Photographer showcases upcoming Portrait mode using Apple's iPhone 7 Plus at wedding

AppleInsiderAppleInsider
Posted:
in iPhone
Reddit users claiming to be professional photographers proclaim the iPhone 7 Plus in Portrait mode in iOS 10.1 an excellent, high-quality photography tool when coupled with the appropriate user skillset.









The iPhone 7 Plus was used by Reddit member "Rytterfalk" for about 70 percent of the shots at a wedding. The photographer claimed that some shots required the use of a DSLR for future use of the photos, but it was "much harder to get the moment the same way as you can with a phone."



All shots were taken with natural light, according to the photographer.







"Portrait" is now available to select in the native Camera app on iPhone 7 Plus units running any of the iOS 10.1 betas. When shooting photos in "Portrait" mode, users must lock onto their subject to separate it from the background, forcing the iPhone to simulate what is known as a "bokeh" effect in photography.



Instructions at the bottom of the screen inform the user whether or not there is enough light in their shot, and also whether they are too close or too far from the subject. Photos captured in this mode are labeled with "Depth Effect."



With proprietary range finding technology, the iPhone 7 Plus dual cameras can produce a selectively out-of-focus portrait. While the feature was demonstrated at the iPhone 7 Plus unveiling, it did not ship with the device and is set to arrive for all users with the full iOS 10.1 software update later this fall.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 31
    volcanvolcan Posts: 1,799member
    AppleInsider said:

    ...to simulate what is known as a "bokeh" effect in photography.

    I wish people would stop calling Portrait mode "bokeh" because it is not. It is just a blurred background. Bokeh is different. It has individual convolution areas and swirls not just a Gaussian blur. I have to admit the masking capability is impressive. If I could get the masking feature alone without the blur, it would be helpful in compositing work.

    That picture of the bride and groom together looks terrible.
    melodyof1974gatorguy
  • Reply 2 of 31
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    I think this is a case of 'just because you can do something, doesn't necessarily mean you should.'
  • Reply 3 of 31
    mike1mike1 Posts: 3,284member
    I'm not sure I'd trust wedding photos to the phone, but there are certainly times I wished I could blur the background some to make the subject pop. Don't want to retouch all the time.
  • Reply 4 of 31
    sflagelsflagel Posts: 805member
    Dear author: a blurred background is not bokeh, it is just depth of field. Bokeh is when you have light points turn into perfectly concentric circles, resulting in a "magical" and dreamy background. 

    The depth of field looks ok in these pictures (better than none), I have not yet seen a bokeh effect anywhere. 
    SpamSandwich
  • Reply 5 of 31
    xpadxpad Posts: 46member
    volcan said:
    AppleInsider said:

    ...to simulate what is known as a "bokeh" effect in photography.

    I wish people would stop calling Portrait mode "bokeh" because it is not. It is just a blurred background. Bokeh is different. It has individual convolution areas and swirls not just a Gaussian blur. I have to admit the masking capability is impressive. If I could get the masking feature alone without the blur, it would be helpful in compositing work.

    That picture of the bride and groom together looks terrible.
    It's not a Gaussian blur. Additionally, bokeh is the out of focus area of a photograph. It doesn't have to have any specific feature (like a certain iris pattern), those are just aspects of bokeh that can vary.

    Apple's implementation is not a Gaussian blur, and it takes into account distance from the in-focus plane. It most certainly is (simulated) bokeh.
    edited October 2016 jay-tlolliversennenredgeminipajony0
  • Reply 6 of 31
    xpadxpad Posts: 46member

    sflagel said:
    Dear author: a blurred background is not bokeh, it is just depth of field. Bokeh is when you have light points turn into perfectly concentric circles, resulting in a "magical" and dreamy background. 

    The depth of field looks ok in these pictures (better than none), I have not yet seen a bokeh effect anywhere. 
    No, that's not the definition of bokeh, that's just the description of one attribute of bokeh that can vary (for example, you can have most any arbitrary solid shape for the patterns).

    During this testing, someone needs to use a scene with some point-like light sources. Apple's implementation doesn't use a Gaussian blur, so there should be proper bokeh-like effects.
    jay-tlolliverredgeminipajony0
  • Reply 7 of 31
    xpadxpad Posts: 46member
    Follow up to my previous comment, look at the sky showing through the leaves in the first photo. The light pattern is not merely a blur, but is bokeh-like in how the bright area expands into the darker area.
    lolliverredgeminipa
  • Reply 8 of 31
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    volcan said:
    AppleInsider said:

    ...to simulate what is known as a "bokeh" effect in photography.

    I wish people would stop calling Portrait mode "bokeh" because it is not. It is just a blurred background. Bokeh is different. It has individual convolution areas and swirls not just a Gaussian blur. I have to admit the masking capability is impressive. If I could get the masking feature alone without the blur, it would be helpful in compositing work.

    That picture of the bride and groom together looks terrible.
    on Gruber's podcast its mentioned that an Apple engineer on the project said it is not simply a gaussian blur, despite what the armchair engineers believe. 

    what some people don't realize is while bokeh often yields 5-sided blur artifacts, this is based on the number of fins in the shutter -- and that the finer the camera the more fins and thus the more circular the artifact shape is. thus Apple is going for a finer radial circle and not a typical 5-sided artifact.


    edited October 2016 lolliverredgeminipajony0
  • Reply 9 of 31
    retrogustoretrogusto Posts: 1,111member
    It doesn't look as natural as I thought it might, but it's still kind of cool, and like any software effect, it shouldn't be too hard to improve it over time, and perhaps give the user some control over the effect's intensity. I wouldn't be surprised if there are already third-party developers working on this. 
  • Reply 10 of 31
    volcanvolcan Posts: 1,799member
    xpad said:
    Apple's implementation doesn't use a Gaussian blur...
    Whatever you want to call it, it is indistinguishable from Gaussian blur in my opinion and entirely unlike any bokeh examples I have created or seen on the net. 

    This is how Wikipedia describes it. 1) none, 2) bokeh, 3) Gaussian blur


    edited October 2016
  • Reply 11 of 31
    christopher126christopher126 Posts: 4,366member
    I like the photo effect.


    P.S. Is it just me or with the Jet Black color, the rose gold look a little dated? 
  • Reply 12 of 31
    xpadxpad Posts: 46member
    volcan said:
    xpad said:
    Apple's implementation doesn't use a Gaussian blur...
    Whatever you want to call it, it is indistinguishable from Gaussian blur in my opinion and entirely unlike any bokeh examples I have created or seen on the net. Please go search Google images for bokeh and find an image that remotely resembles the photos in this article.
    That's not how words work. Your argument is that it's not bokeh, but just Gaussian blur.

    The problem is that it's not a Gaussian blur. Just because you can't tell the difference doesn't make it so.

    This wouldn't be a problem if you were just ignorant, but you are making a strong claim based on ignorance. Those "examples" you are talking about are just a subset of bokeh. Bokeh itself is just the out of focus area of a photograph. Every normal camera has bokeh, even past iPhones. You will not find that most iPhone photos have the same qualities that those examples you are referring to have.

    Those extreme effects you are thinking about are most noticeable when there is a small, bright light source contrasted against a darker area, like with Christmas lights. You don't see that as readily in photos without such light sources.

    Another place you find it is in looking through trees where the sunlight or bright sky shines through. In the first photo, you can see this. If it were just a Gaussian blur, the darker tree area would blur into the bright sky area equally to the amount the sky blurs into the tree, creating a simple gradient, not the true bokeh effect that you see in that photo.
    sennen
  • Reply 13 of 31
    xpadxpad Posts: 46member
    volcan said:
    This is how Wikipedia describes it. 1) none, 2) bokeh, 3) Gaussian blur


    Since you've added this, look at #2, then look at the trees in the first photo in the article. The bright areas in the trees are bokeh, not blur.
    lolliver
  • Reply 14 of 31
    volcanvolcan Posts: 1,799member
    xpad said:
    Since you've added this, look at #2, then look at the trees in the first photo in the article. The bright areas in the trees are bokeh, not blur.
    I think the image you refer to resembles Wikipedia's number 3 more than anything else. I and many other people have described bokeh as the background having circles of convolution of which I see none in the iPhone images. So we disagree, no big deal.
  • Reply 15 of 31
    wigginwiggin Posts: 2,265member
    xpad said:
    Follow up to my previous comment, look at the sky showing through the leaves in the first photo. The light pattern is not merely a blur, but is bokeh-like in how the bright area expands into the darker area.
    I think I would agree with you that we can call this bokeh. But I would also say that I don't find it as pleasing as the affect you get with a larger lens which is able to achieve a narrow depth-of-field. However, most of the time it's going to be better than nothing (although in a few photos I've seen I actually find it quite distracting, as if my own eyes aren't focusing properly and they are trying to adjust to get the background back into focus).

    As for how it's created, let's think about this...the 7 Plus has two cameras. Couldn't you use the longer lens to capture the main subject (the entire image would probably need to be in frame for this camera), but then use the shorter lens to capture the scene again but slightly out of focus. Use a mask around the main subject to merge the two images together. From the article there seems to be a fairly strict positioning and distance requirement for taking these photos so that may be due to the need to frame the scene within the longer lens.

    Speaking of which, this photographer's statement that
    some shots required the use of a DSLR for future use of the photos, but it was "much harder to get the moment the same way as you can with a phone."
    doesn't really jibe with
    Instructions at the bottom of the screen inform the user whether or not there is enough light in their shot, and also whether they are too close or too far from the subject.
    Sounds like there are still far more limiting factors than with a DSLR.

    Don't get me wrong, the iPhone camera has come a long way and my 6s has finally replaced my point-and-shoot (it's a pretty good point-and-shoot). But if a professional photograph said they were going to shoot my wedding with an iPhone 7 Plus they would not get the job.
    gatorguy
  • Reply 16 of 31
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 6,093member
    I shoot weddings, portraits, and underwater with my trusty Canon 5DM3 (and soon a Canon 5DM4).  Been doing it for years.  I'm impressed with what Apple is doing with the cameras.  That being said, from the examples I see I would not want my wedding photos done on iPhones.  They're really nice, but not anywhere near the same realm of what a true 35mm full-frame camera with massive lenses can do.  

    All that is being pushed here is the potential for a bunch of wannabe armchair picture-takers thinking they have what it takes to be a "real" photographer.

    I'm just cracking-up at the back-and-forth ranting about the "bokeh" discussion.  Apple's implementation is not anywhere near what true bokeh is.  They're passing off a simple background blur - whatever "gaussian" or other name you want to call it - and the posters here claiming it to be bokeh.  It is not.  It's nice, but it has nothing to do with it.  The aperture blades found in cameras also contribute to what real bokeh does, in addition to how the DOF is rendered in a way only analog lenses can do.

    Just stop with the bokeh talk.  It's software trying to mimic what hardware does.  Nice, but... no.
    edited October 2016 gatorguypscooter63boltsfan17
  • Reply 17 of 31
    wally626wally626 Posts: 72member
    Bokeh is the nature/quality of the out-of-focus regions in a photo. The use of shallow depth of field techniques results in photographs with blurred backgrounds and foreground. How well the blurs look is the bokeh. Some lens provide pleasant out of focus regions with good bokeh and some harsh out out focus regions with bad bokeh. In the case of the very short focal lengths of phone cameras it is difficult to get the type of low depth of field effects many portrait photographers like. When I get 10.1 I will try it out and see, but expect for that sort of image a good 85mm f/1.4 lens on a FF body will work better.
    tmay
  • Reply 18 of 31
    anton zuykovanton zuykov Posts: 1,056member
    volcan said:
    AppleInsider said:

    ...to simulate what is known as a "bokeh" effect in photography.

    I wish people would stop calling Portrait mode "bokeh" because it is not. It is just a blurred background. Bokeh is different. It has individual convolution areas and swirls not just a Gaussian blur. I have to admit the masking capability is impressive. If I could get the masking feature alone without the blur, it would be helpful in compositing work.

    That picture of the bride and groom together looks
    If it is possible to create a decent depth mask automatically without hr. long rotoscoping, then they can start coding a good boken conv. function. But if that masking fails due to bad implementation, then your awesome bokeh function will not help... the image would be ruined due to artifacts, anyway, regardless of what convolution function is used.
  • Reply 19 of 31
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    sflagel said:
    Dear author: a blurred background is not bokeh, it is just depth of field. Bokeh is when you have light points turn into perfectly concentric circles, resulting in a "magical" and dreamy background. 

    The depth of field looks ok in these pictures (better than none), I have not yet seen a bokeh effect anywhere. 
    I agree. The effect should be pronounced. I do not agree that a scene that has elements which are blurry or out of focus amounts to an example of bokeh/boke. It's akin to everyone using the term "drone" when they are actually referring to a radio-controlled quadrocopter.

    https://photographylife.com/what-is-bokeh
    edited October 2016 wonkothesanepscooter63
  • Reply 20 of 31
    xpadxpad Posts: 46member
    volcan said:
    xpad said:
    Since you've added this, look at #2, then look at the trees in the first photo in the article. The bright areas in the trees are bokeh, not blur.
    I think the image you refer to resembles Wikipedia's number 3 more than anything else. I and many other people have described bokeh as the background having circles of convolution of which I see none in the iPhone images. So we disagree, no big deal.
    Look at the trees in the first image (the others don't have the type of background that amplifies the effect of bokeh). Above the child's head. Those bright spots are circles of confusion visibly spreading into the tree, which the trees aren't visibly doing into the bright areas.

    wiggin said:
    xpad said:
    Follow up to my previous comment, look at the sky showing through the leaves in the first photo. The light pattern is not merely a blur, but is bokeh-like in how the bright area expands into the darker area.
    I think I would agree with you that we can call this bokeh. But I would also say that I don't find it as pleasing as the affect you get with a larger lens which is able to achieve a narrow depth-of-field. However, most of the time it's going to be better than nothing (although in a few photos I've seen I actually find it quite distracting, as if my own eyes aren't focusing properly and they are trying to adjust to get the background back into focus).
    That's all that I'm saying. It is bokeh, in spite of what snobs are saying. They don't have to like the bokeh, but it's there (and it's not just a Gaussian blur).

    sflocal said:

    I'm just cracking-up at the back-and-forth ranting about the "bokeh" discussion.  Apple's implementation is not anywhere near what true bokeh is.  They're passing off a simple background blur - whatever "gaussian" or other name you want to call it - and the posters here claiming it to be bokeh.  It is not.  It's nice, but it has nothing to do with it.  The aperture blades found in cameras also contribute to what real bokeh does, in addition to how the DOF is rendered in a way only analog lenses can do.
    No, it's not just a simple blur. You are confusing "something I like" with "bokeh". It's the True Scotsman fallacy. "That's not a pizza, it has chicken on it". "That's not bokeh, it doesn't look as nice as my dSLR!"

    Bokeh is simply the noticeably out of focus area of a photo. That's it. All iPhones have had bokeh. But due to the wide depth of field, it's very limited. This is a software process that simulates bokeh NOT SIMPLY WITH JUST A BLUR, but it takes into account distance and shows bright areas expanding into darker areas, not just blurring the two into each other.

    Are SLRs better? Almost universally yes, you don't even have to look at any test photos to tentatively assume this. No one is saying it's exactly just as good as a nice Nikon or Canon with a fast lens. But it's nice, impressive, not just a Gaussian blur, and is a good simulation of bokeh.
    roundaboutnowtmay
Sign In or Register to comment.