Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

shadowboi

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Feb 16, 2024
680
1,201
Unknown
Dear all,

I would get straight to the point. While I mostly like results my iPhone produces, there are so many situations automatic processing ruins the shot. And “just shoot RAW” is not the best answer because it is still a poorly implemented feature. I want to shoot jpegs with minimum processing, i.e. natural looking shots.

Since iPhone 6 Apple uses aggressive noise reduction techniques that are paired with automatic sharpening. And everyone who ever did photography knows that this is the way to disaster that will look like 90s CCTV footage. Since iPhone 13 they started applying noise reduction to videos too, which is INSANE. It makes everything look like soap opera in night time conditions.

I know everything about competition and that they do this too. But the problem is that competition started this trend and Apple just picked it up. I personally saw this first with my Galaxy S10+ (which I sold then, not because of camera but it also was a driving force behind my decision).

I mean, how is that possible when after so many years when I look at iPhone shots I now think about how unnatural and plasticky they look? Is it even adequate for Apple’s ISP that is supposedly relying on neural engine to sharpen and denoise DAYLIGHT shots? Even starting photographers know that you don’t need high ISO at day. And tbh I would prefer my shots not to be denoized at all, if there was only a switch for “natural” profile instead of having to shoot finicky RAW with wildly jumping exposure.

Also, auto HDR has gone mad in recent models. Insanely mad (yeah, literally mean that). Not every shot needs multiexposure. White-ish sky are not bad. And shadows need to stay shadows and not like a second photo with different white balance that was autoglued in place of “shadows”. At least thats how light works in real life, naturally.

Here are few examples of how a film camera compares to one of the latest iPhones (sauce):

1722001087770.jpeg

1722001121865.jpeg


Gotta be honest, I am not trying to tell everyone “shoot film” because I shoot digital for my whole life, but I mean that I could have easily achieved similar results with my old iPhone 5 or 4, and I would have not needed to dive the RAW rabbit hole for that single purpose. It is a pity I cracked both phones and in one of them camera literally fell inside, otherwise I would have been still using it.

Same with any of my old digital cameras such as DSCN1 or D3100, I had insanely natural-looking shots and rarely needed to do any sort of post processing, and I have been shooting JPEGs mostly, rarely I fiddled with RAW on Nikon and those were occasions when I took night long exposures, during daylight conditions camera worked perfectly (with my manual control, for sure). Photos had noises but noises are natural, even human vision has “noises” (ever seen these “flying bunnies” huh?).

And companies even wonder why people dislike AI art or “photos”: they look fake, unrealistic.

What do you think about this trend that stretched for so many years? Do you think there will ever be a trend for natural photographs or is it now a bygone era?


02/08/24 Few updates not to bring confusion:

• No, I am not trying to tell film>digital here, it is a whole different discussion. One can simply replicate film look with a good digital camera;

• I dislike how Apple applies noise reduction in all of their new smartphones. You cannot turn it off even with ProRAW. Combined with over-sharpening on top it ruins many fine shots;

• Argument “just buy a pro camera”. I have, like 3 of them. But still I need my iPhone to be casual point-and-shoot where I still have some control over my results and not the oversharpened, overHDRed, watercolor-like denoised shots;

• Argument “just shoot RAW”. First of all – I cannot. Apple has some sort of bug that does not deliver RAW preview in some of the well known pro apps like Halide, Camera+ and ProShot. In fact I cannot control my exposure and ISO settings. Neither automatic RAW works – it strangely overexposes or underexposes the shots. I had same issue on my old iPhone 11 Pro;

• On newer iPhones you cannot disable smart HDR or any processing.
 
Last edited:

goodthymes

macrumors regular
Oct 11, 2022
124
289
I use my "phone" to take a quick snapshot, usually something I need to remember or noted for later. I have an actual camera for actual "photos", but that's just me 🤷‍♂️. Don't the Pro models allow for RAW images now?
 

ProbablyDylan

macrumors 68000
Mar 26, 2024
1,534
3,006
Los Angeles
I don't know much about photography, but to me the iPhone photos look better.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner!

For the rest; iPhone's cameras aren't tuned for professional photographers, who would be shooting in RAW anyways. The photos produced by the iPhone are more appealing out of the box (to the average person) than what would be produced with less processing.

If this wasn't the case, Apple would not have invested so much in this processing.
 

coffeemilktea

macrumors 65816
Nov 25, 2022
1,403
6,181
Do you think there will ever be a trend for natural photographs or is it now a bygone era?
I think most people like how smartphone photos look now. And while there are photography apps that can give you pictures that you might prefer (Halide and ProCamera both come to mind), realistically if you want "natural" photos, you would need a digital camera.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tagbert

shadowboi

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Feb 16, 2024
680
1,201
Unknown
To all the arguments about standalone cam. I absolutely agree, but it feels like going back as we live in smartphone era for more than 15 years already. And again, having used older iPhones and getting better results than with newer ones seems like not-quite-nice. Also standalone cameras (except maybe GoPro) are not as pocketable as an iPhone. I have Canon EOS 200 which I bought specifically because it is compact, but it has very poor image processor that requires you to sit for hours in LR to make it look good because colors are very washed out despite lots of in-camera tuning options such as XY axis white balance controls and ISP presets.

Also, if iPhone is actually a poor camera, what exactly Apple is charging 800$+ for?
Any phone can call and go online these days
 

okkibs

macrumors 65816
Sep 17, 2022
1,070
1,006
Apple does everything one way with their products and you can take it or leave it. That's their unspoken yet obvious motto.

iPhones still have tiny sensors and optics like all smartphones do and rely on all that post processing jazz. The iPhone camera does really well with good lighting. Too dark and the image will be overprocessed. Too bright? Same thing.

The Pixels take better photos as their cameras handle very bright lighting better. But then you take video and realize it's much worse. So switching from iPhone to something else will fix one part of the camera and break another.

There is no smartphone that does photo and video well and isn't some weird one-off design.

Just wait until you notice how bad the iPhone front camera has become, it's actually unusable.
 

MacCheetah3

macrumors 68020
Nov 14, 2003
2,287
1,234
Central MN
While I agree the extreme over-saturation in Samsung and Google ads marketing a supposedly better camera are 🤦‍♂️ there are legitimate for the image processing.

On the technical side...
iPhones still have tiny sensors and optics like all smartphones do and rely on all that post processing jazz.
The iPhone 15 Pro’s body thickness is ~8.25mm. Point-and-shoot (ultra)compact (i.e., pocket-sized) cameras are ~20 to 25mm deep. DSLR cameras (e.g., Nikon D7500, Ricoh Pentax KF, Canon EOS-1D X Mark III) have nine to ten times the amount of body depth for the sensor and primary optics. That substantial amount of space not only allows for a bigger sensor (array) and overall more (light) input capacity, there’s typically enough room to allow/include mechanical/physical adjustments for elements such as aperture size control. Of course, that’s not even accounting for the attachable lenses.

RELATED: This fact is also why people need to stop whining about the MBA/MBP not having Face ID or a 4K camcorder err camera, especially simply because the iPhone has such. The skinniest iPhone with a 4K TrueDepth camera (system) is ~7.6mm in depth. The display enclosure for the recent MBPs (or at least the M1 16-inch) is ~3.2mm thick. And even if we compare that to the thinnest iPhone, which is ~6.9mm thick, that’s still less than half the depth available.

Just as or even more importantly...
I don't know much about photography, but to me the iPhone photos look better.
Photography is as much about art as it is about documenting.
The first is more authentic/realistic/natural, but the second is more vibrant, inviting, and showcases more details. Then again, some viewers may prefer the mysterious, shadow grasped real scene. The like and dislike attitude is about mood, preference, etc.

With that all said… As also mentioned already:
there are photography apps that can give you pictures that you might prefer (Halide and ProCamera both come to mind)
Furthermore, there may be stock Camera app settings you haven’t tried, including disabling. Examples:

Apple said:

Turn Prioritize Faster Shooting off and on​

The Prioritize Faster Shooting setting modifies how images are processed—allowing you to capture more photos when you rapidly tap the Shutter button. Prioritize Faster Shooting is on by default.
To turn off Prioritize Faster Shooting, go to Settings
88b2400e45bcf521514b7252cbb2d959.png
> Camera, then turn off Prioritize Faster Shooting.

Turn Lens Correction off and on​

On supported models, the Lens Correction setting adjusts photos taken with the front camera or Ultra Wide camera for more natural-looking results. Lens Correction is on by default.
To turn off Lens Correction, go to Settings
88b2400e45bcf521514b7252cbb2d959.png
> Camera, then turn off Lens Correction.

Turn Scene Detection off and on​

On iPhone 12 models, the Scene Detection setting can identify what you’re taking a photo of and apply a tailored look to bring out the best qualities in the scene. Scene Detection is on by default.
To turn off Scene Detection, go to Settings
88b2400e45bcf521514b7252cbb2d959.png
> Camera, then turn off Scene Detection.

RELATED:





 
Last edited:

kamikazeeMC

macrumors 6502
Aug 18, 2017
476
524
Perth, Western Australia
At one point I was thinking phone cameras were approaching 'good enough', but dislike the ever increasing post processing pipeline. I prefer the images that came out of the 6s compared to my current 14 Pro. I'm not that big on video, so I feel the 14 pro video is good enough I don't need a dedicated camera for that.

I have recently picked up a GR IIIx that I can EDC, changed from an X-T30 II + small 27mm lens as it was still too big. I like I can apply recipes to both of these and use SOOC JPGs as I don't wan't to bother editing RAWs.

I would like Apple (even if buried in the settings) to have the ability to toggle every post processing option and set shooting options and ranges. Also expanding on the Photographic Styles to make fine tuned custom recipes. Maybe some (all?) these could be done with a third party app, though I haven't looked. I prefer stock apps that integrate better with the system.
 

leifp

macrumors 6502a
Feb 8, 2008
522
501
Canada
There are third party apps for those that care more about photography than the default apps from iOS and Android provide.

I have Fjorden hooked up to the Action button. I occasionally use Camera+ as well. I have a bunch more that get no use… it’s not my day job (although it once was). I have an Arsenal device that lets my iPhone control settings on my dSLR. And many more…
 

shadowboi

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Feb 16, 2024
680
1,201
Unknown
Maybe some (all?) these could be done with a third party app, though I haven't looked. I prefer stock apps that integrate better with the system.
Unfortunately most 3rd party apps are just skins, the camera API stays the same and it is buried deep inside the iOS, i.e. you cannot turn noise reduction and sharpening off. What you often get is access to shooting RAW or RAW+JPEG. In some apps like Halide they have invented something I would call “HDR RAW”, when camera takes two RAW shots of different exposures and then blends it. Results can be both amazing and poor, so it is not reliable.

The Pixels take better photos as their cameras handle very bright lighting better.

Pixels in this regard are much worse. I have seen few examples of how these phones shoot and honestly, feels like it was shoot by AI. Ok for most people but very artificial from photography perspective. Again, excessive noise reduction and sharpening are used to hide that lens and sensor are still very far behind most of budget Sony 1inch options. They tout it as “computational photography”. Basically overprocessing+smart marketing.

I think most people like how smartphone photos look now. And while there are photography apps that can give you pictures that you might prefer (Halide and ProCamera both come to mind), realistically if you want "natural" photos, you would need a digital camera.

They somehow tend to work very strangely. Halide has some sort of RAW blending which I still cannot sort out how to work with. It feels like exposure and ISO setting are not working and app just shoots whatever it wants to. Also:
I don't wan't to bother editing RAWs.
Basically my answer. I hate post processing, especially RAW post processing which is slow and dreadful. I just want natural photos, and Apple really not delivering it.

I have noticed many people started downloading apps that imitate film look with filters. I think people got tired of oversharpened and oversaturated blurry shots and want to add more noise to their shots, even if it is fake noise
 

TracerAnalog

macrumors 6502a
Nov 7, 2012
796
1,462
While I agree the extreme over-saturation in Samsung and Google ads marketing a supposedly better camera are 🤦‍♂️ there are legitimate for the image processing.

On the technical side...

The iPhone 15 Pro’s body thickness is ~8.25mm. Point-and-shoot (ultra)compact (i.e., pocket-sized) cameras are ~20 to 25mm deep. DSLR cameras (e.g., Nikon D7500, Ricoh Pentax KF, Canon EOS-1D X Mark III) have nine to ten times the amount of body depth for the sensor and primary optics. That substantial amount of space not only allows for a bigger sensor (array) and overall more (light) input capacity, there’s typically enough room to allow/include mechanical/physical adjustments for elements such as aperture size control. Of course, that’s not even accounting for the attachable lenses.

RELATED: This fact is also why people need to stop whining about the MBA/MBP not having Face ID or a 4K camcorder err camera, especially simply because the iPhone has such. The skinniest iPhone with a 4K TrueDepth camera (system) is ~7.6mm in depth. The display enclosure for the recent MBPs (or at least the M1 16-inch) is ~3.2mm thick. And even if we compare that to the thinnest iPhone, which is ~6.9mm thick, that’s still less than half the depth available.

Just as or even more importantly...

Photography is as much about art as it is about documenting.

The first is more authentic/realistic/natural, but the second is more vibrant, inviting, and showcases more details. Then again, some viewers may prefer the mysterious, shadow grasped real scene. The like and dislike attitude is about mood, preference, etc.

With that all said… As also mentioned already:

Furthermore, there may be stock Camera app settings you haven’t tried, including disabling. Examples:



RELATED:





This. Definitive answer. 👍🏼
 
  • Like
Reactions: shadowboi

bradman83

macrumors 65816
Oct 29, 2020
1,295
3,299
Buffalo, NY
Have you considered a third party camera app? While you can't disable HDR and other computational photography features on the native camera app there are third party apps like Halide where you can turn them off and even shoot in true raw format (note that true raw is different from Apple's ProRAW, which still applies the computational photography algorithms)
 

Andeddu

macrumors 68000
Dec 21, 2016
1,800
2,344
Phones are great for snapshots and holiday photos, etc… if your livelihood is photography or you’re a hobbyist, you might want to invest in an actual camera designed specifically to do the job. Better software will never match even a basic midrange shooter with a retractable lens. I am not a hobbyist photographer so the camera in my iPhone 13 is more than good enough for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3Rock and leifp

jagolden

macrumors 68000
Feb 11, 2002
1,587
1,502
As I understand it, many of the better third party camera apps will bypass Apple’s lousy processing.
 

klasma

macrumors 604
Jun 8, 2017
7,527
20,970
I don't know much about photography, but to me the iPhone photos look better.
They may look more appealing at first glance, but they don’t capture the reality and don’t look as natural, especially in lower-light conditions.

I prefer the look of the photos I took with my 2016 SE (same camera as the 6S I believe), despite it’s low-light limitations, and despite fitting within 7.6 mm (no camera bump).
 
Last edited:

TechnoMonk

macrumors 68030
Oct 15, 2022
2,628
4,147
I use third party apps on iPhone. As much I love my digital cameras with lens collection. iPhone goes with me everywhere and has captured some great shots over the years. I take my digital camera on planned trips and shoots. But in the end, I capture more moments with iPhone, over processing is something that is done by all phones. If you are a professional, use the right gear. Sometimes it just comes to should I capture a moment with iPhone in my pocket, or complain about the differences between the digital camera sitting at home.
 
  • Like
Reactions: G5isAlive

Allen_Wentz

macrumors 68040
Dec 3, 2016
3,378
3,829
USA
Welcome to iPhone.

My advice to anyone who cares about the quality of their photographs is: Don’t use an iPhone.
Perhaps look at some of the many PR pix shot on iPhone. The iPhone Pro cameras are competent in competent hands. It never ceases to amaze me that such pix can be captured using smaller-than-fingernail-size lenses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: G5isAlive

Allen_Wentz

macrumors 68040
Dec 3, 2016
3,378
3,829
USA
Dear all,

I would get straight to the point. While I mostly like results my iPhone produces, there are so many situations automatic processing ruins the shot. And “just shoot RAW” is not the best answer because it is still a poorly implemented feature. I want to shoot jpegs with minimum processing, i.e. natural looking shots.

Since iPhone 6 Apple uses aggressive noise reduction techniques that are paired with automatic sharpening. And everyone who ever did photography knows that this is the way to disaster that will look like 90s CCTV footage. Since iPhone 13 they started applying noise reduction to videos too, which is INSANE. It makes everything look like soap opera in night time conditions.

I know everything about competition and that they do this too. But the problem is that competition started this trend and Apple just picked it up. I personally saw this first with my Galaxy S10+ (which I sold then, not because of camera but it also was a driving force behind my decision).

I mean, how is that possible when after so many years when I look at iPhone shots I now think about how unnatural and plasticky they look? Is it even adequate for Apple’s ISP that is supposedly relying on neural engine to sharpen and denoise DAYLIGHT shots? Even starting photographers know that you don’t need high ISO at day. And tbh I would prefer my shots not to be denoized at all, if there was only a switch for “natural” profile instead of having to shoot finicky RAW with wildly jumping exposure.

Also, auto HDR has gone mad in recent models. Insanely mad (yeah, literally mean that). Not every shot needs multiexposure. White-ish sky are not bad. And shadows need to stay shadows and not like a second photo with different white balance that was autoglued in place of “shadows”. At least thats how light works in real life, naturally.

Here are few examples of how a film camera compares to one of the latest iPhones (sauce):

View attachment 2400072
View attachment 2400073

Gotta be honest, I am not trying to tell everyone “shoot film” because I shoot digital for my whole life, but I mean that I could have easily achieved similar results with my old iPhone 5 or 4, and I would have not needed to dive the RAW rabbit hole for that single purpose. It is a pity I cracked both phones and in one of them camera literally fell inside, otherwise I would have been still using it.

Same with any of my old digital cameras such as DSCN1 or D3100, I had insanely natural-looking shots and rarely needed to do any sort of post processing, and I have been shooting JPEGs mostly, rarely I fiddled with RAW on Nikon and those were occasions when I took night long exposures, during daylight conditions camera worked perfectly (with my manual control, for sure). Photos had noises but noises are natural, even human vision has “noises” (ever seen these “flying bunnies” huh?).

And companies even wonder why people dislike AI art or “photos”: they look fake, unrealistic.

What do you think about this trend that stretched for so many years? Do you think there will ever be a trend for natural photographs or is it now a bygone era?
Cameras are capture tools. Whether my first kludged pinhole camera, my first Nikkormat, my first webcam, my Nikon D2x, D3, D850 or my iPhone Pro Max, they have all been capture tools.

Film is indeed different from digital, and for one-up art imagery it is a special, unique medium. Like oil paint versus watercolor. However commercially all work has been digitized since ~ the time of that Nikon D2x; the OP shows digitized film.

A good photog can capture good images with any of those tools. Just look at Apple's shot on iPhone marketing pix. And I personally have thousands of good pix shot on iPhone Pros, so I say that the OP premise is wrong. One just needs to properly use each different capture tool. All the standard photography issues of lighting, camera movement, subject movement, etc. are exacerbated when capturing using tiny thumbnail-sized lenses and the horrific camera UI of a smartphone.

Of course in almost every instance my [digital] Nikon D850 would be my preferred capture device if I had an armed camera-bearer carrying it and lenses around for me and keeping all that kit secure, but I do not.

The pet snapshot below was shot this morning in poor light with an iPhone Pro Max doing all the settings, just slightly cropped which is the way I compose digital capture. IMO the iP15 PM does a fine auto job on a difficult subject (black dog and poor light). I personally always initially capture in RAW and have done so for 20 years.

IMG_7366.jpeg
 
Last edited:

shadowboi

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Feb 16, 2024
680
1,201
Unknown
A good photog can capture good images with any of those tools.
For sure, this is unquestionable.

As I said, for most occasions my current iPhone is more than OK. But I have noticed so much unneeded fake sharpening that the camera applies. Here are few examples I took with my old iPhone 5 that I have used until it broke (and would have probably used it even longer):

1722109897172.jpeg


iPhone 4:

1722109970163.jpeg


You see, most will probably call the photos “meh”. But the colors are something I cannot get with any modern iPhone. The closest I could do to replicate this look was when I made RAW shots with my 6s. Both on my (now dead) iP11Pro and my current SE3 produce(d) strangely overexposed or underexposed RAW files, basically ruined RAW shots. Sometimes I feel that sensors they put in new iPhones are WORSE than older ones, because true RAW is supposed to be unfiltered image straight outta sensor.

I for sure use adequate cameras for such purposes like night photography. This was made with my old D3100.
1722110169703.jpeg


In fact I love how powerful my big shooters are. But I still remember the days when I could pull similar results with iPhone and NO RAW.

Btw, RAW is disaster in latest iPhones because preview is not working. I look, set iso and shutter values and… shot is totally underexposed with blown shadows, like what is the point of RAW on iPhone if it results in this, something that is quite hard to fix in post. For sure, people had no live viewfinders in the ‘olden days but c’mon, those are fresh enough iPhones with processor that is more capable than most pro cameras have
 
Last edited:

ThunderSkunk

macrumors 601
Dec 31, 2007
4,075
4,562
Milwaukee Area
Well comparing digital to film is comparing apples to oranges anyway. They're completely different worlds of image making, you might as well be comparing phone photos to daguerreotypes or pointillist paintings. Film looks like it does because of a century of engineering it, its developing chemistry, and lenses, to look that way. Ridley Scott spent over a million bucks on engineers to develop a LUT to look like Kodachrome and all he got for his money was a thorough understanding of how complex it actually is and why accurately simulating it is not possible.

Comparing an iPhone to a modern pocket digital camera might be more appropriate, like a little Nikon Z30, ZFc, or Ricoh or whatever, which would give you a better idea of where to place the iPhone and its tiny overworked sensor among the snapshooters of camera companies who know what they're doing.
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.