 |
It's not necessarily a bad thing; competition can be good, of course. What I'd like to point out (especially to young families) is that the iPhone isn't necessarily a good substitute for either long-term archival options or image quality itself. A good illustration of the iPhone's insecurity is what happened to me on my first trip to the UK in 2017, when I inadvertently changed my Apple cloud settings and lost most of the trip photos I had saved to that device. Fortunately, the iPhone was just a supplement to my regular camera, so it wasn't a disaster. It did, however, prompt some reflection. In general, some people are pretty tough on their phones. If you're using it, for instance, as the primary device of record to store memories of a growing family, you might be headed for a costly mistake.
The other area to consider is image quality. While iPhones are getting better, they still rely upon computational photography to take as good a photo as possible...instantly. Rather than relying on tried-and-true optical photography, computational photography takes a completely different approach. According to Science News Today, computational photography combines hardware and software to improve image capture beyond the limitations of traditional optics. Unlike conventional cameras that passively record light, computational photography uses algorithms, AI, and neural networks to actively interpret scenes, adjust settings, and merge multiple images into a single optimized photo.
You could even argue that an iPhone photo is less representative or "real" than true optical photography because of how it works under the hood. This might be pushing it a bit, but it approaches how I see this category of photography. For example, some photographers think nothing of running their photos through multiple levels of enhancement before sharing. At what point, it must be asked, does a photo cease to become a true representation of life and become something more akin to a lie or a misrepresentation? (Here is an interesting YouTube presentation on this topic.)
Recently, I planned to interview a well-known photographer from Fresno about AI in photography, but the interview fell through because we repeatedly couldn't coordinate. There are definitely multiple camps on AI's role here. I can accept using Adobe Photoshop (or Lightcraft) to improve lighting or remove that bit of lens lint from the image, but when does software manipulation become too much? Some photographers argue that the photo remains true and authentic even after multiple enhancements, but I am skeptical of that position.
At any rate, the AI dimension is a bit of a digression from the larger issue of relying too much on an iPhone for all of one's treasured memories. It just seems like a bad idea. Avoid putting all your eggs in one basket and diversify how you save those precious memories by using an authentic camera in addition to your iPhone. Don't fail to record those memories as well... Many years ago, I had a relative who avoided having his photo taken at family gatherings. He was embarrassed about his weight. Then, he suddenly passed away at a relatively young age. Some of the only recent photos were mine, but there were not many. Someday in the future, you or your descendants, will greatly appreciate the family record you have created and safeguarded in photography.
