Yikes

It’s GandhiSanjdeepMajheed Arena, what do you think is going on here?

Attached: 05879703-9A90-43CD-9FE0-D1484473643B.jpg (800x450, 58K)

Based

so its just placebo and whatever brand you like more?

yikes

How will iToddlers ever recover?

itoddlers couldn't defend this

Samsung is more aggressive with their smoothing and saturation (the rubber bands really benefit from that). You can see more detail with a lot of the intricate objects on the iPhone photos where the S9's photos look more watercolor-esque because of the smoothing.
Generally I like the S9 pics more, but that's mostly because the oversaturated colors and higher contrast. I'm not into the smoothing.

>Samsung is more aggressive with their smoothing and saturation (the rubber bands really benefit from that). You can see more detail with a lot of the intricate objects on the iPhone photos where the S9's photos look more watercolor-esque because of the smoothing.

I agree the S9 looks slightly better on that one, but it's mostly because of the higher contrast. Look at the bristles of the paintbrush and the yarn loop thing under the rubber bands to see what I'm talking about. You can also see the aggressive smoothing on the points of the colored pencils and the tomato patch near the top. I still think the S9 looks better, but it preserves less detail in general.

Don't get me wrong, I don't care about any of this shit because my phone is a four year old Sony.
But is it possible that the picture is worse on the iPhone because it has a faster capture time?

>because my phone is a four year old Sony.
It's funny, because it probably takes the same quality photos as the latest iToy.

Attached: 1523673632074.png (1224x656, 49K)

blog.halide.cam/iphone-xs-why-its-a-whole-new-camera-ddf9780d714c

Apple want use computation photography taking and merge shitty fast expose photos.

In low light my phone sucks dick though. It's disappointing that even at their peak, Sony -- the guys who make baller photo sensors, didn't put a whole lot of effort into their flagship phone at the time.
t. dude with a Z3v

>blog.halide.cam/iphone-xs-why-its-a-whole-new-camera-ddf9780d714c
>With the powerful chips in modern iPhones, Apple can take a whole bunch of photos—some of them before you even pressed the shutter—
That's gonna be a yikes from me, lad.

Its the same on the z5, amazing in good light useless in low light

Can any phone even approach Samsung in the camera department?

Pixel 3's supposedly have the best cameras right now.

>using a phone for photography

> Yikes.
Stop consuming basedbeans-based products.

>t. Seething itoddler

>1/121s vs 1/50s

And Pixel 2's was supposed to be the best before that.
Their sensors are actually pretty average, they just
1. cover it with their filtering algorithms
2. lie

Attached: Untitled.png (600x867, 660K)

Again the shutter speed is totally different in each of those

they take multiple pics an pick out the best one

No they're not if they are using a tripod

Regretting Pixel 3xl preorder now

Higher iso images are more grainy wow

>1. cover it with their filtering algorithms
Samsung does this way more with their smoothing. The objects in that photo benefit a lot from smoothing because there is no detail that needs to be sacrificed in order to reduce noise. Google's "Computational Photography" isn't a filter. It's literally taking several photos and combining them into one. More data allows them to create a better photo with the same sensors that take average photos in other phones. I think you see noise and assume it's bad, but it preserves more detail. It comes down to preference ultimately, but smoothing can really fuck up photos with a lot of fine detail. I'd rather have more detail that I can smooth out after the fact if I feel there's too much noise.

>The first two camera samples are taken at the lowest ISO for the cameraphone and we hand-pick the best image from many samples. Respectively, they show the maximum resolving power of the camera and how it handles real-world textures.
>The third sample is shot on Auto mode in a room lit at 28 lux. We've added the ISO and shutter speed readings from the photo's EXIF as an additional reading of how well the camera performs.

So we established that Pixel 2's auto mode works worse in low light. Now let's compare nearly identical settings.

Attached: Untitled.png (598x868, 614K)

compares phones with an actual dslr

now lets take a night time picture

applefags mad

I posted in another thread but here's a night hike photo I took with my 3xl. Illumination was from a single headlamp I was wearing, no flash. Photo was compressed for posting.

1/2

Attached: IMG_20181019_224754-2268x3024.jpg (2268x3024, 1.61M)

This was several hours after sunset and miles from the nearest town.

2/2

Attached: MVIMG_20181019_220521-2268x3024.jpg (2268x3024, 1.49M)

And here's a bonus daytime photo from yesterday. No filters, no editing, compressed to less than half of original size.

Also, does anybody have any photo compression apps they'd recommend?

Attached: IMG_20181021_141430-2630x3507.jpg (2630x3507, 2.86M)

How does Canon even compete?

>photo compression apps
literally paint

iTODDLERS BTFO

>torn bark everywhere
lol I hope you have a fucking rifle.

>Also, does anybody have any photo compression apps they'd recommend?

Attached: wewlad.jpg (2630x3507, 1.2M)

I used compressthatshit.

Attached: proprietary.png (960x531, 102K)

>smoothing and oversaturation makes images of undetailed objects look better

no shit dude.

oh no no no.

there is straight up chromatic aberration in the iphone pic.
how is this acceptable??

Fucking baars man.
Back scratch city.

>Posting 2000x3000 2MB phone snapshits
The absolute state of Jow Forums. At least /p/ figured that one out.

SEETHING

So how long until phones will manage to take good photos?

never

Looks like someone smeared Vaseline on the lens

the noise reduction is just horrible

Keep shitposting applel poojeet, GSMArena it's almost entirely staffed by Europeans, because they're European and focus primarily on the European market
They unironically don't , their sensors are years behind Nikon (ie. Sony)
They do live on hype and legacy momentum

what? any canon DSLR from recent years will shit on phone cameras up to the year 2050 and maybe further.
canon is also doing significantly better than nikon despite being worse cameras, people just like shooting with canons more and women fucking love canon.
seems like sony will own the DSLR/mirrorless market in the next few years which will steal canons spot in this world, nikon just seems to be doing nothing right now except upgrading cameras, shame about the Z6/7 mess.

Attached: 1539030157454.jpg (514x600, 33K)

Yeah, I meant in the DSLR market
I doubt Sony will keep the mirrorless market, Canons mirrorless offerings are becoming more competent and have the Canon hype with them

Yeah boy

Attached: 1540214453143.jpg (2630x3507, 4M)

Sony isn't stealing anything with IBIS memes, no lens selection and high SnR

How come when I take pics in nature of things that are literally awe-inspiring in person they look boring as fuck?

Is it just because you lose the sense of accomplishment? Like for this shot I had to climb up really high and it was wooded for a long time then BAM this or is it something else? This just looks gay but I had to just sit around and enjoy it for a while before moving on

Attached: 20180413_122450.jpg (5396x2142, 3.68M)

mfw upside down

Attached: 20180413_122450.jpg (5396x2142, 3.74M)

Because you're standing upside down.

Gotta work on your composition and editing.

Attached: IMG_20181021_152952~2.jpg (4032x3024, 3.88M)

I just want it to make me feel the same it did when I was there, editing is gay haha

I find all Digital photos to be quite flat

Landscapes just usually look really boring unless you're really there. When it's just a photo you don't feel the sense of scale, the air, the temperature, etc. All the good looking landscape photos are heavily edited to look like a hollywoo movie.

it's all about composition and post processing
>editing is gay
color correction and cropping is a godsend, your fault if you don't use those tools and have your images look boring

cool maybe I'll try it next time to recreate the feels of finding a nice view. I love hiking and even if I cannot capture images to remind me the memories are still in my mind.

I found this about a mile from a lake, I think a major flood put him here

Attached: 20180125_113357.jpg (4032x3024, 1.2M)

>just want it to make me feel the same it did when I was there

So, ... beige?

no, like impressed by how big nature is and how awesome it can be - like actual awe

oh my god that fake bokeh never fails to amuse me

the cellphone chose to do this to me

Everything looks like plastic, why do they do this?
It's not like looks any better than a grainy image, in fact grainy images can look nice as opposed to terrible post-processing effects.

Where were these taken?

innawoods

>buying a Canon 5D mk3 wen you could have bought a Nikon D800

>nevada-tan
there's a blast from the past

I'm a full on macfag... I won't buy anything else when it comes to computers... But Jesus Christ iToys are such garbage. My other normie friends don't get why I refuse to buy an iPad or iPhone despite being a macfag, and it's because of shit like this. How can they defend such an objectively shitty camera? My S8 takes way better pictures, especially in "Pro" mode where I can adjust shutter speed and ISO. I don't care that I'm missing out on the "apple ecosystem" by refusing to use any other Apple products, especially when they're just so shitty.

Like, what redeeming qualities do iPhones have? At all? They're ugly, feel like shit in the hand, have garbage cameras, cost too much (and that's saying something coming from a macfag), and you can only use apps approved by Apple. Fuck that shit.

>what redeeming qualities do iPhones have?
it
just
werks

>nikon just seems to be doing nothing right now

They fell for the mirrorless meme, wasting their resources on consumer crap.
But the D850 is still the best camera money can buy, you don't have to buy a new $3000 camera every 12 months.

when you see it..

>testing cameras by taking photos of random objects
>not moire patterns
Yikes!

That's what editing is for. You edit the photo to be truer than it was when it was taken. You apply changes to make it better evoke your reality. You're trying to be authentic to the picture by letting the camera decide what it saw but you need to be authentic to the experience by helping see what you saw and felt.

Do you have to breathe at a funny angle when using your macshit to avoid failures?

Northern New England

Attached: MVIMG_20181021_144956-3024x2268.jpg (3024x2268, 1.5M)

Thought so. Max comfy.

>heif/hevc vs .jpg
>oh wow look guys .jpg is more hi-def who woulda thunk
literally the whole point of heif is to save (almost twice as much) space compared to jpg. of course the image details will suffer because of it; that's kinda the point.
and you have to manually turn on heif/hevc anyway.

sage.

Attached: unimpressed coffee pepe.png (306x306, 112K)

>jpeg 2000
>higher quality than modern compressors

from my s9+ on auto camera settings

Attached: 20181022_234337.jpg (3831x2155, 1.65M)

When you're a mouthbreather you breathe at your screen instead of your keyboard, checkmate
I'm a poorfag so I own the d7000 and d7100, currently only the d7100 which is nice.

wow it looks like... shit?

No? My macbook air works perfectly and has done since 2013, and my Mac mini has been going strong since 2009. Keep in mind most of these "failures" are reported by Rossman, who is a known liar and scam artist.

Anyone who would claim to be an expert but not become a certified technician is sketchy in my books. I feel bad for his cust^H^H^H^Hvictims.

This

Because if he becomes a certified technician with Apple, he can't repair them anymore.