MacRumors Readers Share Beautiful Depth-of-Field Photos Shot With iPhone 7 Plus

[cube]

I'm thinking that a few years down the line we'll end up with a phone that has small-but-capable lenses at all four corners of the back, and it uses the images from whichever ones happen to be uncovered at any given point to stitch together better composite images.
[doublepost=1475179063][/doublepost]
I wanna see pictures with totally blurred people in the foreground and razor sharp majestic backgrounds.

The Fire Phone has 4 cameras in the front to track your face.

 

[mixel]

You and everyone else here who thinks they're a pro please stop trying to give bokeh a meaning which it is not. I will say it again. Bokeh simply means a background blur in a picture.

While I agree.. Any decent lens review takes into consideration the "quality" and properties of the lens' bokeh... it's quite common for a lens to drop lots of points and be considered less desirable just because it sucks at a single thing - be it bokeh, barrel distortion, or vignetting (etc). The iOS software *needs* to make attractive bokeh, even if it doesn't emulate the circles/shapes involved in trad lenses.. it has to eventually not look artificial - so it that sense it still has a way to go. it (sometimes) looks fake because of the non smooth gradients and haloing.

Given bokeh properties are a major consideration when choosing a lens it doesn't surprise me a lot of photographers are a bit dismissive of the effect as it stands.

It's still very cool though and I'm happy to see it.

 

[damant]

Wowww
We have so many artists and expert photographers on this forum to tell us what's beautiful and artistic !!!!



.

 

[LordVic]

[doublepost=1475179063][/doublepost]
I wanna see pictures with totally blurred people in the foreground and razor sharp majestic backgrounds.

That gives me something to try actually. I'm gonig to see if I can play around with an extremely narrow depth of field on my camera and see if I can produce the effect you're talking about. Curious how it would actually feel

 

[CarlJ]

That gives me something to try actually. I'm gonig to see if I can play around with an extremely narrow depth of field on my camera and see if I can produce the effect you're talking about. Curious how it would actually feel

If you do, post the results, I'd love to see them.

 

[vpro]

This obsession with blurred out background is getting out of hand, it's so fugly looking on the iPhone - seriously, you want to be a photographer or get serious with photos, please save your lives and get a real camera?! All of the photos up online with this effect from the iPhones look like trash period. Stop it!

 

[WRChris]

iPhone 7 Plus camera is like a very good high

Hate these threads because they're about people who derive a sense of status from their owning an expensive piece of kit. But it's a delicate sense of status that makes them so over-sensitive. Any advancement in technology that democratizes the features is a personal existential threat. Of course, you can't fix this tiresome effect without us collectively reforming how we think of social status and consumerism.

And here you are judging said people. Some of these people who are talking about dslr photos are professionals and trust me they know what they are talking about. I agree it's not relevant but it's not necessarily a "sense of status". We are all human, you have no right to judge anyone

[doublepost=1475185826][/doublepost]Sorry bniu, didn't mean to drag you in and I'm not sure how it happened

 

[alexgowers]

There is something magical that happens with a real lens that these shots lack. It's the missing bokeh balls, the quality of blur is lumpy. The main thing is the transitions from focus to out of focus is wrong. Fine details are just smeared into nothingness

 

[WRChris]

There is something magical that happens with a real lens that these shots lack. It's the missing bokeh balls, the quality of blur is lumpy. The main thing is the transitions from focus to out of focus is wrong. Fine details are just smeared into nothingness

Nothing magical just a dedicated device does it's job better.

 

[citysnaps]

If you are shooting for yourself, use whatever tool and technique you find fun and don't worry about what anyone thinks.

The best thing, for me, about photography is that it causes you to see the world differently. You notice beautiful light and start to see compositions all around you, even when you don't have a camera in hand. It gets you outdoors and in to places you normally wouldn't go.

Carry a DSLR and an iPhone. The phone might work better on the street and be less intimidating to people. You might get more candid emotion. Do whatever makes you happy, its your art. Print it and hang it and own it.

Couldn't have said it any better.

 

[mlochowitz]

I'm thinking that a few years down the line we'll end up with a phone that has small-but-capable lenses at all four corners of the back, and it uses the images from whichever ones happen to be uncovered at any given point to stitch together better composite images.
[doublepost=1475179063][/doublepost]
I wanna see pictures with totally blurred people in the foreground and razor sharp majestic backgrounds.

The effect requires the subject to be withing 6-8' for it to work. Now the autofocus on my early Fuji cameras had this feature on by default.

 

[citysnaps]

If you are shooting for yourself, use whatever tool and technique you find fun and don't worry about what anyone thinks.

The best thing, for me, about photography is that it causes you to see the world differently. You notice beautiful light and start to see compositions all around you, even when you don't have a camera in hand. It gets you outdoors and in to places you normally wouldn't go.

Carry a DSLR and an iPhone. The phone might work better on the street and be less intimidating to people. You might get more candid emotion. Do whatever makes you happy, its your art. Print it and hang it and own it.

Just wanted to add that when shooting on the street, photography allows you to meet and engage people you wouldn't ordinarily meet and learn things you wouldn't otherwise learn.

Five or six years ago I put down my dSLR for a year and just made photos with my phone, IIRC it was an iPhone 4, wandering around one neighborhood in San Francisco.

Here are a few photos I made.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

What do you call cameras with manual control? DSLR? Point and shoot? (this ones are dead because no one gives a crap about them) The ones that you have to fiddle with them, and then you have to connect the SD card (if that has not been corrupted) to and USB port, transfer the collection on PC before you can publish? Nah, rather snap and share with one tap. Maybe the first was exceptionable a decade ago but not now. But yeah, professionals would still want the highest quality achieved only by DSLR or mirrorless cameras.

Real cameras are meant for serious photographers, whether amateurs or professionals, it doesn't matter. "No one gives a crap about them" SCREAMS "I'm from the Facebook Generation that thinks the whole fracking world revolves around me and since I'm not interested in real cameras, no one else is either." The truth is that most people simply didn't take many pictures before cell phone cameras because they have no real interest in photography. But the popularization of the "Selfi" (Me me me me me!!!!) has lead to putting two cameras on a phone even.

Sorry, but there are real photographers out there (amateurs and professionals) and they most certainly DO care about more advanced cameras than some toy on a phone. That's like saying in 1990 that no one is interested in something like the original Canon Rebel SLR because we have these awesome Polaroid fixed lens cameras that give you photos immediately instead of having to do all that onerous sending film out to a lab (or visiting a 1-hour photo hut or hell developing it yourself). And why would anyone pay hundreds or even thousands for a camera back then when you could pick up a disposable film camera loaded with film for $10??? Who in their right mind would pay more than that??? Pshaw! Yeah, NO ONE wants a real camera these days when they can use a phone! Look at all those videos on the news where people are too dumb to even know to turn the phone sideways so it's not filming a tiny little vertical slit.

Pros? Yes, Pros love DSLRs, but there are plenty of smaller digital cameras that will fit in your pocket (or a small case) AND have plenty of advanced features without the lens selection (i.e. sometimes you need something portable rather than a big camera case and tripod to lug around). The Sony RX-100 comes to mind (there's a Pro RX-1 version as well; even Pros sometimes need portability). Canon makes some small models with better zoom in mind. Any of these will blow away any phone camera in capability. Yeah, they make them still because "No one gives a crap about them."

 

[ErikGrim]

Less whining. More pictures.

 

[doxielover]

Just wanted to add that when shooting on the street, photography allows you to meet and engage people you wouldn't ordinarily meet and learn things you wouldn't otherwise learn.

Five or six years ago I put down my dSLR for a year and just made photos with my phone, IIRC it was an iPhone 4, wandering around one neighborhood in San Francisco.

Here are a few photos I made.

Impressive photos. Is this with the native phone app? What editing app did you use?

 

[ke-iron]

While I agree.. Any decent lens review takes into consideration the "quality" and properties of the lens' bokeh... it's quite common for a lens to drop lots of points and be considered less desirable just because it sucks at a single thing - be it bokeh, barrel distortion, or vignetting (etc). The iOS software *needs* to make attractive bokeh, even if it doesn't emulate the circles/shapes involved in trad lenses.. it has to eventually not look artificial - so it that sense it still has a way to go. it (sometimes) looks fake because of the non smooth gradients and haloing.

Given bikes properties are a major consideration when choosing a lens it doesn't surprise me a lot of photographers are a bit dismissive of the effect as it stands.

It's still very cool though and I'm happy to see it.

What determines if a bokeh looks natural or artificial?

 

[bobmepp]

Ok - just looked at the images in that thread. The normal shots are very nice. However using the depth function results in very fake looking photos if you look around the subject and the background. So much so that I wonder if they had been photoshopped before they were posted. I'm guessing not - but the edges on the foreground are pretty wacky. If I upgraded, I would just shoot normal pictures. And any shots I wanted depth of field, I would use my dSLR and my nifty 50.

Agreed -- I was thinking there might be some kind of automated selecting and masking going on. The same effect or better can be done in Photoshop in a few minutes. But it's a phone, and those photos are pretty good coming from a phone. Not everyone has a dSLR with a wide aperture lens and/or photoshop skills.

 

[BvizioN]

Real cameras are meant for serious photographers, whether amateurs or professionals, it doesn't matter. "No one gives a crap about them" SCREAMS "I'm from the Facebook Generation that thinks the whole fracking world revolves around me and since I'm not interested in real cameras, no one else is either."

Actually it is the oposite. It is the so called "Real photographers" "Pros" bladi bla who thinks the entire world revolves around them. We really don't wanna know how you are used to taking so so much better quality photos and you have a professional eyes to spot right away the imperfections on smartphone cameras. No one gives a toos. I have 2 full frame cameras with lots of lens myself and I am not ignorant to underestimate to potential and usefulness of camera phones.

The Sony RX-100 comes to mind (there's a Pro RX-1 version as well; even Pros sometimes need portability). Canon makes some small models with better zoom in mind. Any of these will blow away any phone camera in capability. Yeah, they make them still because "No one gives a crap about them."

I didn't said companies don't do anymore point and shoot cameras. I just said point and shoot camera business is dead. You know, a decade ago or so when the point and shoot camera was booming and hundred of millions would buy one to take holiday pics, family pics and all these personal photo stuff? Well, guess what happen? Smartphones came along to do photos that are good enough so people felt there is no need to pay and carry one more thing on them. And lot more easy to use, lot more compact and faster away to share with other family members, friends etc. And that my friend was a final nail in a coffin for point and shoot.

.

 

[mixel]

What do you call cameras with manual control? DSLR? Point and shoot? (this ones are dead because no one gives a crap about them) The ones that you have to fiddle with them, and then you have to connect the SD card (if that has not been corrupted) to and USB port, transfer the collection on PC before you can publish? Nah, rather snap and share with one tap. Maybe the first was exceptionable a decade ago but not now. But yeah, professionals would still want the highest quality achieved only by DSLR or mirrorless cameras.

It's not just pros who get a lot out of having trad dSLR, there are a hell of a lot of us hobbyists too. It's like a musical instrument in a way, or golf clubs or fishing gear, of course a lot of people buy pianos who aren't going to make a living playing it. There are a lot of passionate photographers around who want creative control of their images or need to do things that just aren't easy/possible on an iPhone. (like carrying a bunch of batteries, having a proper flash, almost infinite etcs) The hobbyists are often some of the most passionate about it too.. (going to photography forums, the majority aren't "pro" level!) So that market isn't going away because phones are getting better.

SD cards don't often get corrupted either.. No more likely than your phone dying.

The USB camera connector kit on iPad is a great thing too.

 

[mixel]

What determines if a bokeh looks natural or artificial?

Analogue, lens-based distance blur doesn't have freaky artifacts like the roof in that bush pic, has smooth gradients from foreground to background, and doesn't have such weird looking halos. It also doesn't blur fine detail like hairs/grass. Blurring with a lens is a natural process you can replicate reasonably well just by unfocusing your eyes - it shouldn't look like a post process thing..

Whereas the digital equivalent is applying a guassian-like filter that currently has some limitations. Apple are clearly trying to emulate higher end cameras though - so for that to look less artificial the bokeh needs to be a bit more elaborate, as high end lenses don't just blur stuff in that linear fashion. Apple could get there in the end I'd imagine.

Here's a comparison of bokeh in a few different Nikon lenses: https://photographylife.com/nikon-lens-bokeh-performance and http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/bokeh-comparison.htm not good photos but they show how different it can look to the digital emulation.

 

[cube]

If the P&S business is doing badly, it is in great part because of the trend of increasing megapixels while reducing sensor size so that people don't know if there's any difference in the results besides the access to an optical zoom.

 

[Ploki]

Bokeh is the separation of the foreground and blurring background.

As for the different shapes aperant in the blur, it happens because of different lens elements.

You and everyone else are used to seeing shapes in the blur because bokeh is something you commonly see on more expensive cameras. Just because you're used to seeing this doesn't mean that is what bokeh is supposed to always look like.

You and everyone else here who thinks they're a pro please stop trying to give bokeh a meaning which it is not. I will say it again. Bokeh simply means a background blur in a picture.

What? Bokeh is not separation of foreground and blurring background. That's depth of field, or usually, shallow depth of field, caused by very high apertures. It can be simulated with a depth map (which is what Apple is trying to achieve). Another approach to post-capture applied blur is what Lytro does with their lightwave photography (much more convincing, but also expensive).

Term bokeh is not a technical term anyway, in the most general sense, bokeh refers to the quality of the out-of-focus part of a photograph with a shallow depth of field. It is actually most apparent and obvious on the small light points that "bloom" when out of focus. The shape of that bloom is defined exclusively by aperture blades. You can see polygonal shapes with old (or cheap) lenses that have unrounded aperture blades, and you also have specialty lenses or screw-ons to give out of focus light points "shaped" bokeh.

I don't think I'm a pro, I offered a simple explanation of bokeh.

Bokeh is not just background blur, historically in photography its been used to define *quality* of background blur of a *lens*. Which by definition is something iPhone 7 doesn't have. In the iPhone 7 (or lytro for that matter) Bokeh doesn't exist, since its not rendered by a lens. That doesn't mean anything in terms of quality, nor did I in any of my posts in this thread imply that one is qualitatively better...

 

[roeiz]

What? Bokeh is not separation of foreground and blurring background. That's depth of field, or usually, shallow depth of field, caused by very high apertures. It can be simulated with a depth map (which is what Apple is trying to achieve). Another approach to post-capture applied blur is what Lytro does with their lightwave photography (much more convincing, but also expensive).

Term bokeh is not a technical term anyway, in the most general sense, bokeh refers to the quality of the out-of-focus part of a photograph with a shallow depth of field. It is actually most apparent and obvious on the small light points that "bloom" when out of focus. The shape of that bloom is defined exclusively by aperture blades. You can see polygonal shapes with old (or cheap) lenses that have unrounded aperture blades, and you also have specialty lenses or screw-ons to give out of focus light points "shaped" bokeh.

I don't think I'm a pro, I offered a simple explanation of bokeh.

Bokeh is not just background blur, historically in photography its been used to define *quality* of background blur of a *lens*. Which by definition is something iPhone 7 doesn't have. In the iPhone 7 (or lytro for that matter) Bokeh doesn't exist, since its not rendered by a lens. That doesn't mean anything in terms of quality, nor did I in any of my posts in this thread imply that one is qualitatively better...

Excellent summery.
I bet Apple would throw in some kind artificial bokeh real soon. Not such a big deal to achieve. But it will all still look rendered.

 

[citysnaps]

Impressive photos. Is this with the native phone app? What editing app did you use?

Thanx...

Some of the photos in that set are native from the iPhone 4 camera and processed by Lightroom in post. Some are captured with the Hipstamatic app and then processed in Lightroom. My goal was to get a consistent look. For me consistency is important.

That set of photos were captured 5-6 years ago. Today I don't use any app during capture, but still post-process in Lightroom. That gives me the most flexibility. What's exciting going forward is being able to capture iPhone images in RAW which will provide even more flexibility post-processing with Lightroom.

 

[AntoineLec]

But the social media crowd, especially young people snapping their food, putting a coloured filter and uploading it as "art" seem to be those who are at the forefront of this movement that allows for such easy confusion between what photography is and what taking a photo is.

What about lasagna on a blurry background with simulated bokehs ?