[autoexec]

The claim was that any camera without this feature is "entirely unusable" and the photos couldn't be saved even with "hours of manual edits". The fact is that for decades countless of beautiful photos have been captured with cell phone cameras without this feature and most of them needed no manual edits at all. Many of those perfectly fine pictures were taken by people who would not consider themselves to be photographers.

Anyone who, by their own admission, is incapable of taking a photo without this new technology must be an extraordinarily poor photographer by common standards. I honestly wasn't trying to shame them for that though (I'll edit that if I still can), I just wasn't sure what else they could mean. Maybe it was hyperbole?

[oktoberpaard]

The two of you might have a different threshold of what you consider to be usable photos, and that’s fine. However, there is no way around physics. Under indoor lighting, a single exposure of a cellphone camera will either be a blurry mess, a noisy mess, or both. Cellphones used to get around that by adding flashlights and adding strong noise suppression, and it was up to the photographer to make sure that the subject didn’t move too much. Modern smartphones let you take pretty decent photos without flash en without any special considerations, by combining many exposures automatically. I think I t’s quite amazing. The hardware itself has also improved a lot, and you can also take a better single exposure photo than ever, but it won’t be anywhere near the same quality straight out of the camera.

And, yes, I have been taking a lot of pictures with my Sony Ericsson K750i almost two decades ago and I did like them enough to print them back then, but even the photos taken under perfect lighting conditions don’t stand a chance to the quality of the average indoor photo nowadays. The indoor photos were all taken with the xenon flash and were very noisy regardless.

[adgjlsfhk1]

traditionally phones took good photos in good light but as the light decreases so does photo quality (quickly). the point of the ai photography isn't to get the best photograph when you control the lighting and have 2 minutes before hand to pick options, it's to get the best photograph when you realize you need the best possible photo in the next 2 seconds

[kaba0]

> The fact is that for decades countless of beautiful photos have been captured with cell phone cameras

Which phones are you thinking of? Because you definitely have a very rose tinted view if you are thinking literally of cell phones, over smartphones, and even in the latter case, only the past couple of years have had acceptable quality where it might pass some rudimentary view as a proper photograph. Everything else was just noise.

[scott_w]

> The claim was that any camera without this feature is "entirely unusable" and the photos couldn't be saved even with "hours of manual edits".

You missed the "in certain situations" part, which completely changes the meaning of your "quotes."