AI Photography? More like AI codswallop copyright-infringement, gaslighting its users into thinking they’re “creatives” – ‘oooh look at you, you’re so creative’. No, you’re not. Grow up, and do some real work for once in your life you lazy dullard.

AI is the shortcut used by people who don’t want to spend time developing real talent, people who think everything should be instant, food, drinks, cars, delivery, and people who are most likely to complain when a McDonald’s order comes in 5 minutes later rather than in 1 minute, ignoring the fact that there are real people behind McDonald’s making and delivering the food. (People who also want to “save the world”, but won’t walk to the local shop to buy something, when Amazon can deliver it straight to their door, and then later complain that there are no shops to buy things from locally.)

This is like “generative” AI, which is cunningly named “generative” when it is anything but generative. It produces results but doesn’t want to tell you WHERE the information came from in the first place, they copy images from a massive library of PHOTOGRAPHER’s photos, but because they’ve ripped off so many photographers it would be impossible to unpick who took what and where, and that’s the WAY they want it to be.

Generative AI “photography” is pretending that it’s generated images, and that you’re the creative person for thinking up such an amazing idea as having lightning coming from the sky, and a dinosaur chasing you when you’re on a moped. BUT it’s built on the back of people who actually put in the hard work making this type of image in the first place, and they are getting paid NOTHING for it.

If you’re a digital editor, or a digital artist, great, master your skills and carry on, but if you’re a photographer, then using generative AI is PRETENDING to be a photographer. This isn’t just about photographers though, this is about illustrators, designers, artists, video producers, and more, and it’s about replacing people with “AI”.

Just think how hard it would ACTUALLY be to produce an image like this in real life, it would take money, effort, and bags of time and talent. AI lets you shortcut this process entirely, and it’s something that you shouldn’t be proud of, unless you buy into the “creative” marketing (deception) that these companies are selling.

Going back to the person who spent the time and money creating the work: imagine how much time, effort, training, and money they’ve spent on the equipment needed, the camera, the lenses, the computers, the editing software etc. It could easily add up to thousands and thousands of pounds over the years.

Now think about stealing it, simply taking their photos and passing them off as your own. You wouldn’t do this, would you? But, this is almost exactly what generative AI is doing, but packaging it in a way that pretends it’s fine.

And the marketing firms at the big companies are telling you THIS IS FINE. If you’re not familiar with the meme, it’s worth look at the full image.

The views expressed in this column are not necessarily those of Amateur Photographer magazine or Kelsey Media Limited. If you have an opinion you’d like to share on this topic, or any other photography related subject, email: ap.ed@kelsey.co.uk

Follow AP on Facebook, X, Instagram, YouTube and TikTok.

The post Generative AI ‘Photography’ will be the death of photography as we know it appeared first on Amateur Photographer.

The camera (or phone) you have in your camera bag, or wrapped round your neck, is most likely good enough for 90% of your photography, maybe even more, depending on the make, model, and type of photography you take. If you just take snapshots then keep shooting, and be happy.  

BUT this doesn’t keep the wheels of capitalism and consumerism turning, manufacturers are constantly coming up with new ways to make you part with your cash. Mostly, it’s all well-intentioned, new cameras make money, this employs people, and in turn means people can pay their mortgages and feed their families.  

But do you ever wish you could just feel happy with what you’ve got? This isn’t going to be easy, especially if you watch any form of media or read any kind of content, as advertisers are trying hard to take the money out of your bank account.  

If you’ve been keeping an eye on the latest camera announcements, there are several new models that seem like small tweaks to existing models. Mark II cameras are often the most likely to be rather dull or fix glaringly obvious problems that shouldn’t have happened in the first place. (*cough* Nikon Z6 and Z7 I’m looking at you) 

Some people think these updates should just be firmware updates to existing cameras, and Pentax even gave the option of sending away your camera to be upgraded to the new model (replacing the main circuit board in the Pentax K-1 DSLR), for a modest fee of course. But this was many times cheaper than having to buy the new model outright, so kudos goes to Pentax in this instance. In fact, it’s a shame that other companies don’t follow suit, but then, what looks better to shareholders? Selling a new camera for $3000 or offering an upgrade for $500… You know the answer to this already.  

Looking at the bigger picture, the sad thing in all of this is that whilst you often do get a better product if you do buy a new model, it’s extremely difficult to justify the expense. And does the improvement benefit you, the user, or the company directors, who want to improve their luxury lifestyles by selling more expensive models?  

When the percentage difference is likely to be a maximum 5% improvement in output, is the multi-thousand-pound expense justified? In many cases there may be no difference in image quality output, when compared side-by-side.

No, you DON’T need a new camera every year  

If you still have the box for your camera, why not pack your camera up, wrap it up for a couple of weeks, and open it anew on Christmas day and pretend you’ve been given a brand new camera at the original RRP, and see what it can do for you. Chances are that if you’ve bought a nice camera in the last 10 years, it should give you some lovely results and make for a rather nice Christmas present. And if you do buy a new camera, why not give your old camera to someone as a present, and start someone else on the journey of photography, and not consumerism.

The views expressed in this column are not necessarily those of Amateur Photographer magazine or Kelsey Media Limited. If you have an opinion you’d like to share on this topic, or any other photography related subject, email: ap.ed@kelsey.co.uk

Follow AP on Facebook, X, Instagram, YouTube and TikTok.

The post Have you had enough of people telling you: you need to BUY MORE? appeared first on Amateur Photographer.

We are a diverse bunch here at AP and don’t always agree on everything – indeed, different opinions should be encouraged in photography. As Chairman Mao said, ‘let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend’ (though I’d never compare editor Nigel to a communist dictator!)

It’s in this spirit that I am taking issue with my colleague Jon Stapley’s rather overheated call for photographers to boycott Adobe. Now, before any conspiracy theorists pipe up, I am not being paid by Adobe to take up the cudgels on their behalf: I was using Adobe software long before I joined AP, and will likely continue to do so into my dotage. Lightroom was, and is, a massive help to me as a photographer.

Let me go through Jon’s main complaints and concerns, some of which are echoed by other AI doom-mongers.

Adobe’s subscription model is a rip-off

While it’s true that a tenner a month for the Adobe Photography Plan will cost you a cool £600 over a five year period – and you never actually ‘own’ the software – the model has clearly worked for years. The simple reason being, Photoshop and Lightroom are still really good. Nobody is holding a gun to the head of the consumer here, and subscriptions can be cancelled.

Yes, there are lots of good, alternative, subscription-free photo-editing programs out there – Affinity Photo, for example – but they have not been good enough to seriously eat into Adobe’s market share or lure away legions of users (and following a recent takeover by Canva, Affinity is no longer some plucky British outfit standing alone against the Adobe war machine).

Jon also suggests the GNU IMAGE MANIPULATION PROGRAM, aka GIMP: it’s been around for years but, seriously, do you know any photographers who’ve stuck with its clunky interface once the novelty of ‘free’ wears off?

Furthermore, Adobe’s Photography subscription, and Creative Cloud generally, is often heavily reduced during major shopping events such as Black Friday, and people shop around.

So while I agree that the subscription model can seem a raw deal to some, it would only survive if people were happy to continue paying for the products, which currently they seem to be.

Of course, with the rise of AI photo-editing in phones and numerous high-quality apps, this could change – and Adobe will be forced to change its pricing model too, if sales fall off of a cliff. The company has shareholders to answer to, remember, and is not some state-owned enterprise from the former Soviet Union.

Adobe is trying to bankrupt photographers

Jon frets about the impact of generative AI on photographers’ livelihoods and rightly laments the ill-considered ‘Skip the Photoshoot’ message in Adobe’s ads (I suspect the company is now regretting this very blunt tagline).

He then reminds us of the rather cheesy and unconvincing images created by a lot of Adobe’s generative AI. Having recently attended Adobe Max in the US, I was also surprised – some of the AI generated pictures and videos being showcased look like they were made by Hallmark.

But it’s important to remember that a lot of this is aimed at people and businesses wanting to generate a quick illustration, rather than sack their photographers.

As for the ‘stiff and awkward’ photo-realistic AI images being generated, I also agree that the dead eyes and unrealistic postures are often a giveaway. You really don’t need to be Harrison Ford in Blade Runner to spot the replicants here.

But Jon then does consumers of photography a disservice by suggesting they won’t care if the AI images they generate are a bit rubbish, as it’s cheaper than booking a photographer. Unless a company really is a fly-by-night outfit, it’s not going to settle for AI images of its products (or key staff) that fail to show them at their best, especially if it’s made a big investment in both. Skilled headshot photographers, for example, are still in business.

Yes there will be victims of generative AI, but I’d argue the rise of easy smartphone photography and the near-scandalous way in which Google allowed high-resolution images to be download for free via its image search both had a much bigger impact on livelihoods.

Indeed, I was talking to a photographer last week who’s noticed more clients wanting ‘proper’ product photography as they are not happy with the AI-generated results.

This may change as AI gets more sophisticated, but logic suggests It is simply not in Adobe’s interests to put lots of photographers out of business, as it would also lose a lot of, er, business. Just look at how much it invests in the photo-editing tools in Photoshop, Lightroom and their associated apps. I’ve also met some senior Adobe engineers and product managers, and they are all keen photographers too.

Cheesy and unconvincing AI-generated images aside, AI is actually being used to great effect to save time on photo-editing chores so we can all focus on more interesting things (like actually taking photos).

As AP contributor and noted photographer Will Cheung explained to me last week: ‘the real win with generative removal in Photoshop (especially) and Lightroom is the ability to recover and repair images. Being able to remove distractions is really powerful and while I could do it manually, life is too short.’

Thanks to Adobe, we’re all doomed!

Jon writes as if the dystopian AI future is already here, with conventional photographers and camera firms facing a similar predicament to hand-loom weavers at the start of the English industrial revolution. Leica has just recorded the best-ever results in its history, while I don’t notice Canon, Nikon, Sony and Fujifilm etc issuing profit warnings as generative AI has wiped out the need to buy a camera or lens – so go figure.

Adobe is doing a lot to push ‘Content Credentials’, so you can see how much AI was used to generate a digital image and everything is more transparent. Major media organisations, such as the BBC, are behind such initiatives too, as it’s in everyone’s interest to make ‘deep fake’ images easier to spot. So it’s not like Adobe is panicking and trying to put the genie back in the bottle on its own.

Yes, not everyone will bother checking out this ‘nutrition label’ system or even care much if AI was the main ingredient, but I can also see a future where AI co-exists with conventional photography.

‘Made without AI’ could actually become a big selling point for photographers and film makers – just as lots of us prefer to buy healthy/organic food, free of artificial ingredients. Many people assumed photographers would never shoot film again, as digital was easier and cheaper. Not so.

Here’s to the future

AI is here to stay, and it’s easy to pick on Adobe as it’s such a big target. If it wasn’t putting AI into its photo editing programs, lots of other competitors would be (indeed, you’ve been able to replace the sky or enhance portraits beyond recognition with Skylum’s software for years).

To conclude, I have a sense that market forces might trigger a rethink of Adobe’s subscription model at some point. As for AI, I think ‘creative co-existence’ is the best outcome here, not trying to turn the clock back or punish innovation as we are worried about its possible implications. As Joe Strummer of The Clash said, ‘the future is unwritten.’

The views expressed in this column are not necessarily those of Amateur Photographer magazine or Kelsey Media Limited. If you have an opinion you’d like to share on this topic, or any other photography related subject, email: ap.ed@kelsey.co.uk

The post I’m a photographer, and this is why I WON’T be boycotting Adobe appeared first on Amateur Photographer.

Adobe’s generative AI push has been much-publicised and much-criticised in recent years. The company is constantly updating and boasting about its Adobe Sensei and Adobe Firefly tools, which integrate generative AI technology comprehensively across the company’s suite of programs. With Adobe Firefly in Photoshop, you can use Generative Fill to expand an image beyond its borders, or use Generate Image to make something up wholesale. A new world of possibilities, unleash your creativity, blah, blah, etc, etc.

If you’re a photographer, your initial reaction to all this may have been understandable confusion. You enjoy taking pictures. You may even earn something approaching a living by taking pictures and selling them. What would you gain from getting a computer to hallucinate a picture for you? However, as Adobe released more and more ads with messages like ‘Skip the photoshoot’, it began to feel like this tech wasn’t being marketed towards photographers. It began to feel a lot like this tech was being marketed towards photographers’ clients.

The world we’re generating

Like many of you reading this, I am a purely amateur photographer – I take pictures for personal enjoyment, not profit (which is a very handy stance to have when nobody wants to buy your pictures anyway, but I digress). I make my money from writing, sometimes about photography, sometimes about other things. For many years, if I needed more cash to give to Kodak, I’d do a little copywriting for small businesses. Unglamorous stuff – it might be writing the ‘About’ page for a plumbing company’s website, finessing some brochure copy for an auction house, or whatever else.

The reason I bring this up is because those jobs are gone, completely gone, and I know why they are gone. So when someone tells me that ChatGPT and its ilk are tools to ‘support writers’, I think that person is at best misguided, at worst being shamelessly disingenuous. I’ve interviewed a lot of photographers about how they developed their careers, and dozens of them have talked about supporting themselves in the early years by doing the kinds of here-and-there jobs that are going to be completely swallowed when businesses all have access to a big red button that says ‘Generate’.

Because who cares if the generated image looks stiff and awkward? Who cares if the people in the image have legs that are too short and dead eyes that aren’t quite in the right place? Who cares if an image of the English pastoral countryside features roads that go nowhere and an African bird that went extinct in the 1990s? It was free! Well, it wasn’t free exactly; you do have to pay £9.98 a month for the software package. Still, it’s so much cheaper than hiring someone every time. Can you believe we used to pay someone a hundred quid to snap a photo lol?

Creatives in all disciplines are starting to notice. The Adobe MAX conference took place in October, and designers who attended were more than a little bewildered by how relentlessly generative AI was being pushed on them. Why would a professional designer want a tool that automatically makes something sloppier and uglier than something they’d make themselves? Once again, the answer is that they wouldn’t. Their clients would.

Filmmakers, video editors and animators, meanwhile, woke up the other day to the news that this year’s Coca-Cola Christmas ad was made using generative AI. Of course, this claim is a bit of sleight of hand, because there would have been a huge amount of human effort involved in making the AI-generated imagery look consistent and polished and not like nauseating garbage. But that is still a promise of a deeply unedifying future – where the best a creative can hope for is a job polishing the computer’s turds. What joy. What a world we’re building.

The only thing we can do

Adobe, Microsoft, Google and all the rest of the companies that have pivoted hard into this stuff – they aren’t going to stop. In May 2024, the American Society of Media Photographers wrote a well-meaning but colossally ineffective open letter to Adobe in response to the ‘Skip the photoshoot’ ads, asking the company to stop throwing photographers under the bus, to support the community of creatives who made it what it is. ‘Do better Adobe,’ was the signoff, and of course, in the six months since, Adobe has not shown any interest in doing better. The ASMP may as well have written a letter asking their neighbour’s dog to stop barking. The dog might have at least been curious enough to sniff it.

I cancelled my Adobe Photography Plan in late 2023. The final straw for me was when AI-generated images of the war in Gaza were found being sold on Adobe Stock. They were labelled, but in a way that was easy to miss, and several of the images had been bought and used by publications where the staff were probably not aware that they were fake. Once the story broke, Adobe removed the images, but that was when I knew I couldn’t do it anymore. So I cancelled – I ate the early cancellation fee, a disgustingly predatory practice we’ve all just become inured to – and I did not look back.

(As an aside, if your response to all this is something along the lines of ‘Um, and you’re just realising this now?’ then save it. You were already told in the first line that you didn’t need to read any further. This article is for all those who are still using Adobe software, despite everything, whether it’s because it’s easiest, because they’re used to it, or because they understandably just haven’t paid much attention to what the company is doing.)

It’s time to give it up. I honestly think it’s the only thing left to do, because they won’t stop. Open letters from the American Society of Media Photographers won’t make them stop. Direct call-outs from the Ansel Adams estate won’t make them stop. We can all read and share another eye-rolling article on Petapixel about how Adobe are throwing photographers under the bus yet again, but the only thing that will effect any course change at all is if the executives start seeing the numbers go down. Given the eye-watering expense of generative AI, it might not take as much as you’d think.

Boycott Adobe. Stop giving them your money. Use something else – Affinity Photo is a brilliant photo editing tool that you can buy and keep without a subscription. GIMP is a complicated but perfectly capable photo editor that is completely free and open-source. If Adobe is going to rip the livelihoods away from photographers, then the very, very least you can do is stop bankrolling them while they do it.

The views expressed in this column are not necessarily those of Amateur Photographer magazine or Kelsey Media Limited. If you have an opinion you’d like to share on this topic, or any other photography related subject, email: ap.ed@kelsey.co.uk

The post Opinion: Photographers, it’s time to boycott Adobe appeared first on Amateur Photographer.

However, putting that aside for a second, has the switch by major manufacturers, such as Canon, Nikon, Sony, et al, to mirrorless, and killing off the DSLR market, been a huge marketing mistake? Hear me out.

There must be hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of photographers out there who have been using DSLRs, who love their DSLR cameras, and yet the modern-day mirrorless version just isn’t the same.  

If we compare it to the car market, is switching from traditional DSLR cameras the same as trying to get people to switch to electric cars? Not only do you have to stop putting petrol in your car, but you also need to think about how, and where, you’re going to charge your car. (And how long the battery is going to last…)

Similarly, the switch to mirrorless requires thought… will you be using the same lenses as before (with a clunky adapter), will you get on with the electronic viewfinder? Will the sound of the shutter give you the same satisfaction, and ultimately, is it worth the expense, and the emotional effort needed to change?

Of course, there are technical advantages to switching to mirrorless, as they offer massively quicker shooting speeds. But there are vast numbers of people who don’t actually care about the technical features of a camera, don’t need to shoot at 120fps (me included), and simply want to take a good photo. 

And what is a good photo anyway? We all used to walk around with 6MP digital cameras, and take beautiful pictures of our family, print them out, and keep them as the happy memory of the time that was. Nobody is complaining that it wasn’t taken with a 47MP full frame camera and wasn’t shot at f/1.4 with Canon’s latest $2000 lens. 

That neatly brings us on to the price of new cameras, which seems to be ever increasingly moving out of the reach of students, beginners, and budget-minded photographers.  

You used to be able to buy a cheap DSLR with kit lens for around $400/£400, from both Nikon and Canon, now you’re lucky if you can buy an entry-level mirrorless camera for $800/£800, and even then, it might not come with a lens! 

So, I wonder, if the whole move to mirrorless cameras, was in fact, a huge market mistake, and misstep by the camera companies? Has it turned off a whole generation of photographers who love the DSLR?  

Remember, it’s not the camera that takes the photo, it’s about being there. If you managed to capture a photo of the Loch Ness Monster, would it matter that you took the photo on a DSLR, rather than a mirrorless camera?  

John Bridges, is a keen photographer, and Canon/Pentax DSLR user, and has previously shared with us: Have we given up on DSLRs too soon?, 120fps? No thanks, I’ll stick to 5fps, Here’s why the DSLR will always be in demand, The DSLR is not dead, Why I only buy Canon DSLRs, and NFTs are everything that’s wrong with the world.

The views expressed in this column are not necessarily those of Amateur Photographer magazine or Kelsey Media Limited. If you have an opinion you’d like to share on this topic, or any other photography related subject, email: ap.ed@kelsey.co.uk

Follow AP on Facebook, X, Instagram, YouTube and TikTok.

The post Opinion: Is the death of the DSLR the biggest market misstep of the 21st Century? appeared first on Amateur Photographer.

Google made some bold claims with the new Pixel 9 Pro series, made up of the 9 Pro and 9 Pro XL, including the claim that the phones offer 10x optical quality zoom. Both phones feature the same camera setup, with a triple camera configuration on the rear, with an ultra-wide, wide, and 5x telephoto camera.

But how do Google offer 10x zoom, when there’s only a 5x telephoto camera on the back?  

Google manage this by using “Super Resolution Zoom” technology, which uses multiple shots and combines them for improved resolution. This isn’t a new feature, as Google phones have offered this for a long time now, however, it’s the first time Google has made a big deal about offering “optical quality” from what is effectively a form of digital zoom.  

Telephoto cameras compared – technical details:

The important thing here is that by Google saying they’re offering 10x optical quality, the quality should match an actual 10x optical zoom lens.  

Here we’re going to look at the 10x zoom of the Google Pixel 9 Pro XL, and compare it to the Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (running the latest firmware / AI updates), and see if the Google Pixel 9 Pro XL can really offer 10x optical quality. Whilst we’re using the 9 Pro XL, and S22 Ultra, we should see the same results with the 9 Pro and S23 Ultra.  

In this first image, there’s a mix of man-made objects, as well as natural detail in foliage etc. 

At first glance – and when viewing images on the phones directly, the Pixel 9 Pro XL results would appear to be better, with images looking sharper and more detailed, with better contrast as well, whereas the Samsung’s image looks to have a general appearance of being soft, and slightly hazy.  

However, this isn’t the whole story, as when viewed close-up, the Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra actually has more detail (in some places), with all edges and lines on the buildings looking correct, whereas the Pixel 9 Pro XL’s image has optical aberrations (artefacts, moiré, lines with jagged edges, or ‘graphical glitches’), whereas the S22 Ultra does a better job.  

We also tried Google’s new “Zoom Enhance” feature that uses AI to upscale the image, it’s designed to “intelligently” fill in the gaps and “predict fine details”. Here’s the result when we zoomed into the middle of the image:

We can see that this image looks jam-packed full of detail, at first glance, however, when you start looking at the detail you realise it’s like some kind of artistic impression of the scene, as the windows on many of the buildings curve in all sorts of different directions. Generally speaking, most buildings in the UK have straight edges, and windows don’t bend in random directions. It’s also added more windows and floors in some of the buildings, making the scene look further away that it is!

But what if the Google or Samsung cameras were affected by atmospheric haze, or air quality? Let’s move onto another photo. Here, we’ve photographed a scene that is much less likely to be affected by atmosphere, as the houses and detail are much closer.  

This time it’s very close-cut, we’re seeing the Google Pixel 9 Pro XL produce a result that on first glance appears clearer and more detailed than the S22 Ultra. However, when viewing the image close-up, the actual detail in the Samsung photo looks slightly more realistic, and we suspect that if the Samsung had the same sharpening applied, contrast and tone adjustments, it would produce an image with more detail.  

Okay, but what about Samsung’s AI features? Well, we used the “Remaster” feature which is built-in to the Samsung, but this simply changed the colour and exposure of the clouds in the city scene, rather than adjusting the levels of detail, contrast or sharpness. 

These photos were taken on sunny days, in good conditions. In low-light, the slow f/4.9 aperture and smaller sensor, of the Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (and S23 Ultra) is really going to hurt performance.

What does this all mean?

At the end of the day, the Google Pixel 9 Pro XL does provide some impressive results, and whilst I’m not 100% convinced it offers true optical quality 10x zoom, it’s pretty much close enough, that for 99% of people it’s going to be good enough. And with software updates, it’s possible this feature (and the Zoom Enhance feature) will get better

In addition the images have more contrast and look better, particularly when viewed on-screen or at normal sizes on-line, when compared to the results from the Samsung’s real 10x telephoto camera.

In addition, the Google Pixel 9 Pro range has an impressive set of cameras, combined with 2x and 10x zoom, that makes it feel like you’ve actually got 5 cameras on the back of the phone, rather than three.

The Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra and S23 Ultra are unique in offering a real 10x telephoto camera, but maybe these rare cameras are a dying breed. And, perhaps Samsung was right to switch to a 5x camera on the Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra after-all, especially as it offers a higher resolution sensor, and gives better low-light results, thanks to a brighter aperture as well.

For more options, have a look at the best phones for photography, check out the full Google Pixel 9 Pro and Google Pixel 9 Pro XL reviews, and have a look at our article on why the Google Pixel 9 Pro doesn’t record 8K video.

Follow AP on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube and TikTok.

The post Does the Google Pixel 9 Pro REALLY offer 10x optical quality zoom? appeared first on Amateur Photographer.

Yep, that’s right, companies put embargo’s on reviews even after the product has been announced and handed out to reviewers, but luckily, ours didn’t include any stipulations, unlike some.  

I was lucky enough to get a review sample, and have been eager to try out the new “8K video recording with Video Boost” feature. Note the phrasing of these words, and the description on the Google website:  

“8K video recording at 30FPS (powered by Video Boost)” 

Reading this, you’d think, wow, this phone records 8K video, and has some kind of Video Boost feature that will make the video even better. Note there is no end note, citation or notation on this, explaining this. So what’s the problem?

Well, the reality is unfortunately, entirely different. The Google Pixel 9 Pro and 9 Pro XL does NOT record 8K video on the device at all. In the slightest. The highest resolution you can select on the phone is 4K video, and even when you select 8K, it records 4K video.  

Let me repeat this again, the phone does NOT record 8K video on the phone, it can ONLY record 4K video.  

What? But Google says “8K video recording at 30FPS (powered by Video Boost)” 

Yes, they do, I don’t know how they think this is clear, accurate, or appropriate, in any way, considering the phone does not record 8K video on the device. 

To get 8K video you have to: 

• Enable Video Boost 
• Select 8K 
• Record your video (the phone records a 4K 30P video file) 
• Upload your video to Google backup (this took me several hours, even on Wi-Fi, even for short videos) 
• Wait for Google to process the video 
• The phone will then download the processed video to your phone

Initially the phone gives you two videos, a processed Full HD video (with colour grading, and image stabilisation), plus an unprocessed ‘raw’ 4K video file with no colour grading, with image stabilisation switched off. So, if you wanted to process this ‘raw’ video yourself, you’ll also need to stabilise it. 

This whole process can take hours, for you to get your video file back, and will take longer if your video is longer. Then in photos you can go to your video and view the “Video Boost” video, and there you should find an 8K video file. On my colleagues phone, the 8K video file did appear on the phone.

Update: 23/08/24: When I tried this, I still didn’t find an 8K video on the phone. Just the Full HD video, and the processed 4K video. Instead, I found the 8K video file on the photos.google.com website, not on the phone. Google are looking into this, as this isn’t the normal operation, and the 8K file should be on my phone after processing.

The on-screen information says “A notification will be sent when your video is ready.” On my colleagues phone, a Google Pixel 9 Pro, the notification comes through when the video is ready. You’ll also need to have enough space on your Google account to backup the video file(s).

Alternatively, if you buy a Samsung S series phone, even an older model, like the S22 Ultra, you can record 8K video, instantly, on the phone, and have access to that 8K video file immediately. The process Google has provided for 8K video output, is quite slow, and unfortunate, when other phones simply provide 8K video recording directly on the phone.  

In fact, it could even be quicker to record your 4K video, copy it over to your PC, and use something like Topaz Video AI to enlarge your video to 8K if needed. Particularly when recording longer videos, where large file sizes can take a very long time to upload to the cloud. You can also see how Video Boost works in PetaPixel’s video, although note they didn’t use Video Boost on the 10x/20x video. 

On Google’s explainer page, explaining Video Boost, it says that on-phone processing is “Coming Soon”.

Last year, when Google announced Zoom Enhance, in October 2023, we were excited to try out this feature on the newly announced Google Pixel 8 series phones. However, this too was “Coming Soon” – it was released on the 15^th August 2024, nearly a full year after being announced.  

Are we going to have to wait 10 months for the Google Pixel 9 Pro phones to offer on-phone 8K video processing? I certainly hope not. We’ve contacted Google to clarify this feature, and have updated this article to include additional clarification of how it works.

It’s a shame that I’m having to even mention this, as the rest of the phone, for photography, is really quite amazing. Find out in our full, un-biased Google Pixel 9 Pro XL review. 

Related reading:

How does Google’s Magic Editor work?
The best cameras for video recording
The best camera phones for photography

Follow AP on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube and TikTok.

The post The Google Pixel 9 Pro does NOT record 8K video (despite what Google say) appeared first on Amateur Photographer.

On the face of it, this is the story of how one of Hitler’s greatest specimens of supposed Aryan superiority was beaten by a black man right in front of his eyes. There is a pleasure in imagining how livid Hitler must have been to witness that, and how gutted this Nazi long jumper, Luz Long, must have been to be beaten into second place by the grandson of slaves. But if you have made assumptions about Long based on this picture alone they are probably very wide of the mark.

Friendship

Behind this 1936 photo is a story of a touching friendship between Owens and Long. As the image below shows, the two became close during the games, with Long even giving Owens some tips on his run-up during qualifying. During an epic final in front of a crowd of 100,000 spectators Owens and Long repeatedly traded the top spot, breaking the Olympic record five times between them, until Owens clinched victory on his penultimate jump.

With the Gold secure, and the pressure off, Owens’ last jump smashed the world record (and it would remain unbeaten for 24 years). In a mark of the kind of man that Long was, he leapt into the sandpit and embraced Owens – an action that deeply displeased Hitler and was exacerbated by the pair walking arm in arm back to the stands after the medal ceremony. After the Olympics Luz Long received a stern reprimand from deputy Fuhrer Rudolf Hess warning him never to embrace a black man again. He was marked in the records as being ‘not racially conscious’ and put under surveillance.

‘Sometimes you just do what the heart commands,’ Long wrote in response.

Owens meanwhile returned to the US to a hero’s welcome, but was soon reminded that Nazi Germany wasn’t the only racist nation being represented on the podium that day.

In a celebratory reception held at the Waldorf Astoria in New York, Owens was turned away at the front lobby and directed to the side entrance for tradesmen and black people. A reception was also held at the White House for the white members of the US Olympic team, but the 18 black athletes had to wait another 80 years for their descendants to be invited by President Obama.

Over in Germany things were no better. When war broke out Long, who had recently become a father, was conscripted into the German army and was killed in Sicily in 1943 after being hit by shrapnel.

In 1951 Jesse Owens visited Germany with the Harlem Globetrotters and reached out to the Long family, striking up a long-term friendship with Luz’s son, Kai. Owens died of cancer in 1980 but the two families are still friends to this day.

Now, having read the story of this touching friendship, look at the main photo again. It takes on a very different meaning, doesn’t it?

• Gymnastics podium photo goes viral during the Olympics
• EPIC photo of gravity defying surfer Gabriel Medina in the air goes viral during Olympics

Follow AP on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube and TikTok.

The post Why the story behind this photo matters – 1936 Olympic Long Jump Medal Ceremony appeared first on Amateur Photographer.

Except I really did bring two mid-range smartphones I’ve recently reviewed to a photoshoot, the Motorola Edge 50 Pro and Honor 200 Pro, both of which have been released with extra goodies for portrait photographers in their respective Portrait modes.

The Motorola Edge 50 Pro gives you the option to shoot in various focal lengths: 24mm, 35mm, 50mm and 85mm (equivalents). The Honor 200 Pro, meanwhile, uses AI and a series of filters developed with French Photo studio Studio Harcourt (which are meant to replicate the professional studio photography look) that are part of its Harcourt Portrait mode.

The options include Harcourt Classic (for black and white images with very dramatic lighting), Harcourt Colour (similar to Harcourt Classic but in colour) and Harcourt Vibrant.

Here’s what rocking up to a portrait photoshoot in a studio with two phones was like.

Shooting inside the studio

The shoot took place at Studio 101, a South-East London studio that regularly runs themed events for creatives to network and create work for their portfolios. This shoot’s theme was Fitness.

I took my first few photos on a phone tripod I brought. There was a white background in the back and studio lights on both sides of the model, who did some yoga poses for me and other photographers.

ELP-NX9 · f/1.9 · 1/100s · 6.67mm · ISO400

I ditched the tripod early on. I mostly use it to film myself unboxing products, but I never quite feel like I’ve got a good handle on a phone. Especially phones without curved screens and cases. The tripod annoyingly also ends up covering things like the record button.

I’d like to say it wasn’t embarrassing to be furiously snapping away with a phone in hand when everyone around me was holding some sort of camera, but it was. Phones, and especially very light phones, feel very different in hand when compared to the feeling of holding a camera, even if it’s a compact camera. I also held them vertically rather than horizontally, which is much easier and natural to do on a phone as opposed to a camera.

Both phones did well inside the studio, but it was notable early on that the Motorola lagged behind the Honor phone in terms of processing and I’d be left waiting several seconds in between shots. I hadn’t noticed the lag too much beforehand but if you’re shooting several photos at a time, and if your subject is moving, this is less than ideal.

ELP-NX9 · f/1.9 · 1/100s · 6.67mm · ISO320

Shooting outside the studio and inside a gym

I decided to leave my tripod behind at the studio and went outside with some other photographers. Another model waited for us at Commando Temple, a gym right next to the studio.

There, I got more dynamic shots, moving between outside the gym and inside. I also got more action shots, as the model demonstrated his skills at lifting weights and boulders.

ELP-NX9 · f/1.9 · 1/100s · 6.67mm · ISO125

This is where the Motorola phone’s inability to keep up became more of an issue and as a result, I ended up taking more photos on the Honor phone.

That being said, the Motorola phone’s different focal lengths did come in particularly useful for static shots, providing a beautiful among of bokeh. The 85mm telephoto option is insanely good or frighteningly bad depending on how you feel about seeing every minute detail of your face, but I mostly avoided it as I wanted to get the scenery of the gym in.

motorola edge 50 pro · f/2 · 1/100s · 7.06mm · ISO466

Leaving my tripod behind ended up being a good move as I ended up moving quite a bit, the usual getting down on the floor for angles as well as some back and forth to avoid relying too much on either phone’s zoom, much more than I’d usually move around if using my Fujifilm X-T3, which has an 18-55mm lens.

In general, I found that I had to stand much closer to the models than almost everyone else. The experience reminded me of taking photos with my Olympus Mju I fixed lens compact camera.

ELP-NX9 · f/1.9 · 1/100s · 6.67mm · ISO80

I also went into this shoot relatively unprepared in terms of thinking what kind of shots I wanted as I did not know which models would be there, etc. so I had to improvise.

While the Honor 200 Pro’s Harcourt Portrait mode options looked particularly good inside a studio with studio lighting, they also gave me impressive-looking photos outside (as well as inside the gym with no studio lighting).

ELP-NX9 · f/1.9 · 1/50s · 6.67mm · ISO640

Conclusion

I was quite happy with my images – so happy I’ve added a selection of them to my portrait photography portfolio. Among the advice given to up-and-coming creatives is to create with what you’ve got and with phone cameras getting better and better (and not just the flagships), you can get quality photos and videos with your phone.

This was quite a unique experience and while I will not be parting ways with my mirrorless camera anytime soon, as a content creator and photographer building up a portfolio, I won’t be leaving the house without my phone (or Olympus Mju I) in my pocket, just in case.

The views expressed in this column are not necessarily those of Amateur Photographer magazine or Kelsey Media Limited. If you have an opinion you’d like to share on this topic, or any other photography-related subject, email: ap.ed@kelsey.co.uk 

Related content:

• The best budget camera phones
• Best smartphones for portrait photography
• Complete guide to Portrait photography and portrait types

Follow AP on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube and TikTok.

The post I brought two phones to a studio photoshoot and I’m NOT sorry appeared first on Amateur Photographer.

If you’re looking for a new camera these days, you often need to spend well over $1000 / £1000 for a mirrorless camera, like the Canon EOS R7, priced at $1499 / £1449 (RRP body only), however, once you’ve done this, you then need to spend money on expensive Canon RF lenses.  

Not so with DSLRs, where you can find budget models like the Canon EOS 2000D for less than £400 / $479, with a 18-55mm kit lens, with optical image stabilisation! This will get you up and running, and then if you want additional lenses, you can find amazing deals, both new (Canon EF 50mm 1.8 STM around $130 / £130), or on the second-hand used market, where lenses like this are under $100 / £100.  

Now that there are people abandoning Canon DSLRs, there are plenty of second-hand lenses on the market, and the prices of these seem to be cheaper than ever, as less people want them. But that just means, for those people who are prepared to settle for older lenses, bargains can be found.  

Spend money on experiences

The less you spend on a camera, the more you can spend money on experiences, and going places to take photos, rather than camera gear. They do say that spending money on experiences, rather than things, brings better happiness after all. (Source: TIME.com)

In fact, I’d argue that a cheap DSLR is one of the best ways to learn about photography, as it shows you the difference between an optical viewfinder (using your eyes to frame a shot), and then the results on the digital screen. This will be a very quick reminder that you need to work on your exposure, and start picturing the scene, and potential dynamic range issues, facing your shots.  

The Canon EOS 2000D may seem like an old model now, being released in 2018, but it offers some reasonably good specifications compared to more modern cameras, with a 24MP sensor, it’s got enough resolution for most people (depending on your needs). It even has built-in Wi-Fi for those that have the need to share images on social media websites.  

There’s also something really nice about the feel of a Digital SLR, even the cheaper models have a good-sized hand grip, making it easier to hold steady, and the grip is often very small on cheaper mirrorless cameras.  

*The Canon EOS 2000D is available in the US, as the Canon Rebel T7, with prices around $479 with 18-55mm IS lens.

John Bridges, is a keen photographer, and Canon/Pentax DSLR user, and has previously shared with us: Have we given up on DSLRs too soon?, 120fps? No thanks, I’ll stick to 5fps, Here’s why the DSLR will always be in demand, The DSLR is not dead, Why I only buy Canon DSLRs, and NFTs are everything that’s wrong with the world.

The views expressed in this column are not necessarily those of Amateur Photographer magazine or Kelsey Media Limited. If you have an opinion you’d like to share on this topic, or any other photography related subject, email: ap.ed@kelsey.co.uk

Follow AP on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube and TikTok.

The post Opinion: Have we given up on DSLRs too soon?  appeared first on Amateur Photographer.