Mickey

[escape]

I saw the early morning light on him and said, "Don't move." I grabbed my phone and snapped.I do see that the hair is off. Not sure if it's fixable or not.

[Manfred M]

While I like the subject and the way you have posed, the lighting on the camera left side doesn't work for me as the skin has no texture. I agree with your comment about the hair, that looks very strange and has no texture. It does not look like it can be fixed.

[DanK]

I'm puzzled by the hair. It seems to have no detail, and if so, it can't be fixed. I'm just curious how this happened. Did you edit the photo? this looks like what happens when one burns (darkens) and area with no or almost no detail--it just turns gray. If you didn't edit the photo, there must be something in the iPhone's automatic processing that did this.

[escape]

Good question, Dank. Here is the original.

[escape]

While I like the subject and the way you have posed, the lighting on the camera left side doesn't work for me as the skin has no texture. I agree with your comment about the hair, that looks very strange and has no texture. It does not look like it can be fixed.

Thank you, Manfred. I would love to upgrade my iPhone 7 to a better phone camera, but if I did, I wouldn't be able to blame the camera.

[Manfred M]

Thank you, Manfred. I would love to upgrade my iPhone 7 to a better phone camera, but if I did, I wouldn't be able to blame the camera.

Unfortunately, you have posted a very low resolution image and it's hard to make a definite assessment on it.

I know someone whose job it was to assess cell phone sensors and lenses and his comment to me was that they are all awful. The main criteria is to fit those devices into a very thin body that severely limits the lens designer's options.

The only thing that lets the manufacturers get away with it is that these images are generally viewed on the phones themselves, and the relatively small size of those screens helps hide the problems. Enlarge the images and issues like the pixel smearing we see here become more obvious. My slightly newer Samsung Galaxy S10 exhibits some of the same behaviour. I replaced the battery a couple of years ago and its starting to die again, so I suspect I will have to replace it in the next 12 - 18 months. While the lens and sensors have not improved, hopefully the latest and greatest software will result in better images.

[DanK]

I'm no fan of phone cameras, but this doesn't look to me like pixel smearing from the camera's limitations. The original, to the extent that one can see at such a small size, seems free of that problem, at least in the hair. In contrast, the processed B&W image has lost all detail in two areas of hair, and perhaps on some of the face as well.

[Round Tuit]

These two photos don't look the same. The background behind Mickey in the B & W is very different than the one in the colour picture.

[Round Tuit]

On second though, this could be the result of AI doing a terrible job of conversion to B & W.

[billtils]

. (response to Daniel's post about not upgrading his phone).

[escape]

I know someone whose job it was to assess cell phone sensors and lenses and his comment to me was that they are all awful. The main criteria is to fit those devices into a very thin body that severely limits the lens designer's options.

How long ago did he tell you this? These phone cameras look pretty impressive.

For 2024, three smartphones lead in camera quality: the iPhone 16 Pro Max, the Google Pixel 9 Pro, and the Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra. Each brings unique strengths that appeal to serious photographers.

iPhone 16 Pro Max: With dual 48MP cameras (main and ultra-wide), a 5x telephoto lens, and advanced computational features, the iPhone 16 Pro Max delivers sharp, vibrant photos in diverse lighting conditions. Its video capabilities stand out, especially with ProRes Log support for a high dynamic range in 4K. The large, high-quality screen enhances editing, making it an all-around powerful tool for photo and video work.​
DIGITALCAMERAWORL AMATEUR PHOTOGRAPHER
.

Google Pixel 9 Pro: Known for exceptional software processing, the Pixel 9 Pro excels in low-light conditions and offers extensive manual control, including RAW capture. While its video quality isn’t quite as advanced as the iPhone’s, it incorporates innovative AI features like video night mode for cleaner footage in dark environments, making it a top choice for photography enthusiasts.​
DIGITAL CAMERA WORLD
.

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra: With a massive 200MP primary sensor, this model offers extraordinary zoom capabilities and detail capture, especially in low light. Samsung’s advanced AI processing and high-quality telephoto lenses enable impressive depth and clarity in portraits and distant subjects alike, rivaling dedicated cameras in some respects.
AMATEUR PHOTOGRAPHER
.

[escape]

These two photos don't look the same. The background behind Mickey in the B & W is very different than the one in the colour picture.

Hi Andre, There's no mystery. I just changed the background. I shot the background from my plane window and used it.

[escape]

I recently got a new perk: I can travel anywhere in the world as often as I like for free. Im planning on getting one of the new camera phones to take with me. Im not that technically proficient. I mainly focus on subject and composition.

[DanK]

There's no question that phone cameras produce much better images than they used to, in substantial part because they use computational algorithms to compensate for the often low quality of the capture. Under many circumstances, the results are fine for many people. I know serious photographers who sometimes use their phones. So my view is that if anyone finds their phone sufficient, more power too them.

However, I think it's helpful to be aware of their limitations and the marketing hype that we now see. Start with high-megapixel sensors. What use is a 48 or 200 MPX sensor when you are going to display at less than 4 megabytes? None at all. In fact, it's a hindrance. The photosites are necessarily small on such a small sensor, and the high pixel count makes them smaller yet. That's why high-end phones use "pixel binning", combining adjacent pixels into a single, larger super pixel. See, for example, https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/f...is-camera-tech.

Even with binning, phones have tiny photosites, with the disadvantages those have. In good lighting, this isn't as much of an issue, but as light levels decline, the phone has to resort to computational processes to compensate for the low quality of the capture. Again, that's fine if the result suits your purposes.

For my purposes, phones aren't sufficient. I want more control over both the capture and the final image than they offer, and I sometimes print fairly large. But this is all a matter of personal preferences. If a phone does what you want, no reason to lug additional gear.

[Round Tuit]

Daniel,

The problem was caused by the conversion method that you used. Here is a quick conversion of the original shot that you posted done with photoshop. Even at the small size of the original, the B&W version does not show any of the artifacts that are in the version that you posted.

[Manfred M]

He told me this within the last few months. What Dan has written sums up part of the problems with cell phone image quality.

My acquaintance, who belongs to photography club I belong to, was doing an absolute comparison between modern camera sensors and modern phone sensors.

The review sites compare like to like camera types, and even stick with comparing models by the same manufacturers (generally older versions by the same manufacturer). Often they do not even compare across brands; Apple vs Samsung, for instance. There is no question that newer phone cameras will perform better than older phone cameras, but certainly not better than cameras with larger sensors.

The review sites tend to do the same thing with sensor size; the performance expectations of micro four-thirds are not compared to APS-C, or Full-Frame or Medium Format. From an image quality standpoint, larger sensors are better. I can say that with conviction and experience as I own and shoot with a phone, a micro four-thirds, APS-C, full-frame and medium format cameras.

That being said, this image quality difference may not matter. If you only every show your images on a phone or post low resolution images to the internet for display on a standard 1920 x 1080 resolution laptop, you likely won't notice. If you are a large format print maker, like I am, you will definitely notice right away.

I had an acquaintance approach me to make a large format print of his dog, who had recently died. The image was done on an iPhone and he wanted a 16" x 20" (or larger) print to hang in his house. In spite of all my post-processing skills, the image at that size was weak and blurry, but he still loved the final product.

Don't forget, these review sites rely on camera manufacturers for their business. Write a bad review, and they won't let you review their products anymore. There was a well known incident where Luminous Landscape did a review on a Nikon product, that Nikon did not like some years ago. Nikon stopped sending them cameras and lenses to review.

Sensor size is only part of the problem. Another major issue is that the cell phone camera designer is limited by the space in the phone, especially the thickness of the phone. The lens and the sensor have to fit into a very tiny space, so some significant trade-offs have to be made for everything to fit. This is why we have the lenses sticking out of the camera bodies to given the lens designers a bit more space to place lens elements. The manufacturing tolerances tend to be tighter when dealing with smaller sensors.

Phone manufacturers try to compensate for these limitations by using something called computational photography. That's a nice way of saying that they use post-processing to manipulate the captured image to "improve" it. This is what gives phone image there characteristic "look", which tends to the overprocessed side to me. Remember that phones use one or more fixed focus cameras and when we choose an intermediate "zoom" setting, the image is calculated and artificially generated by the phone's algorithms.

I totally agree, that phones are great for snapshots, but it is important to understand their limitations. Getting a reasonably sized high quality image is simply not possible.

[Manfred M]

Daniel - I'm not sure if you can get past the paywall at Luminous Landscape (LuLa), but this article there nicely summarizes the issues with cell phones. While it was written in 2019, the technology has advanced, but the underlying physics and economics have not.

This article nicely complements what Dan and I have posted.



https://luminous-landscape.com/of-ph...not-a-gfx-100/

[escape]

Daniel - I'm not sure if you can get past the paywall at Luminous Landscape (LuLa), but this article there nicely summarizes the issues with cell phones. While it was written in 2019, the technology has advanced, but the underlying physics and economics have not.

This article nicely complements what Dan and I have posted.



https://luminous-landscape.com/of-ph...not-a-gfx-100/

:

I took a look at the article, but it felt like a bit much to read. I already understand the limitations of a cell phone camera, so I’m not sure why so much detail was needed. Just to clarify, I never meant to imply that cell phone photos are better than camera photos—I know newer cell phones take better pictures than my iPhone 7, but that’s fine by me. I don’t really print my photos; they mostly live in digital storage. For me, photos are like leaves—they’re everywhere.

[DanK]

I just did an informal comparison. I've been putting together a gallery of snapshots of my recent trip to Europe for my grandkids. I had two batches of photos, one taken with my iPhone 13 and the other with my old Lumix LX-100. Both are 12 MPX, so that is taken out of the comparison. I shot HEIC on the iPhone, which was converted to JPG when I emailed the photos to upload to Lightroom. I shot raw on the Lumix.

As one might expect, some of the iPhone photos SOOC looked more finished than the raw files after the initial rendering. However, the edits the phone did were in some cases not what I wanted. and they weren't all easy to undo. I found the Lumix raw files much easier to manipulate. This wasn't an A/B comparison, as conditions varied a great deal, but for the most part, I was more satisfied with the results from the raw files. All as expected.