Slideshow: Apple reveals the winners of the Shot on iPhone Night mode challenge

I wish it were true that real enthusiasts need a large sensor because they print, but it simply is not true.

A significant percentage of people on this forum don’t need larger sensor cameras , but rather talk themselves into wanting them simply because of desire and consumerism.

@Manfred: to see big prints properly, you need to back away. Scanning the image from close range to spot "noisy shadows" and "uneven tonal transitions" is a sick habit that should be frowned upon. Normal people don't do that.

It is sad when we tend to bucket artistry into a certain type of category, such as the kind who needs large prints, in which case all photographers whose work had been featured in huge billboards by the side of busy highways are artists, automatically. I would tend to agree that a lot of people who frequent the forums here are not the ones who pixel peep and bash any camera with lesser megapixels, lesser this, lesser that. Yes, it is indeed a sick habit. I think we will earn a lot of money if we offer therapy or rehabilitation facilities for the likes of them. Back to this iPhone contest, relatively small device with small sensor yet clearly some outstanding work are featured here.

I guess a photo being technically brilliant isn't something a viewer in general will care much about.

@Flowchart - sure. And we are all three in this thread totally in agreement.

The reason to point out the fact that they are not technically brilliant is really to argue with those that claim cameras are no longer needed. They are certainly needed, for several reasons.

One of those reasons is image quality. But, other reasons might be even more important. Like usability. Try to chase a bird or an athlete with a phone. And try to have it as your only tool as a photographer in general. And try to use it as an action camera.

1 sensor read out vs one sensor read out, then you are correct, physics can't be circumvented. That is not what is happening on modern phone cameras. They are using multiple shots, stabilisation, AI / ML to indeed narrow that gap.

Oh wow a UAZ Bukhanka? And it's 4WD???!!! Well, that really makes it spectacular, what a shot! Keep them coming Apple. Titling it " super-dramatic" is a bit underselling it I think, especially now that we know that van is 4WD.

"uses light to bring this art installation in Spain to life" - clearly, Phil Schiller knew that this is a photo of an art installation, not of real-life people.

they are good photos, thus they are of high image quality. This is art, not computing science.

No, these are not of high image quality. They aren’t blurry and compressed through the photographers own technique or intention, they are held back by the underlying technology taking the photograph. Nobody refers to the subjective part of a photograph by saying ‘high image quality’, that’s nonsense.

Like I said, they’re good photographs. I like them a lot. But if you think they’re ‘high image quality’, I’m sorry but that’s just delusional! Are we even looking at the same image??

When we talk of a car that has good build-quality, we are talking about very objective things, no? As in, how is the construction, what’s the finish like, is everything underneath the bonnet well thought out. That’s separate from the DESIGN of the car. We can say, I love the design of the car, but the build-quality is horrible!

All I’m saying is, the quality of the photograph and image-quality are two very separate things.

hfolkertsma: suppose it depends on how one defines it or thinks what the term “high image quality” means to them. After all, a photograph is also an “image” – so gravis92’s opinion is that they are high quality (photographic) images is certainly valid. You’ve defined very clearly what “high image quality” means to you, which I personally think is useful. However, I believe a judgement of the “quality” of these photos also needs to be considered in the context by which they created: i.e., products of a phone device that cannot compare (as you have defined it) to the “image quality” abilities of most DSLR/M4/Mirrorless cameras. Regardless of what one might think about Apple products, there are some very nice “quality” photos here. Viewing them at 100% does not reduce my judgement in that regard, and I would still find the quality “passable” because pixel-peeping (or the ability to print large) would not be part of the criteria I would use to judge them.

Ansel Adams probably cared about 100% image quality and I care about 100% image quality. I also think camera and lens engineers and manufacturers care about 100% image quality. Customers also seem to care, otherwise why would manufacturers bother to improve their products over time? In my experience, when I see a great photo I tend to study it in detail and immerse myself in it. If the details are blurry, grainy, or have a strange focus, it is distracting and, for me, it ceases to be a great photo.

In the past, photographs were printed and the photographer had some control over the amount of detail the viewer could see. These days, most people are viewing images on a monitor. If a photographer sends me an original, full size image, then he/she must expect me to view and evaluate it at 100%. Otherwise, the photographer should reduce the image size so it has the quality the photographer likes.

@TN Args: Did you ask your friends?

My EM1Ii II is with me everywhere I go, but when evening comes I can do anything that was shown here. 2 second exposures free held, are pretty straight forward 12-40 mm range using my 12-100 ( oh there nobody behind the wheel of the vehicle in the snow) And bracing against Something, I can do 4-6 and longer. But, if need be...my Huawei P 30 pro does the rest. As for regular shooting, the following article gives you some reference as to how it would compare to another camera format.
https://www.thewanderinglensman.com/2014/02/the-practical-difference-between-full.html

@stevevelvia50: Of course you could. If you only go, where this “monster” setup is allowed to enter.

You can also drive to the super market in a gravel truck, but maybe most people will be happier with less, if the truck is not absolutely necessary ;-)

"But most of the us want to enjoy life, and this means leaving the camera gear at home when you go out with friends"

I know. I have felt this some times lately. Cameras are not welcome any more, by some people. Which is super weird as everyone now have one in their pocket. It is like - it is OK to take pictures if it is spontaneous. Planned picture taking is a no no.

I really do not like that negative opinion.

I don't has iGrammer

iGrammar is not exist.

Do you mean the gallery of Kara Murphy, the author of this article? I guess she is the OP, yes?

Got it. I would not be the OP, then. But, of course, I could certainly see why someone who wrote some version of, "These photos sort of suck." might have his or her own skill questioned. Hope you liked at least some of my photos, and hope I passed muster! LOL :-)

@josh - I'm pretty very, very tired of this pointless argument.

If i am not a clothes designer i have to wear anything the seller gives be because i should have no opinion on it? I can continue on for at least 20 different subjects. The point is, he was talking about how he likes the images or not. And one does not have to be a qualified critique to have an opinion.

Maybe the jury agree with you and were in your mindset as well: just give the awards to random images because we don't want to say which are nice and which are not :)
After all, considering the contest might have some huge number of entries, we are discussing more about the decision of the jury to choose this images, rather than the images themselves.

I cannot boil a pot of water. But I should be entitled to have an opinion whether a dish is good or not.

When anyone has nothing to add to a conversation without digging up irrelevant points from people's profiles, that is a sure sign of a troll.

you cant boil a pot of water?