[Let's Talk Imaging] True-to-life vs social media-ready photos

Would you want have a smartphone camera setup that produces results that are exactly how the human eye perceives them? Or would you rather opt for a setup that delivers instantly shareable images.

Answer: Firstly, a photograph is created in mind & with camera & vision, it becomes a reality. I want to have a smartphone camera setup that produces results that are exactly how the human eye perceives them. Being a photographer, the hustle is always for what I see in the real world, exactly the same reality should reflect in a photograph.

Do you prefer having full control over what you shoot, and then edit. Or do you want the software to do the heavy lifting for you?

Answer: I can't rely fully on software to do the heavy lifting for me because sometimes it may miss the output ( like app crash, lag ) but if I can capture the raw having full control over what I shoot then I can cook it afterwards with editing & transform it to exactly how the human eye perceives it.

Things are getting interesting. I wonder what comes next. Design? Audio? Choice of Materials? Which one feature do you prefer having over another? Already pumped up and eagerly waiting for future Let's talk series. 😃😁

Hello hello hello @dipankar paul 🙈I guess I'm gonna go against everybody on this one. I'll be that lazy boi for whom everything should be prepared with minimal effort. Please don't hate me 😁

Natural vs instantly shareable?

I'll take the shareability from this. I take out the phone, I press the shutter, I get a good output, I share it off and it's done. Even if not shared today, it's basically taken for the purpose of sharing at some point. Phone captures are barely sent for print and most screens are often not a true representation of the actual colors (PureDisplay on Nokia phones is itself a good example of how software uplifts the viewing experience), so, let's focus on what's more important for digital content - the sharing.

But sometimes I also want to capture it as it is without anything fancy (beefed up colors or a portrait blur etc). This can be very easily toggleable (AI scene detection?) or made using the Pro Mode, I believe. So, I'll simply buy the shareability if I had to choose either of the two. I believe everybody will be looking for some improvements in their photos on top of how the eyes have seen it.

That said, I'm not a fan of over processing or an entirely different dimension than what is the actual scene. And I hate it even from edited shots found on social media. Even though they look appealing, they are far off from reality. So, the results should still be realistic. I'll prefer some corrections, probably similar to the difference that PureDisplay makes to the content. Some color corrections in the right areas can make the capture much more appealing. BUT the same thing when over done can ruin the capture.

Manual post-processing or handled by the camera app?

Once again, I'm jumping into the category of heavy processing done by the camera app itself, giving me an image I can freely share Although this shouldn't take too long to complete.

I'll prefer the jobs done by apps such as Google Camera. Firstly because I don't have editing skills, secondly because most post-processing programs require a significant investment (purchase, learning, time; etc), which won't be a good area to invest into for an unskilled user.

For anybody who's not into serious photography, the software's production will define his opinion of whether the camera is good or bad.

I definitely think real life pictures are better if they are taken the proper light and I think they can turn out brilliant and so can the social media pictures too the can be just as good so u think it really depends on how the photo was taken 😀😀 that's just my little but if a say lol

Just a picture I took of the sky today funny enough just on the normal camera 👏🏼👏🏼😎😎

HMD:

Like I said in the previous , 'ready for social media' would be better for 'smartphones'. I remember seeing a blind test video on MKBHD's yt channel and most of the people voted for the image that looked more pleasing rather than the one with most natural colors. 😅

The second image looks more pleasing to me. The cracks and defects in the wall are exaggerated, which makes the picture more interesting 😁. My point is...no one cares what the original color of the wall is! Consider the photo that I took looks like the first image. I would simply edit it to look like the second image before posting somewhere. And the people viewing the photo would be using a phone with an AmoLED screen, or an LCD screen, a screen set to different color temperature, maybe with night mode on! No one's going to ask me what the real color of the wall was. 💁‍♂️For professionals, such things are of great importance. And those guys never use mobile phones as primary imaging devices.

I think for me real life images would be best!

And an inbuilt editing app would help a lot, just like the old lumia series, i had a Lumia 720 it had only 6.7MP camera with ziess optics but its performance so good that still in 2020 high end device's fail to match.

What goes wrong now a days is companies are using a lot of AI to make an image look professional and give their user the feel that they can also capture nice photos. But this AI in background makes the camera app very slow, and sometimes it won't work good, even we miss shots as the camera uses its own computer to make the image even after clicking on the shuttle button! So it's not actually necessary except for portrait mode!.

So i just wanna say that origanility is always good! And for me the benchmark would be the nokia lumia phones...they were so superb in terms of speed of capturing pictures, manual mode, dedicated shutter button, ziess optics, and very important the NOKIA CLEAR BLACK DISPLAY! (CBD) it helped a lot while clicking outdoor, it was awesome i think super amoled can't even compete the CBD display!

Please nokia, please just don't follow the crowd please be original, and come back with the NOKIA THING! in terms of innovation design, Camera,Built quality.

No doubt nokia is already doing well but we still Miss the original nokia hardware like the Polycarbonate body design (like lumia series)

The CBD display. We have pure view display but it's a matter of software but we that clear and punchy black display like the lumia, which really helps outdoor photography!

Thank you

For me I need smartphone with minimum interference of AI. If there is good camera setup that gives awesome output or near about to what human eye see then obviously i will go with that instead of choosing AI. Off course for such result we need powerful software to do the processing as per our need not what AI suggests or something he does automatically for us, so we can share immediately. I will prefer to real life camera experience only.

@dipankar paul

Thinking philosophical, I believe the glass actually inhibits the objectivity of a photograph being taken. The people who manufacture the glass are the ones accountable for it being produced in a clean way without imperfections. but I think this is unrealistic as there are so many small microorganisms and particles involved which can distort glass in the most microscopic way. And I believe that is important because if even a pixel is out of alignment then how can you say it is objective? Furthermore a picture is a still image of a bigger reality and who has the time to watch a video of reality instead of actually living reality. I think virtual reality is not good for people and can create confusion about how people perceive the world. There are certain place neurones in the brain which fire when you are in certain places. So if you start using too much of this virtual reality then maybe these place cells become assigned to virtual places.