Nope. Looks great to me too. I'm no pro or long time amateur. I'm just a guy who like to take pics with my phone. And I appreciate anything that can help me take better ones.
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.
Not all that impressed with portrait mode...
- Thread starter thomamon
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Just because you can drive a car doesn't make qualified to drive the Indy 500. Seriously though you could try to use an app that supports raw, maybe more to your liking.Yeah, because how I take the photo really controls the noise/pixelation I am seeing. And I am so bad at it, its amazing thats how I've made my living for the better part of the last 14 years...
Sorry, but I completely disagree. Look at these pictures taken with portrait mode: https://m.imgur.com/gallery/oyZqf.
Those look incredible! I've found that portrait mode tends to need a lot of light or else shots will look noisy. For this reason it's best used outside, indoor lighting just won't cut it. OP have you tried using it outdoors in bright daylight?
Those look incredible! I've found that portrait mode tends to need a lot of light or else shots will look noisy. For this reason it's best used outside, indoor lighting just won't cut it. OP have you tried using it outdoors in bright daylight?
I guess I need to perform the iOS update. However, I don't really put much thought into the camera on a phone.
I tend to always think of the phone, as a phone, that has the option to use the internet AND has a camera.
Then again, maybe my opinion on this is purely because I use and own a Nikon D5000...
I tend to always think of the phone, as a phone, that has the option to use the internet AND has a camera.
Then again, maybe my opinion on this is purely because I use and own a Nikon D5000...
Exactly the audience for this feature, casual cellphone photogs because pros will always have their big cameras and big lenses with them.
[doublepost=1477395062][/doublepost]
Some sacrifices to be had vs portability on a device hooked to the interwebs.
It's a great feature.
Yes, I can do the same thing (better) with a $1,000 f/2 Canon lens. But that thing is heavy, and it's attached to a (heavy) $3,000 DSLR. You get my drift...
Yes, I can do the same thing (better) with a $1,000 f/2 Canon lens. But that thing is heavy, and it's attached to a (heavy) $3,000 DSLR. You get my drift...
Hey, it's a smartphone. $4K more will get you the aforementioned Canon kit. But then you'll have to lug it around (after learning how to use it)...
I'm a part time amateur for a lot more years than you were a pro, and it's late for me and I said it wrong.
Everything else aside, most shots with my iphone are in focus from 0 to infinity. It's tough to get any bokeh in these shots, which is what the second lens aims to do and is seems to do it very well. And maybe the software has to come up to snuff on this, with all of the different variations in scenes I think it's going to take apple a while to tweak the software.
And yes, I know to use my equipment and do take a good shot (by my family that is)
FYI, I am still a full time working shooter, I just teach one day a week to give back / mentor.
The image quality on these phones is excellent in most ways organically, the new phone easily handles magazine spreads.
But this new portrait feature is still work in progress, hence Apple's likely hesitation in releasing it. In almost every image I made with it, parts of things simply disappeared from the object they were connected to instead of rolling off out of focus or being in less focus without the feature.
Simply put, photos not using the portrait software looked far more natural and real. I'm not looking for the out of focus rendering of a Leica 50mm 1.4 aspheric lens but I am also not accepting of what looks like a botched photoshop job, even from a phone. And no skin off my back, I always have at least a Leica or a Rolleiflex with me anyway, I am never without a real camera.
Maybe in the future it will do better.
Last edited:
You don't need a Canon kit for that.... people are way too obsessed with full frame DSLRs. Any decent micro 4/3rds camera is sufficient which you can get for < $1k. I personally own a Panasonic GX85 w/the 12-32 mm kit lens, and it is compact while being performant in most situations.
I was thinking of a kit that would easily do beautiful bokeh and not be light-restricted like the iPhone. My mind was on the classic 135mm f/2 lens and the 5D. But yes, you can get great bokeh for less.
Here we go, the experts are out in force, lol!
A clean used Nikon D700 with a classic and spectacular 105mm 2.5 AIS won't even set you back $800, if you catch my bokeh drift.
The reason I have chimed in here with what I have seen thus far from the portrait mode is that it is far from flawless and far from real bokeh, it has issues that would see me not using it and just living with more depth of field.
Some will be ok with those issues, some won't, nothing new under the sun.
A clean used Nikon D700 with a classic and spectacular 105mm 2.5 AIS won't even set you back $800, if you catch my bokeh drift.
The reason I have chimed in here with what I have seen thus far from the portrait mode is that it is far from flawless and far from real bokeh, it has issues that would see me not using it and just living with more depth of field.
Some will be ok with those issues, some won't, nothing new under the sun.
It's too bad the iPhone failed at this photo. Look around the girls face, the bricks are sharp. It looks like a bad Photoshop blur tool job. Clearly this camera idea of theirs is a bit half baked.
Remember when Apple stuff worked out of the box. I feel like if Jobs saw this picture he would make the developers eat the phone. It is something I expect to see of a Samsung or LG phone, not the iPhone.
I am not impressed with any of these samples.
Anytime someone says they are not impressed with a camera or it's features, they are really just not that impressed with their own photography skills.
Last edited:
So your comparison is a $10,000 dedicated camera against a cell phone camera that uses software to emulate oof? Apple does say in the release notes portrait mode is still beta and is a work in progress and does offer functionality not available on a cell phone camera. I guess the glass is half-empty vs half-full.
That's the problem isn't it? Since when has Apple launched a feature in an official release of an OS marked "beta"? I'd have preferred they left it in beta until it was ready for prime time....
The iPhone is the camera you take with you as opposed to the one you have to think about before lugging. The portrait mode is icing on the cake:
http://www.businessinsider.com/review-iphone-7-plus-camera-2016-10
Keep dreaming man, really. I fully crush it at what I do, live in a 1.8M $ condo in Aspen CO because of photography.
[doublepost=1477409249][/doublepost]
Some will like it some won't, is there an internet law against saying I don't like it at this stage?
I live in a $25,000 double wide, but it's paid off.
I have actually forgotten to grab my phone before I forget to grab a small classic Leica with a roll of Tri-x in it...;-)
[doublepost=1477409441][/doublepost]
Lol, who says mine is not?
Enough from me, photos don't happen while glued to the internet...
Siri was just bad lol. It was never a "beta" thing.
EDIT: Ok I stand corrected. It was really in beta. Damn.... Apple really needs to hire better software engineers.