Wow...modern phones are amazing.......

AndrewFlannigan said:
I agree.

My guess that the percentage is in the region of 99.9999% but I'm open to evidence that my guess is wrong. That said, I prefer traditional cameras to my phone but whatever is in your hand, when the subject is in front of you, is the best recording device in the world.
Click to expand...
Unless you are standing at an urinal!! :eek:
 
I see pixel peeping as a part of the hobby, it's nice to see a lovely picture which is also a nice file.

Yes, phones can take lovely pictures but they're limited from technical, ability and image quality points of view. Some might not care and that's fine and for those who do care there are cameras that don't have tiny sensors and tiny lenses and don't rely on and avalanche of software and AI. At least a phone is almost always with you though and that could be a biggie.
 
Just ordered an iphone 17 Pro ............but it could be October apparently before I get it
 
woof woof said:
I think if we accept that phones have a small sensor and lens with possibly quite a bit of processing going on and that the pictures are probably optimised to look their best on the device the results we get are maybe broadly in line with what we should expect. This goes for cameras too. I have a cheap Medion compact and it is frankly technically very limiting but the pictures don't always look awful on its back screen. TBH I don't like using phones for photography. There's zero ergonomics, you can't see detail in anything like good light and I don't like jabbing at an oblong box 18" in front of my face but I will use a phone to take a picture if I don't have anything else and I do think that a modern phone gives better image quality than some old compacts like my Medion. Apart from just about always being with is phones do have another advantage, you can take a picture and send it to someone or post it on social media very easily and you can't do that with most cameras.

A picture taken with a cheap smartphone. My car waiting to see the car doctor. Processed for effect on my pc.

View attachment 462634

A couple of pictures taken with my very cheap and humble Medion compact, stitched and processed for best effect on my pc. I do have two pictures taken with that camera printed to fill A4's framed and on the wall and I could certainly do the same with a smartphone picture but in both instances I have to accept that for closer viewing the quality just isn't up to what I'd get from a 1" and upwards camera.

View attachment 462635

I have mixed views on what photography is all about. I started with a Kodak Instamatic and that was quite limiting, it limited what I could take pictures off and expect anything like a decent picture of and it limited the technical quality I could expect too. These days the kit is much better and easily good enough for many of us but even now some people will be pushing the envelope of what's possible.
Click to expand...
I’m in full agreement that the ergonomics of a phone camera is dreadful. However, I have taken photos with my iPhone of which I am proud. My ultimate criteria, however, is whether they print well. I have had mixed results in this scenario.
 
There are occasions when a decent 'phone camera trumps more traditional kit IMHO.

For example....this visit to Upper Antelope Canyon in Utah, no tripods / monopods allowed and not much time to take photos as they like to keep people moving through the canyon.

I'm much happier with the images from my Samsung S24 Ultra than my full frame Canon DSLR.

20221118_124416.jpg
 
Last edited:
Stephen L said:
I’m in full agreement that the ergonomics of a phone camera is dreadful. However, I have taken photos with my iPhone of which I am proud. My ultimate criteria, however, is whether they print well. I have had mixed results in this scenario.
Click to expand...

I have smartphone pictures which mean a lot to me and they mean a lot because of the moment and the memory and not because of technical quality and the same is true of pictures taken with the cheap and awful film and digital cameras I've had.

There are multiple things at play here.

A technically awful camera can capture a really important memory as long as the technical limitations don't stop you from taking the picture at all or don't completely ruin it. For example my first camera was a Kodak Instamatic with two shutter speeds which meant that anything moving would probably be blurred and the sky would be blown most of the time but I have a lot of pictures taken with it which I like, love even because of the memories. I see phones the same way but why would I use an ergonomic nightmare with comparatively poor image quality with a ton of AI and software applied when I can use a half decent camera?

Well, because the phone is always with me and I can take a snap with it and send it to the other side of the world on Whatsapp in seconds and if conditions and subject and movement etc aren't too much of an issue it might even make a good A4 print. Most of the time though I'd rather use something with at least a passing nod to ergonomics and capable of giving image quality that doesn't look like it's been taken with, well, a tiny sensor camera with a tiny lens and a ton of AI software thrown at it.

As always. Good luck to who love smart phone photography and I do see the value in specific instances, day out snaps when I don't have a camera and for sending pictures off electronically very quickly. For better and when I don't need to send the picture away on Whatsapp I have 1", MFT and FF cameras.
 
whyone said:
There are times when a decent 'phone camera trumps more traditional kit IMHO.

For example....this visit to Upper Antelope Canyon in Utah, no tripods / monopods allowed and not much time to take photos as they like to keep people moving through the canyon.

I'm much happier with the images from my Samsung S24 than my full frame Canon DSLR.
Click to expand...

Good, but the limitations of the tech used to take that picture are visible on my screen and if that's better than Canon FF I'm glad I ditched mine and went Panasonic and Sony :D As a memory captured when using a phone wasn't possible it's great though.

I'll bow out here as I've said enough on this pet subject of mine :D Good luck to all smartphone photographers and please don't take my negativity to heart. It takes all sorts and there's a time and place and usage for smartphones, even for me :D
 
My problem with the cell phones, and AI in general, is that it isn't necessarily recording an image that exists. Instead, it may be creating an image that it thinks might have existed. It's basically drawing/compositing what it thinks the scene should look like, rather than what it did look like.
 
The UWA lenses on most smartphone cameras now are a gamechanger. Just grab the shot. The camera will automatically even out the exposure in tricky light, which is time saving. I have had trips where I was using a telephoto zoom on my camera to pick out interesting architectural details, and it was so much easier to grab the phone for the wide shots, rather than changing lenses. Not all phone cameras are great though, I have recently switched from a Google Pixel 5 (which was lovely) to a mid range Samsung, which gives rather over-processed and garish images. (The reason for switching was that the Pixel can't control my drone, unfortunately).

Obvs if I am going out with a specific image in mind, I will take the 'real' camera and lenses.
 
woof woof said:
Good, but the limitations of the tech used to take that picture are visible on my screen and if that's better than Canon FF I'm glad I ditched mine and went Panasonic and Sony :D As a memory captured when using a phone wasn't possible it's great though.

I'll bow out here as I've said enough on this pet subject of mine :D Good luck to all smartphone photographers and please don't take my negativity to heart. It takes all sorts and there's a time and place and usage for smartphones, even for me :D
Click to expand...
Of course it's not perfect (it has also been heavily scrunched to allow it to be posted directly here).....and a 'proper' camera could have done a far better job, given time and a means to support it for a long exposure....both unavailable in this instance.

The point I was trying (and clearly failing!) to make is that there are situations where a camera 'phone is the best tool tool for the job considering the controlling parameters of said job.
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
My problem with the cell phones, and AI in general, is that it isn't necessarily recording an image that exists. Instead, it may be creating an image that it thinks might have existed. It's basically drawing/compositing what it thinks the scene should look like, rather than what it did look like.
Click to expand...
Yet, isn't that exactly what painters, sculpters and every other artist throughout history has done?

Even when the scene was right in front of them, they showed what they wanted, ignored what they didn't and added whatever they thought should have been there but wasn't.
 
whyone said:
Of course it's not perfect (it has also been heavily scrunched to allow it to be posted directly here).....and a 'proper' camera could have done a far better job, given time and a means to support it for a long exposure....both unavailable in this instance.

The point I was trying (and clearly failing!) to make is that there are situations where a camera 'phone is the best tool tool for the job considering the controlling parameters of said job.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone would disagree with that. Even if I had a 15 year old phone I would use it to photograph my luggage at an airport.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Yet, isn't that exactly what painters, sculpters and every other artist throughout history has done?
Click to expand...
Yes, maybe, but you didn't do it... you didn't make the choices/creative decisions; you didn't envision the final result, it's not your art. It's not that far from using an AI program and typing in "make me a picture of..."
 
sk66 said:
Yes, maybe, but you didn't do it... you didn't make the choices/creative decisions; you didn't envision the final result, it's not your art. It's not that far from using an AI program and typing in "make me a picture of..."
Click to expand...
This is true of any camera since photography began: point the camera at the target, bring it closer or take it further away, release the shutter.

This was the argument against photography as a whole that was still common, certainly in the 1960s. When I did an art CSE and submitted photographs instead of paintings or drawings I thought they'd send back a rude letter, instead they gave me the highest mark.

Perhaps we should remember that "artist" is derived from "artisan" and simply means someone who works for a living (at least, that's what I was told at school - I see that some web sites define it rather differently).
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
This is true of any camera since photography began: point the camera at the target, bring it closer or take it further away, release the shutter.
Click to expand...
I rather disagree; that is the description of a snapshot. It qualifies as photography, but it hardly qualifies as art/creativity.
 
I still remember queuing outside the phone box with my 2p's in hand so a mobile phone for me is for talking to someone at the other end. I must admit though texting has been a game changer.
 
Eucris said:
So who decides what is and what is not art?
Click to expand...
That's always been the question, hasn't it?
But, at least in the US, you cannot own copyright in AI generated works. E.g. generated from prompts (but works of art (copyrighted) can include AI generated content)
 
Last edited:
Phones are really good for sunset. When I shoot with my full frame I need to underexpose massively to not get a fully exposed sky and sometimes the only way would be to bracket then stack in software which I do not usually bother with. The phone is excellent at gently doing HDR without you even noticing.

But agreed. If put on the laptop it looks pants. My thinking brain made a theory but I've never looked into it. I could be wrong but I think the camera doesn't take a picture but a very short video then he can do lots of voodoo stack frame / blend exposure without saying out of the multiple burst of photo. But when I download to lightroom, it looks horrible and lacks details. Is lightroom only getting 1 frame as opposed to the camera which compute something out of multiple frames? Totally made this up in my head so I might be totally wrong!
 
Eucris said:
So who decides what is and what is not art?
Click to expand...
Whoever looks at it.

The appreciation of something as art, as opposed to something that is, for example, a well made wall, is entirely in the eye of the beholder.
 
Eucris said:
Personally I think these pictures are amazing, especially when you consider some where taken handheld using a one second exposure. Yes, there are a few anomalies in some of the images, but would any of the naysayers have faired any better using a “proper” camera handheld with a one second exposure.
Click to expand...
You’ve created a false equivalence (as did the OP).
A modern full frame camera could have taken the photos at a higher ISO so wouldn’t have needed the 1 second exposure.
If the photos had been taken with a proper camera, then the photographer could control exactly how much subject movement to allow, and how much noise reduction would balance somewhere between mush and oversharpened. With the point being, it’s the photographer’s choice, rather than decisions made by a computer that doesn’t have the intelligence to make those decisions properly.
 
if you are intetrested in using your iphone for photography then this guy is interesting to watch

 
What annoys me most about phone cameras, well the users really, is how many people know only how to shoot in portrait mode. Especially video..
 
Stephen L said:
What annoys me most about phone cameras, well the users really, is how many people know only how to shoot in portrait mode. Especially video..
Click to expand...
Haha I often go up to strangers in the street and say turn your phone sideways !!!
 
Phil V said:
You’ve created a false equivalence (as did the OP).
A modern full frame camera could have taken the photos at a higher ISO so wouldn’t have needed the 1 second exposure.
If the photos had been taken with a proper camera, then the photographer could control exactly how much subject movement to allow, and how much noise reduction would balance somewhere between mush and oversharpened. With the point being, it’s the photographer’s choice, rather than decisions made by a computer that doesn’t have the intelligence to make those decisions properly.
Click to expand...
I wonder what is the oldest camera with better low light capability than the best camera phone.
 
davholla said:
I wonder what is the oldest camera with better low light capability than the best camera phone.
Click to expand...
I also wonder: how long will it be. before a reasonably priced phone can do everything that the current high end dedicated cameras can? :thinking:
 
Ne
AndrewFlannigan said:
I also wonder: how long will it be. before a reasonably priced phone can do everything that the current high end dedicated cameras can? :thinking:
Click to expand...
never
Simple laws of physics. The bigger the sensor / film the better, phones try to get round the limitations with processing, but as you see in this thread, it doesn’t actually work in ‘camera’ terms.
 
I think we may be straying away from the (original) intention of the cmera phone, which was to allow the owner to take memories which satisfied them and their friends/relatives. They still do this well. Certainly, going beyond that, other factors come into play, but I believe they have fulfilled their original brief.
 
davholla said:
I wonder what is the oldest camera with better low light capability than the best camera phone.
Click to expand...
A difficult one to answer since it depends on what constraints you'd put on the dedicated camera. The improvements on camera phones are mostly due to the processing not sensor technology (two of the top rated FF sensors are now eight years old) and you can apply that processing to older cameras as well. Larger sensors with less noise to begin with are going to clean up better as well, I have a 2012 RX1R FF camera which has usable iso 6400 shots and cleans up well without any of the excessive destructive noise reduction the photos here show. You could go a lot further back to other larger sensor cameras that would likely easy outdo the best camera phones, there's only so much you can do with a pinprick of light.
 
Trying to stick to the original OP question about modern mobile phones.
Has any one used the Pro mode on their smartphones, and shoot in RAW ! ?
I have taken some pics in RAW using Expert RAW add on from Google play store for my Samsung S24 Ultra, I have not yet opened the file in LightRoom to edit, and in a strange way I am very interested to see what I can get from the files !
 
Phil V said:
Ne
never
Simple laws of physics. The bigger the sensor / film the better, phones try to get round the limitations with processing, but as you see in this thread, it doesn’t actually work in ‘camera’ terms.
Click to expand...
The only thing we can be sure about, with any technology, is that anyone who says "that can't be done" will be proved wrong.
 
Lemaildetom said:
Phones are really good for sunset. When I shoot with my full frame I need to underexpose massively to not get a fully exposed sky and sometimes the only way would be to bracket then stack in software which I do not usually bother with. The phone is excellent at gently doing HDR without you even noticing.

But agreed. If put on the laptop it looks pants. My thinking brain made a theory but I've never looked into it. I could be wrong but I think the camera doesn't take a picture but a very short video then he can do lots of voodoo stack frame / blend exposure without saying out of the multiple burst of photo. But when I download to lightroom, it looks horrible and lacks details. Is lightroom only getting 1 frame as opposed to the camera which compute something out of multiple frames? Totally made this up in my head so I might be totally wrong!
Click to expand...
You're almost right, as far as I understand it: it's not a video as such, but since a phone doesn't have a physical shutter, it does a scan across the sensor and reads out a row of pixels at a time. That can mean that in the time that takes, movement has happened, which the phone will try to edit out using processing. I think.
 
skullfunkerry said:
You're almost right, as far as I understand it: it's not a video as such, but since a phone doesn't have a physical shutter, it does a scan across the sensor and reads out a row of pixels at a time. That can mean that in the time that takes, movement has happened, which the phone will try to edit out using processing. I think.
Click to expand...
The process of capturing an image electronically is quite complicated. Fujifilm have a reasonably accessible explanation of the basics here ...

www.fujifilm-x.com

Camera Sensors: What Are They and How Do They Work? | FUJIFILM Exposure Center – USA

Learn about digital camera sensors and understand the essential role they play in digital photography
www.fujifilm-x.com www.fujifilm-x.com

There's a discussion of the iPhone camera here, which isn't quite as technical but makes some useful points...

www.adriangalli.com

Understanding Cameras — iPhone Photography — Adrian Galli

While I am referring to specific article/video by Macrumors.com, this is not a thesis on iPhone nor am I representing Apple or its viewpoints at all. I am a cinematographer and photographer with extensive knowledge of how cameras, lenses, and software works. This is about correcting misconceptions o
www.adriangalli.com www.adriangalli.com
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
The only thing we can be sure about, with any technology, is that anyone who says "that can't be done" will be proved wrong.
Click to expand...
Not, though, when it is physics that says so. There are a lot of hard limits out there.

I watched a video last night, the video having been made by someone who had access to the new iPhone at its launch. His approach was purely in respect of the camers on the device. For additional context, he says that he is a photographer who seems to use the smartphone almost exclusively - ass in that's his job. He was something of an evangelist for the product, and, hey, why the hell not? If he is addressing a market which prefers this form of taking snaps, then let him at it. It is an expensive consumer electronic item, so someone who can test it to its limits is performing a service.

He loved it, mainly, I think, because of he growth of additional products within that field, and its increasing exposure to existing standards and tools.

What was striking was that at no stage did he mention the lenses. From the point of view of optics, that is where you would hope (at least in my case) to see developments in the field of optics being the differentiator for the new range, but no. The lenses were only mentioned with regard to their placement and their shape. I admit to a certain preoccupation with lenses, and I think that there are more potentials in them which could be exploited, but that's an aside. In the case of the review, they were of no import.

Almost the entire emphasis was on the manner of image capture ("tall or wide"), the ability of the camera to identify subjects, the use of the entire sensor ("tall and wide"), and then a couple of images to show the quality. The reviewer pointed out that a selfie - one taken in what seemed to be in fine shooting conditions - contained less noise than an identical photo taken using its immediate predeccesor. Less noise, but niose, nonetheless - and in pretty friendly shooting circumstances. The things are being computational all over the place.

The big surprise, though, was one which I found odd in such a product showcase. In order to extol the virtues of the new release, he showed side-by-side comparisons of the same scene on two phones this year's offering and that of last year. The old one was shockingly bad in comparison to the new. Given the marketing practices as well as the product lifecycle of these devces, this time next year he will be doing the same thing to the new model on which you spent serious money. You will look at it afresh, and say "Good lord, what a piece of junk that old one was."

The guy was good at what he does, and I don't mean in any way to denigrate how he does it, or, indeed, what it is that he does. He is evangelising in a real marketplace. He is describing a real product, which satisfies the requirements of a huge number of people.

However, if someone managed to sell me a piece of gear at that price I would become highly angered if I were to subsequently learn that it would be deprecated in value so very drastically and so very quickly.

Genuine optical developments at the scale of a smartphone don't appear to be the aim any more. The emphasis is now on all the peripherals of workflow, and how the device can speak to existing tools and standards.

To my mind, smartphones are an entirely different direction to that chosen in the camera industry. Personally, I've compartmentalised them as such.

I really should add that the action of reaching for my smartphone is not one that I take. I know that I probably should, but I just don't. I think that maybe I should use it more often, and I am absolutely not shunning it in any deliberate way. It's just as if it hasn't sunk in yet that I have a device that is always at hand. I promise that there is no denial of it in my mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top