Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 22 Apr 2014 (Tuesday) 12:26
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

The New Google Camera and fake bokeh?

 
dmo580
Senior Member
760 posts
Joined Aug 2009
     
Apr 22, 2014 12:26 |  #1

http://gigaom.com …ets-bokeh-with-lens-blur/ (external link)

What do you guys think about this? I'm a mobile geek, and I'll be honest, I've let my cameras rest too long, but I feel a bit cheapened by this feature that now a bunch of people will run around "creating bokeh" and praising that as a beautiful image.

For example, on Reddit this image was posted (https://i.imgur.com/3Q​raz4G.jpg (external link)) and people were praising it going WOW HOW DID YOU DO THAT? But even an amateur photographer like me spots that box in the lower center and goes "wtf is with that blur?" I know that Google Camera isn't meant to replicate the bokeh of a 85/1.2 lens, but at the same time it bothers me that now we'll have a bunch of phone photographers running around with poorly executed "tilt shift" or "bokeh" images.

Sorry about the rant.


Canon 7D & Rebel T1i: Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, Canon 55-250mm IS, Canon 28 f/1.8, Speedlite 580EX II, Speedlite 430EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
jefzor
Senior Member
788 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 24
Joined Jul 2013
     
Apr 22, 2014 12:30 |  #2

Not something I'll use, but I have to admit the examples kinda look all right.


www.jefpauwels.be (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scatterbrained
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,416 posts
Gallery: 211 photos
Best ofs: 11
Likes: 4056
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Chula Vista, CA
     
Apr 22, 2014 12:49 |  #3

I think it's pretty neat. Of course it really only works for static subjects as it requires you to take two photos from slightly different angles to get the information it needs. Will I use it? Highly unlikely.


VanillaImaging.com (external link)"Vacuous images for the Vapid consumer"
500px (external link)
flickr (external link)
1x (external link)
instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Numenorean
Cream of the Crop
5,013 posts
Likes: 27
Joined Feb 2011
     
Apr 22, 2014 12:54 |  #4

Just more instagram, etc. crap.


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeleFragger
Goldmember
Avatar
3,183 posts
Likes: 214
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Williamstown, NJ
     
Apr 22, 2014 13:24 |  #5

Numenorean wrote in post #16852994 (external link)
Just more instagram, etc. crap.

agreed... a friend has been posting so many pics on facebook.. and i found myself asking her what app.. she is like.. oh some free iphone app. It would take a long time for me to do in photoshop with the 3 pics going down left then 2 larger going down right and a pic in the center.. all faded together so nice.... im like.. wow this is really taking the fun out of it..


side note I remember when I started with the dslr stuff just a few years back (2009? when t2i was new)...

I wanted to try some cool drop food into glass photography and found one where someone created that perfect strawberry dropped into a campaign glass. Perfect fizz, perfect splash, etc...

I found out it was like 6 pics layered and the person took many pics to get say just the splash right and had to keep cleaning up to get to that point.

I cant look at some photos anymore and think they are real.


GearBag - Feedback****Flickr - my playhouse (external link)****RF-603 Discussion
Canon 7Dm2 Gripped | 32GB Transcend CF | 64GB Toshiba FlashAir | YN-468 Flash | YN-468 II Flash | RF-603 | EF-S 18-55 IS|EF 24-105L|EF 50 MKII 1.8|EF-S 55-250 IS |EF 85 1.8| Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC |Primo's Trigger Stick Monopod | Manfrotto Carbon Fiber Tripod
if I post a pic.. it is there to be picked on... (I have thick skin.. im in IT)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sjones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,214 posts
Likes: 161
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
     
Apr 22, 2014 14:46 as a reply to  @ TeleFragger's post |  #6

Photographic manipulation dates back to photography’s very beginning.

Efforts to simplify all aspects of photography also dates back to the earliest years.

There is really nothing new here, just the rapidity in which various tools are developing. This rapidity stems from the same technology that has benefitted all digital photographers. Digital brought convenience over film, and there is no limit, nor should there be, on the expansion of such convenience.

If a photograph looks good, it looks good. How a photograph was created might have brought great enjoyment to the photographer or made for an incredible backstory, but ultimately, it is irrelevant to a photo’s success.

Yes, it can be aggravating to learn that a particular action in a photograph never took place but was instead the product of mass manipulation. On the other hand, if the photograph is still visually appealing, it is still a visually appealing photograph.


Summer 2017 (external link)
Grateful I'm not blind to Eggleston's brilliance.
It's the Photographer (external link) | God Loves Photoshop (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
seres
Senior Member
Avatar
580 posts
Likes: 40
Joined Apr 2013
     
Apr 22, 2014 15:02 |  #7

Numenorean wrote in post #16852994 (external link)
Just more instagram, etc. crap.

Yes. Just another step down for the craft.


—Eric

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Numenorean
Cream of the Crop
5,013 posts
Likes: 27
Joined Feb 2011
     
Apr 22, 2014 15:17 |  #8

sjones wrote in post #16853284 (external link)
Photographic manipulation dates back to photography’s very beginning.

Efforts to simplify all aspects of photography also dates back to the earliest years.

There is really nothing new here, just the rapidity in which various tools are developing. This rapidity stems from the same technology that has benefitted all digital photographers. Digital brought convenience over film, and there is no limit, nor should there be, on the expansion of such convenience.

If a photograph looks good, it looks good. How a photograph was created might have brought great enjoyment to the photographer or made for an incredible backstory, but ultimately, it is irrelevant to a photo’s success.

Yes, it can be aggravating to learn that a particular action in a photograph never took place but was instead the product of mass manipulation. On the other hand, if the photograph is still visually appealing, it is still a visually appealing photograph.

Instagram, etc. lack the visually appealing part.


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sjones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,214 posts
Likes: 161
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
     
Apr 22, 2014 16:23 |  #9

Numenorean wrote in post #16853374 (external link)
Instagram, etc. lack the visually appealing part.

So every photo that has ever used Instagram or similar software is NOT visually appealing?

And in general, the reduction of "craft" started long ago.


Summer 2017 (external link)
Grateful I'm not blind to Eggleston's brilliance.
It's the Photographer (external link) | God Loves Photoshop (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rantercsr
Goldmember
Avatar
2,719 posts
Gallery: 29 photos
Likes: 4792
Joined Mar 2014
     
Apr 22, 2014 16:32 |  #10

Could this real bokeh vs fake be comparable to real colors captured in a camera vs enhancements via software? I don't know just a thought ...When I first gotten into this I was blown away by some of the images . Th en I learned those amazing sunsets weren't really that colorful in real life for example

Unfortunately for me I don't have the skills to get the same effects but I can't hate on those that do


I got a couple of Cameras and lenses ...
My portraits IG (external link)My everything else IG (external link)
MY flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
alan_potter
wireless groping system
Avatar
2,357 posts
Gallery: 164 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 640
Joined May 2005
Location: Falkirk, Scotland
     
Apr 22, 2014 16:46 |  #11

The reddit photo is a disaster, but I'm certainly going to try the Google camera out and see what I can come up with.

Photography is going through an incredibly exciting development phase just now. Stunning new techniques are being developed by incredibly intelligent engineers. Inevitably, some techniques will work better than others. Some will work well in some situations and fail in others, but that's something to be excited about, not to complain about!

We are living in vibrant and exciting times, and it's the mobile phone companies that are driving it - to the benefit of most of us (professional photographers are, sadly, the losers).

Look at the photo in this link (external link). I hope it will load up. Now, I messed up when taking this in a couple of ways, but even so - look how good a job it does of presenting a photograph in a way that would be unheard of ten years ago.

Me? I'm revelling in these new techniques!


Falkirk, Scotland.
Project 365 Blog (external link) | flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DocFrankenstein
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
12,324 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Apr 2004
Location: where the buffalo roam
     
Apr 22, 2014 17:01 |  #12

I'm trying to think why I'd want blurred background on a cellphone photo of a static object.

Most of the time I would want it in portraits. lol


National Sarcasm Society. Like we need your support.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 532
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
Apr 22, 2014 19:46 |  #13

Well, dang, I just checked with my son, he has an android tablet, not a smart phone, and he says that Google Phone will only work with a newer version of Android, available on some phones but not evidently for his tablet, Dang!

Not that I'm all excited about the "Lens Blur" feature, but still it can be nice to play with things!


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jefzor
Senior Member
788 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 24
Joined Jul 2013
     
Apr 23, 2014 00:27 |  #14

So we're annoyed that there's a new cheap effect out there and that it mimics the bokeh of OUR camera system, which distinguishes us from the masses?

You can all already imagine the oooh and aaah-ing on FB etc. for shots of shoes or flower pots with a blurred background :p


www.jefpauwels.be (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DocFrankenstein
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
12,324 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Apr 2004
Location: where the buffalo roam
     
Apr 23, 2014 00:37 |  #15

jefzor wrote in post #16854590 (external link)
So we're annoyed that there's a new cheap effect out there and that it mimics the bokeh of OUR camera system, which distinguishes us from the masses?

You can all already imagine the oooh and aaah-ing on FB etc. for shots of shoes or flower pots with a blurred background :p

But I don't feel special no more!

Gone are the days where knowing how to shoot film properly made you a professional. Fine.

But now, my business model relies on making pictures with great bokeh because large sensor. This app will kill my last competitive advantage over a smartphone.


National Sarcasm Society. Like we need your support.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

4,363 views & 0 likes for this thread
The New Google Camera and fake bokeh?
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is traceys82
809 guests, 369 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.