See examples of how Apple’s latest computational photography technique, Smart HDR, allows the iPhone to compete with the dynamic range in several of the top full frame cameras on the market today.
In his latest upload, Tyler Stalman proposed an answer to the question: could the latest generation of iPhones produce a level of dynamic range that really competes with that of the full frame sensor cameras on the market today? His key takeaway, backed by several examples, is simply that the latest iPhones are able to produce, in a lot of situations, more dynamic range than even the much larger full frame sensors can turn out. And this all comes down to the rapid advancements that are being made in computational photography versus sensor performance gains.
Dynamic range aside, it is still quite clear to me that mobile photography, albeit iOS or Android based, has a ways to go with overall image detail and usability in anything other than casual use. And really, in most arenas, it should not be taken seriously against a full frame camera. This is still especially evident when the images are viewed on anything other than the phone screen it was captured on. But with these rapid gains in computational photography and the overall prowess of these ridiculously powerful mobile processors that now easily handle the merging of a multitude of image exposures in real-time, it shows us all today a glimpse of the exciting future of photography, mobile or not, that awaits just over the Smart HDR horizon.
Smartphones really have come a long way. Won't be replacing my big camera anytime soon though. Still no hotshoe or ability to change lenses and larger sensor cameras resolve wayyy more fine detail in images.
The title of this article is just a lie! I don't care that you clarify it in the article. Just stop!
+1!
+2!
they're making a joke out of the industry - This is why the cheaper photographers struggle to get clients because their target client thinks they can do the job with a phone! - I use my phone all the time for quick photos of the cats and I've tried printing one in a small 4x6 and it was just horrendous! iPhone photos are a complete joke - and so is fstoppers if they think this is a valid article
Not true, I work in a photo lab and iPhone images print well and look great at sizes much larger than 4x6...
You can't refute the printing part of her statement since she's referring to *her* photos from *her* phone. I can't refute or confirm any of her comment since I've only taken less than a dozen photos with my phone and then, only because my wife makes me! :-)
In good conditions (light ...) Phone Cameras are good (above level of mid-priced compacts). However, our "big boys" are still far ahead.
You just cannot trick physics (yet).
that's what click bait trashy gutter writers do these days.
Misleading title that's what click bait trashy gutter writers do these days.
Every example photo is taken in good light conditions, try using this iphone in interiors or after sunset and show us results.
Also who on earth expose for darks to bring down highlights by 100 and expects good outcome? At the end he mentions about doing opposite e.g. exposing (properly) for highlights and then bringing shadows up and says this is bad. Why is it? Because it works and ruins the hypothesis?
Why doesnt he show example photos in enlargment to see how much detail are there in photos taken with iphone?
And why doesnt he mention you can buy decent dslr with one or two primes for the price lower than or equal to the price of this iphone?
If you want camera for selfies to put on instagram then go for iphone. Its convenient, you always have it with you and it has internet connection so you can upload photo right after you took it.
As far as him saying that underexposing is bad he means that it’s not ideal to have to underexpose your shots since you’re not getting the proper image until it’s been edited on a computer. To have a properly exposed shot before you take the shot is an advantage.
Blowing the highlights because you exposed for the shadows is not properly exposed.
"Proper exposure" depends completely on what your objective is. There's no such thing as a universally accepted "proper exposure".
"Smart HDR, allows the iPhone to compete with the dynamic range in several of the top full frame cameras"
No, you can't compare HDR vs standard raw. Regardless of source camera.
dont think apple slave knows what raw means nor they care, they just open up swallow everything apple poop out as gold, for someone with a slr and fail at getting a simple exposure is just hilarious and sad to see.
Manual cars would always be better for racing.
Except when they are not. Drag racers are using automatics because they shift faster. While drift racers almost have to use manuals. Depends on what you are using it for.
Kinda like this article. Sure, the range is good enough for posting on the gram and boasting about it on FB, but try blowing those images up to a decent sized print.
Word
Simply not true.
Maybe not for winning but I always feel a lot cooler, driving a fast car with a manual transmission! ;-)
Yeah. Stick shift is definitely more fun (at least outside of gridlock traffic).
I disagree ... i have more fun driving with paddles (so I decide when to shift, but the car does the magic of clutching).
Paddles??
The 5D Mark IV can shoot in HDR too, at least compare apples with apples
To be fair he does mention that and points out that with the 5D there would be ghosting.
How exactly does the iPhone produce these HDRs? Doesn't it also take several pictures?
Also the iPhone image processing adds a ton of saturation and color changes to get this color in the sky, he doesn't even touch that with the raw.
Yeah he's right. The Phone can produce wonderful snapshots. They sometimes look cooler than what you can get on camera (that quickly). With the premise that you never ever zoom in, look at the edges or god forbid open the file on a decent computer screen.
I own both an iPhone and a 5D. The iPhone has a much faster fps so it is less prone to ghosting, but it still does ghost occasionally. Saying 'there will be ghosting on the 5D' is only true in the context of moving subjects: HDR is the wrong technique for that anyway.
Is comparing it to a Canon sensor really fair to the rest of the FF market? :-)
nope, you don't showcase dynamic range on Canon :) but for this comparison it doesn't really matter... Also he didn't pick Pixel 2/3 so it is kind of fair (ignoring that comparison doesn't make sense at all and title is misleading clickbait ;) )
Photography 101: Point phone, wait for software to adjust your crappy pic with bokeh simulation, adjust again with included instagram app. Done. Now upload to instagram.
Every model that comes to my shoots take tons of selfies and it always takes tons to get a pic they like, and that's with my throwing video lights all around them cause they can't shoot in the dark without that crap flash to the face Terry Richardson look. Please stop.
That's weird, I've never had models take selfies during a shoot...
They like to show people images from the set. Gets them excited for things to come.
Ridiculous article. Clickbait... Fstoppers' standards are just diving...
YUP! basically just another tabloid level clickbait gutter trash writers desperately seeking traffic.
What kind of crap "article" is this supposed to be ?
Are we on crap-photographers-apple-fanboys.com and we don't know it yet ?
You're comparing HDR vs RAW, these are two wildly different things. Do a RAW HDR comparison and things will be drastically different.
agree. Once thing I've learned with studying statistics, is that you always have to compare two thing using the same function. But average of the youtubers (don't mean to insult) spend little or no time studying a topic inside out and their education/knowledge tend to cover only the superficial aspect. But it still work with the majority of the lazy population who won't spend lots of time, thinking, reasoning and reading.
This guy should go on a paid job and pull out of the bag his iphone in from of a client.
I would like to see the clients face :)
I think we hear this any time a new phone comes out. Probably 10 years now...
I agree that smartphone cameras have really evolved. Your point is well taken. I suppose that if I wanted to pack super light and take snapshots and/or pictures for the web - or maybe make small prints - and not have to bother with any post processing...one could make an argument for the utility that phone cameras offer.
However, that's not what photography is about. The whole point of shooting with advanced technology is to be able to capture your vision (subject/composition/DOF/light control) in the field...then finish off that creation in the digital darkroom adding your own artistic flair. I want to add my own perspective on saturation, sharpness, dynamic range, noise reduction, contrast, etc. I don't want some software engineer at Apple to do that.
I expect the RAW image out of camera to be rather flat. In fact, the settings in my camera are "neutral" on purpose. It is my job to take that "raw" image and complete the processing to enhance the feeling and mood of the capture. And, the concept that an iPhone has greater dynamic range than a high-end digital camera is just not correct. Just bringing down the highlights to a RAW image in LR does not complete the processing of the image and certainly does not constitute a viable evaluation of dynamic range.
Also, there are many, MANY things that a phone camera simply cannot do.
Yes, phone cameras are great. But to compare them to cameras and lenses (and tripods and speedlights) dedicated to the art of photography is just not realistic. It's like comparing a Space Shuttle to a kite. They both fly but that's about it.
I'm not sure that it's the cameras that have evolved so much as the software manipulating the image. RAW photos from a smartphone are generally trash and they reveal to what extent these images are actually being processed automatically to produce an acceptable image (a LOT).
Until you go to a High School Night Football game and do a side by side comparison I don't want to hear it. Everyone and their mothers know any camera can take great photos in a perfect situation. Quit trying to stir the pot and get a reaction out of your viewers. You guys are really scraping the bottom of the barrel to stay relevant anymore. Sheesh
Flawed test, flawed conclusion.
Compression ratio pin distortion and low light noise also cannot change lenses. Also apples codec when opened and stores and transfers loses quality that comes full circle with not having a fuller frame sensor with more bit rate in the pixels also the photo sights of the iPhones sensors cannot compare. so many things. But it looks good and can easily send to friends and family. Also no flash and strobes.
Those photos with overexposed sky, how about applying Lightroom Dehaze on them?
With 28mm fixed lens + tiny sensor (Canon sensors are 50x times bigger than iPhones) + With absolutely poor AF (auto focus) - iPhone stands no where near any DSLRs.
Though we have been making full use of it Google's or Apple's AI/Software, there are few things which any DLSRs/Mirrorless still scores;
1/ Click a potraits on iPhone Vs Any DSLRs, you can easily notice the difference. ( Blame it on Focal length ); Your 1000$ phone can only click at 28mm. Will someone look beautiful in 28mm or at 50-85mm ? :-)
2/ Zoom (wide or tele)? Not possible.
3/ Kids or other moving subjects? (Auto focus)?Nope. Now a days entry level camera offer face tracking.
4/ Macro ? Nope.
5/ HDR? :-) Because of phones software, yes it holds well;
I'm not talking about photography using strobes, birds photography, astrophotography, wildlife photography, studio photography ;-)
Comparing a iPhone against a DSLR is bit cruel ;-) I would say, quite misleading;
This can only help to boost iPhone sales. You are only comparing HDR!!! Put a disclaimer in the video " what DSLRs are capable of ". Else, poor people who are considering a DSLRs will fall for iPhone ......
Note, I've attached a pic taken with Google Pixel XL. Though its good, however its no where near to what my XT3 can do. :-)
These straight out of phone images look much better than what many DSLR owners would create if they edited themselves.
And for those people, a phone camera is a better choice.