Something to be said about computational photography; Leica Lux App vs. DLux8

[Trapshooter]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, BernardC said:

That's the whole point about smartphone photography in 2025. It's optimized to create snapshot-type images with very little user intervention. That's great if you have no need for additional processing, correction, printing, etc.

YT channel Snappiness just released a video about how the smartphone look has evolved over the years. What looked normal in 2018 looks dated now, and what looks normal now will probably look dated in a few years.

That's fine for social media use, of course,  as long as you like the look from today's smartphones. Your photos will blend seamlessly into peoples' feeds.

Except that there are apps that now can decrease the overly saturated and sharpened look of the default iPhone pictures. Halide is one that comes to mind. I think the Leica Lux app also does a good job also. When I use my iPhone for photos I rarely use the default camera app. 
 

I will look at the YouTube video you linked later. Thanks. 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Trapshooter]

1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

The last few posters don't seem to have looked at the link I gave. It's only my opinion, of course, but I think it demonstrates that it's not the equipment that counts, but the photographer. And a good photographer can take superb photos with a smartphone. The most important factor in getting a good photograph is, as has often been said, six inches behind the viewfinder; but also perhaps 2 feet behind the LCD.

Just checked the link you provided. Very talented and creative photographer. I think the most important aspect to using a mobile phone for photography or video is to use an app that can makes sure that the default iPhone saturation and sharpness does not come through. 

[SrMi]

The new Adobe Indigo app is my favorite iOS camera app. It shows what computational photography can do to improve the smartphone photography experience.

I always have my phone with me, but I don't always have the camera. However, whenever I have both, I will use the camera instead of my iPhone 15 Pro Max. The results, even with some minor processing, are significantly better than those from the iPhone.

[BernardC]

20 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

The last few posters don't seem to have looked at the link I gave.

I did, and I've seen the work before. It's very accomplished. It's not the default "straight out of camera" look for smartphones, it takes a lot of work to get those results.

I don't think anyone was saying that you can't do serious work with a smartphone. This conversation is about the "SooC" look of 2025 smartphones compared to standalone cameras.

[250swb]

On 7/21/2025 at 12:06 AM, Trapshooter said:

Just a fairly simple and non scientific test to illustrate the power of computational photography using a mobile phone. First picture taken with iPhone 16 Pro and Leica Lux app. Hard to deny the convenience of the SOOC picture from the iPhone for personal use. 

Second picture will be included in first reply below due to size limits  

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

To be honest I've never heard of 'computational photography' until a minute ago, and it seems to be a new phrase to replace the stigma of saying it's been processed  as an HDR image. 

From the opening image I can't see anything that is naturalistic about the result  (if that is the intention), so 'computational photography' can happily take over from HDR in my book, they are both hideous. But if hideous results and time saving are important just go and do it, but if you can't be bothered to make your photograph look nice and only want a 'one-stop-shop' in image processing why would you be proud of it, or indeed expect people to applaud your lack of skill or effort?

 

Edited July 22 by 250swb

[SrMi]

18 minutes ago, 250swb said:

To be honest I've never heard of 'computational photography' until a minute ago, and it seems to be a new phrase to replace the stigma of saying it's been processed  as an HDR image. 

From the opening image I can't see anything that is naturalistic about the result  (if that is the intention), so 'computational photography' can happily take over from HDR in my book, they are both hideous. But if hideous results and time saving are important just go and do it, but if you can't be bothered to make your photograph look nice and only want a 'one-stop-shop' in image processing why would you be proud of it, or indeed expect people to applaud your lack of skill or effort?

No, computational photography does not mean an "HDR look," nor does it need to produce images with the old "HDR look."

Yes, much of photography on smartphones produces an overprocessed look when using the default camera app (what customers demand?).

In-camera panorama, frame averaging, and pixel shift are all part of computational photography. Specific tone-mapping is more part of the JPEG engines used.

[Trapshooter]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 hours ago, 250swb said:

To be honest I've never heard of 'computational photography' until a minute ago, and it seems to be a new phrase to replace the stigma of saying it's been processed  as an HDR image. 

From the opening image I can't see anything that is naturalistic about the result  (if that is the intention), so 'computational photography' can happily take over from HDR in my book, they are both hideous. But if hideous results and time saving are important just go and do it, but if you can't be bothered to make your photograph look nice and only want a 'one-stop-shop' in image processing why would you be proud of it, or indeed expect people to applaud your lack of skill or effort?

 

To each their own. I will say that while the 1st picture I posted is a little off it is by far miles above the 2nd picture in terms of what my brain processes as seeing. That’s my point. While HDR in the early days was pretty over the top it has gotten better. What I like about it is that it is better than most high end cameras at capturing the scene as I observed it. The second picture was so far off of what my eyes saw it is sad. And I love using the little Leica dlux8. 

[frame-it]

11 hours ago, 250swb said:

To be honest I've never heard of 'computational photography' until a minute ago, 

 

almost all modern phones do it, dunno about the iphone, but on samsung, if one selects the "pro" camera, where everything i.e iso, shutter speed, focus, WB etc etc has to be set manually then it apparently doesn't use any of the computational tools

 

 

[pgk]

On 7/21/2025 at 4:19 PM, LocalHero1953 said:

The last few posters don't seem to have looked at the link I gave. It's only my opinion, of course, but I think it demonstrates that it's not the equipment that counts, but the photographer. And a good photographer can take superb photos with a smartphone. The most important factor in getting a good photograph is, as has often been said, six inches behind the viewfinder; but also perhaps 2 feet behind the LCD.

But, but, but .... define what a 'good' photographer actually is first. If being a 'good' photographer is about using equipment (whatever it is) to produce images which are well, composed, well thought out, show a real understanding of lighting and represent what the photographer wanted them to look like, then smartphones CAN be used to produce them. However the vast majority of smartphone users want the smartphone to do the work for them and have neither desire nor inclination to produce anything other than a record shot of whatever they have photographed. IMO using a smartphone to produce 'good' photographs is no different to using any other image capturing device in that it needs an appreciation of limitations and and understanding of what is possible and how to achieve it. Personally I don't like the ergonomics of smartphones for image creation. I do on the other hand like the ergonomics of M rangefinders. Which is one reason (there are many) why I prefer to use an M rangefinder to a smartphone. Each to their own but I have to say that 'computational photography' just seems like another form of automation and I rarely find automation produces the images I want so to me it isn't of much interest.

Edited July 23 by pgk
typos again!

[frame-it]

14 minutes ago, pgk said:

However the vst majority of smartphone users want the smartphone to do the work for them and have neither desire nor inclination to produce anything other than a record shot of whatever they have photographed.

very true.

and also, based on some LUF threads re: autoISO and AWB quite a few people do that with their $7000++ camera as well, i.e use it like a phone.

🤣

[LocalHero1953]

21 minutes ago, pgk said:

If being a 'good' photographer is about using equipment (whatever it is) to produce images which are well, composed, well thought out, show a real understanding of lighting and represent what the photographer wanted them to look like

I agree with most of what you write, but I used ‘good’ casually without trying to define it - and will not do so now, not for everyone. My own personal definition is of someone who produces images I want to spend time looking at and understanding, with the proviso that I don’t want to be distracted by technical failings.

[hansvons]

On 7/21/2025 at 5:19 PM, LocalHero1953 said:

And a good photographer can take superb photos with a smartphone. The most important factor in getting a good photograph

Agreed. I’m said to be a fairly OK image maker. I use the Leica app all the time. Super handy, very much its own. Love computational photography with AI and what not. It’s another interesting tool; so is my M6 with its 35mm Summicron ASPH and the SL2-S with its 35mm APO. Great horses, great courses—but all require some Capture One love.

[pgh]

A line must be drawn somewhere and the definition of a photograph must be revisited. I have nothing against software algorithms blending multiple captures and adjusting them and presenting them as a single picture that looks like a photograph. But it is not photography. It’s hardly better than an AI conjuring of a completely false scene that looks like a photograph.  This is digital imaging and does not credibly include the indexical element that is inherent to photography. Computational photography looks like a dangerous and misleading term from where I sit. 

It’s not a simple discussion as to where the line must be drawn, and it dredges up centuries old arguments about what truth constitutes in photography, but the definition is changing and the public is generally unaware that what they are looking at is more detached from a lens recording than ever. This has serious implications. 

Edited August 11 by pgh

[IkarusJohn]

I don’t believe in “truth” in photography.

I use my Lux Grip with my iPhone a bit, and enjoy it; but I prefer a camera with manual settings.  If you pardon the analogy, it’s a bit like cooking - you can get pre-made meals, bottled sauces etc, or you can make your food from raw ingredients.  I find cooking from scratch with raw ingredients more satisfying.

That’s not virtue signalling, or saying one is “better” than the other, just what I prefer.  I like the level of control the Lux App and Grip give me - not perfect, but fun to use.  An M camera, with no screen and just aperture, shutter, focus (and ISO, if you must) very satisfying, but I have to have my head in the right place.

[LocalHero1953]

I'm not worried about AI in photography.
I'm more concerned with what the other vowels are up to*.

 

 

*Stolen from the Edinburgh Fringe

Edited August 11 by LocalHero1953

[pgh]

39 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

I don’t believe in “truth” in photography.

I use my Lux Grip with my iPhone a bit, and enjoy it; but I prefer a camera with manual settings.  If you pardon the analogy, it’s a bit like cooking - you can get pre-made meals, bottled sauces etc, or you can make your food from raw ingredients.  I find cooking from scratch with raw ingredients more satisfying.

That’s not virtue signalling, or saying one is “better” than the other, just what I prefer.  I like the level of control the Lux App and Grip give me - not perfect, but fun to use.  An M camera, with no screen and just aperture, shutter, focus (and ISO, if you must) very satisfying, but I have to have my head in the right place.

That’s fine, but a photograph is a recording made on a light sensitive substrate. There is a direct connection to a physical reality there. 

Soon, and it’s already happening - the world will be flooded with pictures that look like they are recordings of the real world but actually are not at all. We will be a population looking at images that we think reflect - even in some tenuous way - our physical world, images that are a record in some way - but are not. It’s already clear how much fashion and advertising and aspirational social media distorts people’s perceptions of what is real and what is not. 

A line has to be drawn somewhere so people understand what they are seeing. And in drawing this line - or maybe a line is too rigid a way of thinking - but I think we cannot use the term photography for anything that isn’t actually a  record of light on a sensitive substrate at its most basic. This isn’t a value judgment about fantastical or non-real digital imagery, it’s an observation about what it’s called and how it’s contextualized. For a long time people knew a photograph generally just by how it looked - it was the only medium that could look as realistic as it did. That’s not the case any longer, but calling that other stuff a photograph has real implications. 

That’s just my take - but whatever it is, there needs to be a new way to discuss how most of what we see is not real and yet that there is some photography that while not fully encompassing of any truth, is still a small truth in some sense. Larger than photography here - but rejecting that wholesale is a dangerous kind of cynicism that propagandists and totalitarians use to their benefit. No thanks. 

Edited August 11 by pgh

[IkarusJohn]

There’s a Milan Kundera (or perhaps Ivan Klima) book that starts “all that remains of comrade [x] is his hat”.  The book goes on to explain that comrade [x] had been a member of the Politburo and had his photo taken on a balcony on a cold day.  He offered his fur hat to the General Secretary, and subsequently fell out of favour and was airbrushed out of the image.

I take your point that AI and other computational images perhaps need to be distinguished from images captured on a medium, but where is that line?  We’ve gone from Daguerrotypes, which were a faithful, if slow, capture of an image with no opportunity to dodgr, blur, crop or over/under expose, through film with all the darkroom magic to digital with massive flexibility in image manipulation.  

With the act of capturing an image, we’ve gone from guessing exposure to built in light meters, aperture/shutter priority, “P”, to focus and exposure bracketing, ISO adjustment, autofocus, depth of field and continuous shutter (have I missed something).  I just rather feel that the “truth” of a photographic image is a questionable starting point.  It’s always going to be an interpretation, isn’t it?

I guess we’re now faced with images with no “photographic” process at all, just cobbled together on a computer.  It’s of no interest to me, but I’m not sure if it’s anything more than an extension of what has been happening since William Henry Fox Talbot invented the negative. We draw the line, to what purpose?  The end result will either be an image on a computer screen (deep fake?) or a print - I suspect in the future, it won’t matter how it got there, and will it matter?  

The only important issue is if it creates the impression in the mind of the viewer that it is a portrayal of “reality”.  Like the printed word, that is where the danger lies …

[pgh]

I think the pertinent question is here: when one reads literature is the fiction / non-fiction a worthwhile distinction? Is that context meaningful to the readers? Non-fiction is still subjective, interpretive, incomplete, etc. All of the criticisms leveled at photography seem to credibly suit as a critique of fiction, but it’s still useful. 

To me, that’s a very important distinction. Since pictures are now essentially just as fungible as words, it seems a similar system might be useful. 

This is a leap, but I think pretty soon work that is non-fiction (photography) in intent and presentation is going to be about the last and only relevant part of the medium, outside very specific niches perhaps like darkroom experimental printing. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[pgh]

1 hour ago, IkarusJohn said:

I suspect in the future, it won’t matter how it got there, and will it matter?

When it comes to something called a photograph I’d contend that yes, it matters as much as the image itself. Now probably more than ever. One couldn’t properly read it otherwise.