I was also under the impression that it used both lenses for portrait mode. With all the hoopla about real-time HDR analysis and the fact that the wide angle lenses are the same it's surprising that there's so much difference in the low light portrait mode shots.
Well, Portraits in photography is always well lit.
Well lit as in bright? Ummm.... No. I often shoot low-light portraits, both in and out of the studio. They can reveal a special "spiciness". Sometimes it's a mood. Some models don't truly shine until the light doesn't. So there's artistry in both dim and bright light settings. Restricting yourself to only the brightly lit for "best results" is selling your photos short.
I was also under the impression that it used both lenses for portrait mode. With all the hoopla about real-time HDR analysis and the fact that the wide angle lenses are the same it's surprising that there's so much difference in the low light portrait mode shots.
Well, Portraits in photography is always well lit.
Well lit as in bright? Ummm.... No. I often shoot low-light portraits, both in and out of the studio. They can reveal a special "spiciness". Sometimes it's a mood. Some models don't truly shine until the light doesn't. So there's artistry in both dim and bright light settings. Restricting yourself to only the brightly lit for "best results" is selling your photos short.
I was also under the impression that it used both lenses for portrait mode. With all the hoopla about real-time HDR analysis and the fact that the wide angle lenses are the same it's surprising that there's so much difference in the low light portrait mode shots.
Well, Portraits in photography is always well lit.
Well lit as in bright? Ummm.... No. I often shoot low-light portraits, both in and out of the studio. They can reveal a special "spiciness". Sometimes it's a mood. Some models don't truly shine until the light doesn't. So there's artistry in both dim and bright light settings. Restricting yourself to only the brightly lit for "best results" is selling your photos short.
I do portraits. Sometimes on location. More often in my studio. Sometimes in low light. Intentionally. They come out well enough that people pay for them.
I was also under the impression that it used both lenses for portrait mode. With all the hoopla about real-time HDR analysis and the fact that the wide angle lenses are the same it's surprising that there's so much difference in the low light portrait mode shots.
Well, Portraits in photography is always well lit.
Well lit as in bright? Ummm.... No. I often shoot low-light portraits, both in and out of the studio. They can reveal a special "spiciness". Sometimes it's a mood. Some models don't truly shine until the light doesn't. So there's artistry in both dim and bright light settings. Restricting yourself to only the brightly lit for "best results" is selling your photos short.
I do portraits. Sometimes on location. More often in my studio. Sometimes in low light. Intentionally. They come out well enough that people pay for them.
Yeah, you still need a light source. Granted, you're comparing a DSLR full frame with a 1/2.55" sensor. And yeah, to get a natural light in dim conditions, you need a big ass sensor and a tripod (for slow shutter). And even then, most professional portraits are with GOOD lighting. In between dim areas vs. well-lit conditions, even with my D750 + 24-70/2.8 VR Nikon lens, i much prefer well-lit areas when taking family portraits.
When Apple made Portrait mode, it is meant for something that anyone can do in a pinch...a personal picture of a person(s) in good lighting where depth mapping is important without proper glass. Not meant for professional photography where full frame and tripod are needed, which is what is much needed in low lit areas for DSLR.
XR may edge out XS in low lit portraits, but it's still off due to distortions of wide lens and poor background separation. But with such a small sensor, low lit portraits are not strong points of any smartphone.
I was also under the impression that it used both lenses for portrait mode. With all the hoopla about real-time HDR analysis and the fact that the wide angle lenses are the same it's surprising that there's so much difference in the low light portrait mode shots.
Well, Portraits in photography is always well lit.
Well lit as in bright? Ummm.... No. I often shoot low-light portraits, both in and out of the studio. They can reveal a special "spiciness". Sometimes it's a mood. Some models don't truly shine until the light doesn't. So there's artistry in both dim and bright light settings. Restricting yourself to only the brightly lit for "best results" is selling your photos short.
I do portraits. Sometimes on location. More often in my studio. Sometimes in low light. Intentionally. They come out well enough that people pay for them.
Yeah, you still need a light source. Granted, you're comparing a DSLR full frame with a 1/2.55" sensor. And yeah, to get a natural light in dim conditions, you need a big ass sensor and a tripod (for slow shutter). And even then, most professional portraits are with GOOD lighting. In between dim areas vs. well-lit conditions, even with my D750 + 24-70/2.8 VR Nikon lens, i much prefer well-lit areas when taking family portraits.
When Apple made Portrait mode, it is meant for something that anyone can do in a pinch...a personal picture of a person(s) in good lighting where depth mapping is important without proper glass. Not meant for professional photography where full frame and tripod are needed, which is what is much needed in low lit areas for DSLR.
XR may edge out XS in low lit portraits, but it's still off due to distortions of wide lens and poor background separation. But with such a small sensor, low lit portraits are not strong points of any smartphone.
You're still not seeing the light. You don't have to have a DSLR to capture compelling portraits in less than stellar light. You can take amazing smartphone portraits in dim light, in fact sometimes it's just what the moment demands. if your smartphone is tuned for low-light it's a bonus.
Spend a little time on Instagram or Flicker and see just how creative and artistic smartphone users are when shooting weddings, club scenes, cityscapes, portraits, on-stage events, and more. It can only help make your own photography better, eliminate some of the obstacles preventing you from seeing photos op's when they happen and understanding low-light can be your friend.
Maybe given a choice a lot of us would opt for a DSLR for portraiture. A lot of us wouldn't, But when the opportunity is there he best camera you have is the one you have with you. If that's a smartphone then one that handles light well both bright AND dim can be advantageous.
If the desire is to become "somewhat" more serious about photo (and video) using iPhone then Sandmarc, Moment and others have zoom, wide, and even anamorphic options which, when combined with the single lens XR, give clearly superior results to the XS alone for about the same total price. If that is your primary decision point between the two for less cost the XR plus the Moment tele beats the XS hands down; it's not even close.
No doubt this is all only a "low cost" middle ground to improve photo/video on a device you already own for other reasons. An RX100M III can be had for under $600 or an LX100 II for under $900. Way up from there if you go interchangeable. Nothing will get any phone camera into that territory no matter how much hype gets spewed; light gathering through a marble is still dictated by physics after all.
Comments
I often shoot low-light portraits, both in and out of the studio. They can reveal a special "spiciness". Sometimes it's a mood. Some models don't truly shine until the light doesn't. So there's artistry in both dim and bright light settings. Restricting yourself to only the brightly lit for "best results" is selling your photos short.
https://www.picturecorrect.com/tips/indoor-and-outdoor-portrait-lighting-tips/
None of the examples are in poor lit conditions.
Street photography is different from portraits.
Perhaps you have no actual experience with it other than snapshots? You seem to like links, so here's one that can be a teaching moment if you let it.
https://www.lightstalking.com/mastering-low-light-portraits/
Even for weddings...
https://www.wonderlass.com/blog/8-tips-for-shooting-in-low-light/
and with a smartphone if it handles low light well!
https://www.muvee.com/blog/wedding-video-photography/wedding-photos-in-low-light-7-things-need-know
When Apple made Portrait mode, it is meant for something that anyone can do in a pinch...a personal picture of a person(s) in good lighting where depth mapping is important without proper glass. Not meant for professional photography where full frame and tripod are needed, which is what is much needed in low lit areas for DSLR.
XR may edge out XS in low lit portraits, but it's still off due to distortions of wide lens and poor background separation. But with such a small sensor, low lit portraits are not strong points of any smartphone.
You don't have to have a DSLR to capture compelling portraits in less than stellar light. You can take amazing smartphone portraits in dim light, in fact sometimes it's just what the moment demands. if your smartphone is tuned for low-light it's a bonus.
Spend a little time on Instagram or Flicker and see just how creative and artistic smartphone users are when shooting weddings, club scenes, cityscapes, portraits, on-stage events, and more. It can only help make your own photography better, eliminate some of the obstacles preventing you from seeing photos op's when they happen and understanding low-light can be your friend.
Maybe given a choice a lot of us would opt for a DSLR for portraiture. A lot of us wouldn't, But when the opportunity is there he best camera you have is the one you have with you. If that's a smartphone then one that handles light well both bright AND dim can be advantageous.