Skip to main content
Rikk Flohr_Photography
Community Manager
Rikk Flohr_PhotographyCommunity Manager
May 23, 2025
Sticky

P: Introducing the Project Indigo camera app

  • May 23, 2025
  • 401 replies
  • 241990 views

This post applies to the Project Indigo iOS camera app. 

 

Adobe Labs is excited to share an early look at Project Indigo, an iPhone camera app we've started to develop, to get feedback from the photography community. The app offers full manual controls, a more natural ("SLR-like") look, and high image quality in both JPEG and raw formats. It also introduces some new photographic experiences not available in other camera apps. For more information on the underlying technology, please refer to this Project Indigo blog post.

 

Before you start with Project Indigo 

  • We recommend using Project Indigo on iPhone 15 Pro/Pro Max or newer devices.
    (Also supported are 12 Pro/Pro Max, 13 Pro/Pro Max, and all 14-series devices.)
  • You should have at least 1GB of storage space left for the app, the downloadable AI Models inside the app, and for captured photos. 

 

Recipes for success when using Project Indigo 

To get the maximum out of your images captured with the app, follow these guidelines: 

  • When reviewing the results, focus on Project Indigo's more natural look (in both SDR and HDR). If you haven’t done this before, try viewing the images on your laptop or desktop device, preferably on an HDR screen. 
  • Capture with both JPEG and raw DNGs with file saving enabled. Project Indigo produces computational photography DNG files, which have the same natural look as JPEG images, but much more latitude for editing after capture. 
  • Take control of the camera with the built-in Pro Controls, including controls that are exclusive to a computational camera: Frames to Merge and Merge Method. These may be intimidating for beginners, but with Project Indigo, you can try them for free, and nothing will break—you can always reset the settings to ‘Auto’ and let the camera take back control. 
  • Go to the Indigo Labs page and play with the latest innovations our team can offer. These are only available on mobile via Indigo! 
  • Be patient! Project Indigo is doing a lot of heavy lifting under the hood, and it will reward you with great photos. In return, it may ask you for a bit of time to set up captures when needed, and to wait a few seconds for the image processing to finish. 

 

Sending feedback 

Please try the app and share feedback in this community forum thread. If you report a problem you encountered, it would help to include details like which device you are running Project Indigo on, what kind of scene you were trying to capture, what you were trying to achieve with the camera, and as much information as possible about what you like or do not like about the resulting photo quality. Our team will continually monitor this thread to track issues and improve future experiences.  

 

To improve the performance and results of Project Indigo, it is important that examples of images that do not meet your expectations are forwarded to the team via your report.  A large variety of file formats are allowed as attachments in these forum posts. The best option is to attach your image's raw file directly to your feedback post. Note that there is a 50 MB limit on an attachment's file size. If your raw file is too large to attach, the best option is to share the file via a file-sharing service (Dropbox or similar) and then share the link in your feedback post. Thank you for continuing to provide feedback on the Project Indigo camera! 

 

Boris Ajdin: Product Manager, NextCam 
 
Posted by: 

 

      401 replies

      Show previous replies
      N
      nhan_8084
      Known Participant
      April 12, 2026

      ​@BorisTheBlade it seems like non-SR shots (ie.. optical range 0.5x, 1x, 4x) has the EXACT same artifacts as SR shot when there’s a slight motion detected in frame while capturing.  The samples attached (cropped) showed a moving toddler (not fast motion at all, just normal speed human movements).  I cannot show the full image due to privacy concern ofc, but the stock app do not have any artifacts at all and I will show the crops too!

       

      What is even more strange is that the Indigo SOOC jpeg has artifacts in areas of the frame that doesn’t contain movements, like the water bottle.  I mentioned before that I encountered this same artifacts in gcam and fixed it by using a custom generated noise model four channels (A through D).

       

      You can obviously know which one is the stock app so I do not need to spell out which pictures belong to which.  The exif is also included.  By the way, the raw of Indigo also have it of course bc the JPEG is generated from that raw

       

      PLEASE PLEASE test motion on your end using the 17 pro max, normal indoor lighting where ss drops to about 1/60s to 1/80s as shown.

       

       

      N
      nhan_8084
      Known Participant
      April 29, 2026

      ​@BorisTheBlade revisiting this 

      N
      nhan_8084
      Known Participant
      April 12, 2026

      I've got another scene where it's heavily under exposured, matching your statement earlier of a bright source involved that can do that, it's similar scene you have seen before and that's with my grow light.  To remind you the grow light temp is 4000K per the vendor.

       

      All shot auto, using main lens.  Indigo raw is attached, SOOC jpeg, proraw embedded 12mp jpeg, processed indigo raw to jpeg to represent true to scene, screen shots of how I did it (quite a lot sadly), and screenshot comparing issues of SOOC jpeg to the post processed.  My version of jpeg will always noise reduction, and sharpness killed and you can see that it still have more details than the AI sharpening.  I believe as I say all along, denoising needs to be completely set to 0, including both chroma and luma, or it will be not pleasing at all.  The processed jpeg has more noise bc it's obviously denoise set to 0, but also because you have to raise shadow and expo while keeping hdr high lights vs it being clipped in the SOOC jpeg.  Very challenging situation to have a balance, but I chose to leave nr to 0.  

       

      DNG Post Processed: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/6n1u3xd5lq0wpi4cx68us/IMG_4342.JPG?rlkey=4zoluimw14vcns8dqhl95bbr1&st=uvf6chf5&dl=0

       

      IMG_4340: SOOC Indigo jpeg

       

      IMG_4341: 12mp ProRAW embedded jpeg (ignore the .dng dunno why it only share the jpeg)

       

      Rest are screenshots showing the obvious: lrm settings used, and issues where SOOC jpeg are (crushed shadows, lack of details, mush, highlights clipped).

       

      I really hope the team take my findings serious and rework these existing issues, as I work extensively and a lot of time spent taking shots and analyzing them.  

       

      Simply put, put the team's views and your views in the shoe of the users like me.  Would you want to use and share these images I showed here as is to friends and families, colleagues, etc... or share the properly rendered jpeg that is true to scene and capturing it without having to so so much adjustments?

      N
      nhan_8084
      Known Participant
      April 12, 2026

      Here's a scene taken in the late evening, 6:30 pm area est time zone.  As you can see the Indigo SOOC jpeg is definitely vibrant and punchy, looks good at first as is, until you zoom in 100% crop or more.  Colors not only isn't realistic, there's heavy black crushing shadows while in reality shadows aren't black.  

      I believe I found the "source" for the blobs looking, or mush clumps of foliages, and that is Indigo AI has too much raw sharpen, and raw contrast.  I've included the raw, and post processed to jpeg to look true to scene.  You will see that Indigo is still sharp, with sharpening to 0, noise reduction and color nr to 0 in lightroom mobile.  I also include crops to show where the post process excels vs the SOOC jpeg.  There's not a need for the team to have THIS MUCH digital sharpening, or color denoising since the post processed jpeg is amazing already at detail and very minimal noises with all nr to 0!

       

      As usual, everything auto.  Please remind the forum team to allow jpeg and png (screenshot) to have unlimited size upload so I don't keep using dropbox for files bigger than 5mb!!

       

      Raw post processed: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/n130lvtxcxb6wys25wdyd/IMG_4332.JPG?rlkey=nk2ow4iujp3i1sdsptlrojcsj&st=67o7foy7&dl=0

       

      Indigo SOOC jpeg: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/tbfnwrytnb0ozk7sdwn6b/IMG_4326.JPG?rlkey=2w5ka0vpx5bi8laczpa8ar3aw&st=zeyj1ebw&dl=0

      N
      nhan_8084
      Known Participant
      April 11, 2026

      Ok now let's focus on textures, noise to details rendition.  The following sample is of the backyard scene but is a comparison with the app Camac.  All is shot in auto, no tapping, nothing changed on either app.

       

      Camac jpeg: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/x96lrkphsqy8ish45ynhl/IMG_4292.JPG?rlkey=qnojej80m0utqws39a9uvcgnl&st=ve722h4i&dl=0

       

      As you can see from the compare app, look at how much clumpy foliages are comparing to Camac?  Again, I remind you this is untouched jpeg out the cam for both.  Camac is not oversharpened either, it's just AI still denoising way too much.  Look into the radius denoising perhaps?  I do not know how you guys call your parameters, but radius denoising is what I am used to in Gcam.  

       

      Also, Indigo has crushed shadows due to the heavy tone mapping done.  Indigo might look pleasing and social media ready since all social media compresses image to eternity, but it is definitely not usable or pleasing if that photo was to be printed.

       

      All I want to ask of Indigo's team is to keep things as reality, as how the human eyes sees things, not whether the team likes the looks or not bc that will now become subjective, vs the objective:  to look like the true to scene!

      N
      nhan_8084
      Known Participant
      April 11, 2026

      ​@BorisTheBlade here are two samples showing extreme over-saturations and incorrect colors of red(burgundy ish).  Red is an extremely difficult color to get in photography let alone allowing AI to do the work.  I will attach the as is jpeg, how it looks as soon as you import to lrm, and after you Reset to All.  The dng will also be included.  The Reset to All is the correct color btw!


      Import dng as is: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/efx9abaibuma8m3392aay/IMG_4302.png?rlkey=olqimm1da73rdk4ozb06h9e8t&st=n7jqirbt&dl=0

       

      Reset to All:  https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/g7oj8akput1rqmeyz8vok/IMG_4303.png?rlkey=ygs118l52923n8xy138xsf2go&st=gp7no8q2&dl=0  


      Pay attention to the Rose color as I said, the hues and tones are massively different.

       

      The other sample is showing extreme oversaturation, like if you have vivid profile, or a extreme HDR pop profile, not natural at all.  Anyone looking at the JPEG as is will be disgusted at how it looks vs reality.  I disagree with you when you mention saturations and exposure is subjective, as the goal of capturing ANY photos is to capture the reality as how you see it… call it Kodak Moment if you will.

       

      Only Colors sliders changed via LRM: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/wwj714wp8mz8iirh36izc/IMG_4298.png?rlkey=32y9k7b2v6jkno89ywe632mrf&st=tunls0jq&dl=0

       

      Exported to JPEG: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/df1mucmg4e17fiyr7dmpo/IMG_4299.jpeg?rlkey=9n4mwvjkw6zzr2dcj6l6s7hlx&st=ivfr0t86&dl=0

       

      Raw is also included of the backyard scene.

      N
      nhan_8084
      Known Participant
      April 17, 2026

      Hello ​@BorisTheBlade since I made this topic regarding incorrect red hues and color of the rose.  This shot is of the same rose tree/bush, just dif angle and lighting.  This time the AI rendition of red is much more accurate to real life.  However, upon a crop you can see oversharpening digital artifacts, and uneven shades of reds that looks like a gamma issue, color clipping?  I don’t exactly know the correct term, but you can tell there are splotching everywhere!  You can crop into the jpeg yourself and you will see it looking worse than the attached crop.  A member I know who is used to the photography scene call it “notorious 6”.

       

       

      N
      nhan_8084
      Known Participant
      April 27, 2026

      ​@BorisTheBlade following up on this, as well as other issues, have ya’ll had time to diagnose?  Let me know which one isn’t “clear” to you so I can explain.

      N
      nhan_8084
      Known Participant
      April 11, 2026

      This is a example of exposure gone wrong using the tele.  The wooden object on the wall is near invisible which is NOT how it is in real life.  While stock is brighter than reality but not by much.  Even the night mode in Indigo cannot recover the proper exposure, and stock night mode adds in more denoising but exposure is similar and consistent.

      B
      Adobe Employee
      BorisTheBlade
      Adobe Employee
      April 11, 2026

      Test for large DNG file upload

      B
      Adobe Employee
      BorisTheBlade
      Adobe Employee
      April 11, 2026

      ​@nhan_8084 I just uploaded a 15MB DNG. Is this not working for you (click on the ‘Upload files’ button, right form the emoji button)?

      N
      nhan_8084
      Known Participant
      April 11, 2026

      Oh the paperclip icon?  I never use that tbh, I always used the picture icon to the left of the smiley emoji!

      N
      nhan_8084
      Known Participant
      April 10, 2026

      There’s quite a significant vignetting issue, underexposre, and heavy saturation on my 17 pro max on pretty much all rear lenses, especially the main and tele.  This issue is not present in the dng of Indigo, especially if you import to lrm and hit reset to all!  
       

      Does the team not see ANY of these issues during the 4 months duration since the last update?  I am having a hard time believing they didn’t and releasing it as an unfinished update? 

      B
      Adobe Employee
      BorisTheBlade
      Adobe Employee
      April 11, 2026

      Thank you, as always, for detailed tests and for helping us find ways to improve Indigo. The team really appreciates the amount of effort you are putting into these evals.

      It will take a while to go through all the images and feedback you’ve shared and figure out what you are pointing at. From a quick reading it sounds to me like the complaints you are sharing are roughly to be filled into the following buckets:

      1. BurstSR issues (mushy details at 2x or 8x zoom for things like foliage or moving subjects).
      2. Overly aggressive denoising of the JPEG.
      3. Underexposure and oversaturation of scenes, especially compared to the native camera app (which goes away in LrM when doing ‘Reset to All’)
      4. Vignetting issues.

      For #1, correct, BurstSR has not been updated. That has been shared on the forum before, and we would mention it in the release notes if we had updated it.

      For #2, denoising was toned down - now JPEGs from Indigo will generally be less denoised than they were before.

      For #3, this is a mix of a few things. Without going into too much detail, the lower exposure is often caused by presence of very bright areas in the photo. Since you prefer the version of Indigo photos when you Reset All in LrM, that means you are not happy with the Indigo profile we use. In LrM you can change the profile and let us know which of them makes the image look the best. Needless to say, updating the AI Look which generates the profile is not an easy task. We are working on it though.

      For #4, we have also tuned vignetting correction and made it stronger, so compared to the previous app release there should be fewer issues with vignetting.

      As always, when sharing test results with us, it is always helpful to label each image you share with more information about how it was captured. We do store all capture metadata in the JPEG and the DNG, but those sometimes get stripped when sharing from the device, or when uploading to other sites. We’ll see which of the files you shared have any useful metadata for us and which don’t.

      Ultimately, there are objective image quality issues (like the BurstSR artifacts), and then there are more subjective image quality issues (like the targets for exposure and saturation). In both of those we aim to keep improving, and progress will not be continuous due to the nature of our camera system: a lot of things are powered by AI and tuning it is not only changing a few (or even a lot) of parameters. Stay tuned!

      N
      nhan_8084
      Known Participant
      April 11, 2026

      ​@BorisTheBlade I don’t mind sending raw but the forum won’t let me upload anything over 5mb again! I mentioned few post back for you to reach out to adobe forum team to  not have any limits please on ANY file types that way it is much easier for me to share!

      N
      nhan_8084
      Known Participant
      April 10, 2026

      Here’s a scene involving human subject.  He’s not in motion much so you won’t see any sort of strange artifacts, and it’s shot at the optical focal length.  Every shot sent is auto, no taps as before.  For the main lens sample, it seems like auto focus on stock and Indigo missed the man, but instead probably focused on the counter top where the butter is.

       

      Indigo’s shot is way way over saturated, and under exposed unlike stock which is dead on in terms of saturations and expo.  The only real difference noticed is that Indigo is soft, not over sharpened like stock.  There’s no better details, hairs, clothing textures, even in the tele samples, there are no improvement in the jpeg.

       

      I also attached raw and processed those raws to jpeg via Raw Power app and applied same treatment to both, which is nuking sharpening and noise reduction.  Nothing else is touched.


      Stock ProRaw: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/hvgmdmsysw3porxu5p4qv/IMG_4209.dng?rlkey=ackmc8wn6dah6zbrdj8754ncu&st=5hqgq18k&dl=0


      https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/zyzpth3ccveoetuoeiz7s/IMG_4210.dng?rlkey=tgw30xtik85mgmk56cqkqecfr&st=zvfppdq3&dl=0


      Indigo Raws: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/9k655sbhs7gtyrgfwvqi6/IMG_4217.dng?rlkey=rscill4e2n7fxt879t1jypmg2&st=rrbbdcoq&dl=0

       

      https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/yre8vrv74qsd2ulp3qrk4/IMG_4218.dng?rlkey=xqvbtk9ak6bhvkh2uhfnzvo3y&st=bfgl1btn&dl=0


      Post Processed in Raw Power:

       

      https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/hsmwp9ml8ca7evjm9de1t/IMG_4209-1.jpeg?rlkey=hvsv60jcz41qgtbr6mmul07ts&st=m11cy5n6&dl=0
       

      https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/7i8ayrhlrh65vz5xkkf9c/IMG_4210-1.jpeg?rlkey=xdjmqelyuwt7d7iqxj0ptfmyo&st=vcbmcthd&dl=0

       

      https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/pao54v7d55471waau9560/IDG_20260410_121903_860-1.jpeg?rlkey=150z5i5hkredneu4pjpclhrid&st=6ltdu7r2&dl=0
       

      https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/45s181lhm9lpkonlmdi1v/IDG_20260410_121909_624-1.jpeg?rlkey=8m1mbclemjksyx19sakhgr710&st=042d58lk&dl=0

      N
      nhan_8084
      Known Participant
      April 10, 2026

      I found that indoor pictures are SIGNIFICANTLY underexposed vs true to life exposure, which stock does quite well in replicating.  Also pay attention to the words, in stock it’s much more readable than Indigo’s rendering.  
       

      Also can the adobe web team allow more than 5mb file in jpeg and png please?  It’s getting annoying to have to host to dropbox.

       

      stock main: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/raytm661sruns1b2skczb/IMG_4201.jpeg?rlkey=pkillct5tfx1qikwujiim4loe&st=am3ujsim&dl=0

      Show more replies
      Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement
      Using the community Terms of use Privacy Cookie preferences Do not sell or share my personal information ad choicesAdChoices