Lately, I've been leaving my Canon in the closet. Who wants the weight of carrying around a big camera when you can just whip out your iPhone, especially when walking in nature.
18
When they bring out an LCD screen that can be viewed in bright light they’ll finally be on to something. Until the, I need a viewfinder.
32
I'm a (very) amateur photographer with some good traditional SLR equipment. What the smart phone cameras can do is remarkable. They make great images under an increasingly wide set of conditions. And, as the paraphrased cliche goes, the best camera is the one you carry with you in your pocket all the time and use.
Two caveats about the excitement that I like to keep in mind: (1) The best of these are roughly $1000 devices, so we're already in the price range of entry level-plus dSLR. However, of course we use it for more than a camera. (2) There are still many things that a good dSLR or mirrorless camera can do that are completely unachievable here, e.g., virtually all sports photography.
So they are great when they are good, but they are not cheap, and they are useless when they are bad.
Finally, just a quick comment...the blur/bokeh on that portrait shot looks terrible (quite obviously artificial). A side by side with an "optical" bokeh would show that. Hopefully they can improve the software for that purpose.
13
Wait, I thought you told us not to buy new phones because our old ones had flash?
5
The only real reason to pull out the SLR anymore is to take advantage of glass you have to do real high quality 200mm+ telephoto or 24mm- ultra wide angle, macro and other specialty photography you may be into.
4
Photography has been my hobby since about 1980 when all I had was a manual Nikon and black and white film that I developed in my basement. I loved when digital came out and have owned a half dozen or more cameras over the years. However, I can barely remember that last time I pulled out my SLR or even the Sony mirrorless I bought last year. More and more the iPhone is the camera I reach for as the images and processing power become more advanced and less knowledge is needed. My wife who has never picked up a film camera in her life takes amazing photos with her iPhone. Throw in a little editing in an app like Lightroom and her pics look professional. Look for my DSLR on ebay soon.
6
@TW Which model iPhone are you using?
6
Now people can go to Yellowstone and take really good selfies.
21
As poor old Kodak lays in a grave six feet under.
5
As a professional photographer, I am stunned that the camera industry hasn’t followed suit. I can only imagine a Sony RX 100, almost universally considered in the industry as the best point-and-shoot camera, with some of these computational capabilities. You could get photos consistent with the best SLRs on a camera that’s roughly the size of a deck of cards.
20
Amazing innovations! A year or two from now, Apple will take credit for all of them.
2
Well, I was wondering how long it would take to get the mind-numbingly tiring and derivative “Google vs Apple” flame wars going. Thanks for bringing the discussion into the gutter. I’ll offer the counter argument that both companies are pushing each other, and customers benefit because of the innovation happening at both organizations, and many others.
39
These are well known ideas, similar to the Light Field camera idea, proposed nearly 100 years ago.
Today's paradigm for pro photographers: Shoot 100 pictures In "Raw" mode, post process them, later, on a computer with "presets" - often automatic, and get 100 finished and perfect images with little effort beyond cropping.
Add HDR and computational methods. The software for doing this, combining pictures, is coming fast to computers. Called plug-ins, its often added to Photoshop and Light room, both by Adobe.
Thus - there are 2 kinds of cameras:
o The camera with a lens, that takes pictures.
o The camera that is software, has no lens, that makes images later.
Much of that can go in the device itself - the camera with a lens. Sony is a leader for pro cameras, and obviously Google and others for smart phones.
You likely wont see much difference between them in coming years. Pro cams will have huge screen and lots of computer power and run Windows or Android or MacOS or iOS.
The stuff that dedicated cams have: Grips and knobs and controls that photographers want.
For casual shooters? Lots of good pictures with basic hardware. But once you get into that, HDR, night shooting and more, even tho its automatic and done for you, you will want dedicated cams.
That's just like cooks who become expert with an Instant Pot - they will soon buy a pro knife set.
8
It'd be nice with the advance in cameras that people learn to edit and post pictures with a proper horizon line. No wonder there are so many bad drivers.
2
Not sure why the opinions here are so polarized.
I love my Pixel 2 - click and it takes decent looking pictures almost all the time. I think it's great that tech companies make cameras that take nice pictures with zero user knowledge.
I also get that some people are into photography. If you want a top of the line DSLR that lets you tweak every knob, fantastic! A different company will sell you that device too.
Can't we all just do our own thing and leave others to do the same?
30
@Aaron B
Certainly! The vast majority of pics are quite good with any technology. They are often about documenting a situation. A building going up, the type of trees in forest, family pictures, its all fine with point and shoot or smart phones.
However, the high art of photography is done at the extreme edges of the possible. Very high dynamic range, extreme shadows, ultra fine detail. And for that you need something more than point and shoot.
Even if your shots dont push the limits like that, you dont want to be limited by the camera. And smart phone cams are limited. Yes Google can combine 3 shots to make one higher res shot. BUT... there can be no subject motion, whatsoever.
That said, you can take an amazing pic with a smart phone. Its about being at the right place at the right time. Its just less likely that you will be able to get it.
Too little light, noise on the sensor, thousands of things go wrong with your pics, and that is with pro cams. Its very tough to get a great picture.
What does this mean? Its the back ground information needed to understand high end photography. Pros shoot with phone cams too. But they know why the high end gear is important.
3
Great photography comes from the photographer, not the equipment. You can take a great photograph with an IPhone, a DSLR or a Brownie. A bad golfer with the best set of clubs is still a bad golfer. Same with cameras.
53
I have a $3,000 Nikon system that I no longer use because my Pixel 2 takes better photos in every day situations, and is a lot easier to carry! Recently, at a concert, I took a portrait photo of our group with my Pixel 2 as well as with a iPhone that my friend had. The Pixel 2 using AI simultaneously kept the portrait and the background concert on stage in sharp focus - something iPhone with better lenses could not do.
5
@JKPS Very true. Hardly anybody really needs full frame cameras - unless you are doing very high end work. The small sensor size in a phone cam is big advantage in most every way. Except for noise, and high end image quality.
I use my Sony RX100 much more than my full frame because its so compact. It will do much better than a phone cam, but not a full frame, if that is what you need. Usually you dont need the full frame sensor.
2
I shoot film and I shoot digital and rarely use my phone. With the digitalization of everything when is the individual's knowledge forsaken for convenience?
I love film because I feel more of a artist. I slow down. I compose my shot. I think about the exposure triangle and the light around me. When I press the shutter button I have pretty good idea in my head of what I'll get. With only 36 exposures a 35mm roll, one can't be "spraying and praying".
The latter allows that and I must admit to have the instant gratification of digital is alluring. It is great for deadline work but I feel less in touch with the process of making a photograph vs a snapshot. Yet on a ratio of "keepers" I can't one is better than the other, I just feel rushed and not as pleased with some of my digital shots.. I just feel I am more in tune with what I'm doing and my subject with the former.
As @Holiday said, there is something about a film photograph that digital or a phone snap cannot match.
Maybe I'm just a digital Luddite.
10
@PGJ --- No, you're not. I have had Nikon digital cameras and now have Fuji. None of them compare with my old Leica in color, contrast or sharpness. There just isn't the wow factor.
4
@PGJ I do the same thing, except in black & white, shot with one of Hasselblad's last film camera models. I only get 12 exposures on a roll of film, so it behooves me to slow down and study the subject before I press the shutter.
That said, the iPhone's portrait mode is quite impressive for grab-shot portraits with modest resolution.
1
@PGJ
There's nothing stopping you from shooting with a DSLR (or any camera which has exposure controls) with the same care that you apply to using a film camera.
I started shooting well within the digital era, and I have always shot *as if* I had a limit on my exposures and couldn't afford to waste shots. That's how I learned to read the light, to pay attention to what's in the frame and to compose accordingly.
Smart phones are essentially point-and-shoot cameras which encourage the user to ignore everything to which a good photographer pays attention and to take the shot irrespective of the sub-optimal shooting conditions (bad-light, cluttered frame, busy background, etc).
And that's (just one reason) why smartphone photos aren't going to get "better" simply because of improvements to the digital image-quality: a "photographer" who doesn't know how to read light is not a photographer. Light is the photographer's medium; it can't be ignored and still be used to take "great" photos.
6
The best photograph I ever took was taken on a 35 mm Minolta many years ago. I am not a photographer, and I wasted yards of film learning to use the camera. But that one photo was worth it. Natural light in a very bright living room. Portrait of 3 girls sitting close together on a sofa. Honest beaming smiles. Background blurred. Soft, no hard edges, but girls bright and clear. It's the softness I can't match with my Google Pixel 3. Maybe someday.
5
What is on the horizon to replace digital? Anything?
2
"...(C)ameras that produced portrait mode, also known as the bokeh effect, which sharpened a subject in the foreground and blurred the background."
For our etymologist friends, bokeh is Japanese for blurred.
10
I do not quite understand the infatuation with phones that can take photographs. The main beneficiaries are the phone manufacturers who sell the new versions although the phone function may be perfectly fine. If separated, I would guess the phone could be reduced to the size of a small fob on a key chain. And, a separate camera can dangle on the same chain with a smaller footprint than it currently occupies. I know, the viewing area will be smaller. That may be a plus as users may actually take fewer photographs and view them on larger computer screens for a more discriminating appreciation. But, alas, the addiction has permeated too deeply for easy dislodging.
2
@Cemal Ekin - I have always taught my students that the best camera is the one you have with you. As much as I appreciate (and still use) a "real" camera, the advantages of having the camera in your pocket always does allow for the unexpected. Of course people still must open more than just their eyes and really "see".
19
@eyeswideopen
I agree with the "eyes" part. Photographs are not made by simply pointing a recording device back to ourselves or the food we are eating. Regrettably, the ever-ready camera stifles the "seeing" part as people randomly point their phones that internally process the recorded images. One of the most important aspects of photography is intentionality, and I do not mean that in the opposite sense of accidental. One has to have something to say to write a story or to create a photograph. But, today most "photographs" taken with the phones simply say "hey, hey, look, look, hey, ..."
5
@eyeswideopen
I dont think one actually sees much of anything UNLESS one is in "photographer mode." So you might have a phone cam in your pocket and miss the pic of a life time. But when you are in photographer mode, then have a dedicated camera. Its much easier to use, with better control.
3
Eliud Kipchoge just broke the sub-two hour barrier in the marathon wearing very high-tech running shoes. Those shoes on anyone else will not have the same effect but could make their performances better. That's all this really is: access to the potential for good photography. Who knows, it might even inspire art once in a while.
10
As a semi-serious amateur photographer, I am torn about this new phase of photography. As my trusty 11 year old digital camera requires replacement, I realize that my Pixel 3 takes better pictures, is lighter, more accessible and generally easier to use.
OTOH, with the technical advances of the telephone's camera, I am never sure what I'm going to get. For example, some of the images with night sight are amazing, but create an artificial result. It reminds me of my earlier days with film, where surprising and magical effects occurred someplace between the light on the medium and the chemistry and artistry of production. With digital photos, however, one rarely has the expertise to understand what is happening inside the box, much less how to control it. In creating shortcuts to sophisticated images, these innovations take us farther and farther away from real photographic ambition.
12
@soozzie
My digital cameras keep trying to compensate for conditions that I want uncompensated. After learning their limits, however, I use those limits to my advantage to take photos an obedient analog camera would leave alone.
2
Am I the only one out there who does not like the "enhanced" and "composite" photos these phones take? I upgraded my phone from iphone 6 to iphone 10 thinking the camera would be better only to find it doesn't take pictures of what you see or the real environmental conditions. I primarily use my phone to take pictures of my artwork and reference photos for artwork and the level of distortion in color, contrast, depth of field, etc., is extreme; in particular, its handling of sky is disastrous to the entire photo. Even editing them to get them closer to original is very difficult--another distortion. I moved away from a camera to a phone some years ago; do I have to go back? Can we please stop making the cameras for those who love highly exaggerated digital images for social media?
19
@jer On my recent vacation in the Alps, I noticed that the sky in my iPhone XS photos were always rendered in an alien, pale, greyish-blue color that gave the shots a kind of artificial, indoor appearance, if that makes any sense. Although the HDR is supposed to replicate the color spectrum and temperature of the naked human eye, the results are never as satisfying as the images one would capture on a camera with a proper light sensor.
7
@jer
They are called "Jpegs." Most every pic is a jpeg, technically. But modern cameras do much more that output straight Jpeg images. The image is processed and "enhanced" by the camera. It does the same thing at picture taking time as Lightroom presets do much later.
So the image, straight out of the camera, can be used at you like. But, as you say, it can be over processed. You can tone that down if you dig into the inner works of it.
Pro photogs sometimes use Jpegs out of the cam too. Some image must be available right away. Usually they work with Raw images. But there us a surprise here. Raw images look dull and lifeless. They MUST be post processed. Why shoot Raw then? There is almost infinite adaptability.
7
@H Smith
The synthetic look that jer is complaining about isn't due to the fact that smartphone photos are jpegs.
The synthetic look is caused by the computational re-writing done to the image to compensate for all the smartphones' optical and imaging limitations.
Tiny imaging sensor means lots of image noise, low-dynamic range, infinite depth-of-field; tiny wide-angle lenses require computational adjustment for distortion, suppression of various optical issues which in a full-sized camera lens is handled by a larger array of lens elements. So the smartphones use software to compensate for all this and paints a digital picture using whats captured through the lens merely as a reference.
In contrast, a jpeg shot with a DSLR can be shot with neutral image settings, and it will be rendered with its most prominent characteristics coming from the image sensor and the optical qualities of the lens used.
And there's nothing about processing RAW images that necessitates the results looking synthetic.
And I don't know why you seem to thing that all image adjustments are done with presets. Presets are properly used as the starting-point of image editing, not as a final application for all photos in a given set.
9
Computational photography sounds like a first cousin to digital medical imaging techniques such as MRI and CT.
I wonder if the "files" could be processed for purposes other than optimizing the photo. Are people producing software ("apps") to add such additional functionality or transfer the files to other computers for these purposes?
1
@Stephen Rinsler Yes. Its easily done now.
Yes this has been coming for awhile now but it still has not solved the pictorial and composition problem. Unless you have learned basic composition and how to translate a three-dimensional scene into a two-dimensional one you will still have many millions of bad photos. They'll just be a nicely focus and well illuminated bad photo.
13
The evolution of the camera as described here and the article about a robot solving Rubik's Cube in the NYT today, demonstrates how far computation and AI have come. One doesn't need to be a tech guru to figure out that McDonalds and Walmart can get products out the door, employing AI, with much less staff in the not too distant future.
3
when I was 15 I inherited my father's Nikon F2 outfit with zoom, wide-angle and telephoto lenses - lugging that bag of potatoes around got old very quick
and filling a cheaper-per-shot celluloid roll of 36 exposure film was a hassle if you didn't shoot all the time - either write down a record of every photo or risk forgetting what the earliest photos on the roll were about 6 months ago.
but even tho' I was in a photo club and developing my own photos as best I could, the average photo back then was - ordinary at best.
so for me the joy of computation like HDR just adds to the joy of instant results, and instant sharing - last night in the supermarket I snapped a discount price on a bag of rice and sent it to my partner at home via Messenger
except she didn't get around to seeing it until the next day ...
still way better than wondering what it is in a photo I'm now seeing for the first time, that I took maybe six months ago ...
6
@Frank
"still way better than wondering what it is in a photo I'm now seeing for the first time, that I took maybe six months ago ..."
I must respectfully disagree. I shoot both film and digital. Digital is great for the job, but love nothing more than finding an old roll of exposed film I've yet to process. It is like opening a present.
7
Call me when computational photography is smart enough to drop a couple decades off my face
19
@Bob If you have an iPhone, you should try the "contour" setting in Portrait mode. It shaves at least a good 5 years off.
9
I'm learning to use the Pro mode on my Note10+ but most of the time I'm satisfied with my camera's choices. The folks who see my pics seem happy.
My job is to be there at the right moment and pointing the phone at the right thing.
2
It's interesting to read the comments from my professional colleagues. I've been hearing these for years now, motivated mostly by the fear that eventually they'll be put out of business by the relentless advance of digital imaging.
But many of these advances also come on professional cameras, bundled in formats that allow much more control over the capabilities, so this just raises the bar for what constitutes a good image. I'm astonished by final edits that were impossible just a few years ago.
Nothing will replace a good eye for subject and composition. But these abilities allow people who don't want to spend years learning photographic skills to get pretty decent shots. Sure, photographers who sell tourists shots are out of luck: no one is going to pay for a printed image of the Brooklyn Bridge anymore. But I'm thrilled to have the ability to take a good image at an unexpected time, when my Canon 1DXII is not an anchor around my neck.
44
All great points. And I appreciate your perspective as a professional photographer. It’s nice to see someone not express ‘Grumpy Old Man” sentiments about advancing technology seeped in thinly veiled fear of losing their jobs due to inevitable change, but rather share the idea that computational photography is just another (exciting) option, not necessarily a replacement. Imagine that!?
4
There are several commenters here that confuse "photography" with "snapshots."
As has been true for decades, while there are many people who take photography seriously, the reality is that most users are happy to have snapshots. Now, of course, with technology we can get some pretty excellent snapshots -- no more poor exposures (dark foregrounds, properly-exposed backgrounds), no more blurry images, all of that.
Photography as an art is independent of the technology. It's in the eye of the artist, in the ability to pre-visualize the image, in knowing when to press the shutter release. It's knowing how to "read light," how to wait for the right light, how to apply artificial light. It's knowing which lens focal length will give the desired image. It's knowing your equipment and its limits and its features. And yes, it's knowing how to manipulate the image after exposure. (You think Ansel Adams just got lucky with "Moonrise over Hernandez"?).
All of which is great but then those snapshots of the kids are priceless.
Aside: Dr. Ng mentioned in the article was the founder of a company called Lytro, which made "light-field" cameras. These traded resolution (number of pixels) for the ability to refocus after the fact (sophisticated software post-processing). The ideas were good, then they tried to scale to very high res movie cameras and that didn't work out, they ran out of money then shut down. Ng now works at Google.
20
As original images are more highly processed, will they represent a more accurate picture of reality or just a glitzier one? Astronomical imaging aside, there may be a point, at least with humans, when too much "makeup" is applied, distorting reality and leaving descendants to wonder what the person really looked like.
5
@A Goldstein A casual perusal through Instagram will show you that glitz is what is in. And the older the Instagrammer, the more blur tools are used.
2
Computational photography is exactly what I needed with by old Kodak Brownie Hawkeye.
2
At first, there were phones with cameras included. Now, it seems that there are cameras with a phone added on.
22
@JRCPIT
I have called it a camera on occasion.
2
@JRCPIT well, you can only make the phone aspect so much better. They're called smartphones for a reason.
1
@JRCPIT I always call it a it a camera
2
Amateur, and professional, photographers may scoff at some of these technology, but these newer smartphones allow the average person to take better photos.
I personally think it’s pretty cool since I almost always have my iPhone with me :D
20
If only these and other big tech companies would show the same level of commitment to users' privacy.
66
@fact or friction
Apple shouldn’t be lumped in with the others, They’re not perfect, but they’ve shown lots of commitment to privacy. Examples include the new Apple credit card, and the Sign In with Apple feature, which masks your email from third parties.
It’s not that Apple is more virtuous; it’s that their business model is different. Apple’s revenue comes from selling hardware. Google’s comes from selling information about its users to advertisers.
9
The processed iPhone photos often end up looking dully homogeneous in tone, lighting, contrast and color, resulting in a flat image. But remove the processing, and the results are worse if you are not taking photos under optimal conditions.
So having smartphone photos for souvenir snapshots is better than having none, but nothing beats a real (D)SLR with manual controls
15
Good article! It is only a matter of time before we count photons one by one across billions of pixels and over many fast frames of exposure in order to create a digital image. This possible next-gen-sensor research is already well underway at Dartmouth.
4
I really like my Pixel XL but I might upgrade for the extra hardware capabilities in the Pixel 4
1
Another example of tech's endless quest to enable the non-skilled to further their quest to not have to learn a thing.
28
@Rob wrote: "Another example of tech's endless quest to enable the non-skilled to further their quest to not have to learn a thing."
Yes. That is a good thing. I do not wish to learn anything about photography. I just want to take pictures.
I know how to do many things. Computers, programming, cars, carpentry, translations, calorimetry. But I do not know how to take photographs. I do not want to hire someone to take them for me. So, if I can have a machine take them for me, that's great!
Why would you want someone who has no interest in photography to "learn a thing" about it? Do you know how to program your computer?
49
@Rob
Ignorance is bliss.
5
@Rob: I'm a professional photojournalist. I spent years learning the art and technique of photography, and it was a labor of love. But I understand why others do not wish to make such an investment, so I'm glad technology can make photography more accessible to these folks.
17
Ah. The remarkable thing about this advance is that it is in a phone - a device that we use for hundreds of uses and is always available.
This is not to say, that this phone is the best camera available or the go-to device for serious photographers. Of course, it is better to magnify the image with a lens and use software to fix the shaking.
1
One might consider that there is a vast difference between a digital camera operator and a skilled photographer. Today's computer-based cameras and phones make it possible for people with no photographic skill whatever to take thousands of images. This does not make them photographers.
35
@OldPadre wrote: "Today's computer-based cameras and phones make it possible for people with no photographic skill whatever to take thousands of images. This does not make them photographers."
Yes. Knowing how to microwave a frozen dinner does not make me a cook either, but it does let me eat reasonably healthy food, quickly, at a modest cost when I get home at 8 p.m.
I sense that you and the other photographers here do not understand why ordinary folks want cameras that do everything for us. My wife takes family photos. The only photos I take are utilitarian. I want to show the roofer where the leak is coming in. I want to record how the computer motherboard is arranged before I take it apart. I just want to point, shoot and not worry about focusing or lighting or anything else. There is nothing "artistic" about the photos I take.
People use cameras for all kinds of reasons, not just to take artistic photographs.
40
@OldPadre
It makes them creators. Let the creations bloom. There are lots of talented people out there that could use a phone/camera like that in ways you'd never have imagined. Genius will come of this.
12
@ivanogre A couple of examples of the creative potential of smartphone cameras, not related to the engineering advances are:
The exponential increase in the number of users and the variety of subjects. I remember a compelling assemblage of images from the redlight district of Mumbai taken by the children of prostitutes. (these may have been taken with inexpensive conventional cameras but smartphones have greatly expanded such potential)
And I know that in some national parks there exists a metal stake designed to hold any smartphone, to allow the compilation into a time lapse of many, uploaded sequential images, taken by passers-by from one scenic spot.
This kind of collective vision delights me.
8
I'm hearing lots of the 'the old ways are better'. I visited the Kodak HQ in the UK in the 90s and heard much the same thing.
18
As an advanced amateur photographer, I prefer to shoot in raw, select my own settings and lenses, and do my own post-processing in order to create an image according to my own artistic vision. Photographic AI in these phones take away or reduce the photographer’s creative choices.
I think most people who use the camera feature of their phones are documenting the moments of their life rather than engage in photographic art. Thus, they don’t need all the sophisticated AI and other technology in the camera phone to create an image that will likely remain on their phone. It only contributes to the phone being unnecessarily expensive.
15
@Topaz Blue I believe you underestimate the sharing of images, an essential driver for millions of amateurs. If you’ve ever browsed around Instagram (IG) , you’ll know what an astonishing explosion of visual awareness is underway. My own experience is that the more images one takes, the better one’s eye becomes, not only for composition, but for lighting, small detail and momentary dramatic content.
8
@Topaz Blue: As a professional photojournalist, I mostly share your philosophy. That said, I have several colleagues who regularly shoot with iPhones. One Pulitzer-winning friend recently published a book of his iPhone images.
The notion that all serious/professional photographers only shoot raw/manual/dSLR is just not true. A camera is a tool; the best photographers find new and creative ways to use these tools.
11
Cool article but I was hoping to see pictures of dogs and/or cats. Buildings just don't do it for me.
But a cool article - really!
9
@Marge Keller
The Zoom shots of the building was Wow!
1
Except for the first picture (which is only remarkable for having been taken with a phone), these photos are not speaking for themselves. I do look forward to the introduction of some of these automatic digital techniques in software available to process pictures.
These techniques can certainly (shudder) be applied to surveillance.
The number of images being created every day on cell phones is enormous The vast majority are never printed and are usually not of interest to most people. Some are only looked at a few times.
These computational/algorithmic techniques produce <> images. Unfortunately they say very little.
The cell is a tool. It is just slightly different from a film/digital camera. The problem is that people don’t really <> even though they think/feel that they do.
No computational techniques will make an image <>. That is up to the woman who makes the image.
When will these digital techniques start to be used in more traditional cameras with better lenses?
20
@David, this was my question. A DSLR or mirrorless ILC with incredible optic options + 'computational photography' == incredible stuff.
6
@David
most camera makers ARE introducing/have introduced "algorithms" into their new cameras: see Sony A6600.
7
Cameras on phones ruin photography. 35 mm and medium and large format cameras are the best option for photography and simply can't be replaced.
16
In outdoor photography, the shallow depth of field for portraits (bokeh) is often an excuse for poorly executed composition. In the example in this article, I would like to see the detail of the background the woman is posed against. This particular photo would have been vastly improved by using f8.0, for example.
Technology is great, but artistic choices are greater.
32
@Svirchev, this isn't even close to being universally true. Shallow DOF is a great tool when you want to capture a subject without the distraction of background. Sometimes you want the background incorporated, sometimes you don't - no universal rule covers this. A shot can be ruined by F8 as often as it can be ruined by f/1.4.
14
@Svirchev
Disagree: when shooting portraits almost always you want your focus to be on the person (or animal) with a blurred background. Photo experts try to eliminate chaos in the photo (which is a photo with excessive details) by the use of a blurred background.
3
Thanks for educating us in plain English this new gadgetry in phone photos.
I am waiting for your review of the new Google phone.
And then decide whether to replace my iPhone X.
Thanks.
1
Please don't tell me that even my talents are getting replaced by AI
9
To me, photography is like painting. Painting can be done with oil and water paints. And photography can still be done with a 35mm. camera. I may be "old-fashioned" but I prefer the texture of a 35mm photo.
17
This is a great little brief on advances in digital image capture.
Thanks for an informative article.
3