artistic choice

Is that Harvey Dent?

>>109919542
Samsung BTFO

It's the most realistic one though, his face is most likely being lit up like that IRL

i hate that gay iphone filter, whenever i point it out to people nobody knows what i'm talking about

>>109919586
true

>>109919586
Was gonna say this.
If anyone knows how the real world looks the other two are fake.

looks fine

>>109919586
>>109919785
>>109919837
are you guys dumb or acting dumb?

>>109919542
>all different
Man, phone cameras suck ass

I'm not a photographer, but I'm pretty sure the samsung camera will have options to prevent that

Why does samsung struggle so much with this shit?
You have chinkphones, you have apple, you have google. What in the love of fuck are they even doing?

>>109919542
use case for natural lighting?

>>109919542
Real life doesn't have Instagram nor cinematic filters

File: 1594150417207.jpg (32 KB, 374x334)

32 KB JPG

>>109919542

>>109919939
Look how dark the background is in the pixel.
That means it was shot with extremely high shutter speed.
That's only possible if there's an extremely bright light source shining on his face, while the rest of the room has a normal brightness.
So yeah picture 2 is probably the most realistic one, he has a bright as fuck light on his face.
Samsung showed it as it is, pixel adjusted the camera sensor to handle the brightness as the "new normal", making the background look darker. iPhone probably did AI processing on it to flatten it artificially.

>>109920279
>That means it was shot with extremely high shutter speed.
I will fall for this bait.
Phone sensors, even those on ultra chink devices, are absolute dogshit. They capture less, not more light. It's the other way around, you can see the shutter speed was fairly low (in order to have more light) on the samsung, judging by how blurry that dogshit picture is.
The subject of the fucking picture is the guy, not the background. Those highlights are completely unrecoverable, but you can still increase the exposure on the pixel one and tell what the fuck is in the background in the first place. "Realistically", you point the sun at this guy's mug and you'll still be able to tell where his mouth fucking ends.

>>109919586

i have a samsung (albeit a cheap-ass A15). the device has no OS-level PNG support for photos. it also uses heavy "intelligent" filtering, so photographs of text from far away will look AI-level garbled. the images are 4K resolution but are usually so grainy that they must be shrunk down to 750x1000 resolution. while i'm certain that the flagship model samsungs have better hardware specs, if it's using the same shit-for-brains image processing software, i don't think a 50MP camera is going to fix that

File: when-they-glow-you-shine.gif (83 KB, 498x492)

83 KB GIF

>Samsungbros?

>>109919586
yep and the walls are just that blurry in real life too

>>109919542
they all look inexcusably bad

ITT: Boys who judge technology by girl criteria.

>>109921280
If you don't use a multi-frame fusion algorithm (which our eyes can't) then yes, it's blurry in real life.

Background blur tends to be on by default.

>>109921352
but the pixel looks the best out of them

>>109921471
it's too dark

>>109919542
Samsung was never a flagship phone brand.

>>109919551
You have a dent in your skull, thsta why you're so retarded.

>>109919586
Pure cope. Photography has understood the concept of “exposure” for over a century.

Phone cameras are simply not great. I have an Oppo find x9 pro and I'm appalled by how far behind a basic early 2010s digital camera these are if you remove all the fucking processing.

>>109919837
Lmao!

>>109919542
arr rook rike shit

File: file.png (1.91 MB, 1755x813)

1.91 MB PNG

>>109919542
What I don't get why don't they just increase the sensor size?

>>109919542
fakeai real fakeai

>>109919542
Using your phone to take photos is incredibly browncoded

>>109919542
>auto mode picked wrong settings for the scene
you were never a photographer in the first place

File: 4357457453.jpg (61 KB, 488x600)

61 KB JPG

>>109928343
correct

modern smartphone cameras should be taking multiple pics at once at different exposures and then merging them with ai compensation automatically, normies just want to take pictures without bouncing a flash off the ceiling and have it look halfway decent.

>>109931631
That would make taking photos not instant and normalcattle can't handle that

>>109919605
That looks like fake HDR effect which push down highlights and raise shadows. It usually makes skin tones waxy and everything else unrealistic.

>>109928151
focal length?

>>109919542
soulless vs SOVL vs soulless

File: Screenshot_20260929_02374(...).jpg (1.52 MB, 1439x3119)

1.52 MB JPG

>>109919542
It takes photos how things look. This spider had a lot of sun on it.