?
[doublepost=1561403520][/doublepost]

Absolutely, I agree with your first paragraph. I am definitely happy that I have a picture, as crappy as it is, versus having no picture at all and am appreciative of the fact that I can do that. I won't deny that I'm not spoiled by having instant access to take pictures 24/7.

1. Thanks, that makes sense and I will take it into account.
2. I wasn't zooming
3. It was a live photo. I agree on videos.
4. Definitely will play around with that.

Thanks for at least putting up some constructive advice instead of just saying I'm a bad photographer.
[doublepost=1561403702][/doublepost]

Thank you for the constructive response. They were pretty still as the instructor was trying to teach her arm placement, but you're right and maybe movement was an issue. I have other pics where the instructors were posing with her that came out just as badly, and that's everyone standing still waiting for a picture. Out of the dozen or so pictures I took that day every single one looks grainy like that.

With that said I take a ton of pictures of my daughter playing soccer, MUCH more motion and speed than this picture, and they come out pretty decent. I suspect because it's outside and there is a lot more light, but I've been fairly happy with how the iphone captures motion outside.

There have been a number of replies with suggestions:
First, no digital zoom. It was zoomed, the picture data shows it. It’s been pointed out.
Second, pick a focus point.
Third, pick an exposure point.
Fourth, in an anticipated action shot, shoot in bursts.
There are hundreds of free YouTube videos that will give even better suggestions.

 

[spinedoc77]

There have been a number of replies with suggestions:
First, no digital zoom. It was zoomed, the picture data shows it. It’s been pointed out.
Second, pick a focus point.
Third, pick an exposure point.
Fourth, in an anticipated action shot, shoot in bursts.
There are hundreds of free YouTube videos that will give even better suggestions.

Thank you, I will try some of those suggestions. Appreciate the constructive advise.

 

[spinedoc77]

I'm not sure if I used zoom on this one, but everyone was standing still. How can I see that exif info? I don't have photoshop. It looks moderately better than the other one, but still pretty crappy, but I guess I need to temper my expectations. It's all that Apple marketing and the beautiful pictures they display that really screws with a realistic expectation.

 

[jagolden]

I'm not sure if I used zoom on this one, but everyone was standing still. How can I see that exif info? I don't have photoshop. It looks moderately better than the other one, but still pretty crappy, but I guess I need to temper my expectations. It's all that Apple marketing and the beautiful pictures they display that really screws with a realistic expectation.


View attachment 844832

I’m using Affinity Photo when I check data.
It’s hard to tell from this as I think MR might mess with the sampling when we upload pictures. Heck, it wouldn’t even let me upload an iPhone screenshot the other day, had to reduce the file size and quality.
Nice photo to have anyways of this sharing moment.

 

[noobinator]

The last one isn't zoomed from what I see. Do you tap on the subject on screen before you take the shot to focus? It looks like nothing is really in focus.

 

[spinedoc77]

The last one isn't zoomed from what I see. Do you tap on the subject on screen before you take the shot to focus? It looks like nothing is really in focus.

Yes I usually tap on a face to get the yellow focus square to come up. Everyone was standing still waiting for the picture. I thought the lighting was excellent as the entire back wall are bay windows and it was a bright day out, but from what others have said I suppose this can be deceiving.

If you zoom in on the faces, I know it's hard without the original picture, the faces seem really blown out and the colors are really off.

 

[mollyc]

Yes I usually tap on a face to get the yellow focus square to come up. Everyone was standing still waiting for the picture. I thought the lighting was excellent as the entire back wall are bay windows and it was a bright day out, but from what others have said I suppose this can be deceiving.

If you zoom in on the faces, I know it's hard without the original picture, the faces seem really blown out and the colors are really off.

You have a dark blue background and white uniforms which makes for a difficult exposure under good circumstances. Your camera decided there was more dark than light and set the exposure to raise the exposure closer to middle gray which blew out the whites.

 

[fred98tj]

The OP used the 6mm lens, which is the wide angle and equivalent to 52mm. There are all sorts of exif readers for photos, but the info in Photoshop says the 35mm zoom equivalent was 190mm. That's approximately 4x digital zoom, which accounts for the poor quality. SS was 1/100 and ISO was 125. That shutter speed would be easy to add camera shake to, but really it's the zoom here that's the biggest factor now that I look at the exif data. It's such a tiny sensor in the phone cameras, there just isn't enough resolution to crop that heavily.

View attachment 844783

View attachment 844784

From the data the “tele” lens was used. 6mm is the longer lens. 4mm is the shorter lens. Also note the aperture value of ca 2.4. Further proof that the longer “tele” lens was used.
[doublepost=1561418628][/doublepost]

Yes I usually tap on a face to get the yellow focus square to come up. Everyone was standing still waiting for the picture. I thought the lighting was excellent as the entire back wall are bay windows and it was a bright day out, but from what others have said I suppose this can be deceiving.

If you zoom in on the faces, I know it's hard without the original picture, the faces seem really blown out and the colors are really off.

The data indicates ISO 200 which means not particularly great lighting. Also the white balance is way off and lastly the data indicates that the long (tele) lens was used (f2.4). The use of the long lens and the kind of high ISO account for some of the problems.

 

[spinedoc77]

Following up as promised with pics from my pixel xl3. Same time of day, same lighting, and I zoomed in 4x to simulate the iphone pics. I have to say I really started to believe all the baloney about the photographer being bad and the zoom contributing to how terrible the iphone pics are. The pixel pictures are so much better, it's not even a contest, and that's with simply pointing and shooting. That was my original point of my thread, wondering why I'm paying $1000+ for a phone that takes pictures like this. I have a bunch more pictures, many of them came out even better than the one I uploaded, but that one was the closest to the conditions in which I took the pictures last week.

Picture from last week taken on an iphone XS Max:



Picture today taken on Pixel 3 XL
Same spot, same zoom, same time, same lighting, etc.

 

[eyeseeyou]

Sorry in advance for the rant here, but I'm just really disappointed in the cameras on the iphones. This isn't a recent complaint, but it seems like they are taking worse pictures every generation. I'm used to iphones taking horrendous pictures if lighting is even a little bit dim. But I've been noticing poorer quality even with pictures taken with optimal conditions. This picture is my daughter at practice, there are bay windows all around her and it's a perfect day outside, lighting couldn't be much better. You can see how grainy the picture is, it's a shame that these memories will be forever captured in a terrible picture. It's not only this picture, I took a bunch of them as she was promoted and I wanted to capture the moment. Every single picture came out grainy like this, the faces would be overexposed and have detail washed out, among other issues. I feel comfortable in saying a point and shoot crappy mini digital camera from 15 years ago would have taken better pictures.

I have downloaded a few apps such as Night Camera and others and have been playing around with shutter speeds, light sensor, etc. These apps are fairly complicated and I really don't want to have to figure out how to use them, and preliminary results show these apps don't make much of a difference anyway. What burns me is that I have a Pixel 3 XL sitting at home that I don't use because I highly prefer iOS, but I always kick myself for not taking the Pixel to events where I want good pictures.

I've read a few unsubstantiated rumors that Apple is finally releasing a camera for the 11 series that functions well in low light. But seeing how crappy their pictures are even in good lighting I have my doubts that Apple can pull it off, or that there will be any improvement with optimal pictures much less low light ones. Don't get me wrong, I've taken really good pictures with iphones in perfect lighting conditions, but that's the exception not the rule. For reference this is on a XS Max and I have swapped it out to make sure it wasn't a hardware issue.


View attachment 844608

Did you use the 2x zoom in the stock camera app in your pic?

 

[spinedoc77]

Did you use the 2x zoom in the stock camera app in your pic?

I actually used 4x zoom on the pixel to match the supposed 4x zoom I used on the iphone picture.

 

[PrettyWings]

Are the pictures the most important thing to you?

 

[eyeseeyou]

I actually used 4x zoom on the pixel to match the supposed 4x zoom I used on the iphone picture.

One thing about the iPhone zoom in the stock camera app is that even though you’re zooming in it doesn’t always actually use the 2nd lens. Using an app like Halide will for sure force the iPhone to use the 2nd lens. Sorry I didn’t read through this whole thread but this is something that some users might not know about and is one of those “why” apple things

 

[noobinator]

They both look bad when you zoom in/crop the second one to look the same as the first.

 

[I7guy]

Following up as promised with pics from my pixel xl3. Same time of day, same lighting, and I zoomed in 4x to simulate the iphone pics. I have to say I really started to believe all the baloney about the photographer being bad and the zoom contributing to how terrible the iphone pics are. The pixel pictures are so much better, it's not even a contest, and that's with simply pointing and shooting. That was my original point of my thread, wondering why I'm paying $1000+ for a phone that takes pictures like this. I have a bunch more pictures, many of them came out even better than the one I uploaded, but that one was the closest to the conditions in which I took the pictures last week.

Picture from last week taken on an iphone XS Max:
View attachment 845719


Picture today taken on Pixel 3 XL
Same spot, same zoom, same time, same lighting, etc.
View attachment 845725

The pixel photo looks only marginally better. There is still yellow smear on both the white uniform. It still could be in part the forum compression.

 

[jerwin]

It's a matter of physics.

You're taking the pictures in low light.

The iPhone tries to compensate by increasing exposure time, making for a blurry image, and increasing gain, resulting in a grainy image, which it them tries to process out, resulting in a smeary image. What's the ISO? What's the shutter speed?

If you want to take sports photos in a dimly lit arena, your best bet is with a full frame camera, possibly with a fast lens. Really, the lens doesn't matter as much as the sensor, which is about a hundred times more sensitive.

If you insist on using an iphone, Flash might work, if the subjects don't object.

(The iphone's "telephoto" lens lets in half as much light as the "wide angle" lens.)

 

[jerwin]

I'm not sure if I used zoom on this one, but everyone was standing still. How can I see that exif info? I don't have photoshop. It looks moderately better than the other one, but still pretty crappy, but I guess I need to temper my expectations. It's all that Apple marketing and the beautiful pictures they display that really screws with a realistic expectation.


View attachment 844832

download the photo, open it in preview, inspect it, and consult the EXIF tab.

that one is

Exposure Mode: Auto exposure
Exposure Program: Normal program
Exposure Time: 1/60
Flash: Auto, Did not fire
FlashPix Version: 1.0
FNumber: 2.4
Focal Length: 6
Focal Length In 35mm Film: 34
ISO Speed Ratings: 200

 

[fred98tj]

download the photo, open it in preview, inspect it, and consult the EXIF tab.

that one is

You’re using the long (tele) lens there and that is part of the problem. Not able to achieve sensor saturation (lack of light and light gathering capability).
[doublepost=1561936444][/doublepost]

Following up as promised with pics from my pixel xl3. Same time of day, same lighting, and I zoomed in 4x to simulate the iphone pics. I have to say I really started to believe all the baloney about the photographer being bad and the zoom contributing to how terrible the iphone pics are. The pixel pictures are so much better, it's not even a contest, and that's with simply pointing and shooting. That was my original point of my thread, wondering why I'm paying $1000+ for a phone that takes pictures like this. I have a bunch more pictures, many of them came out even better than the one I uploaded, but that one was the closest to the conditions in which I took the pictures last week.

Picture from last week taken on an iphone XS Max:
View attachment 845719


Picture today taken on Pixel 3 XL
Same spot, same zoom, same time, same lighting, etc.
View attachment 845725

They both look “bad” with mainly a difference in white balance.

 

[jerwin]

So essentially, this camera only provides decent looking pictures within an excruciatingly narrow range of conditions. Stray outside those limits, and the pictures fall to pieces. And whatever you do, don't pixel peep!

 

[spinedoc77]

You’re using the long (tele) lens there and that is part of the problem. Not able to achieve sensor saturation (lack of light and light gathering capability).
[doublepost=1561936444][/doublepost]

They both look “bad” with mainly a difference in white balance.

For the couple of you who said both look equally bad, with all due respect you guys need to have your eyes checked. I'm not saying the Pixel picture is photo gallery quality, but it's obvious that it's much much better than the iphone one. Just look at the massive amount of graininess in the iphone picture, the blown out colors, artifacts, blurriness, etc. There is really no comparison between the 2. For a smartphone point and snap with zero settings, adjustments or staging, as well as considering the motion of the subjects I'd say the pixel picture is actually very good. Conversely the iphone one I wouldn't use to wipe myself.
[doublepost=1561944415][/doublepost]

It's a matter of physics.

You're taking the pictures in low light.

The iPhone tries to compensate by increasing exposure time, making for a blurry image, and increasing gain, resulting in a grainy image, which it them tries to process out, resulting in a smeary image. What's the ISO? What's the shutter speed?

If you want to take sports photos in a dimly lit arena, your best bet is with a full frame camera, possibly with a fast lens. Really, the lens doesn't matter as much as the sensor, which is about a hundred times more sensitive.

If you insist on using an iphone, Flash might work, if the subjects don't object.

(The iphone's "telephoto" lens lets in half as much light as the "wide angle" lens.)

Another alternative is to use the pixel 3, as the pictures it takes even in those tough conditions is quite serviceable with zero adjustments or modifications, just point and snap. The reason why it's not my daily driver is I prefer the iphone MUCH more and really do not want to go back to Android. As I stated before the initial iphone picture was impromptu, I didn't know I'd be taking pictures and happened to have my iphone on me as my daughter uses it while I practice after her. I've already stated multiple times I'm not expecting professional level pictures, but I'm also not expecting the garbage I'm getting with the iphone camera.
[doublepost=1561944549][/doublepost]

So essentially, this camera only provides decent looking pictures within an excruciatingly narrow range of conditions. Stray outside those limits, and the pictures fall to pieces. And whatever you do, don't pixel peep!

Yep, pretty much. Although I will say that I've been mostly happy taking pictures outside with lots of light on the iphone, it's a great camera as long as the conditions are just right. I'm really shocked that a big room on a sunny day with huge bay windows on half its walls is considered a room with not enough light.

 

[tr1ad]

I feel your pain OP, ever since the introduction of dual cameras and iOS 10 I’ve been hating the quality of iPhone photos (complaints in Apple support community forums on the same topic) and other manufacturers tend to do it better (even from a pixel peeping standpoint).

And I prefer not to tote my DSLR majority of the times.
But it is what it is unfortunately.

Here’s a sample of my Xr in “ideal lighting”

And one indoors

 

[mollyc]

There is NO WAY that the sensor in a phone is going to match the resolution and light capturing qualities of a sensor from a dSLR camera, whether full frame or crop. EVER. Phone cameras take bad photos in bad lighting because they aren't capable of doing better. This is the end of the story on that. I am confounded as to why some of you think because a camera is in a phone that it should perform well. A lot of dSLR cameras take bad photos in bad lighting also.

You are paying $1000 for a phone for way more than a camera. The camera is a bonus, not the selling feature.

https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/dslr-better-performance-iphone-smartphone/

 

[AllergyDoc]

My best adice for taking photos with a cellphone camera:

Using digital zoom is the surest way to take a bad, pixelated photo, like the one in the OP’s first post. It’s far better to NOT use it and crop the photo later. I can’t get my wife to understand that’s why so many of her pictures look bad.

Here’s one I took on my 7+, wide angle lens. It was shot at f/1.8 1/4s 4mm lens ISO160. If you zoom in, it looks better than your photo, taken with digital zoom. Sure, it’s not great, but at least it’s not required by pixelation, which I despise.

 

[eyeseeyou]

My best adice for taking photos with a cellphone camera:

Using digital zoom is the surest way to take a bad, pixelated photo, like the one in the OP’s first post. It’s far better to NOT use it and crop the photo later. I can’t get my wife to understand that’s why so many of her pictures look bad.

Here’s one I took on my 7+, wide angle lens. It was shot at f/1.8 1/4s 4mm lens ISO160. If you zoom in, it looks better than your photo, taken with digital zoom. Sure, it’s not great, but at least it’s not required by pixelation, which I despise.
View attachment 846008

Agreed.

I never use digital zoom on my phone for any pictures I take that are intended to be viewed as a memory or any type of story telling.

If I’m just taking pics for reference or to text somebody some random thing I saw the blurry digital zoom pics are fine.