Would you use a smartphone to take pictures underwater?

[ScubaSteve]

and looking at the pictures people take with them, they're not!!

What are you on about? What is wrong with these photos? Both were taken with an iPhone 4. Anybody that claims an iPhone 4 (or newer) cannot take a decent photo is just blowing smoke. They will not replace a good DLSR but they take good photos.

 

[dfx]

In my opinion, that was taken with an acceptable topside snapshot camera.

No, not really. All of the pictures from that page were edited in software after being taken, some of them quite heavily. Such pictures say nothing about the quality of the camera. I'll go out on a limb here and say that there's no way in hell that any cell phone camera can produce such a shallow depth of field on its own.

 

[vladimir]

No, not really. All of the pictures from that page were edited in software after being taken, some of them quite heavily. Such pictures say nothing about the quality of the camera. I'll go out on a limb here and say that there's no way in hell that any cell phone camera can produce such a shallow depth of field on its own.

Perhaps the pictures I selected were not the best examples. (ScubaSteve's snapshots look pretty adequate to me.) Nevertheless, if you're shooting in JPEG format, your pictures are being edited by your camera after being taken. I don't see a quantum leap from that to using an app like SynthCam on your iphone to achieve a shallow depth of field. Let's not forget, though, that I only set out to demonstrate that it was an adequate topside snapshot camera. Adequate, not fabulous. Nobody expects it to mimic an DSLR.

 

[dfx]

Perhaps the pictures I selected were not the best examples. (ScubaSteve's snapshots look pretty adequate to me.) Nevertheless, if you're shooting in JPEG format, your pictures are being edited by your camera after being taken. I don't see a quantum leap from that to using an app like SynthCam on your iphone to achieve a shallow depth of field. Let's not forget, though, that I only set out to demonstrate that it was an adequate topside snapshot camera. Adequate, not fabulous. Nobody expects it to mimic an DSLR.

Actually there's quite a big difference between forcing image data into RGB color space and applying artificial effects onto it. One is necessary to display the image on a screen, the other one isn't. But anyway. Adequate, sure. Depends on your definition of what adequate is, I guess. You could also say that your grandma's film point and shoot camera from 60 years ago makes adequate pictures, and it would be hard to argue that. The point is that if you compare a phone camera with a standalone camera of similar age, price and form factor, the dedicated camera will almost invariably outperform the phone. That's reason enough not to spend several hundred bucks on an underwater case for a phone, because for the same money you can get a dedicated camera that does a better job.

 

[vladimir]

The point is that if you compare a phone camera with a standalone camera of similar age, price and form factor, the dedicated camera will almost invariably outperform the phone. That's reason enough not to spend several hundred bucks on an underwater case for a phone, because for the same money you can get a dedicated camera that does a better job.

I agree with that. As I said early in the thread, a phone camera will never be the best tool for the job, for the money, underwater. The same is true above water. But we all have them in our pockets for their other functions. If you housed one to use as a dive computer, got an underwater camera in the bargain, and got to post pictures and GPS data to your FaceBook page from the boat, it might make sense for some people.

I use mine as a phone. When I'm traveling I use the Kindle app, and I read the news on it. The camera doesn't get much use.

---------- Post added May 8th, 2012 at 11:29 PM ----------

Actually there's quite a big difference between forcing image data into RGB color space and applying artificial effects onto it.

I don't see how what SynthCam does is an "artificial effect." It gathers the image data a little bit differently, that's all.

 

[t4e]

What are you on about? What is wrong with these photos? Both were taken with an iPhone 4. Anybody that claims an iPhone 4 (or newer) cannot take a decent photo is just blowing smoke. They will not replace a good DLSR but they take good photos.

View attachment 123634View attachment 123635

first picture looks good, a close up with great lighting
not so much the second one, somewhat unnatural colors and lacks sharpness
a good camera should have no problems in taking nice sharp looking pictures in adequate lighting

i think my Garmin Oregon 550's 3.2 megapixel camera takes better pictures, even in low light
here's a couple of examples of picture taken with the Oregon, and i'm posting a link so you can check the exif data if you wish, i don't know if the forum software strips it when you insert it directly

http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o92/marar999/ec4390ce-0ca0-4b5e-8155-8b082628b81e.jpg

http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o92/marar999/31219f9c-d19b-4730-b98c-95cbccbf67a6.jpg

 

[ScubaSteve]

not so much the second one, somewhat unnatural colors and lacks sharpness

I will say that I noticed that as well when the SB system shrunk it down. You will have to take my word for it (or not) when I say the full size image does not look like that. It still does not compete with a DSLR but I think it looks good (full size).

Anyway, I think the reality is that some will not like the smart phone cameras and some will. C'est la vie.

I will also say that the colors look exactly as my eyes and brain saw them. I was actually quite amazed at that when I looked at the shot 3 or 4 minutes later. Very natural.

 

[dfx]

I don't see how what SynthCam does is an "artificial effect." It gathers the image data a little bit differently, that's all.

Running the image data through any kind of algorithm beyond the bare necessities to make the data visible is what I'd call a digital effect. Even if it's something simple like a gamma filter.

 

[Thalassamania]

I don't see why post processing is a bugaboo, unless you are attending some sort of purist party. If a cell phone can produce a file that is of acceptable quality for photoshopping it, or whatever, then the cell phone has utility. Clearly it does for some, and doesn't for other, hell, Doug Faulkner would still be shooting with K-14 process, ASA 25, Kodachrome lit by Press-25 bulbs, if he could.

 

[dfx]

I don't see why post processing is a bugaboo, unless you are attending some sort of purist party.

Comparing photos that one camera produces with post-processing to photos that another camera produces without post-processing = apples and apple pie. That's all.