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

[LordVic]

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.

you may be able to get the affect on further subjects if you have a relatively low Aperture telephoto with a very long focal length. I've got an okayish 300mm telephoto with a min fstop around 4.7 (not great, but hey, it's what I got), and I've been able to measure that on the absolute narrowest depth of field, I can get it within a couple feet total. I've just never thought of trying to blow out the foreground.
[doublepost=1475246977][/doublepost]

What determines if a bokeh looks natural or artificial?

A lot.

some things to look at, for example are the points of contact and lines where the background meets the in focus foreground. Is the line even, smooth, jaggged? does it roll over onto parts of the foreground? are parts of the background unblurred. Is there clean seperation of foreground and background and a sense of depth or does it look like everything is at the same depth, but just "blurred". do the lights and points of light have the right shape/size (Bokeh tends to cause lights to shape themselves and grow based on the lens in use.

I don't tend to shoot a lot of "bokeh" shots. I prefer landscapes, so I tend to keep all in focus, but here's two examples. One is real camera bokeh, and one is software that I did via layers. I bet after enough practice, any photographer, and anyone with critical eye, will be able to easily spot which one is which.

(and before anyone freaks out, yes. ALL my photos get post processed in some way, I always change the photo to match my memory, and not make my memory match the photo )

 

[mlochowitz]

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.

Great series thanks for sharing! I love street photography.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Actually it is the oposite. It is the so called "Real photographers" "Pros" bladi bla who thinks the entire world revolves around them.

The "bladi bla" bit tells me who has the problem. I'm simply an advanced amateur and yes, I did use my Lumia camera phone on my recent vacation. It had the distinct advantage of unbelievable battery life. I also had a Canon digital camera as well for things that needed more control or magnification. I didn't say phone cameras weren't useful, but this thread makes it sound like depth-of-field is something startlingly new. You don't need a second lens even on a camera phone for depth-of-field. You just need aperture control (oddly my Lumia has this, but it's not as quick to make changes as a dedicated control.)

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.

By "no one" you clearly mean YOU don't give a "toos" and that's the problem with your entire message and attitude. But that's not really true either because if you truly didn't give one, you wouldn't have even replied.

But the simple fact is no camera phone would/could take the photos of the comet Hale Bopp I took in 1998 with my Canon Rebel SLR (on Fuji 800 film) even if they were available back then. An advanced digital point'n'shoot or SLR from today with a tripod could have.

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.

I don't recall saying they weren't useful. They're not a replacement for an advanced point'n'shoot or SLR either.

I didn't said companies don't do anymore point and shoot cameras.

I know you said that, but it's 100% false. Canon makes over a half dozen models alone. Panasonic has some really nice ones as well as the aforementioned Sony and those are just a few of the serious brands. By "point'n'shoot" you seem to mean $10 disposables or $30 film POS cameras that were for people who simply don't give a crap about quality what-so-ever. One cannot use "skill" as a criteria given any modern camera can take "good" or even "great" photos (at least in terms of the exposure; framing is another matter) 90% of the time.

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.

Nonsense. I could provide two dozen links to quality point and shoots (these things are 20x better than they were 10 years ago in features and quality and have more in common with fixed lens (whether zoom or not) SLR cameras than the box-O-crap toys you seem to be talking about. Point'n'Shoot doesn't mean CRAP anymore and there's the difference. Someone who would have considered a Canon Rebel ten or even twenty-five years ago (I got my first Canon Rebel-S 26 years ago, in fact and it still works fine) is the person who would consider a modern point'n'shoot. I bought a Canon A590 about 10 years ago (8MP with 4x zoom and full controls) and it was an awesome little point'n'shoot. In fact, I considered buying a newer model last year and other than a few more mega-pixels, I saw no gnawing advantages beyond a lower aperture lens or longer zoom (the latter which might make it not fit in my pocket anymore).

Camera phones in pocket? Yeah, many modern point'n'shoots will fit in your pocket too if need be. I put the A590 in my pocket all the time when I'm going somewhere I think I might need to take some photos. I have the Lumia phone if I don't think I'll need any photos at all.

 

[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.

These are so nice. Did you take them in B&W or post process with a B&W filter or just convert to grayscale?

 

[citysnaps]

These are so nice. Did you take them in B&W or post process with a B&W filter or just convert to grayscale?

The ones I captured with the Hipstamatic app were taken in B&W. The downside of that is the B&W conversion and "look" is baked into the image file. Can't go back to a neutral photo for processing elsewhere. I don't use capture apps anymore as a result of that.

The photos captured with the iPhone native camera app I process in Lightroom. I don't use filters, rather I use the Develop Module sliders to get the look that I want. I've been doing if for so long it just takes a half minute to get the look I want.

 

[garotemonkey]

Hehe, see, I'm a Nikon man. I can out-snob any Canon shooter

The gist is, if you don't know what you're doing then no amount of gear is going to save you. You simply chose the wrong lens for these critter shots. Short ultra-fast lenses produce copious amounts of longitudinal CA, and the Canon 50/1.2 is a particularly bad example. It also delivers extremely busy (i.e. not creamy) bokeh in the transitional zone, which ruined the second shot. A longer lens, such as a 200/2, perhaps stopped down to f/2.8 or f/4 or so, would have given much better results in these situations.

Hah! Well I certainly hope the 200/f2 does a better job, since it costs $5700 and weighs 4x a much!!
Bit of chore getting the head of that salamander in focus at 200mm though, considering that it's about half a centimeter across.

 

[doxielover]

The ones I captured with the Hipstamatic app were taken in B&W. The downside of that is the B&W conversion and "look" is baked into the image file. Can't go back to a neutral photo for processing elsewhere. I don't use capture apps anymore as a result of that.

The photos captured with the iPhone native camera app I process in Lightroom. I don't use filters, rather I use the Develop Module sliders to get the look that I want. I've been doing if for so long it just takes a half minute to get the look I want.

You are really good with your candid shots. I cant believe you took these with the iPhone 4.

 

[ErikGrim]

I don't tend to shoot a lot of "bokeh" shots. I prefer landscapes, so I tend to keep all in focus, but here's two examples. One is real camera bokeh, and one is software that I did via layers. I bet after enough practice, any photographer, and anyone with critical eye, will be able to easily spot which one is which.

(and before anyone freaks out, yes. ALL my photos get post processed in some way, I always change the photo to match my memory, and not make my memory match the photo )

Obviously the tilt shifted one is made with software, as real tilt shifting can only be achieved with expensive specialty lenses.

 

[citysnaps]

You are really good with your candid shots. I cant believe you took these with the iPhone 4.

Thanx...

The trick with cell phone cams to getting decent results is to try to avoid shooting in harsh light. Mid-day sun is the worst.

I like having people in my photos. Candid to me means unposed. If subjects are aware of my presence, but I didn't engage them, to me that's still "candid," like the photo below. Sometimes people are not aware of my presence, which of course is still a candid. Often I'll hit up strangers for a posed portrait, which I call a "street portrait."

 

[doxielover]

Thanx...

The trick with cell phone cams to getting decent results is to try to avoid shooting in harsh light. Mid-day sun is the worst.

I like having people in my photos. Candid to me means unposed. If subjects are aware of my presence, but I didn't engage them, to me that's still "candid," like the photo below. Sometimes people are not aware of my presence, which of course is still a candid. Often I'll hit up strangers for a posed portrait, which I call a "street portrait."

I have hipstimatic on my old iPhone 4s. Would you mind sharing which lens pack and settings you used?

 

[garylapointe]

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.

The word comes from Japanese language, which literally translates as “blur”. https://photographylife.com/what-is-bokeh

 

[AntoineLec]

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.

This is also valid for any other hobby. Juggling, knitting, selling ice creams, walking the amazon, working as a waitress in LA, and so on.

 

[citysnaps]

I have hipstimatic on my old iPhone 4s. Would you mind sharing which lens pack and settings you used?

John S lens and Black Keys Supergrain film.

 

[mixel]

This is also valid for any other hobby. Juggling, knitting, selling ice creams, walking the amazon, working as a waitress in LA, and so on.

.. Knitting? Who knits and moves about talking to random people? Unless you mean just talking to other people with a shared interest at some sort of knitting group? Which is a bit different.

The pluses of street photography are pretty unique.. I'd never have the guts to just approach random people like that though!

 

[citysnaps]

.. Knitting? Who knits and moves about talking to random people? Unless you mean just talking to other people with a shared interest at some sort of knitting group? Which is a bit different.

The pluses of street photography are pretty unique.. I'd never have the guts to just approach random people like that though!

It's hard at first - kind of like asking a girl to dance at a junior high school Friday night dance. But once you start doing it and feeling more comfortable it becomes second nature. Have never had a bad experience and it seems many have a lot on their mind and like to talk. It's a great ice-breaker for making a portrait on the spot.

After doing this for awhile you being to learn a lot about neighborhoods and their dynamics/rhythm.

 

[A0S]

I've been playing with it since the update with mixed results. Mostly, not great. I will say that I generally don't use the flash on my phone, as I prefer natural light, so perhaps that's part of the issue.

 

[ErikGrim]

Yeah, refracted light and low light are two things this feature has an issue with.

 

[I7guy]

The "bladi bla" bit tells me who has the problem. I'm simply an advanced amateur and yes, I did use my Lumia camera phone on my recent vacation. It had the distinct advantage of unbelievable battery life. I also had a Canon digital camera as well for things that needed more control or magnification. I didn't say phone cameras weren't useful, but this thread makes it sound like depth-of-field is something startlingly new. You don't need a second lens even on a camera phone for depth-of-field. You just need aperture control (oddly my Lumia has this, but it's not as quick to make changes as a dedicated control.)



By "no one" you clearly mean YOU don't give a "toos" and that's the problem with your entire message and attitude. But that's not really true either because if you truly didn't give one, you wouldn't have even replied.

But the simple fact is no camera phone would/could take the photos of the comet Hale Bopp I took in 1998 with my Canon Rebel SLR (on Fuji 800 film) even if they were available back then. An advanced digital point'n'shoot or SLR from today with a tripod could have.



I don't recall saying they weren't useful. They're not a replacement for an advanced point'n'shoot or SLR either.



I know you said that, but it's 100% false. Canon makes over a half dozen models alone. Panasonic has some really nice ones as well as the aforementioned Sony and those are just a few of the serious brands. By "point'n'shoot" you seem to mean $10 disposables or $30 film POS cameras that were for people who simply don't give a crap about quality what-so-ever. One cannot use "skill" as a criteria given any modern camera can take "good" or even "great" photos (at least in terms of the exposure; framing is another matter) 90% of the time.



Nonsense. I could provide two dozen links to quality point and shoots (these things are 20x better than they were 10 years ago in features and quality and have more in common with fixed lens (whether zoom or not) SLR cameras than the box-O-crap toys you seem to be talking about. Point'n'Shoot doesn't mean CRAP anymore and there's the difference. Someone who would have considered a Canon Rebel ten or even twenty-five years ago (I got my first Canon Rebel-S 26 years ago, in fact and it still works fine) is the person who would consider a modern point'n'shoot. I bought a Canon A590 about 10 years ago (8MP with 4x zoom and full controls) and it was an awesome little point'n'shoot. In fact, I considered buying a newer model last year and other than a few more mega-pixels, I saw no gnawing advantages beyond a lower aperture lens or longer zoom (the latter which might make it not fit in my pocket anymore).

Camera phones in pocket? Yeah, many modern point'n'shoots will fit in your pocket too if need be. I put the A590 in my pocket all the time when I'm going somewhere I think I might need to take some photos. I have the Lumia phone if I don't think I'll need any photos at all.

Why do these cell phones threads devolve into vast treatises on cell phone camera vs everything else?

 

[Piggie]

Lovely photos in general of a lovely piece of equipment, but it's a shame the fake blur software has made such a mess of the tuning screws, blurring parts of them some of them, almost out of existence, then they should be a crisp clear focus.
It's becoming quite easy to spot these fake apple blur images as you look round the edges and can see things that are supposed to be in sharp focus, blurred out as the software does not understand what it's doing well enough

 

[A0S]

Lovely photos in general of a lovely piece of equipment, but it's a shame the fake blur software has made such a mess of the tuning screws, blurring parts of them some of them, almost out of existence, then they should be a crisp clear focus.
It's becoming quite easy to spot these fake apple blur images as you look round the edges and can see things that are supposed to be in sharp focus, blurred out as the software does not understand what it's doing well enough

Appreciate the kind words. Someone will definitely crack this, but as of now, it still has a ways to go.

 

[Piggie]

Appreciate the kind words. Someone will definitely crack this, but as of now, it still has a ways to go.

Well yes, it was cracked, many many MANY decades ago by the use of lenses do do it correctly
We are trying to use cheap, low spec parts, that are not designed for the task with software routines to fake it.

Really the only way to nail this, or than doing it for real with real lenses is to have an AI system as good or better than the human brain that could look at every sub pixel and understand what it see's
Understand that all those bits are parts of the guitar.

 

[A0S]

Well yes, it was cracked, many many MANY decades ago by the use of lenses do do it correctly
We are trying to use cheap, low spec parts, that are not designed for the task with software routines to fake it.

Really the only way to nail this, or than doing it for real with real lenses is to have an AI system as good or better than the human brain that could look at every sub pixel and understand what it see's
Understand that all those bits are parts of the guitar.

Yes, my 7d & 70-200mm does it better. But for this conversation, regarding the topic at hand, the IOS software still has a ways to go. I have no doubts that it will happen, but it won't be this week. When it does happen, it won't be a replacement for my "real" camera, but another tool to utilize. Imagine a toolbox with one wrench, or a painters palette with one color, or one brush. Variety itself, is a fine muse.

 

[Piggie]

Yes, my 7d & 70-200mm does it better. But for this conversation, regarding the topic at hand, the IOS software still has a ways to go. I have no doubts that it will happen, but it won't be this week. When it does happen, it won't be a replacement for my "real" camera, but another tool to utilize. Imagine a toolbox with one wrench, or a painters palette with one color, or one brush. Variety itself, is a fine muse.

From what I see, Google is way ahead of the game here, with it's massive ability to know what it's looking at.
I'd recommend finding a video about it, as its amazing, they have fed their AI millions of images so it can learn what a photo is of.
As in your image, you need to know it's a guitar and then upon scanning the image, knowing which parts actually make up the guitar, so when it gets to the point of which bits should be in the background (blur) it will know what not to blur as it's part of the guitar.
Long way to go

 

[dotnet]

From what I see, Google is way ahead of the game here, with it's massive ability to know what it's looking at.

Really? Do you have any examples of Google's superior background blur I can look at?

As in your image, you need to know it's a guitar and then upon scanning the image, knowing which parts actually make up the guitar, so when it gets to the point of which bits should be in the background (blur) it will know what not to blur as it's part of the guitar.

So, if there is a bow tied around the neck of the guitar (because it is a gift) it would be blurred as part of the background?

 

[Piggie]

Really? Do you have any examples of Google's superior background blur I can look at?



So, if there is a bow tied around the neck of the guitar (because it is a gift) it would be blurred as part of the background?

Sorry, you did not understand what I mean, I did not mean google had a photo filter for making blurry backgrounds
I mean the work Google has and is putting into it's deep image learning AI systems, so that now it's getting amazingly good at being shown an image and being able to tell you what is in the image, even where it may have been taken.

In your example, Humans, and Computers need to know it's a guitar, and it's a bow on the guitar also.
Those things are trees and flowers in the background, and know which pixels are related to which objects in the image.
It#s what out brains do, and it's what AI systems need to know.

I don't believe anyone is ahead of google right now with relation to this type of work.

This has nothing to do with liking Google or not.