The one thing Apple understands is photography

[CaiLeDao]

Read an interesting article at petapixel with the title above.

http://petapixel.com/2015/08/31/the-one-thing-apple-understands-is-photography/

As a long time Mac user I have also been a long time Aperture user - yes the photography App Apple downgraded with Photo's. So was interested in the sentiment of the article, which is actually very good and gives an interesting strategic view of the frustrating (to me) decision they made.

I probably like many forum members, produce photobooks, as a means of sharing images with friends an family. The image attached is the from and back cover of my last tour book from China. One cover image was shot on a ESO 5D mark 3 the other on an iPhone 5S. The workflow to produce the images is similar except of course I had to increase the size to print 10 by 13 landscape at 300 dpi from the 8MP iPhone image. (On One - perfect resize)

To me this is rapidly becoming the challenge to the traditional DSLR market, if I can shoot like this on a camera phone, share them, with friends and family across the world, and then publish surprisingly good A4 prints, why do I need the bulk of my kit. The back page shows how I travel, not that frequently with the camera slung on the tripod, but you get a sense of size and weight I travel with.

Yes I have GAS, yes I bought a 50mP beast, which is fantastic for a niche I really enjoy, but for more candid captures on the journey maybe a camera phone is becoming credible and could become my go to choice. So the RX100 probably bites the dust, today I wont stop taking a dslr but I do wish I could easily share sunrise photo's with friends in China via We chat (social Media) whilst using the niche features I am invested in - the filters, tripod and manual shutter releases for longer exposures working hard to get the best image I can in Camera. My UK friends will still be in bed.

How much longer will dlsr's remain above embracing integration with mobile phones, the social media world and the apps that make so many things easier to find, do or calculate. I think I need qualify that I don't shoot selfies. period.

The Manfrotto Digital Director seems, at a premium, to do most of this, but why can't Canon produce something which bridges the gap before Apple, et al, finish of killing the photography market to the point of extinction. I don't believe I am the only person hoping that this gets resolved before the dlsr camera market becomes an even more expensive niche.

 

[Pookie]

With the example of the images your showing... stick with a camera phone it suits your photography. You really don't need a DSLR for images like that.

 

[LDS]

If you mean Apple understood smartphones and social sharing are the modern equivalent of the evenings spent being forced to watch relatives or friends holidays photos, yes, you're right. It was and it is a huge market, true.
Apple could be the new consumer Kodak, true, like the Brownie, smartphones brought (digital) photography to the masses, and with better quality - but at a far higher price.

Just, then and now, there are many photographers with different aims and needs.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I bought a new Iphone 6+, but the photo app that came with it was pretty bad. I purchased camera + and its better. If the Iphone camera app is a indication of Apple's expertise, we are in trouble.

Every time I take my 5D MK III and Iphone to a event, and shoot both, the iphone photos look pretty sad by comparison.

The iphone is great since you always have it with you, but I hate to post or publish photos taken with it except in small size with a apology note for the quality.

Its a matter of expectations, I expected more based on what some have posted.

 

[bholliman]

I agree that camera phones can take decent pictures these days in good light and sometimes usable pictures in less than good light. I use my camera phone for the occasions when I don't have a DSLR or EOS-M along and I've kept some of those images since they capture a memorable event or occasion that I would have no other pictures of otherwise.

But, I'll always use my DSLR or compact camera if possible, and I try to have one of them with me for most occasions when I expect to take pictures. For me the quality of current phone camera's still has a long way to go. And the limited controls are difficult to adjust to after using a higher end DSLR like the 5D Mk3.

To each their own. Personally, I can't see myself ever going totally with a phone camera, even if they continue to make significant strides in image quality and usability.

 

[gsealy]

I would say that photography is one thing that Apple knows the least about. And that is not to disparage Apple by any means. It's just that Apple knows a heck of lot about many things including making tons of money.

 

[distant.star]

I would say that photography is one thing that Apple knows the least about. And that is not to disparage Apple by any means. It's just that Apple knows a heck of lot about many things including making tons of money.

This was the first thing that came to mind for me. I know companies that understand photography and companies that care about photography. Apple is neither.

 

[wtlloyd]

There's a hint in something you said - shoot with the camera you enjoy using. It's not just about the results; or did I mis-understand - someone is paying you fat bucks for your images?
I don't enjoy shooting with my cell phone. And I typically prefer the images I achieve using pro gear. But I will forget about finding the perfect "snapshot" easy carry compact camera, the cell cameras are perfectly adequate nowadays.

 

[wopbv4]

I would say that photography is one thing that Apple knows the least about. And that is not to disparage Apple by any means. It's just that Apple knows a heck of lot about many things including making tons of money.

This was the first thing that came to mind for me. I know companies that understand photography and companies that care about photography. Apple is neither.

+100.
Apple has ignored high end photo editors for a long time. The simple fact that OSX only support 8 Bit/colour channel (24 bit) means that for high precision colour work I have to use a PC which does support 10 bit/colour channel (30 bit). It is ridiculous , the entire workflow, DSLR, Photoshop, eizo monitor do support 10bit, the bottleneck is OSX. I am an alpha tester for Apple and I love their products, but I have had many heated discussions with the developers on colour and OSX support for Photoshop

 

[tomscott]

Thing is there are ways and means around these problems.

I came up with a solution just before I went traveling, but it did take me a while to figure the best way and it does mean making some sacrifices.

When I was traveling for 5 months earlier in the year I wrote small jpgs to my SD and Raws to my CF on my 5DMKIII. I then carried my iPad and used a SD card reader to transfer all my images. I have a 128gb iPad and I had 25,000 images on it which still didn't fill it. I then used PS express to edit them and post the images. I then backed up my CF with 2 HDDs for piece of mind. The small jpegs are still better quality than the iPhone pics just struggle if you go in for a tight crop.

The work flow is not difficult and if you want an even quicker workflow buy an eyefi card and have the images wirelessly transferred automatically to your device. Its really not difficult. These "extra" technologies like wifi are useful but gimmicky, they destroy battery usage and there are other just as easy ways around the problems. The cameras imo just aren't the right tools for posting to social media.

The problem is your iPhone or iPad is geared up to social media and quick posting and they are great tools. The interface is great its easy to use and there are a plethora of apps that allow you to make amazing things quickly. The problem for me is that the phone camera is no better for me than for just a snapshot showing a overall view, casual usage, I used my iPhone on my travels but the quality of the pictures are just disappointing, for anything but screen even then its pushing it.

So this brings me to my next point, even if the major manufactures did make cameras like phones (which samsung already have and they were complete flops) the form factor of a camera just don't lead to a good experience in terms of image editing or posting images to fb or instagram. The cameras are big and it handling is specific for camera control making it awkward to use like you would a phone. I can't see any of the manufactures coming together to allow the same type of apps there will be new ecosystems across all brands as they all fight for their corner which is just frustrating!!

So the simple solution to me… All of us photographers love our gear… we always have it with us in some way shape or form and you always have your phone/tablet so why not use them both together its just as simple with only one step extra and these modern computers are geared up to this kind of usage with universal apps from companies actually in the trade like Adobe etc. To me this miniaturisation of cameras has its pros and cons, I'm a photographer I like fast glass and they are inherently heavy, what ever you do to the camera fast glass needs glass and its heavy physics isn't going to change soon! Also if you put heavy glass on a small camera the handling just isn't fun I would rater carry and extra 4-500g of camera than have sore hands from front heavy glass. As a traveler I like all aspects and a lot of the time I like wildlife and small cameras don't bode well with even medium sized telephotos like 70-300mm and in most cases these lenses don't exist in the full frame mirrorless market and the 70-200mm F4s are about the same size, on a camera much lighter with a weaker lens mount.

The only problem I have is that colour rendition on the iPad/iPhone isn't brilliant the colours are out which you will see a little on the examples below but again if you have any sort of colour correction software then you will have no problem sorting it.

Here are a couple of images examples I edited using photoshop express on my iPad while traveling earlier in the year.

Untitled by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Untitled by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Paraty, Brazil by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Untitled by Tom Scott, on Flickr

San Pedro de Atacama, Valley de la Luna, valley of the moon, Chile sunset by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Manhattan skyline from Brooklyn park, Brooklyn bridge and Empire State Building by Tom Scott, on Flickr

The view from the top of Old Rag, Shenandoah National Park by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Today we braved snow storm Linus to see the Michigan Central Station, Detroit. Beautiful building such a shame. The unfortunate story of motor city by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Cloud Gate, Millennium Park, Chicago.Braved -15deg in a deserted Chicago to get some nightshots of the city, my water and beard were frozen! by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Mardi Gras, New Orleans by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Monument Valley, Navajo Tribal Park, Arizona by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Monument Valley, Navajo Tribal Park, Arizona by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Canyonlands National Park, Utah by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Mesa Arch, Canyonlands, Utah by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Grand Canyon west, Hualapai Nation, Arizona by Tom Scott, on Flickr

As you can see in a couple of the pics the colour is a bit off like the Mesa Arch the sky blue is very intense also the oranges seem to overcook too unfortunately that wasn't what the iPad showed but it was more than good enough to post to social media along the way.

I would post a lot more but there are too many lol!

 

[gregorywood]

I have a rather simplistic view, and I'm sure it's been said before elsewhere, but Apple has become a different company over the last many years. Gone is the focus on superior products (especially in the area of "pro" software). As an Apple user for the last 5 years (I bought my first Mac solely for the purpose of using Aperture), and having converted completely at home to an Apple ecosystem, it's been a struggle to feel some of the pain of recent with the seeming lackluster zeal around the quality of software releases/bug fixes/features and the decision to shelve Aperture.

However, one has to remember that first and foremost Apple must remain profitable to the shareholders. Somewhere at Apple, they've determined that the best way to stay profitable in the photography segment is to appeal to the masses. The masses have iPhones and secondarily (if at all), P&S cameras. We as the "Pro" and "Enthusiast" DSLR crowd are the minority.

I still hold out a shred of hope that Photos will evolve into something close to or perhaps even better than what Aperture was. In the meantime, I've jumped to Lightroom and learned the curve as quickly as possible as to keep doing what I love, shooting and creating. It's not an awful tool, it's just different.

For what it's worth, those are my two cents.

Greg

 

[TheJock]

So this, below; was my question, but Tom has answered it and given me the direction. Thanks Tom

My 70D had WiFi and I can connect it to my iPhone 6+ via the EOS Remote and upload my photo’s to my phone. Is there a way to connect the 5DIII to the iPhone so I can do the same? Will the standard lightning charger cable enable me to copy images over to the phone with no problems or is there an app anyone can recommend for this job??

 

[Don Haines]

The one thing Apple understands is marketing.

 

[unfocused]

People aren't getting the point.

Camera manufacturers have utterly failed their customers.

Why is it that the only person at a wedding who cannot take a picture of the bride feeding the groom the first slice of wedding cake and have the picture on the bride's Facebook page within a few minutes is the same person who is being paid to take pictures?

And, if the paid photographer did try to do that, he or she would need a Rube Goldberg combination of devices, media and interfaces.

Photographers should be able to take a picture, review it on the back of their camera, make a few simple adjustments (cropping, exposure, color correction) and hit a "send" button to get that photo to the client or directly to social media or a website.

The fact that no manufacturer offers that capability today shows just how miserably camera manufacturers have failed their customers.

That's what this article and the much better Mayflower Concepts Presentation (that the article links to and which has been previously discussed here) are talking about.

Tom Scott's work around only underscores this. There is no reason photographers should settle for such work arounds. It ought to be right there on the camera. And, if you need a larger screen, it ought to migrate to your iPad or laptop automatically, without having to use cables or complicated interfaces. It should just work.

That's what Apple understands.

The interesting thing is that while this may be mostly an inconvenience for enthusiasts, it is a complete fail for the professional market.

I can't tell you how frustrating it is to cover an event for a client, go home to start processing pictures and see on the client's Facebook page a couple dozen horrible pictures from the same event that some fool with an iPhone posted while I was uploading images to my computer. Think about virtually every breaking news event of the last several years -- the first pictures and video usually comes from an iPhone, not from a professional photojournalist covering the event.

The inability to instantly get pictures from the camera to the internet creates lost opportunities and those lost opportunities ultimately mean lost revenue and a more difficult struggle to retain the few remaining jobs for professional photographers. (When I go to a press conference, the Chicago Tribune reporter will be tweeting the event with pictures using her iPhone, while the poor AP photographer has to wait until he gets back to the bureau before he can send any pictures. Is it any wonder that fewer and fewer news organizations are employing photographers?)

This is what Canon, Nikon and all the other manufacturers have missed and it's hurting photographers in very concrete ways.

 

[Random Orbits]

People aren't getting the point.

Camera manufacturers have utterly failed their customers.

Why is it that the only person at a wedding who cannot take a picture of the bride feeding the groom the first slice of wedding cake and have the picture on the bride's Facebook page within a few minutes is the same person who is being paid to take pictures?

And, if the paid photographer did try to do that, he or she would need a Rube Goldberg combination of devices, media and interfaces.

Photographers should be able to take a picture, review it on the back of their camera, make a few simple adjustments (cropping, exposure, color correction) and hit a "send" button to get that photo to the client or directly to social media or a website.

The fact that no manufacturer offers that capability today shows just how miserably camera manufacturers have failed their customers.

That's what this article and the much better Mayflower Concepts Presentation (that the article links to and which has been previously discussed here) are talking about.

Tom Scott's work around only underscores this. There is no reason photographers should settle for such work arounds. It ought to be right there on the camera. And, if you need a larger screen, it ought to migrate to your iPad or laptop automatically, without having to use cables or complicated interfaces. It should just work.

That's what Apple understands.

The interesting thing is that while this may be mostly an inconvenience for enthusiasts, it is a complete fail for the professional market.

I can't tell you how frustrating it is to cover an event for a client, go home to start processing pictures and see on the client's Facebook page a couple dozen horrible pictures from the same event that some fool with an iPhone posted while I was uploading images to my computer. Think about virtually every breaking news event of the last several years -- the first pictures and video usually comes from an iPhone, not from a professional photojournalist covering the event.

The inability to instantly get pictures from the camera to the internet creates lost opportunities and those lost opportunities ultimately mean lost revenue and a more difficult struggle to retain the few remaining jobs for professional photographers. (When I go to a press conference, the Chicago Tribune reporter will be tweeting the event with pictures using her iPhone, while the poor AP photographer has to wait until he gets back to the bureau before he can send any pictures. Is it any wonder that fewer and fewer news organizations are employing photographers?)

This is what Canon, Nikon and all the other manufacturers have missed and it's hurting photographers in very concrete ways.

Don't disagree with much of what you wrote, but it seems like the market is not yet there in making cameras like phones. Cell phones are getting close to 1000 in price and many people replace them every 1-2 years, which is a lot more than most people spend on cameras.

Personally, I'm not willing to spend an additional 20/month to get cell access for my camera, and I'm not willing to spend however much to get additional data. My wife and I have two smart phones with 3 GB of data, and it costs more than 100/month when all the taxes/fees are added on. 3 GB of data for pics/video will be used in less than a day. Until the data rates fall a lot, it's just not practical for most people.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

I can't tell you how frustrating it is to cover an event for a client, go home to start processing pictures and see on the client's Facebook page a couple dozen horrible pictures from the same event that some fool with an iPhone posted while I was uploading images to my computer.

I am not sure I understand why this would be frustrating. What you are doing and what the cell phone users are doing are two different things... or they should be.

I don't know of too many brides who would hire a professional photographer for near-real time publishing of snapshots. That's what her friends are. What the bride is hiring a professional photographer for is to take more traditional quality type shots of the wedding and create products other than a disk o' snappies.

Speed is a quality in itself, but it is not the only quality in photography.

There will be clients for whom speed is the primary quality they are looking for. Your following example of the news service is an excellent example. The bestest photograph two days from now is not worth as much to a news editor as a lower quality photograph now.

In that case, a professional photographer should be versatile enough to ditch the DSLR and use their cell phone to get the speed. It would be the skill of the photographer in using the cell phone what should convince the editor to pay for these shots.

Proper tool for the proper job.

I don't think it will ever be possible for a photographer to take, process, package, and transmit a higher quality "professional" type photograph faster than it will take for an amateur to take a snappy and hit send on their cell phone.

Why? Because there is so much more involved in taking the planned and processed photograph than the snapshot. The only way a DSLR or similar type traditional camera could keep up with the speed of a cell phone camera is to have the more traditional style camera automatically process the image.... which is probably the last thing a serious photographer wants as it eliminates the artistic influence of the photographer in the final product.

I think a good quality cell phone camera should be part of a professional photographer's tool kit.. for those times when speed of transmission becomes the primary goal.

 

[distant.star]

.
Probably it's more a semantics issue for me.

I think Apple knows about photography the same way McDonalds knows about culinary art.

 

[wtlloyd]

This! Really, you feel you are competing with the half-drunk guest who posted crooked blurred cell photos while the event is still underway?
Maybe you need to choose a different line of work!

I can't tell you how frustrating it is to cover an event for a client, go home to start processing pictures and see on the client's Facebook page a couple dozen horrible pictures from the same event that some fool with an iPhone posted while I was uploading images to my computer.

I am not sure I understand why this would be frustrating. What you are doing and what the cell phone users are doing are two different things... or they should be.

I don't know of too many brides who would hire a professional photographer for near-real time publishing of snapshots. That's what her friends are. What the bride is hiring a professional photographer for is to take more traditional quality type shots of the wedding and create products other than a disk o' snappies.

Speed is a quality in itself, but it is not the only quality in photography.

There will be clients for whom speed is the primary quality they are looking for. Your following example of the news service is an excellent example. The bestest photograph two days from now is not worth as much to a news editor as a lower quality photograph now.

In that case, a professional photographer should be versatile enough to ditch the DSLR and use their cell phone to get the speed. It would be the skill of the photographer in using the cell phone what should convince the editor to pay for these shots.

Proper tool for the proper job.

I don't think it will ever be possible for a photographer to take, process, package, and transmit a higher quality "professional" type photograph faster than it will take for an amateur to take a snappy and hit send on their cell phone.

Why? Because there is so much more involved in taking the planned and processed photograph than the snapshot. The only way a DSLR or similar type traditional camera could keep up with the speed of a cell phone camera is to have the more traditional style camera automatically process the image.... which is probably the last thing a serious photographer wants as it eliminates the artistic influence of the photographer in the final product.

I think a good quality cell phone camera should be part of a professional photographer's tool kit.. for those times when speed of transmission becomes the primary goal.

 

[unfocused]

I can't tell you how frustrating it is to cover an event for a client, go home to start processing pictures and see on the client's Facebook page a couple dozen horrible pictures from the same event that some fool with an iPhone posted while I was uploading images to my computer.

I am not sure I understand why this would be frustrating. What you are doing and what the cell phone users are doing are two different things... or they should be.

Facebook and other social media have become an integral part of marketing for many businesses and institutions. This is one way they connect to their customers.

News (and we need to treat social media like a news outlet) is a very perishable commodity. It used to be that if people saw something in the newspaper the next day, that was good enough. Now, people expect to see it on Facebook later that same day.

When the professional photographer cannot accomplish that, it diminishes the value of his or her services. Clients will still pay for the skills and vision of the professional (sometimes) but as I said, there is an opportunity cost associated with not being able to produce images immediately for the web and social media. And, we are paying a premium for equipment that is costing us these lost opportunities. I want to be the one deciding whether or not to give them something immediately for their social media, not having the manufacturers doing it for me.

I don't know of too many brides who would hire a professional photographer for near-real time publishing of snapshots. That's what her friends are. What the bride is hiring a professional photographer for is to take more traditional quality type shots of the wedding and create products other than a disk o' snappies.

I'm not a wedding photographer, but I strongly suspect that a professional photographer who can produce the quality images the bride wants and deliver a couple of memorable pictures to her Facebook page that same day, would have a competitive advantage over a photographer who cannot do both.

...a professional photographer should be versatile enough to ditch the DSLR and use their cell phone to get the speed. It would be the skill of the photographer in using the cell phone what should convince the editor to pay for these shots.

Why should the photographer be forced to juggle two devices? Shouldn't we demand that the manufacturers produce a single camera that we can use for that purpose? If it can be done with a cell phone, it certainly can and should be done with a $2,500 camera.

I don't think it will ever be possible for a photographer to take, process, package, and transmit a higher quality "professional" type photograph faster than it will take for an amateur to take a snappy and hit send on their cell phone.

No, but that should be because we choose to take the time, not because our tools are stopping us. And, it certainly should be possible to scroll through the images, pick out three or four strong shots that don't need much post processing, tweak those and post them.

It's nice to tell ourselves that clients are paying for our superior skills. But, if you want to stay in business, it's also a good idea to be as competitive as possible against all the competition. It is beyond me my anyone thinks its a good idea to settle for half-baked tools that can't do these simple tasks. At least then you've got the choice to use them or not.

 

[mkabi]

People aren't getting the point.

Camera manufacturers have utterly failed their customers.

Why is it that the only person at a wedding who cannot take a picture of the bride feeding the groom the first slice of wedding cake and have the picture on the bride's Facebook page within a few minutes is the same person who is being paid to take pictures?

And, if the paid photographer did try to do that, he or she would need a Rube Goldberg combination of devices, media and interfaces.

Photographers should be able to take a picture, review it on the back of their camera, make a few simple adjustments (cropping, exposure, color correction) and hit a "send" button to get that photo to the client or directly to social media or a website.

The fact that no manufacturer offers that capability today shows just how miserably camera manufacturers have failed their customers.

That's what this article and the much better Mayflower Concepts Presentation (that the article links to and which has been previously discussed here) are talking about.

Tom Scott's work around only underscores this. There is no reason photographers should settle for such work arounds. It ought to be right there on the camera. And, if you need a larger screen, it ought to migrate to your iPad or laptop automatically, without having to use cables or complicated interfaces. It should just work.

That's what Apple understands.

The interesting thing is that while this may be mostly an inconvenience for enthusiasts, it is a complete fail for the professional market.

I can't tell you how frustrating it is to cover an event for a client, go home to start processing pictures and see on the client's Facebook page a couple dozen horrible pictures from the same event that some fool with an iPhone posted while I was uploading images to my computer. Think about virtually every breaking news event of the last several years -- the first pictures and video usually comes from an iPhone, not from a professional photojournalist covering the event.

The inability to instantly get pictures from the camera to the internet creates lost opportunities and those lost opportunities ultimately mean lost revenue and a more difficult struggle to retain the few remaining jobs for professional photographers. (When I go to a press conference, the Chicago Tribune reporter will be tweeting the event with pictures using her iPhone, while the poor AP photographer has to wait until he gets back to the bureau before he can send any pictures. Is it any wonder that fewer and fewer news organizations are employing photographers?)

This is what Canon, Nikon and all the other manufacturers have missed and it's hurting photographers in very concrete ways.

Lets just say, tomorrow Samsung did that... lets just say with the introduction of the NX2.
Those "simple adjustments" is going to take up time no? Not to mention, selecting a picture from the multitude of pictures, checking for focus etc.

Can you afford to waste time at an event where micro-moments may happen? Your uncle tom, who is not being paid, has a crappy camera, can waste all the time he wants posting on facebook (or other social network).