"... in a given instant. But on my iPhone 12 Pro even a backlit face appears strangely illuminated. The [in-phone] editing might make for a theoretically improved photo—it’s nice to see faces—yet the effect is creepy. When I press the shutter button to take a picture, the image in the frame often appears for an instant as it did to my naked eye. Then it clarifies and brightens into something unrecognizable, and there’s no way of reversing the process.... On the 12 Pro, 'I shoot it and it looks overprocessed.... They bring details back in the highlights and in the shadows that often are more than what you see in real life. It looks over-real.'... [T]he truth is that iPhones are no longer cameras in the traditional sense. Instead, they are devices at the vanguard of 'computational photography'.... Each picture registered by the lens is altered to bring it closer to a pre-programmed ideal.... The device 'sees the things I’m trying to photograph as a problem to solve'...."
From "Have iPhone Cameras Become Too Smart? Apple’s newest smartphone models use machine learning to make every image look professionally taken. That doesn’t mean the photos are good" By Kyle Chayka (The New Yorker).
I've commented about this problem many times on this blog. I have an iPhone 12 Pro, and with virtually every photo I take, I need to turn down the brightness. I've been doing that on my computer, in the Photos program, but I just figured out how to change the setting in the camera.
I'm not upset that the camera processes things, just that it imposes Apple's ideal. It's okay, for me, that it sees what I'm pointing at as "a problem to solve," but it's just systematically mistaken about where I want to go. It wants everything bright!
Now, I hypothesize that the tech companies are engaged in a grand plan — whether they're terribly conscious of this or not — to socialize us into interdependent elements of the group. Within that plan, we are supposed to be extroverts gathering friends and winning their favor. And therefore the phone's "camera" works best when you are taking pictures of human faces. It loves group portraits inside restaurants. The ancient problem of low-light interiors is banished.
But if you are outdoors, taking pictures of plants and landscapes and clouds, the phone just doesn't understand what you want at all. Where are the faces? What dark spots might be brightened in the hope of discovering a human face? The phone seems to nudge endlessly: Go where the people are! Find your place among them!! What are you doing out here?! It makes no sense!
पोस्ट्स
४८ टिप्पण्या:
"But if you are outdoors, taking pictures of plants and landscapes and clouds, the phone just doesn't understand what you want at all. Where are the faces? What dark spots might be brightened in the hope of discovering a human face?"
It's one reason I bought a camera. My iPhone has a good camera (I use the 11), but for shots that I want, using effects I want, the camera is there to work with me. My phone is for calls. And incessant glances for no reason at all.
technically, this All has to do, with the facts that:
a) cameras make graven images
b) graven images STEAL YOUR SOUL!
c) the Purpose of the Apple Corp, is to manufacture and distribute these cameras, because;
d) the Apple Corp is Satan's Servant; and is Actively harvesting souls!
prove me wrong!
As a very poor amateur wildlife photographer I often take closeups of small creatures - salamanders, snakes, toads etc (which, btw, contra the earlier article, are poisonous, not venomous, there's a difference). My phone camera often defaults to "food" setting for that. The critters are happy I don't take the suggestion.
The commercial practice of optimizing first impressions goes back many years. It was common with music records way back 50 or 75+ years ago (some were intentionally recorded over-loud), and also especially in the 1990s and 2000s (see Wikipedia or others on The Loudness War). Loud and dynamically flattened recordings often sound better on cheap home record players or when played in a noisy car. This methods often leaves a good first impression, but grates over time.
Film cameras and movies went through a super exaggerated color phase (e.g., 1950s Technicolor), and still photography do too. Kodak and Fuji went back and forth regarding realism versus juiced-up color. Many people love one or another brand or type.
Stores routinely set the brightness and contrast of TVs to eye-burning intensity. Some TVs (such as mine) have a "Store" versus "Home" setting in the menu. Even the home setting is meant to leave a good first impression, while the "movie" or "dark room" options tend to be more bearable over time.
It's all about first impressions versus preferences versus fatigue. The Tech Overlords of today didn't invent it, and unlikely to be plotting a grand scheme. There's no accounting for taste, and many people have bad taste relative to anyone else's opinion.
Is this the one that’s supposed to brighten Black folks? That commercial was as ludicrous and condescending a thing as I’ve ever seen.
"to socialize us into interdependent elements of the group."
Isn't this the core expressed strategy of Apple? Why I never bought any Apple product because you can't just buy a product without fully incorporating into the whole contained ecosystem if which there is no escape, only assimilation. Resistance is futile.
Yes, you get a very high quality ecosystem, but it turns you always, ever more to curated and constrained aesthetics.
I'm not upset that the camera processes things, just that it imposes Apple's ideal.
So true. A word of warning from somebody who programs systems for a living. NEVER believe the salesman who says the system can customized to fit your needs. It's superficially true. You can pick the background color for the home screen, for example, but every system is built with a series of assumptions about data and processes that guided the engineers who programmed it. Unless you are extremely lucky, it is highly unlikely those assumptions match your needs exactly, and you can't customized *them* except at similarly trivial levels. Accepting that may go a long way to making system implementation less painful, since you won't be fighting both the system itself and the people who don't want to change. (And if you do go beyond that, the pain at the first upgrade will persuade you not to do it again.)
Serious Question:
How are they selling these, in places like Saudi Arabia?
ARE they selling these?
"…but it's just systematically mistaken about where I want to go."
That's my opinion about virtually every "auto" thing they're making now. I don't want my thermostat deciding what temperature I want, I don't want my lights deciding what level of illumination I want, I don't want my car deciding I want the wipers on, and I positively hate the toilets that decide when I want to flush. Hell, autocorrect can't even figure out what word I want.
There is a real level of unwarranted hubris in the people who write this stuff. Just give ME a knob. I KNOW WHAT I WANT!
No tag for first world problems?
Next version puts big asses on every woman.
I'm not an Apple person but I think *all* phone cameras are light-years ahead of the cameras of old, and easier to use.It used to be so hard to get indoor shots and now it's no problem at all.
But I do wish people would learn to use fill flash on people's faces outside. That is assuming they want to facial features to show up.
A read recently of a house door lock that decides when you want the door locked and unlocked based on learning your habits. That's a disaster waiting to happen.
Loud and dynamically flattened recordings often sound better on cheap home record players or when played in a noisy car.
to truly appreciate music, you HAVE TO listen to it on the equipment it was made for.
The Single Greatest Song, of All Time; The Archies' Sugar Sugar; was Made to be played through a car's AM radio.. At FULL Volume. There's extra clicks or such (vibraphone? keyboards?) on the down beats that work with the speaker's distortion to sound Great.
Early Hip hop was meant to be played on boom busters.. Heavy Metal on Cervin Vega's
"As a very poor amateur wildlife photographer I often take closeups of small creatures - salamanders, snakes, toads etc (which, btw, contra the earlier article, are poisonous, not venomous, there's a difference)."
You're right that "venom" is the wrong word, but when I search for other articles, they all say "venom" and not "poison" or "toxin." Why do you think that is? Does "venom" really sound nicer than "poison"? It's a slightly harder word, making it hard to notice the mistake and maybe also hard to understand the stuff as damaging to us.
Machine learning optimizes a function (e.g. evolution), is only as good as the anthropogenic fitness function (i.e bias).
Since I don't expect my Nikon to make phone calls, I don't expect my phone to take good photos. It's convenient to use a phone to take a quick pic of something I want to include in an email or chat like "Is this what you want me to buy, hon?" But if I was looking for a quality photograph, I'd want a camera with the option of manual settings and a choice of lenses. No serious photographer uses a phone.
Gilbar, thanks for the technical explanation, it all makes much more sense now!
I never bought any Apple product because you can't just buy a product without fully incorporating into the whole contained ecosystem if which there is no escape, only assimilation. Resistance is futile.
Apple = the Borg.
In all seriousness, Apple's commercials make Apple users look like the Stepford Wives.
ProRaw Mode on some iPhones
My wild guess is it is too much messing around, but maybe worth a shot.
There should be a button on just about everything labeled "Stop Doing That Goofy Shit".
Automatic car door locks are a conspiracy (to be detailed in a Café post someday.)
I think it's GM that turns on backup lights when the doors are locked/unlocked. Makes crowded parking lots even more fun than usual.
One thing to note, what is APple "optimizing" the photograph for? You need different settings (sometimes significantly different settings) to get similar looking results on a smartphone screen, a high quality monitor, a printed photograph, etc. I suspect that Apple optimizes for their own particular iPhone screen.
The best way for the diverse light/dark photos is to take on shot optimized on the background (the window) and another on the foreground (the otherwise darkened face) and combining the two in post-processing. Can also work for landscape photography - can use this to ensure multiple areas are in focus, sky is not blown out, etc.
"You're right that "venom" is the wrong word, but when I search for other articles, they all say "venom" and not "poison" or "toxin." Why do you think that is? Does "venom" really sound nicer than "poison"? It's a slightly harder word, making it hard to notice the mistake and maybe also hard to understand the stuff as damaging to us."
Good question, not sure if one can ascribe a deliberate reason other than laziness/ignorance (certainly I was ignorant before I got way too into reptiles and amphibians with my son a couple years ago). It's unfortunate, I think, because the conflation of the two words sometimes gives amphibians a stigma they don't deserve - they are poisonous, or toxic, but in order to be affected by the posion/toxin, you basically have to deliberately ingest them. Which, cute as salamanders are, they don't exactly scream "eat me". But if people think "venomous", that somehow makes people more fearful of them than they have any need to be. I guess one could be concerned about the occasional pet ingesting one and getting sick, but I bet that's pretty rare.
Even snakes carry a very undeserved bad rep. Very few are venomous (there *are*, however, a couple poisonous species, that eat a lot of poisonous California newts and then pass along the high toxicity to any predators). There are no snakes, venomous or otherwise, in North America that are at all aggressive towards humans. Even the infamous cottonmouth has to be pretty severely provoked in order to strike a human (and many strikes are nonvenomous "bluff" strikes). Basically, short of (accidentally or otherwise) stepping on a snake, or deliberately handling it, you'll never need to worry. (I deliberately handle the non-venomous ones - taken a bite or two but nothing required more than a band-aid. Of course, you gotta know the venomous from the non-venomous, but that's usually pretty easy to do.)
Next time you're out on a walk, Professor, you should start flipping some logs and see what you can find! I don't know what salamander species live in Dane county (probably tiger salamanders would be what I would look for there). You're also in range of the hognose snake, the "drama queen" of the snake world. If you find yourself in a particularly sandy area of southern Wisconsin keep an eye out for those, they are hilarious when they play dead. March/April is a great time to look for them, in the AM or late afternoon on a warm day.
In case you couldn't tell, I'm a huge herping (reptile and amphibian) dork. Great hobby for me and my son (turns out sports aren't his bag).
The way the pictures look is the reason I didn't buy an iPhone. I pick my phone's based purely on camera.
Confirmed. Notice how in group fotos it puts a little square on the faces that is seeing. Then it’s probably looking to match that face with a face in your contacts, nudging you along in a certain direction…
Althouse drops fedora for tinfoil 😉
The filters are something, too.
So many face shots that don’t even resemble the truth.
I'm not upset that the camera processes things, just that it imposes Apple's ideal.
This is the winning comment of the month, Professor Althouse. Thank you
It just needs to be generalized:
The problem with the self appointed "experts" of the world is that they act as if their "ideals" are the only possible ones, and that therefore everyone else should be forced to adopt them.
I've hated every single iPhone since the 6S Plus. Apple decided to focus on "make it something that can be safely dropped in water", and forced a lot of changes (no headphone jack, Home button that doesn't move as much) to achieve their "ideal", while making the phone less usable any time it's NOT being dropped in water.
Or they decided that they wanted a bigger screen, and that the Home button got in the way of that, so they nuked the Home button and fingerprint recognition, and replaced it with their shitty "facial recognition".
Leaving aside the whole "facial recognition in the era of masking" problem, it's a lot less convenient to get it lined up on your face, than to get one figer in the correct orientation.
If they had enough self awareness to realize that they are not "Gods among Men", that in fact a large part of the human race doesn't share their "ideals", doesn't WANT to share their "ideals", and that people who don't have their heads up their asses should still want to sell to those people too, Apple would be a far better company to buy from.
As it is, I haven't bought an iPhone since the 6S Plus, and will have to seriously look at the Android market (which I've been avoiding because of the shitty security of their "ecosystem") when next I plunk down $1,000+ for a "phone".
Because I'm not going to pay to buy someone else's "ideals"
That reminds of a guy in Newark, when I started driving one of the platforms, telling me he thought I was white, going by the picture on my ride share profile. His premonition, about how the picture on my profile was chosen, after I told him how it was chosen, was reassured. The app would not accept my selfies. I had to go to a hub and have them take the picture and sure enough their picture makes me look a tad lighter. I had an iPhone 7 at that time. Now I have an 8.
Clearly, I don't pick them for the quality of their autocorrect. Thanks for the apostrophe, you stupid machine.
Old timey darkroom technique did the same thing - dodging dark faces to make them lighter, and so forth, to bring the whole picture in the reduced contrast range of the printing paper compared to the real live eyeball.
Shhhh...Hey baby. Over here. I got your Kodak Ektachrome E100 right inside my stash jacket. How many you need? Uncle Heatless has you covered... Now remember, mums the word. Do not let Apple know we got the underground thing happening! You'll find me here each week. This is my corner...
“ There are no snakes, venomous or otherwise, in North America that are at all aggressive towards humans.”
Are you saying that if I’m walking on a trail and there’s a rattlesnake next it it ahead, I can just confidently walk right by it?
I was in this situation once.
"Are you saying that if I’m walking on a trail and there’s a rattlesnake next it it ahead, I can just confidently walk right by it?
I was in this situation once."
If you're able to give it a three foot berth you shouldn't have a care in the world. I would personally be okay with two feet or so but don't wanna pass my risk tolerance on to you (and I certainly wouldn't linger at two feet). Typical rattlers have a strike range of one third to at most half their body length, and a typical rattler is no more than four feet long (though obviously there are exceptions).
Rattlesnakes don't want to strike people, as venom production is a lot of work for them, they want to save it for food. They would *never* pursue a person, they'd only move towards one if they were completely cornered.
But do what you're comfortable with - I'd hate to be responsible for our esteemed blogress getting tagged. My bugaboo is people's fear of snakes leading to snakes unnecessarily being killed, which happens all too often. Leave them alone and they'll leave you alone and everybody can be happy. And if you find any cool ones on your travels post some pictures :D
One snake - cottonmouth Moccaisin. They will come after you. They will climb up the oar and into your boat. They will drop from tree limbs into your boat or canoe. I've heard tales of pack attacks. They will come after your ass.
James said...
"There are no snakes, venomous or otherwise, in North America that are at all aggressive towards humans."
Warning signs at Arizona and California rest stops warn of Mojave rattlesnakes that may chase you. But according to the linked article following, that's not true:
The Reality of the Dreaded Mojave Rattlesnake
Even so, I'm risk-averse.
You can always shoot in ProRAW which gives you much more control over how your picture turns out. Think of it as a digital negative.
"One snake - cottonmouth Moccaisin. They will come after you. They will climb up the oar and into your boat. They will drop from tree limbs into your boat or canoe. I've heard tales of pack attacks. They will come after your ass."
https://livingalongsidewildlife.com/?p=3681
Most "cottonmouths" are actually harmless watersnakes (Nerodia genus, various species). My seven year old was recently bitten by an adorable baby Nerodia. It was so traumatic he picked it back up and continued showing his cool find to all the other kids at his birthday party. The adult Nerodia can leave an unpleasant puncture wound, but the only long term effect I've ever heard of is some guy ended up with one of the teeth breaking off under his skin and he didn't realize it and then it got infected.
And actual aggressive attacks by actual cottonmouths are far more fiction than fact, as the above article highlights. Don't get me wrong, give them a safe distance, but unprovoked they will not come after you. If they're basking in a tree over a river and your canoe hits it, or your paddle accidentally pulls one out of the river, then yeah, you could end up with a pissed-off cottonmouth in your boat. But it did not want to be there and it does not want to stay there. Give it an exit path and live to tell the tale (and add any embellishments you want if you're trying to impress people).
There are herpers who spend every waking hour looking for snakes in areas with lots of venomous snakes (NKFherping is a fantastic youtube channel) and never have had an incident. Recognize the venomous ones, give them as much distance as you feel comfortable with, and be aware of where you step or put your hands (e.g. rock climbing) in a high-concentration area, and you'll never need fear.
I’m glad James liked snakes- b/c I’m scared witless of them. Even tiny ones. I’m thinking it’s the way they move- and everything else about them. Saw a snake w/a frog in its mouth once- head 1st. Not cool.
They probably called the toads venomous b/c you can milk venom- not poison.
It’s cooler sounding.
Personally, I like the phone cameras (13 pro). It makes for some interesting photos, but more specifically, a picture of what I want, that I can see. I think it’s a tool which fits the vast majority of cases. It still cannot compete with a decade old DSLR for clarity and control when taking a ‘real’ picture.
Think of the phone as a device for taking holiday snaps, combined withe convenience of a Polaroid.
Now, I hypothesize that the tech companies are engaged in a grand plan — whether they're terribly conscious of this or not — to socialize us into interdependent elements of the group. Within that plan, we are supposed to be extroverts gathering friends and winning their favor. And therefore the phone's "camera" works best when you are taking pictures of human faces. It loves group portraits inside restaurants. The ancient problem of low-light interiors is banished.
One time when I was walking into a restaurant, I noticed four teenage girls sitting at the table. None of them were talking to each other. All four of them were looking at their iPhones. It was such a strange sight, it stuck in my brain.
Technology has definitely changed humanity. I now spend an inordinate amount of my day looking at screens. Computer screen, iPhone screen, television screen. So my hypothesis would be that tech companies know this and program their software/hardware for human faces. (The stuff about "extroverts gathering friends and winning their favor" is a criticism of Facebook and other forms of social media, so a bit off-point I think).
Tech companies are very conscious of their desire to get people to look at their screens. Humanity is interesting and it's one of the things humans love to look at. So tech companies are focused on making the people on screens look great (maybe better than in real life).
And of course that's where the money is. There is no money in flowers or snakes or that nature stuff.
As far as I can tell, ALL programmers are intent on forcing their preferences on you. You know why we have all these computer security problems? Because the programmers won’t implement the obvious solution: make certain information available ONLY to someone who is physically present at the machine, holding down a physical button. They prefer a world where everything can be accessed from anywhere. Don’t like it? As they say in Russia: “Toughski Shitski.”
Greg The Class Traitor said...
If they had enough self awareness to realize that they are not "Gods among Men", that in fact a large part of the human race doesn't share their "ideals", doesn't WANT to share their "ideals", and that people who don't have their heads up their asses should still want to sell to those people too, Apple would be a far better company to buy from.
______________________________________________
Humans beings are basically talking monkees, and their great goal in life is status and power within the social group. Once you realize this, much becomes clear.
I suspect for most people, the iPhone camera works just fine. They're thrilled to get great people shots and decent low light photos. I know I am. I adjust them occasionally but that is rare. I'm particularly grateful that I have it with me, all the time. I still miss plenty of photo opportunities but not because I have no camera. If you want professional results, get professional equipment.
In an article about the differences in the camera apps in an iPhone 7 and an iPhone 12 Pro why are there no illustrative examples? The web is a graphic medium, use it.
“ wild chicken said...
I'm not an Apple person but I think *all* phone cameras are light-years ahead of the cameras of old, and easier to use.It used to be so hard to get indoor shots and now it's no problem at all.”
Like the article says they do a good job on faces indoors. Just don’t even imagine they are any good for wildlife photography. Useless is the term that comes to mind.
Stephen St. Onge said...
Humans beings are basically talking monkees, and their great goal in life is status and power within the social group. Once you realize this, much becomes clear.
The great benefit of capitalism is that it forces people to value their customers as much or more than their egos.
The great sin of monopolies is that they let the monkeys stop caring about anything other than their egos
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा