[monochrome]

I’m suggesting the ubiquity of phone cameras, and their primary use as snapshot cameras is analogous to that of Instamatic in the 60’s through late 70’s. They did a certain type of photo competently and dependably and no more, just like a phone, and for those situations an Instamatic was often the right tool, just as is a phone. That’s all.

Are you conflating the image quality of 126, APS-C and cell phones?

[ThorSanchez]

I'm getting 32000 shots with quite good IQ, at shutter speeds to stop motion with my dslr. If I have the luxury, I can pixelshift my K1 II in light where I can barely see what I'm shooting and get remarkably good results. At 200 yards with nice detail.

I think we'll all be amazed with what good engineers working with good camera hardware and software will be able to come up with in the next few years. Competition from smartphones is good. They'll have to differentiate themselves even more to stay in business.

[microlight]

Ah canna change the laws of fuzzics, Cap’n.

[Rondec]

I think we'll all be amazed with what good engineers working with good camera hardware and software will be able to come up with in the next few years. Competition from smartphones is good. They'll have to differentiate themselves even more to stay in business.

I think the point is two-fold. First of all, we are getting to the point where improvements in the actual sensors used in digital cameras are smaller and smaller with regard to image quality. This is particularly true for the tiny sensors used in smart phones. Second, software can emulate things like blurred backgrounds, smooth out noise, and do quick HDR to improve dynamic range. These things are already happening and I'm sure the techniques will tend to improve over time.

That said, I don't really think that faux-keh looks the same as using a very nice lens on a large sensor camera -- it is something about the transition areas from in focus to out of focus that doesn't look quite right. I also don't think true photographers are going to be happy with the noise reduction techniques. We already saw the furor over very mild background filtering done with the accelerator chip on the K-1 II. Unless you can convince photographers that there is absolutely no detail lost with these techniques, they aren't going to be happy with them.

[ThorSanchez]

That said, I don't really think that faux-keh looks the same as using a very nice lens on a large sensor camera -- it is something about the transition areas from in focus to out of focus that doesn't look quite right. I also don't think true photographers are going to be happy with the noise reduction techniques. We already saw the furor over very mild background filtering done with the accelerator chip on the K-1 II. Unless you can convince photographers that there is absolutely no detail lost with these techniques, they aren't going to be happy with them.

Maybe this will help (some of) us to step back from the current way of evaluating cameras, which is pixel peeping 150% crops of 36 MP files to look for the slightest inconsistencies. I think computational methods may help there, but in the shorter term they'll help make reasonably viewed photos look a lot better. Even from very large sensors.

[reh321]

I can take pretty darned good photos of relatively static subjects in good lighting with my circa 2004 Canon Elph. Printed at 4x6 or viewed on Facebook you might not be able to tell if it was taken with that or a K-1.

But technology is often driven by what are now edge cases. Once the edge case becomes more mainstream because of that technology you'll often see possibilities that were not even thought of previously.

My 2007 Canon Elph was OK under ideal conditions, but it did struggle with photographs of Caucasians in sunlight with darker objects behind them - its Dynamic Range was a real issue.

[reh321]

I also don't think true photographers are going to be happy with the noise reduction techniques. We already saw the furor over very mild background filtering done with the accelerator chip on the K-1 II. Unless you can convince photographers that there is absolutely no detail lost with these techniques, they aren't going to be happy with them.

I guess I'm a faux photographer. I viewed my slides from a seat next to the projector and I don't pixel peek today. I look at photos as I took them - looking at the entire scene at once. With lenses, especially older ones, I'm not disappointed by a lack of edge-to-edge needle-sharpness ..... I don't have anything important on the edge of my photos.

---

Last edited by reh321; 10-27-2018 at 05:52 AM.

[Rondec]

I guess I'm a faux photographer. I viewed my slides from a seat next to the projector and I don't pixel peek today. I look at photos as I took them - looking at the entire scene at once. With lenses, especially older ones, I'm not disappointed by a lack of edge-to-edge needle-sharpness ..... I don't have anything important on the edge of my photos.

I'm not saying any one is a Faux Photographer. My point is that many photographers don't want noise reduction baked into their images. They would prefer to do it themselves afterwards in a selective way. In addition, I think that software blurring of images to simulate wide aperture lenses, has quite a ways to go before it looks like the bokeh of an FA 77. Transition areas often just don't look right even if most things are ok in such an image.

I'm not a pixel peeper, but some smart phone images hurt my eyes, even at web sizes, because the quality just isn't there -- even with whatever filters the phone companies throw on top of them.

[BigMackCam]

In addition, I think that software blurring of images to simulate wide aperture lenses, has quite a ways to go before it looks like the bokeh of an FA 77. Transition areas often just don't look right even if most things are ok in such an image.

I may be proven wrong, but I doubt anyone will ever code a "perfect" emulation of an FA77 (or any other individual lens, for that matter) so that it provides exactly the same optical nuances, at every aperture, in every application and every type of shot. Which, to some extent, goes back to a point I made earlier... What these emulations will give us is one or more generic interpretations of how a lens might have rendered in a particular scenario. So the physical lens no longer matters, other than to give us a reasonably clear and aberration-free starting point for processing by code. It's the difference between a specific cut of premium steak and a slice of processed deli beef. Sure, there's a similarity, but it ain't the same thing - it's not even close. Merely a vague approximation.

Maybe that's a silly example, so I'll offer another... Any guitarists here might be aware of amplifier and speaker simulations provided by some signal processing units and software tools. They can be really useful, and in some cases they give half-decent approximations of the indicated setups. But I've yet to hear a simulation of a Fender or Marshall valve amp, speaker cab and recording mic combination that is anything other than a vague approximation. There's a subset of people for whom that doesn't matter, and they'll be quite happy with those emulations. They'll even believe they've saved themselves the trouble and cost of sourcing the real thing. But those who really care will want the real thing - because the real thing sounds different, even if you can't quite put your finger on precisely why.

I'm not a pixel peeper, but some smart phone images hurt my eyes, even at web sizes, because the quality just isn't there -- even with whatever filters the phone companies throw on top of them.

Adding to this...

Phone camera images are processed with heavy noise reduction, equally heavy sharpening, excessive local contrast and all manner of other tricks to make them look good to the casual observer when viewed on a phone, tablet or small laptop screen. In my view, they're designed for immediate visual impact in the first few seconds of viewing... but they don't stand up to close scrutiny at larger reproduction sizes. Look at a 12MP camera phone photo at 50% reproduction on a computer screen, and all manner of horrors are visible. That doesn't mean they're bad photos; it doesn't mean they're not useful. But they're not the same - and don't serve the same purpose - as photos captured with a larger sensor ILC...

[reh321]

I'm not a pixel peeper, but some smart phone images hurt my eyes, even at web sizes, because the quality just isn't there -- even with whatever filters the phone companies throw on top of them.

'Phone Company' never touches mine. They go straight to cloud via WiFi then down to computer using standard Internet connection.

[BigMackCam]

'Phone Company' never touches mine. They go straight to cloud via WiFi then down to computer using standard Internet connection.

That looks good... but, with respect, you can see the over-processing in terms of excessive sharpening / local contrast / HDR-style processing, right? For instance, if you look along the top edge of the train carriages, you can see the "halo" effect (the unnatural lightness between the edge of the carriages and the sky). And you can see the over-sharpening on the lettering on the sides of the carriages. That doesn't make it a bad image, but if we were looking at a DSLR or MILC photo, it's the kind of thing where we might suggest the photographer was a bit too aggressive in post-processing. Which sort of references my point about the in-phone processing being designed to provide immediate appeal, but not standing up to close scrutiny...

Doesn't mean it's not a nice looking shot (it is). Doesn't mean it isn't useful. But it's not what we'd look to produce from a DSLR-captured, hand-processed photo

[reh321]

That looks good... but, with respect, you can see the over-processing in terms of excessive sharpening / local contrast / HDR-style processing, right? For instance, if you look along the top edge of the train carriages, you can see the "halo" effect (the unnatural lightness between the edge of the carriages and the sky). And you can see the over-sharpening on the lettering on the sides of the carriages. That doesn't make it a bad image, but if we were looking at a DSLR or MILC photo, it's the kind of thing where we might suggest the photographer was a bit too aggressive in post-processing. Which sort of references my point about the in-phone processing being designed to provide immediate appeal, but not standing up to close scrutiny...

Doesn't mean it's not a nice looking shot (it is). Doesn't mean it isn't useful. But it's not what we'd look to produce from a DSLR-captured, hand-processed photo

I guess I should find the original image and reprocess it. I ran it through gimp and applied 'auto white balance' because the sky in the original image didn't look quite right to me - but this was 1-1/2 years ago and I don't remember if I sharpened it.

[Rondec]

'Phone Company' never touches mine. They go straight to cloud via WiFi then down to computer using standard Internet connection.

It is a nice photo, but as Mack says, you can see grain/noise in the sky and some smoothing, which for an iso 80 image wouldn't be seen on a camera with a bit bigger sensor.

Much depends on the size you intend to view/display an image. I too, take phone images and the iphone 6 is good enough for 5 by 7 photos and maybe a bit bigger if at low iso, but much bigger would be pushing it.

[BigMackCam]

I guess I should find the original image and reprocess it. I ran it through gimp and applied 'auto white balance' because the sky in the original image didn't look quite right to me - but this was 1-1/2 years ago and I don't remember if I sharpened it.

It is a nice photo, but as Mack says, you can see grain/noise in the sky and some smoothing, which for an iso 80 image wouldn't be seen on a camera with a bit bigger sensor.

Much depends on the size you intend to view/display an image. I too, take phone images and the iphone 6 is good enough for 5 by 7 photos and maybe a bit bigger if at low iso, but much bigger would be pushing it.

I too have a smartphone that takes surprisingly good photos for casual use, and when viewed at appropriate sizes. I'm not a camera snob by any means - I don't look down on smartphones at all. They're extremely useful as photographic tools - and, frankly, I'm amazed at what they can do, especially when compared to compact digital cameras of just a few years ago. The advances in technology are mind-blowing. But I'm not holding my breath for someone to make a smartphone camera that (a) achieves the image quality I get from my DSLR or MILC cameras, and (b) accurately and comprehensively emulates the optical properties of all my favourite lenses. In the extremely unlikely event that anyone produces such a product in my useful lifetime, and in the hope I still have sufficient funds available, I'll buy one... and an LCD loupe so I can use the screen like a viewfinder

[reh321]

It is a nice photo, but as Mack says, you can see grain/noise in the sky and some smoothing, which for an iso 80 image wouldn't be seen on a camera with a bit bigger sensor.

Much depends on the size you intend to view/display an image. I too, take phone images and the iphone 6 is good enough for 5 by 7 photos and maybe a bit bigger if at low iso, but much bigger would be pushing it.

Rest of the story: {the word "this" refers to the photo in post #41}

The Virginian Railroad was purchased by the Norfolk & Western Railroad in 1959; in the 1980's the Norfolk & Western Railroad merged with the Southern Railroad to form the Norfolk Southern Railroad. In the past few years, the now-enormous Norfolk Southern decided to paint one locomotive to honor each of its predecessor railroads, hence this locomotive painted for a railroad that hasn't existed for nearly sixty years. In January 2017 I saw this train and reached for the only camera I had easily at hand - my iPhone - and took this photo. I was amazed it turned out, because the biggest shortcoming of smart phones is that they have trouble focusing when motion is involved {and sometimes they also exhibit 'rolling shutter' issues}, but in this case it worked. So yes, if I had my K-30 in my pocket, I would have come away with a better photo, but I used the best camera I happened to have in my pocket.

For fifty years I have taken photos primarily to record history, and this photo accomplishes that goal. It is certainly better than the photo below, which I took in 1967 with an Instamatic 100 recording the last Monon passenger train {and the best angle was looking almost directly into the sun}; I would have loved to have an iPhone then. People keep saying things like "its not the technology, it's the photographer" .... but they aren't satisfied if the photo isn't perfect.