Mobile RAW
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
Is RAW photography on a smartphone worth it?
Heres a comparison I just made in less than ideal lighting conditions (Indoors, not brightly lit, etc)
Does your phone support it? Do you use it?
Why or why not?
Phone used was a nexus 5 btw.
>>54110967
>RAW
>on a smartphone
Since when was this a thing?
>he thinks "RAW" means taking pictures
>oh anon, you're too funny, really
>>54111061
OP here, I meant taking images in RAW format.
You should have figured that out though, unless you have some crippling mental disability.
>>54111069
You should worry about your photographer skills. Which are none.
Even with RAW format and the best camera your photos will look like shit
>>54111111
Get a load of this guy getting angry for no reason.
>>54111111
Nice get.
And what's wrong with my photography skills, you'ce only seen the one image i've uploaded...
>>54111059
Some Android phones use the new Camera2 API, which allows manufacturers to implement support for RAW photography. Recent LG, Samsung, and Google flagships support it.
>>54110967
It's pretty good. Ever since discovering it I've left the save RAW option enabled for all my photos.
It depends what you're doing with your photos after taking them.
If you're sharing them, uploading them to anything, or using them socially in general, it's probably not a great idea to shoot RAW.
If you're doing a lot of basic editing, you can usually get by with jpeg images and still be fine when using a phone.
If you're doing some really advanced editing, you should probably be investing in a better camera, even if it's just a hobby (RX100 is a good place to start).
Overall, it's almost definitely not worth the trouble.
>>54111111
I thought his image was pretty good desu
>>54110967
>photography
>smartphone
fucking millennials
>>54110967
Its ok feature but most people wont use. Jpeg compression is good enough.
And professionals generally have dedicated cameras for professional work
>>54111252
>have a device that functions as a portable computer, phone, modem, and camera
>getting upset people choose to use it over a single dedicated camera unit
Are you retarded? A phone camera with RAW is able to take images with fully accurate colors, only issues left to fix are focus and low light images, before a dedicated camera becomes obsolete.
>>54111329
The issue there is that the physical size of the sensor makes for better image performance. And so cameras will never become obsolete as long as people prefer smaller, thinner phones as their main devices.
I'd do it if my phones supported it.
>>54111059
The lumia 1020 did it in 2013.
>>54111329
A phone camera sensor is tiny, the amount of light that reaches it is also not great. Raw picture just gonna look like shit, with shit colors and shit lightning, thats why phones use heavy postprocessing and shit like proprietary algorithms to actually make their pictures look ok
>>54111329
>A phone camera with RAW is able to take images with fully accurate colors
>Are you retarded?
>A phone camera with RAW is able to take images with fully accurate colors
>A phone camera
Pot, kettle, nigger situation.
You're blind, underage and retarded.
>>54111209
If the phone supports it by default, what is the trouble though?
Does iPhone have it? No? Then it's not worth it.
raw format is best when the optics are excellent and the CCD is high resolution
phone cams aren't hasselblads
>>54111392
There's several pain points that end up not making it worth it, especially for someone that simply wants to improve their photos passively:
- File size and storage considerations
- RAW compatibility with existing applications and services
- Transferring photos to new devices, storage units, etc
All for what will likely be a slight downtick in photo quality as pointed out by >>54111382. It ends up not being worth it.
>>54111329
>>54111329
Do you believe that all those red pixels and impurities are normal in a professional RAW picture?
>>54110967
I think your picture just answered why more phones don't support this. Open the raw and zoom in. Look at how shit the CCD is, and how the jpg version has been through a filter to remove all the stars.
>>54111111
WITNESSED
>>54111408
And this is where the physical keyboard went. Phone designers across the industry believed a bunch of sour grapes iDiots who had convinced themselves that something to make typing easier was a *bad* thing because they could no longer have one.
>>54110967
It's great if you don't have a DSLR or want to capitalize on usage of your phone camera. But if you aren't going to fiddle with the images on your computer in post production it's probably not worth it.
What's the best Android app for raw images
>>54110967
>>54110967
>Is RAW photography on a smartphone worth it?
As always with RAW: Only if you shoot water (e.g. a lake or a the sea) or trees with lots of leaves and other shit with small texture.
For anything else I find it to be extremely useless.
>>54111059
~2010
>>54111627
Complete Linux Installer
any digital stills camera could benefit from RAW files in the sense that you're not letting your phone's software make all the photo development decisions for you. for most situations, the automatic jpeg output is probably what you intended or acceptable. but sometimes, like in OP's image, you may have wanted to develop the photograph differently. trying to post-process an already-processed jpeg that's missing all the extra information of a RAW file is hell.
>>54111706
absolute nonsense, with OPs talent he most likely fucked up profiles and the whole comparison is nothing more than a meme.
>>54110967
The top one looks so much better, but also a little grainy? Idk.
The black looks like a really dark blue in your jpeg though
>>54110967
Lumia 950 owner here.
Yes, I use RAW almost all the time.
Not so much to fiddle with settings though, I use it mostly because the phone's post processing (just like, y'know, all other phones on the market, jesus christ none of them get it even remotely decently right) goes too aggressively on noise reduction, and it compresses the jpegs too much.
Just opening the raws in photoshop and maybe letting photoshop figure out automatic settings depending on how it came out from the beginning, then scaling down a bit makes pictures come out much better than jpegs straight from the phone. I'm too lazy to go and make a comparison picture, but here's a picture that I've done nothing to but open the RAW in photoshop and scale down from 16 MP.
>>54111780
Fuck that looks incredible
>>54111780
wait dude, how do you get raw files on windows phone??
>>54111780
That looks amazing, leagues ahead of OP's phone
>>54111868
ayy lmao, how do you know OP's isn't a small crop?
>>54111795
Right ?
Here's a picture in less ideal conditions. Once again I've done nothing but scale the photo down a bit, left everything at default in photoshop. Obviously it's nowhere near what a DSLR can do, but I'd say it's up there with decent pocket cameras at least.
>>54111812
By enabling it on a phone that supports it.
>>54111868
>Lumia 950 leagues ahead of Nexus 5
>Current (previous ?) gen flagship leagues ahead of a Nexus device that cheaped out on certain things like camera
Well fuck, I'd sure hope so.
>>54111900
Why would you post a small crop if you wanted to show how cool your camera is?
>>54111946
Because the camera uses a very high resolution and he didn't want to scale it down?
This thread is asking a question about formats, not bragging about a smartbone camera
>>54111111
sixes of truth
>>54111111
checked
>>54110967
>Is RAW photography on a smartphone worth it?
It is if you have a fast an easy workflow in place, and enough storage in your phone, and maybe in your PC if you want to keep the RAW's
Why can't phone manufacturers stop their god awful processing? Everyone does it terribly bad
>Does your phone support it? Do you use it?
No, Camera2 API adoption has been awful at best and a non Android phone is a bad idea
>Why or why not?
I would get a new phone for it but it's kind of hard to know which phones support the feature
>>54112011
>>54111900
>>54111755
>>54111499
>>54111111
>>54111111
What even is the point of your post.
with a smartphone, the glass, or rather plastic lens you just can't cram more photons through as you can with glass in a 35mm lens. acutance cant be digitally created. its science.
>>54112100
iPhone 6S and better add an algorithm to digitally zoom the aperture size, allowing it to take professional quality photos.
>>54111971
Op here. I cropped it because it was around 17MB for the DNG and I had to keep it below 4MB without sacrificing quality.
>>54111111
OP BTFO
HE WILL NEVER RECOVER
>>54111069
No, he's right.
You should've been more clear enough in your language than to imply that you were retarded enough to think RAW was a kind of photography in itself.
Considering the stupid shit posted here constantly the burden is on you to use language in such a way as to not come off as mentally deficient.
>>54111671
>For anything else I find it to be extremely useless.
do you shoot fuji?
>>54112292
>RAW photography
>meaning anything other than taking images in RAW format
How autistic are you?
>>54112211
>iPhone 6S and better add an algorithm to digitally zoom the aperture size, allowing it to take professional quality photos.
>allowing it to take professional quality photos.
>>54112100
>the glass, or rather plastic lens
They use glass in any decent quality smartphone, including rare earths elements and aspheric elements
>you just can't cram more photons through as you can with glass in a 35mm lens
This is completely retarded, do you even know what you're talking about?
>acutance cant be digitally created. its science.
Except it can be, you can get acutance with the most basic sharpening
>>54112211
I love how they are appeasing to the borkeh crowd, though it doesn't even seem to be the fad it was 5 years ago
>>54110967
Well, your phone is crushing the fuck out of shadows and oversharpening, so yes, I'd say that shooting RAW is an improvement, but it also exposes how shitty the tiny sensors on most phones are.
>>54112366
All that "professional quality" means is that someone got paid for the photo, which happens all the time with iPhones. Most of what makes a photo good is the composition, absent of glaring technical flaws like OP's RAW image has.
>>54112463
Op here. How can I improve my Raw Image? ISO is only 100 but I feel like it still looks a little noisy.
Idk, I'm not a photographer or a professional, but if I can improve image quality without spending hours tweaking shit then I'll take it
>>54112480
Pls no bully
>>54112480
Get something with a better, larger sensor and wider aperture. You can't magic shit into being not shit for image capture.
>>54111111
checked
How's my g3 camera? Using stock camera that came with this rom
>>54111111
What a waste of magnificent digits
>>54111111
>>54112958
Not amazing but not bad.
>>54111111
>>54110967
Why? So you can spend time processing your phone snapshits of head phone cables on a computer?
>>54111111
>PHOTOGRAPHY AS AAAAART
Fuck off. Photography is for recording visual information first, and looking pretty second.
Preserving detail is FUCKING VITAL to this. You are a motherfucking entomologist in the amazon. What do you use? A shit camera because you're not ansel adams, or a good camera because you don't have time to carefully sketch bugs after carefully killing them?
Artfags are cancerous individuals and should be relegated to the trash heaps of the social order.
>>54113320
Different guy, let me tell you why you're a dumb dumb.
Apart from the fact the op is using a shitty camera and creating an exercise of ad nauseam.
There is literally no point if your photos look like shit and are of completely boring subject matter.
A shitty camera or phone camera photo that is well executed and of something interesting is more valuable and worthwhile and well interesting then for example OP's same photo taken with a phase one camera.
>>54113369
Holy mother of fucking god you are fucking retarded
Did you read a single fucking word I wrote?
Photography. Is. Not. Primarily. An. Art. Form. DUMBFUCK. I am legitimately mad right now. You are an insufferably unintelligent cave dwelling autistic chimpanzee that would rather paint prehistoric dicks with its own shit because using proper pigments isn't worth it if you're not painting the fucking cave mona lisa.
>>54113398
Good. Stay mad.
Your analogy is shit. This is about using the same terrible equipment and wasting your time and phone storage space on raw taking snap shits of headphone jacks.
I dont waste my time and hundreds or thousands of dollars sketching and then painting and then varnishing a picture of a potato, I'll just doodle it in my $2 notepad.
Any photobros on this tread?
I don't mean to be rude and hijack the thread, but does anyone know what are the optimal settings while taking pictures from a moving vehicle like a UAV? Let's say you're moving at 13 m/s and taking a picture every 4 seconds or so during a bright day.
Should I aim for a fast shutter speed, a low f-stop value and low ISO?
>>54110967
it's simple: if you're willing to process every photo you take, raw is obviously better. If not, no.
I personally think there is no point in processing everyday smartphone snapshits, but if you don't agree, feel free to shoot raw.
>>54112480
higher ISO == more noise
There's nothing you can do to make the shitty sensor in your Nexus 5 better.
Take pictures in RAW format all you want, they'll probably still come out better than JPEG directly from the phone, due to skipping the phone's (most definitely) awful post processing.
But what RAW won't do is magically make the sensor better. You're always going to get noisy as fuck pictures, and the only thing you can do about it is... Post processing.
>>54113596
It obviously depends on how far away your object is, also on vehicle shake.
I guess you should keep it low, flying thingies may shake a lot. I'd aim for ~1/500 shutter speed, bright day should allow you to shoot this fast even with lens stopped to reasonable quality. You don't really have to compromise anything on bright days.
>>54113596
Assuming you have a wide angle lens and small camera sensor, then you'll have a get infinite focus from a few metres in front of it usually.
Probably something like ~f/4, 1/1000th and ISO 100.
>>54112480
>iso 100
>noise
this is what you get with smartphone cameras. Buy old DSLR, even as old as $50 rebel XT, it will give you infinitely better quality than this parody of sensor you have in your smartphone.
>>54112480
If processing from RAW, then something like imagenomic noiseware works well to reduce a bit.
If you have a burst mode on camera app, then you can simply have an app or program register /align the images automatically and take the average, which cuts out noise dramatically the more images in the stack.
if you care enough about post-processing and are happy to load up a raw file, tweak it and export it then you know already that ANY phone camera wont measure up to a half-way decent proper camera with a decent sensor size and lens.
No it's not worth it. if you're going to go though all that trouble you should be dedicated enough to have a decent camera with you.
>>54112211
>allowing it to take professional quality photos.
Yeah no senpai
god, i'd love to see smartphone manufacturers dropping this retarded megapixel race and doing something good for a change. i mean come on, i'd take two-three megapixel camera that's not noisy on iso 100 over my hurr durr 24mpx xperia z5 aggressive noise reduction bullshit anyday
hell, even my supposedly mediocre blackberry q10 camera was better than z5 one
>>54111111
magnifique
>>54113553
Kill yourself spastic.
>>54114506
Don't cut yourself on that edge
>>54111111
/p/ would be proud
>raw
just fucking develop your own film and photos, that's some real raw photos for you
kids these days
>>54111111
replyin to ebin sexts :DDDDDDDD
>>54110967
RAW doesn't mean your pictures automagically become better you retarded faggot. Holy shit you normies are so dumb it's mindboggling you haven't accidentally suicided yourself yet.
Literally ask google what RAW is, then fuck off back to kekkit.
>>54111111
>debating OP's photographing skills
>when his picture was obviously just meant to be some random snap showing the difference between jpg and raw
You went way beyond shitposting there buddy.
>>54110967
>Is RAW photography on a smartphone worth it?
Depends on your phone and what you want to do. Some phones apply downright horrid jpg processing which crushes dynamic range, smudges in an attempt to remove noise and just generally applies really unpleasing effects to the picture. If you want to edit your smartphone photos afterwards raw is a great thing to have.
>Does your phone support it?
Some do.
>Do you use it?
Yes when possible.
>Why?
Because I like photography and editing pictures. It's rare for me to use my smartphone to take pictures as I always carry my camera with me but in the sitations I do, I enjoy the possibilities to post process the image afterwards with more freedom.
