I edit all my photos with VSCO, using Sony Play Memories to transfer full res JPEGs (I shoot RAW+JPEG) from my A6000. But I thought VSCO could edit RAW files? It's just that up until iOS 10, Photos wouldn't transfer or store RAWs?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
RAW support = no Apple Noise Reduction
- Thread starter MattXDA
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I edit all my photos with VSCO, using Sony Play Memories to transfer full res JPEGs (I shoot RAW+JPEG) from my A6000. But I thought VSCO could edit RAW files? It's just that up until iOS 10, Photos wouldn't transfer or store RAWs?
Did you manually adjust the exposure down on those shots? The usual cause of noise reduction smearing is underexposure, even on a sunny day. I've taken shots with my Sony RX100m3 on a very bright day, at -2 stops exposure compensation to avoid blowing out someone's white outfit, and the camera smeared the darker areas with noise reduction. That's a $900 stand-alone camera.
It's possible Apple is opting for slight underexposure to boost saturation and highlight retention, but this is not an Apple only problem.
Nope, these were just plain snapshots taken with the regular camera. Whatever the cause, it was much more pronounced with the introduction of the iPhone 6, and is so obvious to me that I can often tell that shots I see posted online were taken with an iPhone due to the obvious presence of this smearing. Clearly it doesn't bother most people because the cameras continued to get nothing but rave reviews - but a few of us noticed it from the beginning and I've seen awareness of the issue continue to build over the years since. I've hoped that Apple would adjust something to make it better - I'd far rather have the noise than the smearing - but so far this RAW option is as close as we've gotten.
FWIW, it's not just dark areas that this occurs on - it's often extremely apparent anywhere there is fine detail - hence why the shots posted illustrate it just fine. Scenes with leaves or plants often show it very clearly as well.
There isn't anything to "adjust", as you yourself noted you'd rather have noise than NR smearing, but not everyone feels that way. The bloggers and magazines would roast Apple if they put out a "noisier" iPhone camera. They would post 100% crops showing the "noisy iPhone" next to the "clean Samsung S_".
FWIW, film was the same way. Kodak Portra 160 was a noisy mess if you underexposed it even 1.5 stops.
Maybe I'm trying in a bad situation but these are my comparisons.. https://uploadir.com/u/d6h6ytl7.png
p.s it's a 60mb file, give it time to load.
p.s it's a 60mb file, give it time to load.
I don't agree. The smearing is visible at full scale. You have to crop to see the noise in well lit photos. That's a tradeoff worth making. And I haven't seen any sign the Samsung phones do the same thing. It's a matter of degree, and I believe Apple has just over-done it.
I think what we want from a sensor is capturing as much detail as possible. Noise level is important, but so important to sacrifice detail.
Given that in mind, I still think the RAW option is better, it retains details!
If only Apple gives us the option right in the default camera app
Doesn't load, and I'm on a 60mbps LTE connection.
[doublepost=1473942828][/doublepost]
Go spend 20 minutes reading the Sony forum at dpreview. Literally the same conversations, word for word, about $3000 full frame cameras.
Your RAW picture is definitely out of focus, the Toshiba isn't readable on the hard drive
[doublepost=1473946727][/doublepost]
https://www.dropbox.com/s/w8a4i0yc9hqgq8y/imgonline-com-ua-twotoone-L2pDZWJy7Dxs.jpg?dl=0
The first photo isn't 'dreadfully wrong' it just looks much worse than RAW because of the watercolour effect
Ok, so your original comparison post was a 100% crop. You should have stated that.
If you printed the photo that large it would be poster size. When viewed full size on screen, at normal distances, there is little difference.
I find it funny that pixel peepers and "image quality" perfectionists are using cellphone cameras at all, and debating raw vs jpeg. Go buy a $3k Nikon or Canon full frame. This is like audiophiles saying Apple Music doesn't sound good. You're missing the point, you're not the target audience, and even if you were, you'd never be happy anyway. Audiophiles and pixel peepers are never happy. If they were, they would lose the entire basis of their ego/hobby.
Meanwhile, for the rest of us, the iPhone camera does an amazing job considering the convenience, immediacy, ease of use and sharing. And its photos hold up quite well, even at billboard size, as the "Shot on iPhone" campaign shows.
Your RAW picture is definitely out of focus, the Toshiba isn't readable on the hard drive
[doublepost=1473946727][/doublepost]
https://www.dropbox.com/s/w8a4i0yc9hqgq8y/imgonline-com-ua-twotoone-L2pDZWJy7Dxs.jpg?dl=0
The first photo isn't 'dreadfully wrong' it just looks much worse than RAW because of the watercolour effect
That's the thing though, it wasn't.. I specifically focused don the ground as it has a fine weave pattern
No, it's you missing the point.
Apple changed the processing algorithm at the time the iPhone 6 was released. They have simply over-done the smoothing - and this is something that is often visible without any cropping. All we are asking is for them to dial it back a bit. Go look at any comparison with other smart phone cameras. The iPhones have obvious smearing that obscures detail where the other good phone cameras don't. This is not all or nothing, merely an adjustment to a process. And it isn't a debate of RAW vs. JPEG - it's merely that the inclusion of the RAW format is the first chance we've had to show that this is demonstrably a processing issue by comparing the exact same photo side by side. Previously there were too many variables to make comparison photos that useful.
Believe it or not, the people who sweat these details - and aren't afraid to complain about them rather than blindly accept what Apple gives us - ultimately help make a better product. Apple does respond to pressure.
Finally had a chance to do some shots.
The beta of ProCamera shoots RAW+JPG as DNG now so I'm happy. Interesting that if I shoot in a square format the JPG shows as the square, the RAW as full frame. Makes sense, just didn't expect it.
What I also found is if I edit a RAW in Snapseed I get the new Develop etc. and can then edit as normal. But, if I Save a Copy it saves a JPG. And if I choose Save (to essentially overwrite the file), that also results in a JPG. I was hoping that somehow a DNG could be edited in Snapseed and not be converted to JPG.
Nice that in Lightroom the edits come over to the desktop as DNG. Looks like more editing in LR now. Sort of funky after getting used to Snapseed though.
The beta of ProCamera shoots RAW+JPG as DNG now so I'm happy. Interesting that if I shoot in a square format the JPG shows as the square, the RAW as full frame. Makes sense, just didn't expect it.
What I also found is if I edit a RAW in Snapseed I get the new Develop etc. and can then edit as normal. But, if I Save a Copy it saves a JPG. And if I choose Save (to essentially overwrite the file), that also results in a JPG. I was hoping that somehow a DNG could be edited in Snapseed and not be converted to JPG.
Nice that in Lightroom the edits come over to the desktop as DNG. Looks like more editing in LR now. Sort of funky after getting used to Snapseed though.
Last edited:
DNG is not an image format. Neither is NEF or CR2. They all need to either be converted to JPEG in software, or display the sidecar JPEG file, in order to be shown on your screen.
OK, how about I wish Snapseed would edit the file and retain it as DNG and not just convert it to a smaller non-RAW JPG.
I think in the future, Apple will begin to support RAW in the Photos app and offer enhanced editing options. At the moment, they'd probably receive too many complaints about storage issues.
Snapseed probably just needs updating to improve its raw features
Only kinda true. With the way the iPhone Photo viewer works now, yes, it will only display the embedded JPEG. However, it wouldn't be difficult for Apple to include native support for viewing RAW photos within the Photos app.
Computer implementations of photo viewing software will generally display the RAW image (whether DNG, CR2, NEF, etc) without converting it to a lossy format.
Historically, the reason for this on the iPhone (and phones in general) have been limited resources. RAWs are not trivial in terms of power and memory to display. We do now, though, have third party support on the iPhone for taking, writing, viewing, editing, and processing RAW photos. When you take a DNG photo in Lightroom Mobile and edit it, you're working with the actual RAW, not a JPEG, and this is possible because Lightroom Mobile now has a variant of Adobe's Camera RAW tool built in.
Is viewing RAW photos on an iPhone perfect? No, we're still bumping into processor limitations (view and zoom into a DNG in Lightroom, you'll notice that the image is a bit blurry for a second or two until the phone has a chance to catch up).
I wanted to test out the raw mode in Lightroom today went out and took a bunch of photos, but Lightroom haven't saved any one then only a few shots have been saved.
Have any of you encountered that?
Have any of you encountered that?
Actually I have two full frame Nikon dSLRS and I do appreciate the ability to shoot raw on my phone now. I cannot always take my full lineup of gear everywhere I go, nor do I want to. I *do* however, want the best image out of whatever camera I have at my disposal. So raw, even from an iPhone is better than jpeg from an iPhone for me.
I've been doing some limited testing and haven't experienced that, they all save to the generic library. Can you detail your process, to assist in troubleshooting? Please list what you're doing step by step. Thanks!
I do not work for Adobe.
I agree. I shoot full frame DSLRs, and while I make sure to have them when I'm going out shooting, the camera + lens combo isn't exactly light, so I don't usually carry them. Sometimes I end up wanting a tough shot when I don't have my gear, and the ability to shoot these with my phone is great. The quality is nowhere near what I'll get with my DSLR, but with RAW capability it's closer.
I can confirm this is the case. Since getting my iPhone 6 I've been disappointed with the camera. When I'd take pictures of my rabbit the detail of his fur that came out in my iPhone 4S shots was lost (see below). Things were smudged and disappointed. The issue persisted with the iPhone 6S/6S+/SE camera. However, using Pro Shot or LR Mobile's RAW capture I get a 13MP image (as opposed to 1.5-2.5) with no noise reduction (see second shot).
The photos are noisier, but I'd rather have noise + detail than no noise and a watercolor effect. Plus, the RAW enables more flexible post-shoot manipulation so I can adjust noise on my own.
The photos are noisier, but I'd rather have noise + detail than no noise and a watercolor effect. Plus, the RAW enables more flexible post-shoot manipulation so I can adjust noise on my own.
