Now let's compare detail without using Portrait or Live focus modes.
In this shot of a flower, both photos look very detailed, but it seems that the Note 9 either has more contrast or it's more detailed compared to the XS Max. You'll have to decide for yourself which photo you think is better at color reproduction.
Which flower is the correct one? Since any image processing cannot add missing data (but can well discard existing and useful data as in low dynamic range), one can immediately deduce that the prominent pink on the flower leaves cannot be added by iPhone, but simply reproduced by it. Thus the correct color of the flower is the right (iPhone) one. The low dynamic range of the Note 9 introduces an artifical contrast which makes the object appear more "detailed". What is is perceived as "detail" is in fact the the loss of pink tones.
The reader does not know which photo has the correct color because there is no reference image from a pro level camera.
https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/hydrangea?sort=mostpopular&mediatype=photography&phrase=hydrangea IMO, and based on the hundreds of hydrangea's I've seen over the years the Note 9 is much closer to expectations. It's not at all likely to me there would be such a small difference in light and dark areas of the petals as the XS Max image would show. Even the green color of its leaves appears off.
It’s really difficult to tell when it comes to color. A cloud passing overhead will add enough cyan to totally change the color. But the Note is way too contrasty. It’s easier to fix color than excess contrast, because there’s little detail in those blackish areas to bring up, and when you try, you get too much noise, usually resulting in color speckling, which is difficult to get rid of with these small sensors.
Shadows are pretty easy to fix, and avoiding noise to do so isn't usually very difficult. I do it all the time, much preferring underexposure to blown out highlights. There's LOTS of detail in those shadows even if they might appear to be nearly black as you almost certainly know. It's those white detail-less highlights that are more problematic. In any event as you mention we're looking at JPEGS anyway, what the manufacturer thinks you want to see, and every camera has its own processing algorithms. Even some expensive DSLR's do a horrid job with jpegs (Pentax, looking at you). I very rarely use them outside of occasional site surveys and client text communication, relying almost 100% on the RAW images for anything I really have any interest in. DxO Photolab and/or LR do a far better job. If there's going to be a change in what the sensor recorded I'd rather make that change myself.
On our smartphones most people seem pretty happy with any of the newer ones 'cause they're just not that picky anyway about being accurate representations. Over- saturated and contrasty images seem to be preferred by most of the folks I know, whether it's a camera image or smartphone display or HDTV.
apple has always had a difficulty in perceiving what people want in photos. They tend to look at the average person, who wants pictures fixed. So they give “beauty” photos. There are an awful lot of photo beauty apps in the App Store, so they must think that’s the way to go. One reason why the otherwise very good Aperture failed, was because Apple did it there too. They “corrected” the RAW files to bring up shadows, bring highlights down, and did some color correction. It was all too much. By the time they moderated that, most potential users gave up. That was supposed to be a pro app. Adobe got it right with Lightroom.
Every image, regardless of the image format, is “color corrected” on the computer through color profile files to match the physical profile of the actual display, there is no such thing as “raw” display of “RAW” files. Some laymen may have interpreted that as done for “beauty sake” and may have trashed Aperture, but the same is valid for Adobe’s applications too. Apply Adobe’s color profiles and you’ll get the same image on Aperture. The curious may refer to ColorSync documentation.
The XS Max is better than the Note 9 at closeup portraiture. But when it comes to nearly everything else photo wise, the Note 9 trounces it! Even Apple’s lauded HDR photo ability results in greater DR yes, but very unnatural looking photos as a result. To my eyes (an enthusiast photographer for many years now) its really bad! Every new gen iPhone when it comes to overall picture quality seems to get worse not better. My 8 Plus offers far more features and versatility, photo wise than my former 5S. But when it comes to picture quality the 5S still beats it, from the 5S lack of ‘watercolor’ effect on details when photos are seen at high magnification to very noticeable levels of noise on the 8 Plus when shooting video in low light.
So, one thing Apple has admitted to is the over smoothing of the face in selfie mode. They also said that they are going to reduce that. So that’s not a problem that isn’t going to be solved.
Where did they admit and commit to that? I saw one rumor story here attributed to an unnamed source that they were only looking into reports. Was there a follow up story?
I read it yesterday. I’d need to go back to find out where.
Now let's compare detail without using Portrait or Live focus modes.
In this shot of a flower, both photos look very detailed, but it seems that the Note 9 either has more contrast or it's more detailed compared to the XS Max. You'll have to decide for yourself which photo you think is better at color reproduction.
Which flower is the correct one? Since any image processing cannot add missing data (but can well discard existing and useful data as in low dynamic range), one can immediately deduce that the prominent pink on the flower leaves cannot be added by iPhone, but simply reproduced by it. Thus the correct color of the flower is the right (iPhone) one. The low dynamic range of the Note 9 introduces an artifical contrast which makes the object appear more "detailed". What is is perceived as "detail" is in fact the the loss of pink tones.
The reader does not know which photo has the correct color because there is no reference image from a pro level camera.
https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/hydrangea?sort=mostpopular&mediatype=photography&phrase=hydrangea IMO, and based on the hundreds of hydrangea's I've seen over the years the Note 9 is much closer to expectations. It's not at all likely to me there would be such a small difference in light and dark areas of the petals as the XS Max image would show. Even the green color of its leaves appears off.
It’s really difficult to tell when it comes to color. A cloud passing overhead will add enough cyan to totally change the color. But the Note is way too contrasty. It’s easier to fix color than excess contrast, because there’s little detail in those blackish areas to bring up, and when you try, you get too much noise, usually resulting in color speckling, which is difficult to get rid of with these small sensors.
Shadows are pretty easy to fix, and avoiding noise to do so isn't usually very difficult. I do it all the time, much preferring underexposure to blown out highlights. There's LOTS of detail in those shadows even if they might appear to be nearly black as you almost certainly know. It's those white detail-less highlights that are more problematic. In any event as you mention we're looking at JPEGS anyway, what the manufacturer thinks you want to see, and every camera has its own processing algorithms. Even some expensive DSLR's do a horrid job with jpegs (Pentax, looking at you). I very rarely use them outside of occasional site surveys and client text communication, relying almost 100% on the RAW images for anything I really have any interest in. DxO Photolab and/or LR do a far better job. If there's going to be a change in what the sensor recorded I'd rather make that change myself.
On our smartphones most people seem pretty happy with any of the newer ones 'cause they're just not that picky anyway about being accurate representations. Over- saturated and contrasty images seem to be preferred by most of the folks I know, whether it's a camera image or smartphone display or HDTV.
Shadows are very hard to fix. In fact, they are the hardest thing to fix. Yes, a lot of people like crappy images.
apple has always had a difficulty in perceiving what people want in photos. They tend to look at the average person, who wants pictures fixed. So they give “beauty” photos. There are an awful lot of photo beauty apps in the App Store, so they must think that’s the way to go. One reason why the otherwise very good Aperture failed, was because Apple did it there too. They “corrected” the RAW files to bring up shadows, bring highlights down, and did some color correction. It was all too much. By the time they moderated that, most potential users gave up. That was supposed to be a pro app. Adobe got it right with Lightroom.
Every image, regardless of the image format, is “color corrected” on the computer through color profile files to match the physical profile of the actual display, there is no such thing as “raw” display of “RAW” files. Some laymen may have interpreted that as done for “beauty sake” and may have trashed Aperture, but the same is valid for Adobe’s applications too. Apply Adobe’s color profiles and you’ll get the same image on Aperture. The curious may refer to ColorSync documentation.
Actually, if you use Photoshop, you can easily go to the RAW settings, and turn off all of the customized settings for each camera/lens combo for that image.
you don’t get the same results with Adobe’s Software that you get for Aperture. Even with Apple’s lowered corrections, Adobe’s are much more subtle.
apple has always had a difficulty in perceiving what people want in photos. They tend to look at the average person, who wants pictures fixed. So they give “beauty” photos. There are an awful lot of photo beauty apps in the App Store, so they must think that’s the way to go. One reason why the otherwise very good Aperture failed, was because Apple did it there too. They “corrected” the RAW files to bring up shadows, bring highlights down, and did some color correction. It was all too much. By the time they moderated that, most potential users gave up. That was supposed to be a pro app. Adobe got it right with Lightroom.
Every image, regardless of the image format, is “color corrected” on the computer through color profile files to match the physical profile of the actual display, there is no such thing as “raw” display of “RAW” files. Some laymen may have interpreted that as done for “beauty sake” and may have trashed Aperture, but the same is valid for Adobe’s applications too. Apply Adobe’s color profiles and you’ll get the same image on Aperture. The curious may refer to ColorSync documentation.
Actually, if you use Photoshop, you can easily go to the RAW settings, and turn off all of the customized settings for each camera/lens combo for that image.
That’s another thing. You cannot disable that way the operating system’s default color profile or Photoshop’s.
And when comparing two applications in terms of color accuracy, tonal balance etc. color profiles are the first thing to check. If you ignore those then your narration becomes totally irrelevant.
The XS Max is better than the Note 9 at closeup portraiture. But when it comes to nearly everything else photo wise, the Note 9 trounces it! Even Apple’s lauded HDR photo ability results in greater DR yes, but very unnatural looking photos as a result. To my eyes (an enthusiast photographer for many years now) its really bad! Every new gen iPhone when it comes to overall picture quality seems to get worse not better. My 8 Plus offers far more features and versatility, photo wise than my former 5S. But when it comes to picture quality the 5S still beats it, from the 5S lack of ‘watercolor’ effect on details when photos are seen at high magnification to very noticeable levels of noise on the 8 Plus when shooting video in low light.
Maybe you need better eyes, or a better "normal" camera because there is no trouncing.
As much as I love iOS, after seeing these 3 photos of the guy against the sun I really ought to take a look at that Samsung phone. I mean, in those photos his face is much better lit.
I have to wonder where the phones were focusing. That alone would make a difference on exposure. I would also want to see which one can be edited to look more natural. Bc edits can be rapidly done.
apple has always had a difficulty in perceiving what people want in photos. They tend to look at the average person, who wants pictures fixed. So they give “beauty” photos. There are an awful lot of photo beauty apps in the App Store, so they must think that’s the way to go. One reason why the otherwise very good Aperture failed, was because Apple did it there too. They “corrected” the RAW files to bring up shadows, bring highlights down, and did some color correction. It was all too much. By the time they moderated that, most potential users gave up. That was supposed to be a pro app. Adobe got it right with Lightroom.
Every image, regardless of the image format, is “color corrected” on the computer through color profile files to match the physical profile of the actual display, there is no such thing as “raw” display of “RAW” files. Some laymen may have interpreted that as done for “beauty sake” and may have trashed Aperture, but the same is valid for Adobe’s applications too. Apply Adobe’s color profiles and you’ll get the same image on Aperture. The curious may refer to ColorSync documentation.
Actually, if you use Photoshop, you can easily go to the RAW settings, and turn off all of the customized settings for each camera/lens combo for that image.
That’s another thing. You cannot disable that way the operating system’s default color profile or Photoshop’s.
And when comparing two applications in terms of color accuracy, tonal balance etc. color profiles are the first thing to check. If you ignore those then your narration becomes totally irrelevant.
I don’t know what you’re talking about when you say the “operating system’s default color profile”. Photoshop’s can be turned off in the settings.
Now let's compare detail without using Portrait or Live focus modes.
In this shot of a flower, both photos look very detailed, but it seems that the Note 9 either has more contrast or it's more detailed compared to the XS Max. You'll have to decide for yourself which photo you think is better at color reproduction.
Which flower is the correct one? Since any image processing cannot add missing data (but can well discard existing and useful data as in low dynamic range), one can immediately deduce that the prominent pink on the flower leaves cannot be added by iPhone, but simply reproduced by it. Thus the correct color of the flower is the right (iPhone) one. The low dynamic range of the Note 9 introduces an artifical contrast which makes the object appear more "detailed". What is is perceived as "detail" is in fact the the loss of pink tones.
The reader does not know which photo has the correct color because there is no reference image from a pro level camera.
https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/hydrangea?sort=mostpopular&mediatype=photography&phrase=hydrangea IMO, and based on the hundreds of hydrangea's I've seen over the years the Note 9 is much closer to expectations. It's not at all likely to me there would be such a small difference in light and dark areas of the petals as the XS Max image would show. Even the green color of its leaves appears off.
It’s really difficult to tell when it comes to color. A cloud passing overhead will add enough cyan to totally change the color. But the Note is way too contrasty. It’s easier to fix color than excess contrast, because there’s little detail in those blackish areas to bring up, and when you try, you get too much noise, usually resulting in color speckling, which is difficult to get rid of with these small sensors.
Shadows are pretty easy to fix, and avoiding noise to do so isn't usually very difficult. I do it all the time, much preferring underexposure to blown out highlights. There's LOTS of detail in those shadows even if they might appear to be nearly black as you almost certainly know. It's those white detail-less highlights that are more problematic. In any event as you mention we're looking at JPEGS anyway, what the manufacturer thinks you want to see, and every camera has its own processing algorithms. Even some expensive DSLR's do a horrid job with jpegs (Pentax, looking at you). I very rarely use them outside of occasional site surveys and client text communication, relying almost 100% on the RAW images for anything I really have any interest in. DxO Photolab and/or LR do a far better job. If there's going to be a change in what the sensor recorded I'd rather make that change myself.
On our smartphones most people seem pretty happy with any of the newer ones 'cause they're just not that picky anyway about being accurate representations. Over- saturated and contrasty images seem to be preferred by most of the folks I know, whether it's a camera image or smartphone display or HDTV.
Shadows are very hard to fix. In fact, they are the hardest thing to fix. Yes, a lot of people like crappy images.
I'm not going to belabor the point Mel. The JPEG's from our phones are almost always better to underexpose than overexpose since there's little headroom in the highlights..... and yes there's science behind it.
EDIT: Took me a bit to find the science: "Both the sRGB and Adobe RGB colour spaces use a gamma 2.2 encoding. Gamma encoding reallocates encoding levels from the upper f-stops into the lower f-stops to compensate for the human eye’s greater sensitivity to absolute changes in the darker tone range. Therefore an 8 bit JPG file has just 47 brightness levels available in the bottom two stops."
I would assume you were confusing your comments with RAW file handling, typically used in our DSLR's. For RAW files you might consider trying On1 Photo Raw. Wonderful shadow recovery tools, tho I still struggle a bit with the learning curve. I tend to go back to my standby's in LR and DxO and Nik (also now DxO-owned) but really should spend more time with On1.
EDIT2: A quick On1 shadow-recovery tutorial for anyone interested:
This discusses the “beauty” filter that Apple’s is supposedly applying, and that it’s working to correct. Interestingly, it seems that not every phone has this problem, so possibly it’s not a universal problem.
Now let's compare detail without using Portrait or Live focus modes.
In this shot of a flower, both photos look very detailed, but it seems that the Note 9 either has more contrast or it's more detailed compared to the XS Max. You'll have to decide for yourself which photo you think is better at color reproduction.
Which flower is the correct one? Since any image processing cannot add missing data (but can well discard existing and useful data as in low dynamic range), one can immediately deduce that the prominent pink on the flower leaves cannot be added by iPhone, but simply reproduced by it. Thus the correct color of the flower is the right (iPhone) one. The low dynamic range of the Note 9 introduces an artifical contrast which makes the object appear more "detailed". What is is perceived as "detail" is in fact the the loss of pink tones.
The reader does not know which photo has the correct color because there is no reference image from a pro level camera.
https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/hydrangea?sort=mostpopular&mediatype=photography&phrase=hydrangea IMO, and based on the hundreds of hydrangea's I've seen over the years the Note 9 is much closer to expectations. It's not at all likely to me there would be such a small difference in light and dark areas of the petals as the XS Max image would show. Even the green color of its leaves appears off.
It’s really difficult to tell when it comes to color. A cloud passing overhead will add enough cyan to totally change the color. But the Note is way too contrasty. It’s easier to fix color than excess contrast, because there’s little detail in those blackish areas to bring up, and when you try, you get too much noise, usually resulting in color speckling, which is difficult to get rid of with these small sensors.
Shadows are pretty easy to fix, and avoiding noise to do so isn't usually very difficult. I do it all the time, much preferring underexposure to blown out highlights. There's LOTS of detail in those shadows even if they might appear to be nearly black as you almost certainly know. It's those white detail-less highlights that are more problematic. In any event as you mention we're looking at JPEGS anyway, what the manufacturer thinks you want to see, and every camera has its own processing algorithms. Even some expensive DSLR's do a horrid job with jpegs (Pentax, looking at you). I very rarely use them outside of occasional site surveys and client text communication, relying almost 100% on the RAW images for anything I really have any interest in. DxO Photolab and/or LR do a far better job. If there's going to be a change in what the sensor recorded I'd rather make that change myself.
On our smartphones most people seem pretty happy with any of the newer ones 'cause they're just not that picky anyway about being accurate representations. Over- saturated and contrasty images seem to be preferred by most of the folks I know, whether it's a camera image or smartphone display or HDTV.
Shadows are very hard to fix. In fact, they are the hardest thing to fix. Yes, a lot of people like crappy images.
I'm not going to belabor the point Mel. The JPEG's from our phones are almost always better to underexpose than overexpose since there's little headroom in the highlights..... and yes there's science behind it.
EDIT: Took me a bit to find the science: "Both the sRGB and Adobe RGB colour spaces use a gamma 2.2 encoding. Gamma encoding reallocates encoding levels from the upper f-stops into the lower f-stops to compensate for the human eye’s greater sensitivity to absolute changes in the darker tone range. Therefore an 8 bit JPG file has just 47 brightness levels available in the bottom two stops."
I would assume you were confusing your comments with RAW file handling, typically used in our DSLR's. For RAW files you might consider trying On1 Photo Raw. Wonderful shadow recovery tools, tho I still struggle a bit with the learning curve. I tend to go back to my standby's in LR and DxO and Nik (also now DxO-owned) but really should spend more time with On1.
EDIT2: A quick On1 shadow-recovery tutorial for anyone interested:
It’s well known that you expose for the highlights with transparency film, and you expose for the shadows for digital. That’s nothing new. You didn’t even have to look for it.
i wasn’t confusing anything.i understand this quite well. I’ve tried most of the RAW converters. In the end, you can get the same results from any of them.
Well , I’ve used IPhones since iPhone 4s. IPhone 7 has the absolute worst front facing camera, rendering selfies as watercolour mess. Distorts the face. I for one don’t care much for dynamic range, I just want my face to look like it does in the mirror, front cameras on iPhone7, 8 and X produce details that aren’t seen with a naked eye , highlighting imperfections thus to me they’re useless. I’m thinking of switching to note 9, I honestly prefer the note 9 selfies the face looks thinner and more realistic (let me repeat - I don’t care about the dynamic range). I hate when phone cameras make my face look fat, it’s a no. I’m sick of using photo correcting apps to make myself look realistic (which is my ultimate goal- to look like I do in a mirror) It’s interesting to see the review as it only highlights the subjectivity behind a mobile phone camera choice - what works for one person may not work for another.
Both Phone's have their strong points, Have/Had I Phone 1, 2,..etc.. all up to the..X... I'll take my Note 8 ANYDAY over any phone out there now. Key is, know your settings and you'll get great photos with most high end phones.
Comments
On our smartphones most people seem pretty happy with any of the newer ones 'cause they're just not that picky anyway about being accurate representations. Over- saturated and contrasty images seem to be preferred by most of the folks I know, whether it's a camera image or smartphone display or HDTV.
https://www.justshotoniphone.com/japanese-garden-portrait-photography-with-iphone-8-plus/
Actually, if you use Photoshop, you can easily go to the RAW settings, and turn off all of the customized settings for each camera/lens combo for that image.
you don’t get the same results with Adobe’s Software that you get for Aperture. Even with Apple’s lowered corrections, Adobe’s are much more subtle.
And when comparing two applications in terms of color accuracy, tonal balance etc. color profiles are the first thing to check. If you ignore those then your narration becomes totally irrelevant.
and yes there's science behind it.
EDIT: Took me a bit to find the science:
"Both the sRGB and Adobe RGB colour spaces use a gamma 2.2 encoding. Gamma encoding reallocates encoding levels from the upper f-stops into the lower f-stops to compensate for the human eye’s greater sensitivity to absolute changes in the darker tone range. Therefore an 8 bit JPG file has just 47 brightness levels available in the bottom two stops."
I would assume you were confusing your comments with RAW file handling, typically used in our DSLR's. For RAW files you might consider trying On1 Photo Raw. Wonderful shadow recovery tools, tho I still struggle a bit with the learning curve. I tend to go back to my standby's in LR and DxO and Nik (also now DxO-owned) but really should spend more time with On1.
EDIT2: A quick On1 shadow-recovery tutorial for anyone interested:
https://www.dpreview.com/news/8546588894/report-apple-working-to-fix-aggressive-iphone-xs-max-front-camera-beautification
i wasn’t confusing anything.i understand this quite well. I’ve tried most of the RAW converters. In the end, you can get the same results from any of them.
It’s not nonsense, learn something and come back.
Key is, know your settings and you'll get great photos with most high end phones.