New iPhone to have flash?

[Duvi]

Anyone think the new iPhone(s) will have flash? I'm asking because my 2.0MP iPhone cam takes better pictures than my 3.2MP 8900 and Storm that both have flash. I'm wondering how much better (or worse) will flash make the iPhone.

Here are two pics I took, one was the iPhone and the other was the 8900. Which one do you think is which?

 

[Allyson Kazmucha]

2nd one iPhone, 1st one BB. The iPhone pics don't tend to be grainy

 

[shutter]

The first one is the iPhone, the exif is embedded in the photos, second is the blackberry.

 

[Duvi]

Lol... and the flash? Yes... no... maybe?

 

[Allyson Kazmucha]

Hmmm, I kinda like the way the 2nd one looks better

 

[PhxBlue]

The second one is zoomed? iPhone doesn't zoom in stock form. Plus the 8900 takes warmer looking pics which is evident in pic #2. As for flash on the new iPhone, NO.

 

[John T]

Sorry, but a worthless comparison

Flash would make no difference whatsoever on a distant subject such as that!

If you really wanted to compare them, indoor shots within the range of the flash would have been more representative.

 

[Stevie No-Wonder]

Flash would make no difference whatsoever on a distant subject such as that!

Yes, in these photos, your flash is only lighting up the area around you... it's not going to reach and illuminate subjects that far away. The examples above are simply the result of different exposures.

The second photo was intentionally underexposed by the camera because the lens thought the flash would add more light. It compensated for this, but since the flash couldn't reach the distant subject matter, the result was not enough light allowed into the lens to properly expose the cityscape.

The first photo was properly exposed because it didn't detect a flash adding more light.

 

[Duvi]

Sorry, but a worthless comparison

Flash would make no difference whatsoever on a distant subject such as that!

If you really wanted to compare them, indoor shots within the range of the flash would have been more representative.

Not really... the water was right next to my feet and the flash didn't do anything for it either

 

[Allyson Kazmucha]

Not really... the water was right next to my feet and the flash didn't do anything for it either

Yeah doing an indoor would make no difference. Anywhere dark makes a fine comparison. You can see the difference, and that was the point.

 

[Stevie No-Wonder]

Duvi,

I have no idea know what the range of a basic cell phone flash is... but I'd guess any subject beyond twenty feet is probably not going to be affected much (but I have no flash to experiment with ). Shooting two identical photos of closer subjects (indoor or outdoor) in a darkened setting would be a far better comparison. But not too dark of a setting, or the iPhone won't stand a chance.

I'd be very interested in the outcome.

... You can see the difference, and that was the point.

Yes, they're different. But have you asked yourself why the flash photo is darker? Wouldn't you expect a flash to brighten your subject rather than make it darker? I explained it earlier.

 

[vanishingvision7]

I just want flash....... not too much to ask for in general.

 

[sting7k]

Uh, that photo comparison doesn't make any sense. Even if you had a stand alone camera with a massive flash it would not make any difference in that shot; way to far away. The only thing it would do is reflect of the water and maybe give you a reflection in the water if it was calm.

Can't tell at all which is which device, the flash made no difference. One camera added warm feel to the lights. The top one looks grainy though and like it has no zoom so it seems like the iPhone pic to me.

No flash on any cell phone camera is good for anything other than taking pictures of friends in a dark bar.

 

[John T]

Duvi,

I have no idea know what the range of a basic cell phone flash is... but I'd guess any subject beyond twenty feet is probably not going to be affected much (but I have no flash to experiment with ). Shooting two identical photos of closer subjects (indoor or outdoor) in a darkened setting would be a far better comparison. But not too dark of a setting, or the iPhone won't stand a chance.

Absolutely In actual fact, the Storm doesn't have a real "Flash" - just an LED which is mainly used as a focussing aid. Consequently, the output of these LED's is pretty pathetic in comparison with a proper Xeon unit and their range is only a few feet. This is why, as I explained earlier, it can have little or no effect in the photograph.

 

[Duvi]

I think not this one, but the one after will get flash.

 

[Allyson Kazmucha]

Duvi,

I have no idea know what the range of a basic cell phone flash is... but I'd guess any subject beyond twenty feet is probably not going to be affected much (but I have no flash to experiment with ). Shooting two identical photos of closer subjects (indoor or outdoor) in a darkened setting would be a far better comparison. But not too dark of a setting, or the iPhone won't stand a chance.

I'd be very interested in the outcome.




Yes, they're different. But have you asked yourself why the flash photo is darker? Wouldn't you expect a flash to brighten your subject rather than make it darker? I explained it earlier.

LOL, I think it was made to be a general comparison between the 2. Not all technical. The Bold's flash is crap anyways (I think the timing is a little off, or at least it seemed to be on mine).

I understand what you explained, I'm not dumb. I just don't think he was trying to be all professional. It was just a general comparison to add to the thread. They looked differently. If anything, it proved the Bold flash sucks.

 

[Vita Alex]

I just want flash....... not too much to ask for in general.

Actually it is. Flash is pretty CPU intensive. This presents both technical and user-experience-troubles problem.

 

[rknowlt]

I hate to sound like a non smartphone user who constantly proclaims "ITS A PHONE!" and doesn't see the need for any other features, but really, I don't feel there is much need for a flash on a camera that is attached to your phone. A camera is a nice feature to have, when you just want a quick pic of something on the go, but when you need a good picture (one with flash and some autofocus, etc.) then you need to use a real camera. For this reason I think we will continue to see a non-flash camera on the back of our iPhones for a long time.

 

[Stevie No-Wonder]

I understand what you explained, I'm not dumb. I just don't think he was trying to be all professional. It was just a general comparison to add to the thread. They looked differently. If anything, it proved the Bold flash sucks.

I didn't say you were dumb. I'm sure you know many things I don't know. But it's clear from each post that you don't understand why the photos look different, and that "trying to be all professional" has nothing to do with anything. The comparison proved nothing about the Bold flash because the flash never reached the subject... that's what you're clearly missing.

Don't know what else to tell you. You can read my first post again, but I'm not explaining it again.

 

[Leanna Lofte]

These two photos say nothing about whether the flash on the Bold sucks or not. I don't care what camera you use, if you use a flash on a subject that's too far away, it'll make it appear too dark.

This is because the camera knows it is using flash and reduces the exposure time since it is expecting the extra light. If the flash is turned off, the camera compensates for the lack of light by extending the exposure time; this is why iPhone photos are often blurry. If the subject being photographed is too far, the flash illuminates what is close by, the exposure time gets reduced, and the subject appears darker than if you were not to use a flash.