iPhone XS Portrait mode is a joke!

[Recognition]

Look at the boy's jacket on the right shoulder. That's what the OP complains about. It may be good enough for you, but I can totally understand when OP is coming from.

I can understand what the OP is complaining about.
But you have to understand this photo was done on a mobile phone, in a corn field, chasing an excited 5 year old around.
The moment was there, I took out my phone and snapped a great shot. A blurred shoulder isn’t going to ruin the photo for me.
To do the same on a dedicated DSLR would be far too impractical for me and time consuming.

 

[chanerz]

Heck yes it’s good enough. It’s a phone omgee.

 

[ET iPhone Home]

Photos look awesome. My photos never shoot this nice. I still don't understand the issue.

 

[OTACORB]

I can understand what the OP is complaining about.
But you have to understand this photo was done on a mobile phone, in a corn field, chasing an excited 5 year old around.
The moment was there, I took out my phone and snapped a great shot. A blurred shoulder isn’t going to ruin the photo for me.
To do the same on a dedicated DSLR would be far too impractical for me and time consuming.

You are exactly right.. it's too the point where some people nit pick the crap out of everything... there are some sad folks that just don't know how to enjoy the moment for what it is. I think your picture is great!

 

[Bbeelzebub]

From what I've read... Portrait mode works best with people.

That being said, I was not impressed. I have an SLR and a DSLR if I want to take HQ photos. In fact, I've never been that impressed with the iPhone camera, but I think it's always been due to software.

One thing IMO that Samsung does better than Apple. (Of course, Samsungs come with a whole boatload of other issues so I'll happily stick with my iPhone and a good quality camera app.)

 

[dokindo]

My takeaways from this thread:

1) computational photography does not match the performance of traditional optical photography with a larger sensor and lens to create a depth effect (it seems to excel, however, for low light stills— see the new google phone)

2) people have different expectations

 

[lockerc18]

There seems to be a lot of excuse making around here, saying "well, it's just a PHONE, after all, not a DSLR." Heck, my X cost substantially more than my DSLR.

How difficult would it be for Apple to produce a phone camera with a variable aperture? The problem is with the fixed f-stop. Having a variable aperture would relieve the camera from having to do all the computational photography it does to simulate one, not to mention the development cost of the algorithm itself which does it.

 

[Strider64]

A smartphone will never match a DSLR or FF MILC camera when it comes to bokeh, but I have to admit you still can get some very nice bokeh pictures from a smartphone.

However, some examples taken from my Sony A7R III camera.

The above was taken with a telephoto lens and if I had to do again I would had dimmed the light a little bit for it over powered the shot a little.


I do a little bokeh work, but I think it's starting to get a little over popularized just like fisheye lenses did.

 

[Azathoth123]

There seems to be a lot of excuse making around here, saying "well, it's just a PHONE, after all, not a DSLR." Heck, my X cost substantially more than my DSLR.

How difficult would it be for Apple to produce a phone camera with a variable aperture? The problem is with the fixed f-stop. Having a variable aperture would relieve the camera from having to do all the computational photography it does to simulate one, not to mention the development cost of the algorithm itself which does it.

I disagree, the issue is the small sensor. Phones have small sensors and require short focal length lenses to achieve a ‘normal’ field of view. Shorter focal lengths have greater DOF and less background blur due to the laws of optics. There are other factors that affect focus/out-of-focus areas too.

With 35mm-format SLR/DSLR lenses, f/1.8 is still fairly wide and usually yields decent bokeh depending on the specific lens of course. Lenses that have larger apertures like f/1.2 can have other issues. At close portrait distances, a super wide aperture can achieve focus at the eyes, while the ears and nose may be out of focus because the depth of field is so shallow. This is optical physics and affects all lenses, so simply using a wider aperture may not yield the desired results in any given circumstance.

Also, the distance to the subject makes a difference in the background appearance. If you focus closely DOF is shallow, if the subject is further away, DOF is deeper and the background blur will be less.

 

[PBz]

Maybe its just me but this looks like a great photo....I don't think its supposed to be equivalent to some $xxxx.xx camera out there but it does what it needs to pretty well. Also not sure if trolling or not....

Agreed.
[doublepost=1541352156][/doublepost]Tiny cameras/sensors in a phone will likely never match a real tool for focus/depth of field.

 

[BorderingOn]

View attachment 800952

I have used portrait mode on many subjects and it has never failed to work.

That’s actually pretty bad. Even without zooming that tiny photo, all the tips around the top have a weird blurry halo thing.

 

[The Game 161]

Each to their own every photo has looked great when I’ve used it.

 

[apolloa]

A pro photographer will see the flaws, I’m a consumer and one of the reasons I upgraded my 6S to my XR was the camera improvements. So to me it looks great.
But I sent some of the photos to my brother in law who has an expensive Canon DSLR and lenses equally as expensive, and he said they are pretty good photos but something about the lens which matched what he read, I simply replied compared to my 6S the camera is a revolution!

 

[andyp350]

For most people it’s a great feature and people enjoy the photos and the convenience of being able to get these types of photos on their phones without needing a dedicated camera.
If you’re a professional photographer and striving for perfection in every shot then you’re probably better off with a dedicated DSLR.
This should be fairly obvious...

 

[44267547]

I think _some_ are being way too critical over Portrait mode. It really is a unique feature that’s meant to be intuitive and creative, and I think generally the consumer will be pleased with its capabilities. Not everybody is seeking to have DSLR results, but I think we can all agree that it’s a decent Camera feature, if you don’t like it, you can simply ignore it.

 

[Marshall73]

A smartphone will never match a DSLR or FF MILC camera when it comes to bokeh, but I have to admit you still can get some very nice bokeh pictures from a smartphone.

However, some examples taken from my Sony A7R III camera.

The above was taken with a telephoto lens and if I had to do again I would had dimmed the light a little bit for it over powered the shot a little.


I do a little bokeh work, but I think it's starting to get a little over popularized just like fisheye lenses did.

What’s the call quality like on that kit?

 

[Azathoth123]

The problem is Apple should make it much worse not better, the Instagram Holga and Diana folks would be all over that. (/jk)

 

[mollyc]

I assume photography is not your strongest area? Of interested, I can explain what creates bokeh
[doublepost=1541260528][/doublepost]
In a small size, yes, but if you see full picture, it is clear the bokeh is fake.

Of course the bokeh is fake. Anyone who thinks otherwise is clueless. That said, the vast majority of people in this word *are* clueless about photography and wish to remain so.

Millions of people have learned to shoot in manual mode just to get “a blurry background.” I was one of them. So what if I know how to do it properly now. Most people nowadays view small images on a phone through Facebook, instagram, or Twitter. They aren’t looking for SLR quality images.

 

[lockerc18]

I disagree, the issue is the small sensor. Phones have small sensors and require short focal length lenses to achieve a ‘normal’ field of view. Shorter focal lengths have greater DOF and less background blur due to the laws of optics. There are other factors that affect focus/out-of-focus areas too.

With 35mm-format SLR/DSLR lenses, f/1.8 is still fairly wide and usually yields decent bokeh depending on the specific lens of course. Lenses that have larger apertures like f/1.2 can have other issues. At close portrait distances, a super wide aperture can achieve focus at the eyes, while the ears and nose may be out of focus because the depth of field is so shallow. This is optical physics and affects all lenses, so simply using a wider aperture may not yield the desired results in any given circumstance.

Also, the distance to the subject makes a difference in the background appearance. If you focus closely DOF is shallow, if the subject is further away, DOF is deeper and the background blur will be less.

You'r right about the sensor size being a factor too, but a good camera design should be a balancing act of all these factors. Frankly, I'd prefer to have a larger iphone with a true camera system instead of a thin model that uses sometimes inferior computation to make up for a lesser camera.

 

[Vermifuge]

That’s actually pretty bad. Even without zooming that tiny photo, all the tips around the top have a weird blurry halo thing.

Not to mention the spot between the flower petals where the boke wasn't applied.

Granted I have also seen good results when using portrait mode as well as poor examples. I think it's important to consider the limitations before choosing to use partite mode.

 

[Kulfon]

I have to say this was the biggest surprise to me...I would have imagined that Apple would never release a product like that. It is really-really bad to have edges of the subject blured so poorly. I do get the fake bokeh, I totally accept it if it is close to the real one and is not disturbing, but the blured edges is just very poor.

My takeaways from this thread:

1) computational photography does not match the performance of traditional optical photography with a larger sensor and lens to create a depth effect (it seems to excel, however, for low light stills— see the new google phone)

2) people have different expectations

 

[Vermifuge]

I have to say this was the biggest surprise to me...I would have imagined that Apple would never release a product like that. It is really-really bad to have edges of the subject blured so poorly. I do get the fake bokeh, I totally accept it if it is close to the real one and is not disturbing, but the blured edges is just very poor.

Sometimes it's alright, other times it can be hot garbage.

 

[BorderingOn]

Not to mention the spot between the flower petals where the boke wasn't applied.

Granted I have also seen good results when using portrait mode as well as poor examples. I think it's important to consider the limitations before choosing to use partite mode.

I agree. I think the feature should be labeled beta for now, though. The iPhone has a great camera but so far the software enhancements are just too flakey.

 

[petsk]

This is one of the reasons I went with the XR instead of the XS. The second lens on the XS is useless, so why pay for it. And especially in conditions where the light is not superbright the XR takes a lot better portraits than the XS.

 

[Vermifuge]

This is one of the reasons I went with the XR instead of the XS. The second lens on the XS is useless, so why pay for it. And especially in conditions where the light is not superbright the XR takes a lot better portraits than the XS.

But there's nothing wrong with optical zoom? In fact I find having optical zoom invaluable.