SkyJackpot
Android Enthusiast
Looking forward to making these by myself soon. 🍄🍅🍎🍏🍇🍲🍒🍑🍓🍍🌰🌱
-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
Photography from the Note 3
- Thread starter Goldenakin
- Start date
AnonGuy
Android Enthusiast
This phone's camera would be amazing if:
1. Samsung didn't employ such aggressive noise reduction - especially in low light.
2. It was better in lower light:
A. Worthless without Smart Stabilization of Flash
B. Flash will completely wash out anything close to the camera (Objects, People), it's so powerful. No True Tone flash (iPhone 5S, HTC One M8, LG G3).
C. If using Smart Stabilization, ANY movement will destroy the photo (don't even bother on moving subjects) and the Noise Reduction employed is completely overpowering. It will destroy fine details, especially in distance shots.
3. Without good lighting the FFC is as good as worthless.
During the Daytime/Good Lighting there's nothing to complain about. That's wher eI take 98% of my photos, so not big deal. However I've been taking a few more selfies and bar shots lately, so the poor low light performance is starting to bug me. During daylight there is some noise, but nothing worth mentioning. It performs as good as most other High MP smartphone cameras. Better than many due to the resolution (which can be exploited to crowd out noise and still deliver stills that are the same dimensions that lower megapixel phones crank out).
The camera is the only area where this phone wasn't close to flawless, hardware-wise, IMO. The Note 4's OIS Module with better Light Sensitivity is going to be a huge upgrade, and the FFC will be far superior as well.
Some of the issues are software (Smart Stabilization Algorithms can be improved), but they cannot patch the physics of the camera sensor or lens. Still they can improve it and it will be interesting to see if they do that with the Android L update.
One benefit of L is the RAW capabilities coming to the platform. Even if Samsung doesn't allow use of this in their camera software, Google probably will in Google Camera so you may be able to shoot RAW and then adjust photos better in editing software like Lightroom or even Google Photos (if they introduce RAW support).
Using that method, it may be possible to shoot photos and end up coming out with better end-result than the Samsung Algorithms/JPEG Editing does currently.
I wish Samsung would release Lens profiles for their flagships for Lightroom and other software/services (like Flickr), the way Apple does. It would be nice to have the device show up as "Samsung Galaxy Note 3" instead of Samsung SVwhatever in the image details there. It's like free marketing, IMO. I always notice that stuff when I see good smartphone shots on these services.
Samsung also needs to:
1. Allow Burst Photography on Shutter Long-Press (Option between Burst and Focus Lock would be fine).
2. Allow us to just record the 720p at 120 FPS instead of making us select (up front) a specific speed. We can play it back or edit it to slow it down later in a video editing software or the video player (if they'd work a little more on their Video Editor, that would be helpful
).
3. Don't default the FFC to Beauty Mode. Really, this has become a thorn in my side.
4. Allow Editing Story Albums to Rearrange Pictures, Add/Remote Text Captions, Add/Remove Photos, etc. Not sure if it allows this yet, but sharing via PDF would be useful for people who don't have a Samsung Phone and don't want to install the viewer.
1. Samsung didn't employ such aggressive noise reduction - especially in low light.
2. It was better in lower light:
A. Worthless without Smart Stabilization of Flash
B. Flash will completely wash out anything close to the camera (Objects, People), it's so powerful. No True Tone flash (iPhone 5S, HTC One M8, LG G3).
C. If using Smart Stabilization, ANY movement will destroy the photo (don't even bother on moving subjects) and the Noise Reduction employed is completely overpowering. It will destroy fine details, especially in distance shots.
3. Without good lighting the FFC is as good as worthless.
During the Daytime/Good Lighting there's nothing to complain about. That's wher eI take 98% of my photos, so not big deal. However I've been taking a few more selfies and bar shots lately, so the poor low light performance is starting to bug me. During daylight there is some noise, but nothing worth mentioning. It performs as good as most other High MP smartphone cameras. Better than many due to the resolution (which can be exploited to crowd out noise and still deliver stills that are the same dimensions that lower megapixel phones crank out).
The camera is the only area where this phone wasn't close to flawless, hardware-wise, IMO. The Note 4's OIS Module with better Light Sensitivity is going to be a huge upgrade, and the FFC will be far superior as well.
Some of the issues are software (Smart Stabilization Algorithms can be improved), but they cannot patch the physics of the camera sensor or lens. Still they can improve it and it will be interesting to see if they do that with the Android L update.
One benefit of L is the RAW capabilities coming to the platform. Even if Samsung doesn't allow use of this in their camera software, Google probably will in Google Camera so you may be able to shoot RAW and then adjust photos better in editing software like Lightroom or even Google Photos (if they introduce RAW support).
Using that method, it may be possible to shoot photos and end up coming out with better end-result than the Samsung Algorithms/JPEG Editing does currently.
I wish Samsung would release Lens profiles for their flagships for Lightroom and other software/services (like Flickr), the way Apple does. It would be nice to have the device show up as "Samsung Galaxy Note 3" instead of Samsung SVwhatever in the image details there. It's like free marketing, IMO. I always notice that stuff when I see good smartphone shots on these services.
Samsung also needs to:
1. Allow Burst Photography on Shutter Long-Press (Option between Burst and Focus Lock would be fine).
2. Allow us to just record the 720p at 120 FPS instead of making us select (up front) a specific speed. We can play it back or edit it to slow it down later in a video editing software or the video player (if they'd work a little more on their Video Editor, that would be helpful
).3. Don't default the FFC to Beauty Mode. Really, this has become a thorn in my side.
4. Allow Editing Story Albums to Rearrange Pictures, Add/Remote Text Captions, Add/Remove Photos, etc. Not sure if it allows this yet, but sharing via PDF would be useful for people who don't have a Samsung Phone and don't want to install the viewer.
SkyJackpot
Android Enthusiast
Using the spot focus, my Spigen Neo Hybrid case up close, greetings to all the other folk who've contributed pictures to this Samsung Galaxy Note 3 camera thread too
Simon_Gardner
Android Expert
There's an Android RAW processor. I have it on my Note 3 - Photo Mate R2. It works.
AnonGuy
Android Enthusiast
Unless that app allows the phone to shoot photos in RAW format, you're missing the point of the text you quoted.
Photoshop Express does RAW editing for free.
I just named a couple of examples.
Currently the only RAW files you'll be using that (or any RAW Editing) app on are those shot with another device, which doesn't really do anything for getting around Samsung's aggressive post-processing algorithms and getting a potentially better JPEG out of the Note 3 camera.
The focus of that statement is not "is there a RAW processor in the Play Store," but "hopefully we'll be able to shoot RAW on the device with Android L, either via an updated Samsung Camera app, or Google's own Camera app."
Simon_Gardner
Android Expert
No I understood. There's no way I'm going to be using a phone to take pictures [either RAW or JPG] given the physics of what is possible with such a device. I do indeed use a proper camera and wifi files across to the phone as a matter of course. (I use RAW maybe 99% of the time as you would. The main exception being if I'm shooting a multi exposure sequence for an HDR.) I've tried using a phone and it's ghastly.
AnonGuy
Android Enthusiast
I've seen prints that people have made from JPEGs that came out of a Galaxy S4 (via a cursory run via a cheap image editing application) - printed out at CVS or something - and they looked amazing for something that was produced by a phone. I would never have guessed at first glance, until they said "I took that with my phone."
I don't know how the DSLR or P&S photos would compare to them, but I don't care because the smartphone photos were too good to have any complaints about them.
Also, the thread is about a smartphone camera, so discussion about DSLRs and how ghastly a smartphone camera is in comparison to them is fundamentally off-topic.
Even still, the app you mentioned is worse and slower than Adobe Camera RAW, and isn't worth $10 when there are free apps available from the likes of Adobe that are good enough for what we'd need given the use case I proposed (which is mainly focused on how a consumer would use the device, not a Professional Photographer).
If you don't use your smartphone to take pictures, umm... <Obvious Rhetorical Question Here>
Simon_Gardner
Android Expert
Fancy that.
SkyJackpot
Android Enthusiast
Using the higher quality Lossless PNG photo option which the "Camera FV-5" application from the Google Play store provides. High detail when zoomed in perfect if analysing specs of dust is your thing, but for a typical social media sharing opportunity is more than perfect without the zoom or Lossless format.
Simon_Gardner
Android Expert
Exactly so. Phones are ideal for taking pictures of drunk people with you in a bar and posting the result online. That's pretty much it. It's futile trying to push them into doing much of anything else and whinging about the result. It's a simple matter of physics.
Simon_Gardner
Android Expert
Because I really, really like posting on Facebook pictures of my drunk friends falling off bar stools.
AnonGuy
Android Enthusiast
I use my smartphone mostly for video and a dull isn't better enough to be worth the investment. The Note 3 is great for video.
I don't hang out in bars.
SkyJackpot
Android Enthusiast
Getting back on topic AGAIN lol 
SkyJackpot
Android Enthusiast
Slight crop using VSCO cam application / Exposure +2 & Contrast +1 using the same application. Light source from above / Photo taken at 13 degrees from directly above.
