May Cover of Food Magazine 'Bon Appétit' Shot on an iPhone 7

[I7guy]

I agree with you wholeheartedly. As they say, the best camera is the one with you. The iPhone does a fine job most of the time, no doubt.

I just think all these articles and shot on iPhone ads are misleading to the average consumer. You can't just pick up an iPhone and take this photo the way these articles and ads insinuate - it as much about the photographer as it is about the camera.

Why is it misleading? Most people understand a master carpenter can do more with the same hammer, nail and saw than a weekend warrior.
[doublepost=1492534479][/doublepost]

I still prefer the flexibility of RAW, but even so apps like Lightroom Mobile let you shoot HDR "RAW" DNG on the iPhone now. I was able to take this shot last night of the sunset in my back yard and it took about two minutes to edit and save. I'll still buy cameras until I can shoot clean high ISO, wide dynamic range, have more depth of field control, and more focal length options on the iPhone. But the iPhone can never mimic the physical controls.

This response is why nat geo photogs don't go out armed with only a cell phone camera.

 

[ronno]

fake shallow depth of field gives me a headache. you can see at the brim of her hat where the focal plane is and focus starts to fall off. if the focal plane is at the back of her head then why is her entire face in focus?

must be in portrait mode.

But if someone hadn't mentioned it and you saw this on a magazine stand, you would not have been bothered in the least. End of story.
[doublepost=1492535157][/doublepost]

I'm not sure if it's due to the iphone, but this cover looks like something from 80's. Slightly blurred, colors... iPhone won't replace real camera for professional work.

1. The article says VSCO was used (thus the "80's" colors)
2. The whole reproduction here on Macrumors - including the typography - is blurry, so you should not presume that the actual printed image is blurry.
3. re: "iPhone won't replace real camera for professional work." Um, too late. You are looking at an iPhone magazine cover shot by two of the biggest food photographers on earth.

Just saying.
And FYI I am a "real" photographer who has invested many thousands in DSLRs.

 

[44267547]

I still prefer the flexibility of RAW, but even so apps like Lightroom Mobile let you shoot HDR "RAW" DNG on the iPhone now. I was able to take this shot last night of the sunset in my back yard and it took about two minutes to edit and save. I'll still buy cameras until I can shoot clean high ISO, wide dynamic range, have more depth of field control, and more focal length options on the iPhone. But the iPhone can never mimic the physical controls.

Beautiful picture. And I love My 7 Plus camera as it stands currently, but it cannot compete DSLR standards, even though the convenience factor goes to the iPhone 7 Plus for portability.

 

[ronno]

I agree with you wholeheartedly. As they say, the best camera is the one with you. The iPhone does a fine job most of the time, no doubt.

I just think all these articles and shot on iPhone ads are misleading to the average consumer. You can't just pick up an iPhone and take this photo the way these articles and ads insinuate - it as much about the photographer as it is about the camera.

Someone told me that they use computers to edit films in Hollywood these days, so I assume that I can do as good a job as a film editor, seeing as I have a computer too.

 

[ApfelKuchen]

I think there's another factor at work, whenever similar topics are discussed. Serious photographers may interpret this sort of thing as, "You don't need a professional camera anymore." However, the takeaway for a casual photographer is, "Look at the kind of shots you can get with a smartphone!"

The message is not primarily meant for serious photographers. The "competition" it's aimed at is not the DSLR or advanced mirrorless, but point-and-shoot cameras (which these days tend to be other smartphones).

Yes, a skilled photographer can take remarkably good photos with today's smartphone cameras, just as they can take remarkably good photos with a P&S. I'm reminded of the early days of 35mm photography. Going from a 4x5 negative to 35mm was a huge sacrifice of technical quality (grain and magnified camera shake in particular). The gain was portability, relative inconspicuousness, the ability to shoot many more frames and at a more rapid rate... again, the best camera was the one you had with you, technical flaws can be forgiven if the image still speaks eloquently.

 

[BillyBobBongo]

Telling people to go to Oaxaca for a quesadilla!? Oh dear.

Oh, yeah...nice photo.

 

[Daum]

But if someone hadn't mentioned it and you saw this on a magazine stand, you would not have been bothered in the least. End of story.
[doublepost=1492535157][/doublepost]

I would know, trust me. But the people who reads these magazines won't so they don't care. Portrait mode works ok but it isn't perfect. So a person like me would never want to use it.

 

[ronno]

I would know, trust me. But the people who reads these magazines won't so they don't care. Portrait mode works ok but it isn't perfect. So a person like me would never want to use it.

Sure, you'd know if someone told you ahead of time and you went over and scrutinized it...
(and as I said, I shoot advertising for a living, and use big expensive cameras...so not defending the iPhone camera per se.)

Anyway, I would bet my car that Bon Appetit gets ZERO complaints this month about inferior image quality on the cover. It's a beauty of a cover picture IMO.

 

[rhett7660]

Here is a little higher resolution of the photo:
https://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Bon-Appetit-cover-May-shot-on-iPhone.jpg
https://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Bon-Appetit-cover-May-shot-on-iPhone.jpg

 

[ApfelKuchen]

I would know, trust me. But the people who reads these magazines won't so they don't care. Portrait mode works ok but it isn't perfect. So a person like me would never want to use it.

It's an effect. So, for that matter, is the traditional selective focus method that you and I use. Would you feel better about this if someone used a DSLR and focus stacking in Photoshop? Maybe, maybe not.

Still, each approach uses the same visual language as selective focus, even if it's a slightly different dialect. Some people will be sensitive to the dialect and be distracted from the message. Others will just hear the message.

The greater diversity of techniques we have at our disposal, the greater range of expression exists for art as a whole. Each of us picks and chooses to find a distinctive voice. I see nothing wrong with using this, I see nothing wrong with choosing to not use it.

 

[Daum]

Sure, you'd know if someone told you ahead of time and you went over and scrutinized it...
(and as I said, I shoot advertising for a living, and use big expensive cameras...so not defending the iPhone camera per se.)

Anyway, I would bet my car that Bon Appetit gets ZERO complaints this month about inferior image quality on the cover. It's a beauty of a cover picture IMO.

The image quality is there in ideal lighting. I'm talking about portrait mode or faux dof. I have enough experience with cameras and they don't need to be expensive but when you know how these things work, fake effects really stand out.

Yes the average person will have no idea and this is fine, let the experienced people criticize the image. The magazine doesn't care because that is not their audience.
[doublepost=1492539248][/doublepost]

It's an effect. So, for that matter, is the traditional selective focus method that you and I use. Would you feel better about this if someone used a DSLR and focus stacking in Photoshop? Maybe, maybe not.

Still, each approach uses the same visual language as selective focus, even if it's a slightly different dialect. Some people will be sensitive to the dialect and be distracted from the message. Others will just hear the message.

The greater diversity of techniques we have at our disposal, the greater range of expression exists for art as a whole. Each of us picks and chooses to find a distinctive voice. I see nothing wrong with using this, I see nothing wrong with choosing to not use it.

I don't see anything wrong with it. I'm just saying for a person who has experience with these things it stands out. Maybe it's a stylistic decision but with these people being pro photogs, they would have just left it out instead of consciously adding this effect in VSCO. If it bugs me this much it should bug them even more because that's not how these things work.

OR they could have been more detailed with the effect and made it more convincing instead of taking the easy route and applying this filter.

 

[ronno]

Here is a little higher resolution of the photo:
https://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Bon-Appetit-cover-May-shot-on-iPhone.jpg

Yep, in this higher rez @ the link above the lips, nose, glasses, eyebrows are super sharp (for a print repro).

 

[dysamoria]

Wow. As a photographer, this is very cool, and at first glance a little unnerving. But the truth is, it's not the tools that make the photographer, but the photographer that makes the tools. Cameras are just getting better and more accessible to people.

Agreed, but are they using skilled/trained photographers and third-party apps with manual settings, or just any old person taking photos, hoping to get lucky with the automatic settings on the native iOS camera app? Which, by the way, doesn't support raw image formats, despite iOS 10 supporting it in the API.

 

[Duel]

I was going to post a big long rant about being a photographer, and how the cameraphones, in most situations, are vastly inferior to dedicated cameras.

Instead, I invite you to go and look at your friends' Facebook photos. If they're anything like my friends', they're often blurred, awkward, dull and noisy. That's because an iPhone can't do what a DSLR can do, and my friends can't do what photographers do.

Im amateur photographer who took thousands of photos years ago with DSLR and got bored because the cam was always home when i needed it. I found photography again thanks to iPhone and now its a joy to shoot and the quality have improved a lot in few years. Biggest thing im missing is the lossless zoom. It would take my mobile photography for whole new level.

I took this photo at weekend in lowlight hall concert, im still surprised how good the quality can be with something so small. Took this with iPhone 6s. Sure i could get even better quality with DSLR but i wouldn't have had my DSLR there so.., so like many says it's best cam what you carry and these small pocket cams gets closer and closer to DSLR.

Here is the original photo if this site mess with the quality https://1drv.ms/i/s!AkVGmvjnTDOjgkVZM-__HOymo316

 

[nburwell]

As a hobbyist photographer, nothing will ever will replace my DSLR. However, I have noticed over the past year or year and half that the majority of my Instagram photos were taken with my iPhone.

Granted my iPhone will never replace my DSLR for astrophotography, but it's much easier to pull my iPhone out of my pocket than to lug a tripod and backpack full of photography gear with you.

 

[Rustus Maximus]

...3. re: "iPhone won't replace real camera for professional work." Um, too late. You are looking at an iPhone magazine cover shot by two of the biggest food photographers on earth.

Just saying.

Oh, did the husband and wife team say this was the only camera they were going to use from now on?

Or only when one of their client's biggest advertisers asks them to?

 

[ronno]

Oh, did the husband and wife team say this was the only camera they were going to use from now on?

Or only when one of their client's biggest advertisers asks them to?

What camera do you use when shooting covers for Condé Nast?

 

[deadoctopi]

I was going to post a big long rant about being a photographer, and how the cameraphones, in most situations, are vastly inferior to dedicated cameras.

Instead, I invite you to go and look at your friends' Facebook photos. If they're anything like my friends', they're often blurred, awkward, dull and noisy. That's because an iPhone can't do what a DSLR can do, and my friends can't do what photographers do.

And on top of that, you usually have to manually adjust post settings to upload in HD, Facebooks compression algorithm must just read "destroy quality, then post."

 

[Mactendo]

"iPhone won't replace real camera for professional work." Um, too late. You are looking at an iPhone magazine cover shot by two of the biggest food photographers on earth.

I think it's obvious I was meaning it won't happen on the mass scale. 1-2 covers shot on a phone for a single issue doesn't sound like a phone replaced camera for professional work.

 

[ronno]

I think it's obvious I was meaning it won't happen on the mass scale. 1-2 covers shot on a phone for a single issue doesn't sound like a phone replaced camera for professional work.

So cell phones won't replace professional camera equipment across-the-board? You don't say...

 

[Mactendo]

So cell phones won't replace professional camera equipment across-the-board? You don't say...

Finally you got it.

 

[ronno]

Finally you got it.

Thanks for clearing that up for everyone.

 

[mixel]

I like this photo and expect to see more of this sort of thing in future.

People are a little too tough on compact and bridge cameras though - they might not be as mainstream anymore but they're just as necessary - it's not just image quality, long optical zooms are incredibly important for many sorts of photography, and phones will inherently never do that well.. You don't even necessarily need a DSLR to do many photos but you may need options and flexibility to make a shot.

There are niche bridge cameras that do things that would be prohibitively expensive with a DSLR (e.g.: Nikon p900's preposterous 2000mm zoom, haha..) and never possible with phones.

But a decent cam that's always in your pocket is futuristic and great, it's a great time to be a photographer whether amateur, pro, hobbyist etc.