Apple’s ads claim “studio-quality” portraits are possible on the iPhone X, and, according to a regulatory body known as the Advertising Standards Authority, that claim didn’t sit right with a couple of people. So they investigated.
The U.K.-based ASA came to the conclusion that Apple indeed could keep that claim. The company argued “that there was no industry standard definition of ‘studio-quality’ portraits” and that studio-quality was a subjective term, given the wide differences and skill levels among photographers working in a studio.
Apple additionally argued that the 50mm equivalent lens in the iPhone X was commonly used in portrait photography and that the lighting options could emulate what could be done in the studio.
Without any official definition of what constitutes “studio quality,” the ASA agreed with Apple and didn’t uphold the complaints.
Indeed Apple’s phones have ramped up their photo game in the last few years, adding dual lenses with the iPhone 6s Plus and the ability to emulate shallow depth of field through software, and the iPhone X adding different faux-studio lighting effects to the party. To the average viewer, there is very little difference between a cream-of-the-crop photographic lens like the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART and an iPhone X toggled to portrait mode.
What do you think of the iPhone’s photographic abilities? Can it match what can be done in the studio or is that just plain crazy? Should the company bill its phone’s camera as “studio quality”?