I voted for "it's blasphemous!" but only because it made me giggle It doesn't undermine me in any way, and I'd rather people have artistic tools available! However, I think artificial shallow depth of field still has a little bit to go before it looks realistic. My dad sent me a photo the other day that he wanted to print taken with portrait mode on his iPhone X, and there were a couple of areas of the background that it didn't quite catch and the blur wasn't quite right on the edges of the subjects (still impressive nonetheless).
Yeah I think that's the main concern or complaint I've read about it, the fact that it's not exactly comparable to the "real thing." Technology is crazy and can do some wonderful things but I guess mechanical skills are still superior in the photography game!
Yay! Bring all the awesome photo taking and processing tools to as many people as possible on as many devices as possible to everyone can create more cool stuff that makes them happy. Also, I love that stuff like this really pisses off the "photography is only for special people with big expensive cameras" people, so I support it for that even though I don't have an iPhone
I like the idea that there could be new ways to be creative photographically with the nicer cameras in phones. I can see how purists would be upset that their work (that no doubt is more technical) might be compared to a similar photo taken on a phone where all the photographer had to do was slide a bar to get the desired effect, though.
That's exactly the kind of disruption I live for. If people's self-esteem, or esteem in relation to their work, rests so heavily on stuff like that, maybe a bit of shaking up is a good thing. New technology doesn't diminish anyone's education, skill or experience. It doesn't make anyone better able to run a business, market their work or gain or keep clients. It definitely doesn't define an artist's unique vision. It just makes creativity more accessible to more people, which I love. But then I'm a "publish your own books, make your own magazines, put your creations out there however the hell you want without needing anyone's validation or permission" kind of person, which isn't everyone's approach to life
Seems that it's just giving you manual control over the old faux bokeh effect
All this software driven photography is neat and all, but it's not as exciting as actual hardware improvements. So, I mean, it'd be goddamn magic if they'd squeezed a real light field camera in, but that's the sort of thing I'm looking forward to.
Yeah they didn't even call it aperture in the presentation if I recall right, so maybe it isn't supposed to be compared to that. I want to try the new phone out to test it, but I'm a noob so it'd probably come out just as bad as if I were given a real camera. :B
aww hey. Big fancy cameras can still be point and shoot affairs - it's not a skill thing exactly. It's that the technique to emulate depth of field on phones is still kinda clumsy. It's good enough most of the time, but when it borks up it gives the image this uncanny valley kinda feel.
I'm curious to see if Apple have made actual improvements to it under the hood aside from adding this slider. Last I read, Google's Pixel 2 handled portrait mode more accurately, and it only has one camera to work with.