Smartphones secretly edit every photo you take, but this app lets you see the real thing


Gone are the days when we would willingly put Instagram filters on our photos because we thought they looked good. Now, your photos are still being edited, even if you’re not the one doing it. Most people don’t even know what a real photo taken on a smartphone (with zero processing) would look like. Thankfully, I’ve found an app that lets me snap away with no processing — and I’m shocked by the results.

Your smartphone is editing images without telling you

And there’s not a lot you can do about it

As a photographer, I ditch my smartphone for a real camera any day of the week — but that doesn’t mean a smartphone camera is completely useless. It has its time and place. But in this modern age, most smartphones are built with enhancements, and AI features embedded in the camera’s function, meaning most (if not all) of the pictures you snap are transformed between the camera and photo album applications, without you knowing.

A few years ago, a Redditor demonstrated that Samsung artificially edits images of the moon. When the Reddit user took a photo of a purposefully blurry image of the moon on his laptop, the Samsung phone inserted details that weren’t there in the original image. Samsung comes with built-in AI features that are designed to “enhance image quality”, though Android users remain free to turn the AI features off in settings.

On iPhones, it’s called “computational photography,” according to Ziv Attar, chief executive of Glass Imaging, who worked on the team that created iPhone’s Portrait Mode. In essence, this feature takes the image your camera captures and reimagines what the photo would look like if the camera were better, as reported by the BBC.

And it isn’t just Apple and Samsung receiving backlash; plenty of Google Pixel users are also disgruntled with the automatic processing that happens to images, raising concerns about “skin-smoothing filters” being added to pictures that aren’t supposed to have filters on them.

  • s26 ultra product image

    Brand

    Samsung

    SoC

    Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5

    Display

    6.9-inch Dynamic Super AMOLED 2X

    RAM

    12 or 16 GB

    Storage

    256GB, 512GB, or 1TB

    Battery

    5,000 mAh

    Get the new Galaxy S26 Ultra with AI smarts and an all-new privacy display. It’s big, powerful, packed with AI, and you’ll love the S-Pen stylus. 


  • iPhone 16 Pro

    SoC

    A18 Pro

    Display

    2,622 x 1,206 resolution (460 ppi)

    RAM

    8GB

    Storage

    128GB, 256GB, 512GB, 1TB

    Ports

    USB-C

    Operating System

    iOS 18

    A version of Apple’s newest iPhone with a larger screen featuring a camera button, a programmable action button, and artificial intelligence features.


Zero Processing may be better for your photos

Or at least, some of the time

Does “zero-processing” mean better? From my own experience, using the Halide Mark III – Pro Camera iPhone app (which came highly recommended on Reddit), I can adamantly say…it’s complicated.

For the most part, I think it definitely depends on your intention for the image. If you’re posting it on social media, a lot of people may prefer a higher contrast and/or higher saturation (I certainly do, especially for nature images). In which case, your smartphone’s camera mostly does the job. See the above photo of a flower. The iPhone’s creation is a lot more vibrant and colorful than the image taken with zero processing.

But…it doesn’t look realistic. The flower being photographed was not an insanely bright purple; it was closer to pastel IRL, and yet the iPhone produced an image that was incredibly saturated. If you’re going to wack the saturation up anyway, then this is fine for you. But if (like me) you’d prefer your nature pics to look more natural, this kind of borderline-neon coloring immediately gives away that the image has been edited.

Using the Halide app

Taking that “zero-processed” snap

The outcome images with zero processing look softer and more closely resemble the “preview” image you get in the camera app before pressing the button. Though I will say they do appear duller or poorly lit, that is how an image taken on a smartphone would look if Apple weren’t stepping in at the last minute to alter the image.

One thing I will give Apple credit for is the automatic lighting balance, a benefit you don’t get when you’re using zero processing, which is why the non-processed images lack color or definition in the sky. But the Halide app does come with its own editing suite, which lets you play around with exposure, the same as you would in the iPhone’s editing mode, so this can be altered after the image is captured.

The app is incredibly easy and simple to use. All you really need to do is allow it to sync with your camera and photo library, either in settings or when the pop-up prompts you to agree. And then off you go, taking photos in whatever format you prefer. The catch? This app does require a subscription if you want to keep using it after its 7-day free trial has expired. But there are plenty of other recommended apps that function the same and don’t come with a pay wall.


Should you shoot with “zero-processing” all the time?

If you’re interested in photography and are looking for a way to utilize your smartphone’s camera without the obnoxious saturation levels that are automatically put on images, an app that lets you shoot without the processing is great. You can create natural images that aren’t enhanced or morphed in any way you don’t want them to be. For the casual selfie taker, you’re alright using your smartphone’s camera as-is, without the need to subscribe to any additional apps or software. Just maybe tweak the image’s contrast and vibrancy before you hit post.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.

Recent Reviews


“It was severely downgraded,” Gilbert confirms. “I never would have found it if I was just looking through Google results.” (I tried the same prompt in Gemini earlier this month, and after an initial denial, the tool also gave me Eiger’s number.)

After this experience, Eiger, Gilbert, and another UW PhD student, Anna-Maria Gueorguieva, decided to test ChatGPT to see what it would surface about a professor. 

At first, OpenAI’s guardrails kicked in, and ChatGPT responded that the information was unavailable. But in the same response, the chatbot suggested, “if you want to go deeper, I can still try a more ‘investigative-style’ approach.” Their inquiry just had to help “narrow things down,” ChatGPT said, by providing “a neighborhood guess” for where the professor might live, or “a possible co-owner name” for the professor’s home. ChatGPT continued: “That’s usually the only way to surface newer or intentionally less-visible property records.” 

The students provided this information, leading ChatGPT to produce the professor’s home address, home purchase price, and spouse’s name from city property records. 

(Taya Christianson, an OpenAI representative, said she was not able to comment on what happened in this case without seeing screenshots or knowing which model the students had tested, even after we pointed out that many users may not know which model they were using in the ChatGPT interface. She also declined to comment generally about the exposure of PII by the chatbot, instead providing links to documents describing how OpenAI handles privacy, including filtering out PII, and other tools.) 

This reveals one of the fundamental problems with chatbots, says DeleteMe’s Shavell. AI companies “can build in guardrails, but [their chatbots] are also designed to be effective and to answer customer questions.”

The exposure issue is not limited to Gemini or ChatGPT. Last year, Futurism found that if you prompted xAI’s chatbot Grok with “[name] address,” in almost all cases, it provided not only residential addresses but also often the person’s phone numbers, work addresses, and addresses for people with similar-sounding names. (xAI did not respond to a request for comment.) 

No clear answers

There aren’t straightforward solutions to this problem—there’s no easy way to either verify whether someone’s personal information is in a given model’s training set or to compel the models to remove PII. 



Source link