Hacker News Reader

Comment by jlebar | Hacker News Reader

I think your post actually proves the point of the person you were disagreeing with.

If you, someone experienced with "real" camera gear, were "astonished" by the iphone 7+ pictures and thought they were taken by "five grand worth of gear", then for the average person further gains are going to be unremarkable.

That's kind of a strange argument, no? You're saying that if experienced photographers think the improvement is large, then average people can't tell the difference?

That's very strange.

Have a look at e.g. this paper from Google. http://www.hdrplusdata.org/hdrplus_preprint.pdf These changes certainly count as "astonishing" to me (let's say, an "enthusiastic amateaur" photog), and I think you'd be hard-pressed to argue that this tech is insignificant to the average user.

View on HN

Yeah it means that for the layman "great" is just "great" and "that's normal anyway technology always do great things". whereas as an expert you actually realize why it's hard to get to that point.

go explain to someone in high school why andrew wiles proof of fermat theorem is harder than galois theory... i'm bringin my pop corns

The argument is not that the recent improvement aren't noticeable. The argument is that there is a point of diminishing returns, and with such dramatic changes in the past few years we are closing in on them fast. Future changes are going to be harder and harder to notice.

>> That's very strange.

Not really. A layperson takes stuff for granted because they don't know better (or what to look for). An expert knows better and can appreciate the differences.

A layperson might not know why one photo looks better than another, but they can certainly tell that it still looks better.

An expert might know why, and be able to pick out a few reasons more why one is superior to the other, but the layperson still has a pair of eyes.

>> they can certainly tell that it still looks better

The thing is that this is highly subjective and widely varies from person to person. Sometimes it's related to the content (subject) of the photo, sometimes it's the colors, sometimes it's the sharpness, etc.

And sometimes the reason why the photo is "better" has more to do with the photographer's camera settings or technical choices than how good the camera is on paper.

I consider myself somewhat knowledgeable of cameras, but I will consistently say that a high DOF iPhone portrait is better than a portrait with razor thin DOF with silky bokeh shot on a Sony A9, when the A9 is clearly the superior camera. That's because my definition of "looks better" is highly subjective and unique to my own tastes and biases.

> a high DOF iPhone portrait is better than a portrait with razor thin DOF with silky bokeh shot on a Sony A9

I agree completely. I appreciate the gear like anyone else, but it's all about the end result. A recent iphone plus in portrait mode can genuinely capture an amazing looking, high apparent DOF photo. Yes it's all computer trickery but who cares. It looks great. An expert with an A9, with the right lens, primed for the shot, might be able to do better but - and here's the important part - 99.9% of the time they're not there.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com