Before going any further, it is important to bear in mind that even if this photo of an Alfa Romeo Spider was actually taken in September 2026, it is still five years (or four iPhone versions) old as it was taken with an iPhone 14 Pro Max. A more modern smartphone (not necesssarily one made by Apple) might be more capable than this old horse. Still, this photograph is an interesting example of the difference between ‘real’ and computational photography.
As a reference, this is how the photo looks like without ‘portrait mode’ on:
I don’t want to delve into the philosophical side of the argument and consider whether computational photography can also be considered ‘real’. In fact, it is real because it exists as an object; however, it is clear that it is not photography as we know it. Indeed, iPhone’s portrait mode produced an awful final result that was very similar to an early AI-made image and there is no need to go into specifics because the image speaks for itself.
I don’t either want to fuel the smartphone vs. real camera debate because it is clear that they simply are not comparable. Smartphones and camera do different jobs and serve different kind of photography needs, so there is no point in complaining about a screwdriver not being capable of hitting a nail.
What matters is being aware of the tools’ limitations so as not to be deluded into believing that one can beat a speed record on a race track with a city car. This is why I ask myself how come that article and blog posts written by people with at least a minimum competence still continue comparing orange and… Apple.
Share this post:
Comments
Gerard on The Joy of Computational Photography
Comment posted: 28/10/2026
Not everyone would agree that computational images are 'real'. At least not the provider of my tapwater in France, which rules out the 'virtualisation' of their bills and send them by email to me.