I don't find this feature compelling at all which is why it did nothing to sway me toward the plus over the iPhone 7. I see this as a gimmick which looks cool for a very specific type of image. If you're zoomed in and have a very flat focus plane then sure, looks good. But the second you want a gradually defocused background where focus falls off in z space, this is not going to work. It's still going to be a while before a truly portable camera can generate true background blur and bokeh. My best solution so far is my little canon g9x with a 1" sensor. If I know I'm gonna take pictures, I can throw it in the back pocket of my relatively skinny jeans.
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.
MacRumors Readers Share Beautiful Depth-of-Field Photos Shot With iPhone 7 Plus
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I've been looking at a bunch of samples from around the internet:
The Good:
The camera seems to do a very good job with the depth of field affect on nature shots and extremely well lit stuff that has a lot of hard or straight lines.
the Bad:
The software Bokeh seems to suffer from the same shortfalls that all software implementations have. While the 'background' seems out of focus, there is still no real seperation of background to foreground, giving the affect an artificial affect, that to i guess a lot of us who can produce this affect with a real camera, just feels fake.
it also seems to have issues with people and soft lines. seperation of hair and background often gets lost, with some hair caught in the blurring. rounded edges, like those on people also seem to be way too abruptly blurred giving a really flat affect, even if the background is blurred
Overall:
It doesn't feel like Apple's dual camera feature has made much of a difference in regards to software bokeh. It still suffers from the same issues that both HTC and Nexus phones who had this feature suffered from. But at the end of the day, this is not meant to replace a larger camera that can do this naturally, and will be more than enough for most people to play with and post to facebook / imgur, but so far it is no replacement for real lens setup
The Good:
The camera seems to do a very good job with the depth of field affect on nature shots and extremely well lit stuff that has a lot of hard or straight lines.
the Bad:
The software Bokeh seems to suffer from the same shortfalls that all software implementations have. While the 'background' seems out of focus, there is still no real seperation of background to foreground, giving the affect an artificial affect, that to i guess a lot of us who can produce this affect with a real camera, just feels fake.
it also seems to have issues with people and soft lines. seperation of hair and background often gets lost, with some hair caught in the blurring. rounded edges, like those on people also seem to be way too abruptly blurred giving a really flat affect, even if the background is blurred
Overall:
It doesn't feel like Apple's dual camera feature has made much of a difference in regards to software bokeh. It still suffers from the same issues that both HTC and Nexus phones who had this feature suffered from. But at the end of the day, this is not meant to replace a larger camera that can do this naturally, and will be more than enough for most people to play with and post to facebook / imgur, but so far it is no replacement for real lens setup
its more like F150 added 2,000lbs more of towing, only if you put the extra 2,000 lbs on the roof
I'm not trying to be a fanboy but I see no noticeable difference in the pictures you shared vs the ones in the article. Both have one part of the photo in focus and the background "blurred". It seems like you know way more about photography than I do, so I'm sure you are right. But again this is in beta, your complaints about borders or blurs or whatever may not even exist in the public release. This is not a high end camera, this is a high end phone that can simulate bokeh, that's pretty impressive, i think.No - not most places. But I personally don't think I would use this effect on my phone given the results. I would rather shoot it normally and do my own blur effects when/if I wanted to. Did you see the odd borders on the images in the thread mentioned. Maybe when reduced down to a mobile screen they look perfect - but not full size/desktop size. Also I'm not really sure you can call the effect in the photos I've seen bokeh. They simply look DoF blur.
Here's an example of bokeh - it's not just about blur.
[doublepost=1475107594][/doublepost]
Exactly.
To all these "photographers" that are hating on this feature saying its 'fake', its not real bokeh, just gaussian blur and that it doesn't look great is full of ****. The ones who feel threatened when iPhones is being compared with DSLRs are the one's who can't take good photos with their DSLR. The best camera is the one you have with you. A good photographer can take good photos with an iPhone or DSLR. There's no point in comparing the two because both have many different functions and purposes. iPhones can't do things that DSLR's can; but it serves as a very functional camera thats accessible to everyone including the amateurs.
Bokeh is not just the blur but the blooming lights and bright spots get.
don't use the select picked single photo that has been posted by Mac Rumors staff with the intention of helping sell clicks and push the feature.
go research for yourself. There are dozens if not hundreds of pictures online right now.
You don't understand do you?
It is VERY impressive to the general masses who don't know what Photoshop is and never will!
Yes, definitely. Comparing with the big inconvenience of a dedicated DSLR, the small defects in the pictures taken by the smartphones are totally ignorable.
Why do people say things like someone doesn't understand? That's quite an assumption. I understand just fine. I haven't made a single comment about whether the general public will care or not. I offered my opinion.
How is everyone actually calling it Bokeh? Did Apple every used the word Bokeh for this feature? I think it is just something for Portrait photos and just creates a depth of field effect. How come we call it Bokeh?
I am not a pro photographer, but I connect Bokeh to something different of an effect these photos have.
I am not a pro photographer, but I connect Bokeh to something different of an effect these photos have.
You can't do REAL depth of field Gaussian blurs with Photoshop though. The iPhone is doing it on 9 levels - that's tough to do manually. But the iPhone is still no SLR! This is processes effects and any pro will be able to tell.
[doublepost=1475110790][/doublepost]
Nope, it's bokeh. Just fake bokeh.
Im not going to sort through people's crappy pictures on the internet. I'll just take your word for it. It's in beta and it's all done via software so don't get your panties in a wad just yet
Praise be for the nifty 50!
( https://www.flickr.com/photos/57897385@N07/28747409860/in/dateposted/ )
Attachments
What kind of cell reception do you get with your nifty 50? How's watching YouTube? What about call quality?
Naaaah.
Me: I just upgraded to an F450! It can tow 31,000 pound! I took my boat to the lake this summer and it was a breeze!
Pro: That's cool. I drive an F150, myself. This year I've done about 100 contract jobs so far, and since I wasn't driving an F450 I probably saved a couple hundred bucks in gas. But yeah, I bet the lake was nice on that one trip. Good for you!
Here's my point: The Pro is likely to use both. The only difference is, the Pro uses them A LOT, and knows them inside and out.
[doublepost=1475111622][/doublepost]
Whut? My phone was in my pocket when I took this. The Canon transferred the photo wirelessly to my phone, the second I took it, and from there I posted it.
Gotta use the right tool for the job!
Here's another one with the nifty fifty, and a ten dollar macro extension. Delicious! ( https://www.flickr.com/photos/57897385@N07/24378146049/in/album-72157660293166384/ )
Attachments
Last edited: