Hello to everyone!
In this blog post
That is rather curious. When I look at it, the pictures in that paragraph are not named that way, but others are.
According to the EXIF data on the picture, the photo was taken with a Samsung NX300.
Other interesting information:
exif:DateTimeDigitized: 2019:10:04 10:01:00
Looks like this was from a couple weeks ago.
$ exiftool -ImageDescription librem5-aspen-factory-1.jpg Image Description : SAMSUNG CSC
Is it a problem that someone used a Samsung device to take these photos? 
of sneaking course, it must be made with DSLR and processed in darktable (because gtk, you know) on librem 5 sdk! otherwise it’s untrue.
Hi!
@seanpackham
Thank you for the blog post!
I have two questions about the batches and the photos.
1,
What branch will be contains a branded alu case?
I think the carved “Librem 5” brand name on the edge, which is described here:
2,
Why blur the photos? The upper part on this photo is hurts my eyes:
This photo has a lot of interest details, the camera, the sensors, but the
only visible part is the QR code and the Volume Up button:
After two years, i really hungry for the Librem 5, but i need to wait a months, so please,
when you leaking a cool photos, with interesting details, please, please, do not take it
with that shallow depth of field! 
(Of course, if need to blur an unfinished part, or any non public information (ie: chip label), then the blur is okay, i just want to see the public parts and details.)
Thank you!
Greg
There are new posts on the blog after more than half a month!
That’s an artefact of wave optics, not a conscious choice. Lenses have a focal depth, which is the distance between the lens and the object at which the object is in focus; and a depth of field, which is how far either side of that focal depth an object will be in focus.
I could go into this in more detail, but it would take a lot of space. To summarise: focussing on a closer object gives you less depth of field, having larger lenses gives you more light collection but less depth of field. They must have used a macro lens (closeup), so things not in focus will blur quickly.
It’s a optical effect known as Bokeh. Most people who use “real” cameras (e.g. DSLRs, as opposed to phone cameras) find it pleasing to the eye. So much so that modern mobile cameras recreate this effect artificially.
To avoid it in big cameras, one needs a lot of light (e.g. a studio flash in this case).
So to answer your question: It was either done because of artistic preference or because nobody found it justifiable to set up studio flashes
@TungstenFilament
@Caliga
I dont agree with you.
(But my english is not to good, so may i misunderstand what you have said.)
The depth of field is depend on only the aperure.
Large aperture (little F value) lead to a shallow DoF.
Little aperture hole (big F value) lead to large DoF, this is the “focusing to infinity”.
The proper amount of the light is depend on two factor:
The aperture (F value) and the shutter speed.
Large aperture is means more light, and the slower shutter means more light too.
Take a photo about a moving subject is hard: because need a fast shutter speed, so when the aperure is little, then the photo will too dark. In case, with large aperture is good, but the DoF is will be shallow, so the precise focus is important.
But, the Librem 5 mobile is not going anywhere.
Flooding with light in this size range is not problem, any desk lamp will be good, maybe with a blank A4 office paper sheet, for dimming and directing.
These photos is not a real macro photos, because the macro photo size range a coin or less.
A have a MILC camrea, and sort of lens (Panasonic GX7, with (in this topic relevant) a Mitakon 25mm/F0.95) and i can take a photo of this size range (10-15 cm subject) with not shallow DoF, because the F 0.95 is the minimum F value, not a maximum. With this lens, i can rotate to F 16, and take a all-clear, no-blur photo.
With a smartphone okay, not easy to take, but with a proper lighting (desk lamp or sunshine) and perhaps a support (coffee mug…) IMHO not impossible to take a photo with deep focus range.
The photo was taken at ISO 3200, F 5.6 and 1/60s. Freehand.
A desk lamp would only have done harm.
But you can have your opinion.
Hmm… F5.6 is not too big aperture, so IMHO the cause of this shallow DoF is any else cause.
The minimum focus distance is a possibility for the blur effect on the bottom part of the photo, but does not explain to the blur of upper part.
Maybe photosop/gimp blur, instead of the natural lens DoF?
@seanpackham
What i miss it? What do I not notice?
The bokeh is created via software in this case. That’s what smartphones do to mimic big aperture. It could have been avoided easily by changing the settings or using a real camera.
They used a real camera, brand is Samsung, model is NX300. Not that that means they did anything other than ‘auto’ with it.
Er… actually, some of the other photos were taken with the NX300, that one looks to have been edited and most of the EXIF data stripped…
Did you look at the original in the article or the one embedded here?
Um, both of them (now). They both have the EXIF stripped.
they’ve secretly been trolling us doing 3d renders in Blender and forgetting to adjust the depth-of-field effect to something more subtle so all the photo experts are now having another stab at the “transparency” thing … 
I feel like I’m being painted as a conspiracy theorist and photo expert here, so I’d like to clear my name. (God forbid that anyone should think I am a camera enthusiast. 
)
I don’t think anyone suggested that it was.
It was odd that the photos were named “samsung-csc” when the subject was nothing to do with anything Samsung, but now it’s obvious that this was a string from the EXIF data rather than some intentional naming scheme. End of story.
How about “camera theorist” 
?
