Well I'm sure you know what your talking about when it comes to photography but frankly the majority of users don't, myself included.
I think HDR offers a marked improvement and there's no fiddling about. Point and click. Simple, easy with great results. This is the Apple way.
If you want pro shots buy a pro camera and learn how to use it.
Agreed. The guy you were quoting sounds like he really knows his stuff, and if I ever need someone to professionally do some wedding photos he sounds like the guy.
But for everyone else who wants to press a button and let the camera do the work because they really have no extensive interest in photography (ie- 99% of people who own this phone).. HDR is fantastic.
Honestly, if you are that into photography, you aren't gonna be shooting your photos with a cell phone anyways.
The HDR feature is a nice touch, and for a phone camera the quality is great. I shoot weddings and events with vastly more expensive equipment than the iPhone, but I really enjoyed this addition. Upon a quick visual comparison, an HDR image from the iPhone seems to have a similar dynamic range as a single shot (8-bit JPG, not 14-bit NEF) from my Nikon D3 at ISO 800 - very respectable imo.
I think they discontinued it even before he came back. I had one, it was really bad. 640 x 480...
Actually, the first model, the 100, was very popular, and for the day, offered high quality photos. In fact, it was considered to be partly responsible for a rising popularity of digital photography. Unfortunately, their second camera wasn't as innovative, and other camera companies were taking serious notice of the market, so Apple dropped out.
The company developed technology it dubbed "eye-fidelity," which allows for dynamic range correction in both standard and HDR photos.
I'm a little surprised that Steve didn't keep the term "eye-fidelity" when he revealed the HDR feature. "Eye-fidelity" seems catchy-er to me, and may be easier to understand for non-photo bugs. And Steve is usually good at presenting new technologies in consumer-friendly language.
If only Apple would have included the hdr with the 4.1 update for the iphone 3gs. Yes I do know I can jailbreak my iphone to obtain it, but i don't want to.. oh well
Just checked. QuickTake was discontinued by Steve Jobs in 1997.
And recently discovered in a shallow grave behind the Apple campus, next to what is believed to be the remains of the Newton MessagePad. Both products appeared to have been shot execution style, with a single bullet wound in the back of the head.
If only Apple would have included the hdr with the 4.1 update for the iphone 3gs. Yes I do know I can jailbreak my iphone to obtain it, but i don't want to.. oh well
You know, with this recent foray into the HDR scene, it could be some fore-shadowing for another future update: iPhoto with iLife (10/11). It would be really sweet if embedded into iPhoto was the ability to take multiple shots of the same shot (because HDR doesn't have to be three shots, it can be more), and do those kinds of calculations on your Mac.
That alone would be the cost of iLife (10/11). Have you seen the prices for those plugins???
The "HDR LOOK" is really more aesthetic than technical. The way its mostly used certainly is not true to the way the scene originally appeared. People mostly use the extended dynamic range to crush the contrast and saturate the colors. Its certainly more dramatic but its not true to the original scene.
The human eye has incredible dynamic range. HDR originally was thought of to be used to make a photo appear more the way the human eye sees. Comparatively it would be considered boring. Because our brains don't crush contrast and saturate colors beyond their natural tones.
So from a technical standpoint the more boring shot is the one that is truer to what we perceive. Those dramatic shots are aesthetic manipulations of real life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doshea
Well, color me unimpressed.
After a number of trials using various subjects, I think Mediocre Dynamic Range (MDR) is a more accurate acronym. I am not one for the oversaturated or spooky images that HDR processes can be made to produce, but I do wish the iPhone HDR feature did indeed produce an "eye-fidelity" image. The most I could say is that it did a decent job on the highlights, but it doesn't bring up the shadows anywhere near where they need to be.
The "HDR LOOK" is really more aesthetic than technical. The way its mostly used certainly is not true to the way the scene originally appeared. People mostly use the extended dynamic range to crush the contrast and saturate the colors. Its certainly more dramatic but its not true to the original scene.
The human eye has incredible dynamic range. HDR originally was thought of to be used to make a photo appear more the way the human eye sees. Comparatively it would be considered boring. Because our brains don't crush contrast and saturate colors beyond their natural tones.
So from a technical standpoint the more boring shot is the one that is truer to what we perceive. Those dramatic shots are aesthetic manipulations of real life.
The problem with your argument is that photographs are never "true" to what we perceive, even assuming we know what we perceive. A photograph can only be true to what the photographer is attempting to communicate. They are all manipulations.
The "HDR LOOK" is really more aesthetic than technical. The way its mostly used certainly is not true to the way the scene originally appeared. People mostly use the extended dynamic range to crush the contrast and saturate the colors. Its certainly more dramatic but its not true to the original scene.
The human eye has incredible dynamic range. HDR originally was thought of to be used to make a photo appear more the way the human eye sees. Comparatively it would be considered boring. Because our brains don't crush contrast and saturate colors beyond their natural tones.
So from a technical standpoint the more boring shot is the one that is truer to what we perceive. Those dramatic shots are aesthetic manipulations of real life.
I don't know Teno. We don't see things the way a camera captures a scene, because we can't SEE the entire scene at once. We only see what's in the center of our vision field. The rest is peripheral, and we don't see that very well.
When we look at an outdoor scene, we look around that scene. So when we look at the sky, our iris closes to give us the proper exposure, and we color correct it as well, and focus. Then when we look at the grass, our iris opens up some, and color corrects again along with the focus. Then when we look under the trees, it opens up even more, and more color correction happens, and the focus changes again.
We can't ever see that scene all at once, we can just focus on small parts at a time. We can perceive the entire scene, but not really see it. But the camera must see the entire scene at once, and adjust for brightness, color and focus at just one swoop. That's why WE see the sky well, but the photo has it burned out. It's why we see the grass as a mid green, but the camera might see it as yellowish, and why we see under the trees with the proper color, while the camera shows us a blue/cyan color, and underexposed.
What HDR does - if it's properly done, is to make those parts as we would be seeing them if we could see them all at once. But all too often, people overdo it, so it looks crappy.
Yes scientists have done tests on how the human eye and brain perceive light. While its not 100% the same for everyone, their is an established norm for how we see.
The end result of photographs are not true to what the original scene was but you don't start from that point. You don't want to start out with yellow as orange or red as pink, there has to be a normal starting point so that you can predictably get the look you want in the end. The initial goal of any photographic system is to record the scene as accurately as possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
The problem with your argument is that photographs are never "true" to what we perceive, even assuming we know what we perceive. A photograph can only be true to what the photographer is attempting to communicate. They are all manipulations.
Yes scientists have done tests on how the human eye and brain perceive light. While its not 100% the same for everyone, their is an established norm for how we see.
The end result of photographs are not true to what the original scene was but you don't start from that point. You don't want to start out with yellow as orange or red as pink, there has to be a normal starting point so that you can predictably get the look you want in the end. The initial goal of any photographic system is to record the scene as accurately as possible.
We always had problems in my lab, as every other lab has. The problem was in how to correct from what were correct colors that the camera took, to the incorrect colors our eye and brain corrects them to. That differed with each client.
How do you correct a face in the noonday sun that overexposed on the sunlit side, and yellow from the suns light, but yet cyan and underexposed on the shadow side without making the entire thing a mess? Commercial shooters usually understand this problem and cheat, but aren't always successful. Everyone else has no idea.
Then with film and paper, we had the problem that if we corrected properly for flesh tones, grey would come out cyan. Tough! Thankfully, that problem is now over, though early laser and inkjet printers would often output blue as purple. Lots of playing around with the LUTs.
That's true to a degree, but our dynamic range is so wide that the change is not that dramatic. If we look up into a sunny sky and can see shaded trees in the same view. The shadows of the tree don't become inky black shadows for us. They are just darker shades of gray.
If we look into a shadow area and can see a clear sky in the distance we can see detail in the shadow area and the sky does not become a mass of white. We can see detail in it all. A camera cannot.
My point is that HDR photography they always crush the shadows down to blackness or stretch the white areas to be very white. While it does look nice and it is dramatic its not true to the original scene. Its not true to what was actually recorded, its an aesthetic style.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I don't know Teno. We don't see things the way a camera captures a scene, because we can't SEE the entire scene at once. We only see what's in the center of our vision field. The rest is peripheral, and we don't see that very well.
Comments
Well I'm sure you know what your talking about when it comes to photography but frankly the majority of users don't, myself included.
I think HDR offers a marked improvement and there's no fiddling about. Point and click. Simple, easy with great results. This is the Apple way.
If you want pro shots buy a pro camera and learn how to use it.
Agreed. The guy you were quoting sounds like he really knows his stuff, and if I ever need someone to professionally do some wedding photos he sounds like the guy.
But for everyone else who wants to press a button and let the camera do the work because they really have no extensive interest in photography (ie- 99% of people who own this phone).. HDR is fantastic.
Honestly, if you are that into photography, you aren't gonna be shooting your photos with a cell phone anyways.
hdr photos are great, love it.
+1 hdr
I think they discontinued it even before he came back. I had one, it was really bad. 640 x 480...
Actually, the first model, the 100, was very popular, and for the day, offered high quality photos. In fact, it was considered to be partly responsible for a rising popularity of digital photography. Unfortunately, their second camera wasn't as innovative, and other camera companies were taking serious notice of the market, so Apple dropped out.
The company developed technology it dubbed "eye-fidelity," which allows for dynamic range correction in both standard and HDR photos.
I'm a little surprised that Steve didn't keep the term "eye-fidelity" when he revealed the HDR feature. "Eye-fidelity" seems catchy-er to me, and may be easier to understand for non-photo bugs. And Steve is usually good at presenting new technologies in consumer-friendly language.
I think they discontinued it even before he came back. I had one, it was really bad. 640 x 480...
Just checked. QuickTake was discontinued by Steve Jobs in 1997.
Cue someone who never shoot pro-photography to come in and tell us iPhone 4 doesn't take "true" HDR image in 3..2..1..
True statement about Apple's HDR can be made by people who have never shot pro-photography.
Just checked. QuickTake was discontinued by Steve Jobs in 1997.
And recently discovered in a shallow grave behind the Apple campus, next to what is believed to be the remains of the Newton MessagePad. Both products appeared to have been shot execution style, with a single bullet wound in the back of the head.
They are already in the Camera and Camcorder business. The new iPhone is one heck of a camera/camcorder.
Speaking of which
I Made a video over the weekend with
My iPhone and I was really impressed on how it came out
Even edited it roughly with iMovie on my iPhone
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64LKBd5jX0s&hd=1
Honestly, if you are that into photography, you aren't gonna be shooting your photos with a cell phone anyways.
Not necessarily. A very serious photographer friend of mine is shooting a lot with his iPhone these days.
If only Apple would have included the hdr with the 4.1 update for the iphone 3gs. Yes I do know I can jailbreak my iphone to obtain it, but i don't want to.. oh well
They don't think it's fast enough.
That alone would be the cost of iLife (10/11).
Speaking of which
I Made a video over the weekend with
My iPhone and I was really impressed on how it came out
Even edited it roughly with iMovie on my iPhone
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64LKBd5jX0s&hd=1
Wow video quality looks great!
The human eye has incredible dynamic range. HDR originally was thought of to be used to make a photo appear more the way the human eye sees. Comparatively it would be considered boring. Because our brains don't crush contrast and saturate colors beyond their natural tones.
So from a technical standpoint the more boring shot is the one that is truer to what we perceive. Those dramatic shots are aesthetic manipulations of real life.
Well, color me unimpressed.
After a number of trials using various subjects, I think Mediocre Dynamic Range (MDR) is a more accurate acronym. I am not one for the oversaturated or spooky images that HDR processes can be made to produce, but I do wish the iPhone HDR feature did indeed produce an "eye-fidelity" image. The most I could say is that it did a decent job on the highlights, but it doesn't bring up the shadows anywhere near where they need to be.
The "HDR LOOK" is really more aesthetic than technical. The way its mostly used certainly is not true to the way the scene originally appeared. People mostly use the extended dynamic range to crush the contrast and saturate the colors. Its certainly more dramatic but its not true to the original scene.
The human eye has incredible dynamic range. HDR originally was thought of to be used to make a photo appear more the way the human eye sees. Comparatively it would be considered boring. Because our brains don't crush contrast and saturate colors beyond their natural tones.
So from a technical standpoint the more boring shot is the one that is truer to what we perceive. Those dramatic shots are aesthetic manipulations of real life.
The problem with your argument is that photographs are never "true" to what we perceive, even assuming we know what we perceive. A photograph can only be true to what the photographer is attempting to communicate. They are all manipulations.
The "HDR LOOK" is really more aesthetic than technical. The way its mostly used certainly is not true to the way the scene originally appeared. People mostly use the extended dynamic range to crush the contrast and saturate the colors. Its certainly more dramatic but its not true to the original scene.
The human eye has incredible dynamic range. HDR originally was thought of to be used to make a photo appear more the way the human eye sees. Comparatively it would be considered boring. Because our brains don't crush contrast and saturate colors beyond their natural tones.
So from a technical standpoint the more boring shot is the one that is truer to what we perceive. Those dramatic shots are aesthetic manipulations of real life.
I don't know Teno. We don't see things the way a camera captures a scene, because we can't SEE the entire scene at once. We only see what's in the center of our vision field. The rest is peripheral, and we don't see that very well.
When we look at an outdoor scene, we look around that scene. So when we look at the sky, our iris closes to give us the proper exposure, and we color correct it as well, and focus. Then when we look at the grass, our iris opens up some, and color corrects again along with the focus. Then when we look under the trees, it opens up even more, and more color correction happens, and the focus changes again.
We can't ever see that scene all at once, we can just focus on small parts at a time. We can perceive the entire scene, but not really see it. But the camera must see the entire scene at once, and adjust for brightness, color and focus at just one swoop. That's why WE see the sky well, but the photo has it burned out. It's why we see the grass as a mid green, but the camera might see it as yellowish, and why we see under the trees with the proper color, while the camera shows us a blue/cyan color, and underexposed.
What HDR does - if it's properly done, is to make those parts as we would be seeing them if we could see them all at once. But all too often, people overdo it, so it looks crappy.
The end result of photographs are not true to what the original scene was but you don't start from that point. You don't want to start out with yellow as orange or red as pink, there has to be a normal starting point so that you can predictably get the look you want in the end. The initial goal of any photographic system is to record the scene as accurately as possible.
The problem with your argument is that photographs are never "true" to what we perceive, even assuming we know what we perceive. A photograph can only be true to what the photographer is attempting to communicate. They are all manipulations.
Yes scientists have done tests on how the human eye and brain perceive light. While its not 100% the same for everyone, their is an established norm for how we see.
The end result of photographs are not true to what the original scene was but you don't start from that point. You don't want to start out with yellow as orange or red as pink, there has to be a normal starting point so that you can predictably get the look you want in the end. The initial goal of any photographic system is to record the scene as accurately as possible.
We always had problems in my lab, as every other lab has. The problem was in how to correct from what were correct colors that the camera took, to the incorrect colors our eye and brain corrects them to. That differed with each client.
How do you correct a face in the noonday sun that overexposed on the sunlit side, and yellow from the suns light, but yet cyan and underexposed on the shadow side without making the entire thing a mess? Commercial shooters usually understand this problem and cheat, but aren't always successful. Everyone else has no idea.
Then with film and paper, we had the problem that if we corrected properly for flesh tones, grey would come out cyan. Tough! Thankfully, that problem is now over, though early laser and inkjet printers would often output blue as purple. Lots of playing around with the LUTs.
If we look into a shadow area and can see a clear sky in the distance we can see detail in the shadow area and the sky does not become a mass of white. We can see detail in it all. A camera cannot.
My point is that HDR photography they always crush the shadows down to blackness or stretch the white areas to be very white. While it does look nice and it is dramatic its not true to the original scene. Its not true to what was actually recorded, its an aesthetic style.
I don't know Teno. We don't see things the way a camera captures a scene, because we can't SEE the entire scene at once. We only see what's in the center of our vision field. The rest is peripheral, and we don't see that very well.