Michal Marek Apple's director of global marketing, Phil Schiller, shared on Twitter a link to the images taken by photographer Jim Richardson, who used his iPhone 5s to take them. The link goes to the pages of National Geographic magazine and the pictures depict the Scottish countryside. Richardson admitted that the transition from his usual Nikon was not easy, but he got used to the iPhone very quickly and was very pleasantly surprised by the quality of the resulting photos.
Gallery
After four days of really intensive use (I took about 4000 pictures), I found the iPhone 5s to be a really capable camera. Exposure and colors are really great, HDR works great and panoramic photography is simply fantastic. Best of all, square shots can be taken right in the native Camera app, which is a huge plus when you want to post to Instagram.
When choosing the camera for the iPhone 5s, Apple made a really great decision by increasing the pixels instead of increasing the megapixel count. It was brave because many customers only look at the advertised specs and think that more megapixels means a better camera. However, the reality is different. Higher quality images are ensured with the iPhone 5s even in worse conditions by increasing the pixels and using brighter f/2.2 lenses. Something like this is definitely appropriate in Scotland, which is known for its gray clouds.
You can view the complete makeup of Richardson's photo trip and other photos <a href="https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1932/8043/files/200721_ODSTOUPENI_BEZ_UDANI_DUVODU__EN.pdf?v=1595428404" data-gt-href-en="https://en.notsofunnyany.com/">here</a>. You can also follow Jim Richardson on Instagram under his nickname jimrichardsonng.
So, taking the appalling quality photos in question into an article extolling the quality of the photos is a good #fail. I wondered what he was talking about, the photos are terrible - and then I looked at the original on the linked site... A little difference.
Thanks for the reminder. I uploaded the originals from Instagram, I hope you'll be satisfied with Pixy.
Much better.
I have such an intense feeling that these are not unedited photos. The eye thinks that someone sharpened it and increased the contrast. But that's standard practice for professional photographers with expensive cameras, so nothing to complain about.
On the other hand, the fact is that even professionals already have a problem, even without editing the photo, to recognize if someone took a photo with a SLR for a kilo or an iPhone for a few thousand. Well, it was actually an iPad photo and the person complimented the newly bought Canon lens for a kilo…
Sometimes it's better ... to just say nothing. Those lessons that an expensive camera takes better pictures than a mobile phone no longer apply.