MacWorld Cover Shot With iPhone 4

John Brownlee ()

MacWorld Cover Shot With iPhone 4

MacWorld’s latest cover isn’t really special in that it features an iPhone 4 recursively shot by photographer Peter Belanger on another iPhone 4. Although that wouldn’t have been possible on previous iPhones due to resolution issues, lighting’s ultimately the most important aspect of professional photography, not megapixels or the lens. In ideal lighting conditions, getting a professional level shot from pretty any digicam isn’t all tha hard.

What I find more intriguing is that Belanger also did all of the post-photographic processing on the iPhone 4. Specifically, he used the $3 PhotoForge app to remove a green cast from the resulting image, and the $1 Resize-Photo to boost the DPI for publishing. That’s a little bit of a fudge, but all is forgiven: the resulting cover looks great.

DON'T MISS
Nadia Digicam Connects To Mac To Judge Your Photos’ Composition

7 comments »

About the author

John BrownleeJohn Brownlee is news editor here at Cult of Mac, and has also written about a lot of things for a lot of different places, including Wired, Playboy, Boing Boing, Popular Mechanics, Gizmodo, Kotaku, Lifehacker, AMC, Geek and the Consumerist. He lives in Cambridge with his charming inamorata and a tiny budgerigar punningly christened after Nabokov's most famous pervert. You can follow him here on Twitter.

(sorry, you need Javascript to see this e-mail address)| Read more posts by .

Posted in iPhone, News |

  • http://www.kentcorley.com kdc

    Sadly the video is from the previous shoot… Wish we could see video of the new one. Congrats to Peter!

  • http://ObamaPacman.com ObamaPacman

    That’s not the iPhone 4 cover shot video. One of the original videos mis-attributed the video, and I almost made the same mistake.

  • Jim Richter

    That was done awhile back for and with the 3GS iPhone, not for the iPhone 4

  • John Brownlee

    Oh, shit. Sorry guys, let me fix it.

  • Wingspinner

    “’s ultimately the most important aspect of professional photography, not megapixels or the lens.
    Similar to your write-ups on iPhone 4 antennas you clearly know nothing about digital photography. Of course lighting must be adequate but with today’s software tools it’s not “everything”. Lens quality is by far most important with the QUALITY of the megapixels a close second. Like most of the comments you make this one shows your egotism and your ignorance and your irresponsible journalism. Ha! Even tried to snow us with a fake photo.

  • Patrick

    I agree with Wingspinner, although I find his attitude off-putting and repugnant. Here’s what’s important in photography, in order of importance:
    1. photographer
    2. subject
    3. lens
    4. lighting
    5. sensor (what Wingspinner calls quality of megapixels)
    6. resolution

    I don’t include post-processing, as that’s not photography, that’s cheating.

  • Jason

    @Wingspinner

    I thought you were a programmer, not a photographer! :)

    I think you’re just a flamer, that must be what you are . . .

    My wife has been a photographer for the past 15 years, and trust me, I’ve heard time and time again complaints about the lighting in photo shoots. If a subject isn’t lit correctly, the information isn’t in the picture to manipulate in the first place. Also, professionals will more often turn to traditional lighting techniques to achieve the effects within their photographs, as digital editing often times looks cheap & is easily detected. I’m just saying that as a person who’s been married to a photographer for 15 years and has been to countless photo shoots, so take that as you will. I’m sure Wingspinner has plenty of cover-work to show, as he’s apparently a professional himself! ;)

    Also, sir, if you’re going to waste everyone’s time by being objectionable as your primary vehicle, you could at least take the time to quote correctly and not use ALL CAPS. If you have a valid point, the point itself will carry the weight you want to convey. Adding cheap flares to your responses only serves to stroke your own ego & doesn’t spread any of the knowledge which you use as a mask for your poorly constructed comments.

    Jason