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

[georg16nik]

no ones angry, john.
I don't have a phone.

 

[cuthbert]

i don't disagree some of those movies were great, but for every great movie there are terrible ones, like CHUD, grease !+2, zapped, ... i suppose 300 ( made only a few years ago ) was terrible, or the old boy trilogy, or ipman ?
like with everything there is good and bad .. ( i never said it was all bad, i said like now sometimes you have to search to find the good )

it was my understanding you could still buy vinyl and vinyl was still being made for people who wanted to be distributed that way
https://www.google.com/search?clien...still+being+produced+on+vinyl&rls=en&tbm=shop
maybe these are all old or used ? i know it certainly isn't mainstream but suggesting a band with as much pull as metalica can't tell their record company they want to release a vinyl album
is kind of strange, seeing indie bands with no pull can do it ( maybe i am wrong ? )

Jnanian,
you don't understand my point: of course in all historical eras masterpiece were present in less number than mediocre works of art, and bad stuff was ten times more common than mediocre works of arts, the problem is that in the last 20-25 years the average has gone downhill, the other poster pointed out how many masterpieces were made in those years I mentioned, but in the 80s even mediocre movies like Top Gun, an Officer and a Gentlemen, the Goonies were at least good and they still are fun to watch.

For music, the problem isn't vinyl, the introduction of cds in the early 80s didn't change the quality of music, but the introduction of ipods and similia yes because they are compressing the files and reducing the quality of the audio, plus they make earphones that increase the bass frequencies because today's kids don't listen to rock music anymore, just Lady Gaga trash and rap, but if you listen a classic rock album like Appetite for Destruction through one of these devices you'll be disgusted.

Photography is the art that is getting the worst of it: as I said before IMO the smartphones are even too sophisticated for the kind of "selfies" they take today, I remember on an Italian newspaper they voted the best pic of the year a landscape where the horizon wasn't horizontal (!!!) and at the second place another digital pic of a shark eating something so post processed that the water was violet and the sky green.

Even on another board I used to hand around I've seen winners from monthly competitions that posted pics of leaves that looked completely CGI, I mean the human eye is not designed to see things in the sterile way some of these hyperdetailed pics come out, and perhaps that's the reason why now the last trend in digital is to create fake grain in improve "acutance"...or so they call it.

 

[gzinsel]

let me expand on my thought here. IMO, Digital capture needs to expand into smartphones, leaving the dslr's behind ( presumably to die off). < leaving analog and smartphones left to choose from. Many people who shoot digital DSLR's will, in my opinion take up or re-take up film. therefor securing films ongoing production. Also "the populist" will have their "go to" smartphone for the snapshot.

The Populist will never come back to film. The best thing we can hope for is, . . . some in the DSLR community to come back to film. so. . . . ya . . . . make smartphones for the "no brainer" and for "the serious" have film. Cut out the middlebrow .

 

[cliveh]

But film is cool and always will be.

 

[gzinsel]

of course film is cool!

 

[removed account4]

Jnanian,
you don't understand my point: of course in all historical eras masterpiece were present in less number than mediocre works of art, and bad stuff was ten times more common than mediocre works of arts, the problem is that in the last 20-25 years the average has gone downhill, the other poster pointed out how many masterpieces were made in those years I mentioned, but in the 80s even mediocre movies like Top Gun, an Officer and a Gentlemen, the Goonies were at least good and they still are fun to watch.

For music, the problem isn't vinyl, the introduction of cds in the early 80s didn't change the quality of music, but the introduction of ipods and similia yes because they are compressing the files and reducing the quality of the audio, plus they make earphones that increase the bass frequencies because today's kids don't listen to rock music anymore, just Lady Gaga trash and rap, but if you listen a classic rock album like Appetite for Destruction through one of these devices you'll be disgusted.

Photography is the art that is getting the worst of it: as I said before IMO the smartphones are even too sophisticated for the kind of "selfies" they take today, I remember on an Italian newspaper they voted the best pic of the year a landscape where the horizon wasn't horizontal (!!!) and at the second place another digital pic of a shark eating something so post processed that the water was violet and the sky green.

Even on another board I used to hand around I've seen winners from monthly competitions that posted pics of leaves that looked completely CGI, I mean the human eye is not designed to see things in the sterile way some of these hyperdetailed pics come out, and perhaps that's the reason why now the last trend in digital is to create fake grain in improve "acutance"...or so they call it.

yes I have understood from the beginning what you are talking about while you might think I am clueless and don't get it .. I do, I just don't agree with what you have said ... ..
unlike you and others, I don't think there have been more terrible movies that were made in the past decade than
any other decades .. I think there is some sort of equilibrium, that I guess you don't agree exists ...
and I don't really think photography has suffered as you are suggesting. I think just the opposite because
the new free wheeling medium allows more people to be creative and express themselves.
and I think creativity trumps all .. and yes I am happy that lomos exist and Diana's and holgas too ..
more people enjoying themselves is good, not bad ...

with regards to the photographs that were acclaimed that you mentioned ..
it's too bad the folks judging weren't a bit more professional about their choices ...

I've listened to plenty of music as a MP3 or digital files, I've been to plenty of live concerts in small venues
I've listened to plenty of vinyl ( used to be involved with a radio station when I was younger )
I don't really think the digitized music is as terrible as you are suggesting, sorry ...
to each their own I suppose ...

of course film is cool!

you said it !

 

[Tamara]

let me expand on my thought here. IMO, Digital capture needs to expand into smartphones, leaving the dslr's behind ( presumably to die off). < leaving analog and smartphones left to choose from. Many people who shoot digital DSLR's will, in my opinion take up or re-take up film. therefor securing films ongoing production. Also "the populist" will have their "go to" smartphone for the snapshot.

The Populist will never come back to film. The best thing we can hope for is, . . . some in the DSLR community to come back to film. so. . . . ya . . . . make smartphones for the "no brainer" and for "the serious" have film. Cut out the middlebrow .

DSLRs will remain for commercial work, I think, but the casual camera market is indeed getting its lunch eaten by the smartphone.

 

[Malinku]

long post(s) about music, movies past and present.

I'll make this short.

As an owner of small record label. I have to disagree with every point you have on current music. The same quality of music is out there as ever. It is just harder to find. Same with movies, and anything out there to digest. You just have to take the time to find it and stop being force fed your entertainment.



Back on topic.
IPhone is just another tool to use. Like any tool if used well it will give good results.
I just don't like the culture that goes along with the latest tech. Many people feel that the latest tech will automatically make you the best at the function it does. Even without any practice or the proper knowledge of how to use it.
I don't care what product gets used to take pictures. As digital photography is all about sharing a moment more then amazing quality for most people. So I totally understand why this ad is out there and why it is working. The best camera is the one that gets used not the best or the fanciest.
Just don't shove it down my throat that your using the latest and greatest and I'll be fine. Doing what I like.

 

[Xmas]

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.

Yep all hype the iPhone 6 is still only 8mpix.
Hitler kissing a child you see the 30 million+ dead...
Not many photos from Gutanamo?

 

[blansky]

DSLRs will remain for commercial work, I think, but the casual camera market is indeed getting its lunch eaten by the smartphone.

I think you're partly right. DSLR is the equivalent of the 35mm SLR for people who are advanced amateurs and pros. The iPhone is replacing the cheap rangefinders that in the film days were like instamatics.

People who care about photography whether they are amateur or pro will still use the best type of cameras they can afford.

We have to remember the two types of people taking photographs, the people who care about the craft on some level, and the people who just want snapshots.

 

[Prest_400]

I am quite happy with the camera of the iphone 6, also it is a great video camera (partly because of the brutally good software stabilizer) for daily run n' gunning.

I did some slightly cropped 8x10s and there are some artifacts of NR and such.

The quality is IMO very good for small print sizes and it is a snapshooting camera.

It is a great compliment to film while shooting and it allows me to have a kind of camera everywhere.


<Beamed through Tapatalk relay>

 

[RobC]

dunno why you're all belly aching about the Iphone when there are smart phones out there with far superia cameras. Try a Sony xperia for example with a 21 Mp camera (and ISO 12800). Apple are behind the curve when it comes to cameras.

A client sent me some images for inclusion on his website some months back. They were of infinitely superior quality to anything he'd sent me before and I asked him if he'd taken them on his new Nikon D700 rather his old point and shoot where all his old photos came from. The reply was "No, my son took them on his new Sony phone" which turned out to be an Xperia.

 

[flavio81]

Try a Sony xperia for example with a 21 Mp camera (and ISO 12800). Apple are behind the curve when it comes to cameras.

I bet the actual resolution at ISO 12800 is about 3 or 4 MP. I would also bet that the 21 megapixels of real resolution (actually even less, about 12-15MP of resolution at the pixel level due to the bayer mosaic sensor) are only achieved when the sensor can be used at ISO 100, which is on broad daylight.

 

[RobC]

I bet the actual resolution at ISO 12800 is about 3 or 4 MP. I would also bet that the 21 megapixels of real resolution (actually even less, about 12-15MP of resolution at the pixel level due to the bayer mosaic sensor) are only achieved when the sensor can be used at ISO 100, which is on broad daylight.

Still means Iphones are crap despite your predilection for gambling.

 

[blansky]

Still means Iphones are crap despite your predeliction for gambling.

I dunno, they've helped raise awareness of police brutality.

 

[RobC]

I dunno, they've helped raise awareness of police brutality.

yeah yeah yeah...

but we're talking about current state of play for stills photography aren't we?

 

[blansky]

yeah yeah yeah...

but we're talking about current state of play for stills photography aren't we?

Or are we talking about tools?

 

[RobC]

Or are we talking about tools?

androids can do video too you know. And the Sony xperia will do 4K video which means the potential for zooming in to crop a section for highliting a detail from a larger scene is very great.

All these camera phones only work these days because of image stabilisation. Without that you would never get sharp image with camera held out in front of you.

Periscope up!

 

[blansky]

androids can do video too you know. And the Sony xperia will do 4K video which means the potential for zooming in to crop a section for highliting a detail from a larger scene is very great.

All these camera phones only work these days because of image stabilisation. Without that you would never get sharp image with camera held out in front of you.

Periscope up!

Just more about tools.

 

[RobC]

yes but digital tools and not analogue tools.

 

[blansky]

yes but digital tools and not analogue tools.

Exactly.

Yes they are.

 

[gzinsel]

I will interested to know how the digital manufactures of DSLRS are going continue with the sales slowing to a crawl, due to the iPhones wedge into the market. How many DSLR's are going to be made? how much are they going to sell for? what is there resale value? how quickly is advancing technology going to make them outdated? Even for the professional, for what some clients are expecting iPhones can do the trick! (well enough to pass, but not great) When clients start asking for price reduction, how easy is it going to be for them to just use the iPhone?

 

[DWThomas]

I would think stand-alone point&shoot cameras would be far more severely decimated by the phones, and yet there is still a plethora of P&S in retailers and at B&H, etc. I'm sure the trend has to be downward, but have no idea how fast. I have also experienced other shortcomings in the phone world. I used my iPhone for snapshooting in NYC and nearly ran out of battery -- I only kept going by curtailing its use -- when it runs out, you have a dead camera AND a dead phone. The batteries are built in, so you're dead in the water until you can hook to a charge source. Yes, they now have separate packs that will recharge your phone (I now own one) but they are a dangly cord plus several times the pocket space occupied by a spare battery for my -- uh -- other camera. My relatively long in the tooth DSLR is still faster in AF and the like than my P&S cams and my phone. I think the DSLR will be around for a long time yet. Of course as a professional niche product, they won't be giving them away! (Priced any Canon L series glass lately? :w00t: )

 

[Tamara]

I think you're partly right. DSLR is the equivalent of the 35mm SLR for people who are advanced amateurs and pros. The iPhone is replacing the cheap rangefinders that in the film days were like instamatics.

People who care about photography whether they are amateur or pro will still use the best type of cameras they can afford.

We have to remember the two types of people taking photographs, the people who care about the craft on some level, and the people who just want snapshots.

True.

I get to the city zoo to take pictures about once a year on average. As recently as five or six years ago, people were all over with cameras, taking pictures of the critters. On last year's excursion, I couldn't help but notice that in a forest of hands holding up smartphones, actual cameras were a rare enough sight to rate exchanging a nod or a wave with the other shooter, like meeting another British roadster coming down the road.

This year I've got some long FD-mount lenses I'm looking forward to trying.

 

[Slixtiesix]

These billboards are around everywhere here in Berlin as well and my initial impression was that they are pretty hilarious. What they show is that the iPhone may even rival some of the cheaper compacts, but there is no way it could challenge a full frame DSRL or good film camera with decent optics. These pictures are indeed great for a phone camera but that´s it.