This posting on PetaPixel seems similar. Not sure how sweeping the trend is or if it will last:
Interestingly, there is also a trend with younger people using earlier digital point-and-shoot cameras for the “vintage look”.
When it came to film, this phenomenon was enough to drive the price of second hand cameras way up, mid-Nineties point and shoots which certain influencers use have skyrocketed in price. While that was not welcome, the big side benefit is any breath of life that film as a medium can get most certainly is.
It’ll be interesting to see if the digital point-and-shoot upsurge sticks as well, my old LUMIX LX-5 is a terrific 10Mp camera, I shot the heck out of that thing, my kids think it’s cute but they’d rather use their phone or a bigger camera.
1 Like
Wow. I’ve been using my Kodak Z712 (7 Mp, 12x optical zoom) that it’s somehow become cool again.
And unlike some of the cameras mentioned in that New York Times article, this one takes very good pictures.
I still have a point-and-shoot Canon PowerShot SD500 Digital ELPH from 2005 that I use now and then. Some of the best pictures I’ve ever taken have come from that camera, even if a modern iPhone outmatches it from a technical perspective.
One thing those twenty-year-old cameras have that makes their pictures often look better than those from modern phone cameras is what they don’t have: post-processing. So much algorithmic processing is automatically applied to phone camera images (in order to make the phone not the size of a dedicated camera) that the images can lose the feel of “real” photography. A mid-2000s point-and-shoot isn’t post-processing anything, and you get a more genuine image as a result. Even so-called RAW files from an iPhone aren’t genuinely “raw” like those from a digital SLR.
But then, I’m still nostalgic for film. When cleaning out my late father’s stuff from a storage unit last year, I found a box full of some of his old cameras, including a few vintage Polaroids and an old Canon SLR body that I had used back when I was in college in the '90s (and it was old then). That brought back memories. Maybe it’s time for me to get back into art photography again.
1 Like
All digital cameras perform some amount of post processing. Even a “RAW” file from a DSLR doesn’t actually contain the raw signal data from the image sensor.
Image sensor raw data is a steady stream of monochrome signal levels that is being continuously sampled by a processor (typically embedded in the sensor). The algorithm used for the sampling (dot-clock, frame-rate and other parameters) is driven by the exposure settings configured by the camera’s higher-level logic.
The sensor’s processor is almost certainly also combining the levels from the red, green and blue elements (which are discrete, similar to a display’s elements, but in a different pattern) in order to produce a stream of RGB values.
I can guarantee you that your raw data file does not contain the stream of signal levels coming off of the sensor elements before even hitting the sensor’s processor, but is capturing, at minimum, the output of the sensor’s on-board processor.
There may be additional post-processing (like noise removal and thermal calibration) taking place as well.
But you are correct that modern cell phones perform much more extensive post processing (usually including ML image enhancement these days), which goes far beyond anything that was done 20 years ago.
Ah, a fellow pedant. :-)
When I referred to “post-processing”, I was talking about after the sensor’s own processor has finished turning the data into an image. Obviously, there has to be some processing to transform the sensor readings into something usable. The raw stream of data is about as useful as reading a Photoshop file as hex in a text editor—maybe even less so.
But most of those old point-and-shoots really didn’t do anything beyond assembling the sensor data into an image. Even noise reduction was a premium feature twenty years ago. So it’s about as close to “raw” data as would be useful without further processing.
3 Likes
RAW files typically contain a preview to display, the creation of that alone would necessitate processing. Each of the camera manufacturers have their own algorithmic ‘juice’ in that regard.
DPReview.com is currently offline for me with a 403 error from CloudFront. Hopefully this is a temporary issue while content is being moved or the domain is being redirected.
I discovered this after receiving an email update from the Change.org petition:
It is working for me. I had a hard time getting in the other day but I tried again and it worked.
Diane
1 Like
Thank you for the cross-check, Diane. I would rather it be something local to my area or ISP than a complete shutdown of DPReview. 
I should have thought to check IsItDownRightNow. Too hasty.
The Change.org petition for DPReview just passed 7,500 signatures.
DPReview and its forums are still active. One discussion I found entertaining was about lens models correlating to historical dates:
Looks like DPReview has had a reprieve!
4 Likes
Thanks for catching that so quickly, Jolin.
Here are the postings on DPReview and Gear Patrol, the latter has a little more information, including a comment about current employees of DPReview continuing?
“In a nod to the exceptional team behind DPReview, Gear Patrol Has confirmed that current DPReview employees will continue and work to maintain the commitment to high standards and grow its renowned body of experts, creators, and expert content.”
I imagine more information will follow as they work out the details. Regardless, this is good news.
1 Like