Computation is ruining cellphone photography

[NathanCH]

"Computational Photography" is a craze I do not understand.

Take a selfie with an iPhone 12 Pro. If you use the regular mode, it generates an HDR selfie exaggerating every imperfection on your face. And if you use portrait, it applies a fake looking blur and softness to your skin. This mode is frustratingly strict on framing - "move further away".

Turn the camera around and there are similar problems. From detail-less low-light images, to sun-saturated indoor shots. It's like everyone took the Samsung model and ran with it. Dull pictures of dull things should be dull, and besides is noise really that bad?

Back in the day there was a photography Youtube channel called "Fro Knows Photo". On this channel, each week Fro would have a photo editing contest with another person. And each week Fro would over saturate his photos to win the contest. Fro's competition, on the other hand, would produce memorable coloured graded photos which, rewarded the viewer who kept her eyes on the photo for more than a split second and in my opinion blew Fro away. I can still remember a few of those edits.

With that said, is cellphone photography a victim of its medium? Or am I just trying to justify dropping two grand on a Z7?

 

[mollyc]

Get the Z and don't look back. ?

 

[Clix Pix]

Get a Sony A7R IV and don't look back....

(Just kidding, folks! No offense meant! Everyone has to find and choose the camera body and system that is right for them, which involves so many elements, including how the gear feels in the hands, where the buttons and dials are placed, the menu system and how intuitive/easy to navigate through it is, and of course, the most important thing, the lenses..... ). In every instance, regardless of brand, yes, a "real" camera body and lens is going to beat out a cell phone camera by a mile or two or three.....!

 

[Clix Pix]

Something which I neglected to mention in my earlier post but which is also relevant to this discussion is the increasing prevalence of AI and computational photography in image editing programs. Luminar has just released its Luminar AI software, for instance, and Photoshop has recently added the ability for users to swap skies around, which of course has to involve computational imaging in some way..... This whole thing looks like the wave of the future and it's already here.

 

[r.harris1]

Ironically, cell phone photography simply wouldn't work without a hefty dose of "computational photography". Because the sensors (and hence pixels) are so small and the optics are plastic (albeit high quality) the only way you're going to get the quality images you can actually get from them is through direct application of computation in the imaging pipeline. Noise and color control, low light capabilities, dynamic range control are all part of this. Even ILCs (DSLRs, mirrorless, etc) use computational photography, just concentrated on (sometimes) different things than you'd need to on a cell phone. The point being, "computational photography" is a rather broad subject that all cameras do to some degree.

All that said, I get you on the straight-out-of-camera "look" you can get on some phone cameras for certain scenarios.

 

[anotherscotsman]

"Computational Photography" is a craze I do not understand.

Take a selfie with an iPhone 12 Pro. If you use the regular mode, it generates an HDR selfie exaggerating every imperfection on your face. And if you use portrait, it applies a fake looking blur and softness to your skin. This mode is frustratingly strict on framing - "move further away".

Turn the camera around and there are similar problems. From detail-less low-light images, to sun-saturated indoor shots. It's like everyone took the Samsung model and ran with it. Dull pictures of dull things should be dull, and besides is noise really that bad?

Back in the day there was a photography Youtube channel called "Fro Knows Photo". On this channel, each week Fro would have a photo editing contest with another person. And each week Fro would over saturate his photos to win the contest. Fro's competition, on the other hand, would produce memorable coloured graded photos which, rewarded the viewer who kept her eyes on the photo for more than a split second and in my opinion blew Fro away. I can still remember a few of those edits.

With that said, is cellphone photography a victim of its medium? Or am I just trying to justify dropping two grand on a Z7?

As a separate thread discusses, it‘s all lies.....

 

[whiteonline]

1: Mobile (and computational) photography is all about accessilbity for the masses. The aim is to allow people to get ”pleasing” images with minimal fuss. I read that as they try to replicate popular processing. Whether overly saturated, over smoothed, etc. In the end, images will remain in a small viewport (mobile screen).

2: Get the z 7 and a good printer. I have a Pixma Pro 100 which is rather inexpensive, but makes great A3+ prints from those magnificent files.

 

[robgendreau]

Sorry, but even a Nikon can do computational photography. AFAIK it hasn't ruined those cameras.

And you have heard of raw, right? you can do that on the iPhone 12 as well.

This is like complaining you don't like the automatic settings on any camera with whatever JPEGs and settings you're using. I would think anyone who could use an interchangeable lens camera's custom settings could use the same ones on an iPhone.

 

[Ray2]

Those using cell phones for photography don’t read this forum. Nor do they even know who Fro is. The responses will not provide a balanced view.

My view is film people said the same thing about digital. RAW only shooters say the same thing about jpeg shooters. DSLR (remember those) users said the same thing about mirrorless.

Who cares, Merry Christmas

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

Here is an idea that merges computational work from smartphones with the bigger sensor and lens options of ILCs.

Alice Camera - The Camera for Creators

Content creators, we built this for you. Alice Camera an AI camera that works with your smartphone to shoot and share better content in a fraction of the time

alice.camera

I wondered when we’d start seeing this happen, and so it (maybe) begins.

 

[deep diver]

I don't get the issue (or even the question). Any digital photography is, by definition, computational. It seems to me that this is just a way to create noise around what we've been doing all along, and to accentuate the differences between mobile device photography and camera photography. Neither one is going to replace the other, nor should they. Digital/computational ability is integral to and has enhanced both. As the Captain in "Cool Hand Luke" said, "What we have here is a failure to communicate."

Why can't we all just get along?

Happy holidays and a very good year to all.

 

[kallisti]

I shot Leica for many years (M9 and MM). I recently purchased an M10 monochrome as I loved the MM and most of my issues with the MM have been solved with the M10M. I still have all of my M mount lenses and have been enjoying using them again.

All of you people using “computational photography“ to convert your color images to monochrome are wrong and flawed. You want a monochrome image, then shoot it in monochrome. Get it right at capture, including using the correct color filter on the lens. None of this converting to monochrome in post with all of your computational software magic.

Did I get the tone of faux outrage and “real” photographer snobbishness correct?

All cameras are tools. Nothing more, nothing less. Like any tool, they have strengths and weaknesses. Choose the tool that best fits your needs.

If an iPhone allows you to create the images you want, great. Apple’s recent ProRAW format allows more freedom in post. Maybe that is enough for your needs, maybe not. There are many mirrorless bodies on the market with many different lens options. Depending on your needs, one may be better than another.

As others have stated, it’s hard to get away from “computational photography” as every digital camera uses it to one degree or another and post processing of digital images is by definition computational photography.

Regarding the M10M, I get 2-3 stops of usable ISO compared to any of my color sensor cameras (Sony A7RIII, Nikon Z7). I lose the B&W conversion options of a color file. The trade off is worth it for me for low light shooting. There are also advantages for landscapes when using colored filters but I haven’t had the chance to really explore it yet. Plus I get to use two of my favorite lenses of all time: the Zeiss ZM 35/1.4 and the Leica 24/3.8.

 

[Erehy Dobon]

With that said, is cellphone photography a victim of its medium? Or am I just trying to justify dropping two grand on a Z7?

The ubiquity of smartphones and computers have commodified photography, videography, and writing.

Spend as much as you'd like. Dropping $10K on photography gear isn't going to make your output ten times better than a $1K smartphone.

If the pros (e.g., sports photographers) still use smartphones alongside their dSLRs with honking lenses.

Years ago legendary Rolling Stone photographer Annie Leibovitz recommended the iPhone as the starter camera. She can take better photos with hers than most hobbyists with $5000 in gear can.

 

[deep diver]

With that said, is cellphone photography a victim of its medium? Or am I just trying to justify dropping two grand on a Z7?

If you have to work this hard to justify the purchase then you must want it really, really, really badly. Just go buy the thing and show us some of the picts.

 

[MevetS]

"Computational Photography" is a craze I do not understand.

... snip ...

It is not a craze. It is what digital photography is. Or do you not post process you images? Although, admittedly that does give you control over the computation. But digital photography = computation

With that said, is cellphone photography a victim of its medium? Or am I just trying to justify dropping two grand on a Z7?

You sound like Abe Simpson yelling at clouds. If you don’t like how the first party camera app on your phone works, use one that gives you more control. Or use a different camera.

You really do sound like a Luddite given that you have choices to avoid the issue you are railing against.

 

[MacNut]

You could argue that using a cell phone is not photography at all but taking a picture. What is the difference from a simple point and shoot and a cell phone camera? The work is being done for you so you don't have to think about processing the shot afterwords. Most people using a cell phone to take pictures are not interested in framing a shot or how the colors need to be corrected. They want to capture that moment in time and not have to worry about it.

 

[Clix Pix]

Exactly, MacNut! Not only do they just want to take a quick shot, they very often then want to immediately send it in email, texts/iMessage or to FB/Instagram...... They're at a party, they fire off a couple fast pictures, click the right buttons and, boom, the images are in someone else's inbox/text/iMessage or proudly displaying on IG or FB. That's the way a lot of people think of photography these days, as an extension of their cell phone, not as a separate entity.

 

[MacNut]

Exactly, MacNut! Not only do they just want to take a quick shot, they very often then want to immediately send it in email, texts/iMessage or to FB/Instagram...... They're at a party, they fire off a couple fast pictures, click the right buttons and, boom, the images are in someone else's inbox/text/iMessage or proudly displaying on IG or FB. That's the way a lot of people think of photography these days, as an extension of their cell phone, not as a separate entity.

The majority of Instigram or Facebook pictures are people at a party not caring what the lighting conditions are.

 

[Quackers]

I don't really get the complaint at all.
A phone is a phone. You can use it for communication.
If you want to take photos buy a camera.
I know you can take a snap with a phone and they're actually very good but for me that's all they are. Snaps.
Just my 2 cents (or pence) worth
But I'm old.

 

[MacNut]

I don't really get the complaint at all.
A phone is a phone. You can use it for communication.
If you want to take photos buy a camera.
I know you can take a snap with a phone and they're actually very good but for me that's all they are. Snaps.
Just my 2 cents (or pence) worth
But I'm old.

You can get great shots out of a cell phone. There is a limit though. I'm not going on a dedicated shoot with a cell phone. Walking around and seeing something I want to capture and a cell phone is all I have it's better than nothing.

 

[Quackers]

You can get great shots out of a cell phone. There is a limit though. I'm not going on a dedicated shoot with a cell phone. Walking around and seeing something I want to capture and a cell phone is all I have it's better than nothing.

Absolutely 100%.
Having said that, I know a couple of photography boffs who would never NOT have their camera with them.
They scoff at digital cameras nevermind phone photos

 

[MacNut]

Absolutely 100%.
Having said that, I know a couple of photography boffs who would never NOT have their camera with them.
They scoff at digital cameras nevermind phone photos

Sometimes when I am driving I see a great picture but I just can't physically take the shot.

 

[MevetS]

I don't really get the complaint at all.
A phone is a phone. You can use it for communication.
If you want to take photos buy a camera.
I know you can take a snap with a phone and they're actually very good but for me that's all they are. Snaps.
Just my 2 cents (or pence) worth
But I'm old.

A “phone” is a pocket computer that, among other things, is also a very good camera.

A good photographer can get much more than “snaps”.

Is it the best camera for all situations? Of course not.

But claiming that “If you want take photos buy a camera” smacks of elitism, ignorance, or both.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

Well here’s a laugh, I forgot my phone yesterday but remembered my camera! I could still take pictures, but no one could interrupt me. ?

 

[ian87w]

All digital cameras have computational photography. Those Digic and Bionz chips inside them are doing that, from noise reduction, lens corrections, auto ISO, auto focus, etc. The iPhone is simply taking it to another level due to the extra power it has (multi exposure, smart HDR, deep fusion, etc).

If you don’t want any of that, then simply shoot in RAW in fully manual mode. There are many 3rd party camera apps on iOS that allow this.