On the perception of image quality and the 'Shot on Iphone 6' campaign

[Colonel Blimp]

I imagine many of you have seen the huge 'Shot on Iphone 6' billboards featuring pictures taken by Iphone users. I have nothing against marketing strategies to sell even more devices of the already omnipresent Iphone, but this campaign has made think about how subjective is the perception of quality.

A few days ago I spent some time looking at one the billboards (it completely covered the front of a building in London). The picture was nice, although nothing really spectacular. What really struck me was the poor technical quality of the image. Nothing surprising when an 8 Mpx pic is enlarged god knows how many times (several dozens?). Strange colours, lack of definition, etc. And that after, I imagine, intensive professional retouching.

Most of my friends have an Iphone and feel proud of what they think are incredible pictures even when enlarged ad infinitum. My kids love the campaign and always say they want an Iphone when they see the huge billboards. In fact, my son tells me he doesn't understand why I´m still shooting slides: "Dad, look what you could be doing with an Iphone instead!"

I promise this message is not a rant against Apple, the Iphones or digital photography. It is not another thread about the good ol' days either. I also understand 'Shot on Iphone 6' is just a campaign, although quite an influential one.

I'm just wondering whether what I learned to appreciate about image quality over the years in photography exhibitions or books (and even as amateur photographer) is more subjective and even dispensable than I thought.

 

[removed account4]

hi

i saw 2 of those billboards yesterday ( in boston ) and thought they were great !
i wasn't able to climb a scaffold and see the pixels but i thought it was nice to see artwork on a billboard.
about 60 miles away ( south ) the local billboard company had a campaign to put photography on their billboards
and they were nice too ... and i have no idea how the images originated.
its too bad you can't take the giant leap OVER the process used to make the images and just enjoy the images ..
(i've seen really crappy billboard images made with 4x5 cameras and giant tranparancies at the airport
20 years ago made with slides .. )

have fun
john

 

[blockend]

Although I enjoy using old film cameras, that is a separate interest from photography, which is about producing "good" images. The iPhone images speak to you or they don't - I haven't seen the adverts - but I can't see anything stopping a camera phone from making a compelling photograph. I spent a week in the Balkans shooting on an iPhone even though I had a medium format and a digital mirrorless camera with me, because the look leant itself to the subject matter.

Weird things happen to 35mm shots, and especially half frame and 16mm negatives when you blow them up, but that's no reason to stop using the cameras. Keep the image small or accept grain and lack of sharpness when printing large. Most photographs are a series of coloured dots close up on a billboard.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I've been using iPhone since the iPhone 3. The picture quality just gets better and better. The iPhone 6 takes amazing digital snapshots. And I use it for simple color work with the family and other everyday stuff. For what it is it's great.

 

[Colonel Blimp]

I also like the images an IPhone is able to produce. I had an Iphone years ago and I used it a lot. I wasn't referring to that. I wasn't criticizing the 'artistic' quality of the pictures, either. In fact, when I saw the same images reproduced in magazines or websites, I was impressed.

What I tried to explain in my first post was my reaction to Apple's decision (a very clever one according to the reactions of many people) to show images shot with Iphones at a size (incredibly big) and in a medium (billboards) that, in theory, are not the most appropriate ones for pictures taken with mobile cameras.

Very few people print digital images, including IPhone users. Digital pictures happily live in phone or laptop screens. Nevertheless, Apple decided to show what an Iphone 'is able' to do outside its natural environment. The 'no limits' message is a very powerful one. And it seems to work, no matter what.

 

[DWThomas]

IMHO all images are about perception -- look at the world of painting -- move in close to a portrait done in oil or pastel and see all sorts "lack of resolution." Last year I succumbed to having a phone smarter than I am (iPhone 5c) and I now use it quite a bit for casual shooting. But having said that, as one who has better gear, I am often disappointed when I get away from the straight-on, sun behind the left shoulder scenics and try to deal with backlit scenes and the like. If I shoot something more architectural in nature, my eye sees some pretty serious distortion. And digital zoom sucks.

So I might say "they take pictures, but they are not a camera." But again, when I look at some of the wet plate portraits that appear here, I find some of them absolutely arresting, even though there may be dribbles and wavy lines down the edges and a blotch or two in the corners, yet an absolute macro quality rendition of the eyes steers the observer from even noticing the defects. Interestingly, years back I recall discussions that the eyes are much easier to fool than the ear -- in TV/DVD, etc. sound quality is typically much higher than visual quality (ever see a single movie frame enlarged -- yuk!)

 

[Lee Rust]

The iPhone has only been on the market since mid 2007. That's not even eight years! Consider how much this smartphone and it's competitors have changed the nature of photography (and of life in general) in that tiny span of time. As cameras, these devices and the data systems that support them have evolved at an exponential rate and are already near the point of surpassing the capabilities of analog imaging technologies that took over 150 years to mature.

Eight years! It's ironic that Apple chose to display the iPhone pictures on one of the most archaic of all advertising media... billboards. It won't be long before the iPhone has displaced them as well.

I'm a bit of an antiquarian and don't yet have a smartphone, but I expect that ownership of these devices will be practically mandatory before the first iPhone decade is out. I might even use the camera function from time to time.

 

[RobC]

I think people in the UK are not by and large quality concious. The advertising and dumbing down has led to a situation where mediocrity and lower is the norm. People just don't know any better. Until you show them a side by side example of what really high quality is compared to what they are served normally they won't know any better. And even then they may not even care.
Same with clothes and many other purchaseable items such as household goods.
The Germans on the otherhand, always demand high quality and other countries too. It's a cultural thing of which the gullible Brits need to buck their ideas up and stop accepting low quality produce.

How picasso managed to sell any of his work I have no idea. That painting that just sold for 150 million looks like it was painted by a 3 year old.

 

[blansky]

As I've argued here many times, often to people with a sort of tunnel vision about what photography is about.

From my perspective it's about impactful images. Images that are used to communicate to another person emotion of some sort.

Many here, believe it's about big negs, great printing and process.

Don't get me wrong I believe technique and craft are important and we should continually strive for excellence. BUT the subject is far more important than technique.

Great technique and poor subject equals beautiful boredom, but lower quality image but emotional subject matter equals communication, and impact.

So an iPhone picture that is impactful is better to me than a large format perfectly executed picture of a rock.

 

[RobC]

A Boring Rock

Discuss....

 

[Colonel Blimp]

I agree with you, Blansky. Nevertheless, while the pictures on the Iphone 6 billboards are correct, none of them are especially impactful (I'm trying to be reasonably objective). Or perhaps, by producing huge billboards, the images become eye-catching.

Nothing to do with the images as subject themselves or with the technique. Actually, the fact that Apple has chosen pictures shot by IPhone 'users', not by professionals, says a lot about how the company expects those images to be perceived.

In this campaign Apple's selling argument is what the Iphone 6 is able to do, although that is not something any user will ever do (very few will ever print the pics, and only a minority will print larger than 6x4"). That is the paradox I experience looking at those huge billboards.

I don't blame Apple for trying to convince us that we don't need anything more than an Iphone to shoot great pictures thanks to its technical features and convenience of use (always with us).

What I think has consequences, beyond this particular campaign, is that the 'good enough' becomes 'as good as it gets'.

 

[removed account4]

hi colonel blimp

i am at a loss about what you are complaining about ...
is it because most people won't make prints?
is it because the native size to print is much smaller than a billboard and a billboard is "out of reach" ot most people?
or is it becasue it is an iphone image ?

its a photograph made with an iPhone .. nothing more nothing less .. and sometimes ( a lot of the time ) phone photographs can be beautiful ...
every bit as beautiful as something made with any film camera ...
you should see some of stephen schaub's prints, they aren't as big as a billboard ( i think they are 16x20 or 20x24 )
they are absolutely STUNNING ...

it isn't out of reach to anyone making billboard images ( or bus shelter images ) of their photographs. any user can do exactly what apple's advertisers did ...
they just need to go to a outdoor advertising company give them the photograph or file and it will be made into a large display ...
bilboards used to be 24 panels now they are 10, unless it is stretched and 1 piece ... the same thing can be done with anything ...
last i checked it is 300 to make the artwork and it cost a fist full of dollars depending on the size of the board and its location.
some are cheap ( a few hundred -1000$ ) and some are extremely expensive ( a few thousand and more ) depending on visibility / circulation ...
bus shelter art is less expensive ... and if i remember correctly, might be able to be re-used ...

regarding "native size" a ipad is able to make beautiful artwork. my wife makes digital paintings with her iPad ... native size at 300dpi is about a 4x6 ..
no problem .. made a print then made it into a bigger file, and printed it on a canvas 4-6 times bigger than that ... its just a matter of knowning what to do ..
(or getting interpolation programs to do it for you and save a step )

how is it showing "good enough" being "as good as it gets" ?
it clearly isn't as good as it gets because the next phone will be even better ...
it is kind of sad that people automatically think just because it is digital, a dslr, or p/s or phone that it is dumbed down or terrible ..
it sounds like snobism to me .. like suggesting someone who shoots MF or LF saying no one can get a great photograph out of a pentax K1000 ...
the thing is, if someone knows what they are doing, they can make great images, no matter what the camera or phone you put in their hands ,,

 

[MartinCrabtree]

Why won't anyone admit it? If your skills are there the camera matters little.

I cannot speak from the viewpoint of someone whose skills are there but I've seen some wonderful photos from cell phones. This recent obsession with denigrating other's methods is detracting from the atmosphere of this forum and it'd be nice if people would go to some vapid social network to bitch and leave APUG to what it's supposed to be.

Oh damn did I say that?

 

[gone]

Nice rock. Not a lot of tonality, looks sharpened within an inch of its life, I'm viewing a small rez file on a computer screen, but I do like it.

"That painting that just sold for 150 million looks like it was painted by a 3 year old". LOL, I've been hearing this about modern art for 60 years. No, a 3 year old couldn't do it, nor could you or I. Picasso INVENTED it. Anything like it is pure derivative crap.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Above 5 years ago I got my 15 min of internet fame when an iPhone photo of mine got some recognition. I figure worldwide fame and wealth will come for me anytime now....

Ten Incredible iPhone Photographs
http://mashable.com/2010/08/06/iphone-photography/

....waiting.....waiting...

 

[Colonel Blimp]

Ok. I admit my inability to explain my argument.

Just to clarify, I'm not complaining about anything. Honestly. I think the "Shoot on Iphone 6" campaign is amazing. That's exactly why it made me think about how some companies are able to connect with customers and use their experiences, aspirations and perceptions about the added value of devices. I thought that Apple's decision to place huge billboards with images taken with Iphones had a strong cultural and social symbolism. I was just sharing with you my impressions.

I didn't want to sound like a snob either or tried to denigrate anyone. I wasn't suggesting anything against people using IPhones, digital cameras or cheap film cameras. Quite the contrary. I thought I made myself clear enough in my first message to avoid misunderstandings. I was wrong (perhaps it's because English isn't my first language, as I guess it was obvious since my first message).

I must say the experience of opening my first thread and trying to share some not-extremely-well-elaborated thoughts has been tougher than I expected. I have learned the lesson.

Thanks anyway for the replies.

 

[blansky]

A Boring Rock

Discuss....

I think you missed my point.

Scenics can be impactful and emotional. Perhaps a more difficult job.

In fact as an analogy we all know and experienced in our life. We are all attracted to the beauty queen barbie type of person. Stunning to look at but often vapid. But the cute girl with the fun personality offers a joy that perfection never can. They draw us to them emotionally and the other does not. In fact the "flaws" become part of the perfection of them, because without them, the personality may have not developed.

I think photography is like that. Life is better with wabi sabi.

 

[RobC]

I think you missed my point.

Scenics can be impactful and emotional. Perhaps a more difficult job.

In fact as an analogy we all know and experienced in our life. We are all attracted to the beauty queen barbie type of person. Stunning to look at but often vapid. But the cute girl with the fun personality offers a joy that perfection never can. They draw us to them emotionally and the other does not. In fact the "flaws" become part of the perfection of them, because without them, the personality may have not developed.

I think photography is like that. Life is better with wabi sabi.

Don't worry, I posted it tongue in cheek. I get the boring subject technically excellent thing but nature is full of beautiful shape and form and what is a boring rock to one person may be aestectically pleasing shape and form to another. But then again, some rocks are really boring, just not mine

 

[pentaxuser]

Ok. I admit my inability to explain my argument.

I was wrong (perhaps it's because English isn't my first language, as I guess it was obvious since my first message).

I must say the experience of opening my first thread and trying to share some not-extremely-well-elaborated thoughts has been tougher than I expected. I have learned the lesson.

Thanks anyway for the replies.

If it's any consolation I understood what you were trying to say. It may be that others who share your views have not bothered to enter the debate precisely because they hold similar opinions to you. That would cover my position as well.

If it's any further consolation and it probably isn't in this case I don't think it has anything to do with English not being your first language. I had no idea that English was not your first language. If I could express myself as well as you have in any other language in its written form I'd consider myself to be the equivalent not of the average literate native but of the better educated literate native.

Sometimes the "seed falls on stoney ground" in a forum to use a biblical parable and often when you'd least expect it to. My first thread many years ago was on a "technical matter" for want of a better phrase got zero replies if I recall correctly.

Don't worry

pentaxuser

 

[cliveh]

I’m sure the IPhone can produce stunning images, but what annoys me is the incredible bad design of the phone to capture those images. Having to look at a screen instead of through a viewfinder. Try doing that with the sun directly behind you. When you press to take the picture, is it more or less instant? Or is there a delay while some flash pulse mode comes into play. A great phone/computer, but bloody awfully designed camera.

 

[blansky]

I’m sure the IPhone can produce stunning images, but what annoys me is the incredible bad design of the phone to capture those images. Having to look at a screen instead of through a viewfinder. Try doing that with the sun directly behind you. When you press to take the picture, is it more or less instant? Or is there a delay while some flash pulse mode comes into play. A great phone/computer, but bloody awfully designed camera.

Perhaps but it's not really a camera. It's a phone with a computer. The camera is just an add on.

In the old days, you may take a cheaper instamatic type camera or small rangefinder with you when out and about to capture something that you happened upon. When you were intentionally going out to photograph you actually carried your real camera. I take the iPhone as that type of thing. Sort of an emergency camera.

The ad campaign is more for an amateur who can take stuff and post it on their various banal sites like facebook.

But don't forget a pro can take ANY camera and make a "decent" picture. Their ad campaign is like any photo ad. Faking out people into thinking they can take pictures like the pro shots they use in their ads.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Ok. I admit my inability to explain my argument.

Just to clarify, I'm not complaining about anything. Honestly. I think the "Shoot on Iphone 6" campaign is amazing. That's exactly why it made me think about how some companies are able to connect with customers and use their experiences, aspirations and perceptions about the added value of devices. I thought that Apple's decision to place huge billboards with images taken with Iphones had a strong cultural and social symbolism. I was just sharing with you my impressions.

I didn't want to sound like a snob either or tried to denigrate anyone. I wasn't suggesting anything against people using IPhones, digital cameras or cheap film cameras. Quite the contrary. I thought I made myself clear enough in my first message to avoid misunderstandings. I was wrong (perhaps it's because English isn't my first language, as I guess it was obvious since my first message).

I must say the experience of opening my first thread and trying to share some not-extremely-well-elaborated thoughts has been tougher than I expected. I have learned the lesson.

Thanks anyway for the replies.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with your command of the English language. If English is not your primary language, then I'd love to be fluent in the one that is just to experience you using it.

I also understood exactly what you were trying to say. You simply got tangled up in someone else's personal agenda. Not to worry, as many here have been similarly entangled and learned our lessons the hard way. Best advice is to simply ignore it and move on. The rest of us don't think you are a snob, and we won't be calling you such names.

Truth be told, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with iPhone images. Or daguerreotypes. Or anything in between. The problem arises when the individual behind those images had nothing in particular to say in the first place. Nothing going on between the ears, nothing going on between the frame lines. The first prerequisite of good photography is an active mind.

I haven't seen any of the iPhone images on billboards where I live, but I think it's likely a very effective marketing approach. The greatest lesson of the Internet is democratization. For better or worse, now everyone has a voice. And everyone has an iPhone (or equivalent, except for me). And every iPhone (or equivalent) has a camera. So the advertising campaign is a natural extension of that democratization.

It's a good first thread...

Ken

 

[falotico]

All digital photography looks like it was shot through a screen door to me. It's always the same array of linear pixels run through the same software in order to pump up the low-lights and saturate the color. These are qualities that are hard to achieve with silver-halide films so digital pictures seemed much better when they first came out on the market. Now that they have been out for a few years they are beginning to look a little thin, but for snap-shot work I think they are wonderful. You don't find a lot of musicians playing aluminum violins. I would love for digital cameras just to dump their raw data on the screen without any software interference. God forbid they design one without a rectangular array format--this is beyond the comprehension of most of their engineers. I think we should start taking silver-halide photos with digital camera lenses, just to see what these lenses really do.

 

[pbromaghin]

The quality of the images isn't really a mystery. Any picture on a large sign intended to be seen from 500ft away should look just as good from 500 ft away as it does on a good screen from 2 feet away. Go stand right up next to it and all you'll see is an unintelligible mass of red, green, and blue dots.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Yep, where are morons who follows commercial campaigns. It is up to you to be the one.