The iPhone 16 (not the Pro model - that was too expensive) has impressed the hell out of me. I used to view my old iPhone as a note-taking device for identifying potential locations when I was out and about and didn't have a "proper" camera with me but the 16 has turned into a really useful tool that's capable of serious photography. Or at least my version of it.
I've been having a great time doing little square images on A5 art paper and have found them to be totally convincing and satisfying. I find no shortage of subjects, many of which I probably wouldn't have pointed the D700 at but which come out looking really nice.
I’ve been banging on about the iPhone 16 so much that Phil Rogers of Fogblog fame was worried that I might be turning into a JAIP - just an iPhone photographer. I suppose he's partially right as I now see the phone as part of my "armoury". I'll often go out with the phone - with its 26mm equivalent main lens - and the D700 with the 85mm AF Nikkor attached and be quite happy. Amazing to think that not so long ago I used to be lugging a hulking great Rolleiflex SL66 outfit around with me...
As often happens, there comes a time when we wonder just what a particular camera or format might be capable of and it's been no different with the iPhone 16. How much bigger could my square images go and still deliver sufficient sharpness and tonality? The other day I set out to find an answer to that question.
In the course of learning what the camera is capable of, I tried one of the in-built "styles", not a filter as such since the style is applied at the taking stage rather than in editing. The look was called "luminous" and it looked pretty horrible as a colour image. However, I could see that it opened up the shadows nicely and gave an attractive glow to the highlights so I thought it might work well for some black and white subjects.
I was thinking of scenes such as those found in a forest in summer where a bit of backlighting makes dark shadows of the trunks at the same time as the sun floods the top of the frame and the tree canopy with light. I tried a few random shots using this style and it looked quite promising. My first A5 print turned out very nicely with plenty of shadow detail and lovely soft highlights so I loaded up a sheet of A3 for a 10.75" x 10.75" print. That’s it above.
I would probably give the print quality of the A5 version 9/10 and the A3 print 7/10. The big print looks good at normal viewing distances but I'm quite short-sighted and can focus in really closely with the naked eye and it loses a bit of smoothness when viewed in such a ridiculous fashion. To put it another way, I'd be very happy indeed if I'd been able to produce a big square print like that from 35mm FP4 in the darkroom but I'd definitely expect more from a good 120 negative. Below is a close up of the A3 print so you can make your own mind up.
For me, I'd be comfortable printing iPhone 16 files up to A3 but I'd call a halt there. Still, that's not too bad, is it? I take my phone everywhere with me and it's basically as capable as a 35mm SLR with a 28mm prime lens on the front. Plus, I can get home after being out for the day, load the iPhone file onto the PC and have a nice print in my hand ten minutes later.
So am I just a JAIP, as Phil feared? Perhaps a more intriguing question would be would it matter if I was?
What a fabulous tree.
ReplyDeleteYes, indeed. It was once in the grounds of a fine mansion but nothing at all exists now of the house. I’ll bet it has some stories to tell. Secret trysts, skulduggery, innocent picnics, shady deals…
ReplyDeleteI really don't think it matters to anyone but you. I don't doubt the quality of the results, but aren't they just bloody horrible to use...
ReplyDeleteAll the best, Mark
It’s a subjective issue, Mark, but for me the iPhone is the most enjoyable camera I’ve used. If it had the equivalent of a 24-120mm lens I probably would have it as my main camera. There would be little need for anything else. For about £300 I could get two auxiliary lenses that would give me three high quality focal lengths - 13mm, 26mm and 52mm. I might yet go down that road.
DeleteIt’s just another digital camera. If that’s the format you shoot then there is nothing wrong with using an iPhone. Feature movies have been shot on iPhones! It’s just another tool for you to choose to use, or not. I use mine, but I’ve never printed anything from it, maybe I should give it a try sometime.
ReplyDeleteLet me know how it goes if you do decide to print. I love the prints I’m getting. A5 prints are beautiful and 12”x12” from the main lens are still very nice. Framed and at normal viewing distances they look great.
ReplyDeleteGood morning Bruce, I apologise for being ‘anon’, but I can’t figure out how to get my user name back, or create a new one… brain poisoning due to recent kidney failure, stoned again :(
ReplyDeleteAnyhow, my tuppence is that the iPhone 7 was the first one to take reasonable snaps, and no doubt things have improved dramatically since then.
I am currently considering replacing my phone, even though it still works well. I am hung up on keeping it pocketable though, and since Apple seem to have abandoned that small form factor, I suspect that I may have to call a halt (for now) at the iPhone 13 mini.
If I stick to alac (aka Apple compliant flac), I can repurpose the 7 as a jukebox for the car, as it has zero trade in value.
best
Stephen Jenner.
Hi Stephen. It was a 7 I had before getting the 13. I’ve done a couple of 5x5” prints from its files and they look very nice. I think it would do perfectly good 7x7” prints on A4. I don’t think it has the secret sauce of the newer phones, though.
DeleteHi Bruce,
ReplyDeleteHave tried RAW with the iphone?
Suppose it will give you even better A3 pictures.
Regards,
Frank
Thank, Frank. I thought raw only worked with the Pro models but I’ve just checked and there are one or two apps for the iPhone 16 that allow the use of raw so that’s worth a try. 👍🏻
Delete