Cool, but am I the only one who thinks the photos on the right (toward the bottom) are a little overexposed / bland / washed-out?
I guess most people won't load the image into a paint package to fix it, so their aim is just to automatically do a job nearly as good as a trivial change a human would make. Still, I was hoping for more.
I think they just chose bad examples. The results from this Google Research blog post are much much more impressive:
https://research.googleblog.com/2017/04/experimental-nightti...
I wish my smartphone could do _that_ automatically.
Exposure fusion from multiple images has much higher usable dynamic range and lower noise.
> Using Pixel Visual Core, HDR+ can run 5x faster and at less than one-tenth the energy than running on the application processor (AP).
I also don't know if Google actually consults with real photography experts when creating these machine learning techniques. Apple made a big deal out of doing that at the last event to create "beautiful photos". It's not enough to just "mathematically improve" something. It should look very pleasing to the human eye, too.
Perhaps if Google did that, too, it would have avoid issues such as this one, or the somewhat unrealistic look of its portrait mode blur in photos. It's hard to explain, but to me the Pixel 2 portrait shots look like the person doesn't "belong" in the environment. Like they have a linear-blur wallpaper behind them and they photograph themselves in front of it. Or almost like they are photoshopped into the image. I wouldn't say it's that bad. And a majority of people probably won't notice it immediately, but I still think it needs to be improved (perhaps, I don't know, by actually using a dual-camera setup like Apple and Samsung?).
https://www.gsmarena.com/google_pixel_2_xl-review-1670p4.php...
There are many non-obvious issues with this as well. You're most likely thinking of, for example, an non-centered subject can create an interesting composition and algorithmically centering the subject would not create better looking photos.
However, in film's history, we've seen older technology briefly preferred for no other reason than momentum. An example off the top of my head is higher frame rate video does not have the "movie feel" that 24 fps film does. That doesn't mean 24 fps is ideal, its simply familiar.
But I think the (depressing) truth of it is that I notice it because I've had fast lenses and spent a lot of time taking photos, so I know what natural looking bokeh looks like. And bokeh is also just an artifact of a lens and aperture combo, so who is to say that extreme blur with a sharp line as they are doing isn't just going to be the new standard?
I suspect the next generation will come to prefer this look (if it continues) and find the "natural" effect with real glass as weird.
To my eyes, the shadow boost is a little too much. I'd ideally like a slider to customise exactly how much brightness you're adding. Personally, I'd probably turn most of these down a touch.
Google clearly has fantastic technology driving this image processing, but I think they need a little more work on their taste.
Them looking bland is a function of them being made in challenging circumstances.
But if you need the computer to do all the color adjustment for you, so you can post your snapshot on facebook or print it at the local drug store with no manual intervention, this might be a good enough result.
This thread seems to be filled with amateur professionals thinking that their iPhone or Pixel will magically do something optically it can't (yet?). It's good enough, and in some cases a spectacular ROI (both Apple/Google/Samsung/LG/etc) for the price. The photography giants wouldn't sell or develop new products if they felt a lot of pressure in this space. You shouldn't have an expectation that your $1000 phone competes with a few thousand in camera, glass and filters in the right hands. It won't.
Edit: words
This is key. I own some decent camera gear and I'm amazed at what is coming out of all of the top end phones. Of course I can critique and find faults, but the pictures that non-photographers can take with their phones in a matter of seconds are down right amazing.
I actually wonder if the gear heads feel their domain threatened? I'm waiting for the day when I don't have to lug around my camera and multiple pounds of lenses in order to get all the shots I want :)
But that simply highlights that simply owning good gear doesn't mean you can shoot good pictures. You still need to learn lighting, composition, posing your subjects, etc etc, which was always the case!
>My point was that phones can and are making great pictures without requiring a bag full of gear, and that it's highlighting that gear is secondary to the skills you listed.
I'd phrase it differently though, and I'm sure you'd agree. I'd say that gear isn't secondary, but gear is a tool that should be used when appropriate. You still need carry an external flash/light/etc if you want to light your subject in poor light. You still need to carry a long lens if you want to take a picture of an eagle perched in a tree. You still need a tripod if you want long exposures, etc, etc.
> You shouldn't have an expectation that your $1000 phone competes with a few thousand in camera, glass and filters in the right hands. It won't.
IMHO, it doesn't even beat $500 worth of camera equipment.