Digital lo-fi photography - Part 1

What used to be a quirky side-effect of cheap toy cameras, the so-called 'lo-fi' look has become increasingly fashionable among digital photographers in the past couple of years. Amongst other things, 'lo-fi' images are characterized by over or under exposure, distortion, intense grain and low color fidelity. Traditionally, in film cameras, these traits were caused by inexpensive plastic lenses, light leakage and color and exposure changes created by creative or inexpert film processing.

Digital is a highly creative medium, but it is very different to film. With film, you never know exactly what you're going to get until the point of development or printing. With digital, you can see straight away. When shooting digitally, we're so used to on-screen histograms and instant previews that our critical standards are higher. We're much less likely to accept minor errors in composition or focusing when shooting digitally, partly because they're much easier to spot and fix with the camera still in our hands, but also because we tend to look at digital images much more closely. There is no direct equivalent of looking at a photograph at '100%' with film, yet it is the first thing many of us do when reviewing our digital photographs. And it isn't always a good thing. 

Inevitably, some photographers - even those who might have enthusiastically embraced digital imaging in the past - miss the more ethereal, unpredictable results that they remember getting from film. This is one reason why 'classic' toy cameras, of the sort produced in China and the former USSR remain fashionable today, and updated versions can still be found for sale new. Of course, while satisfyingly authentic, film lacks the addictive instant feedback that digital can provide.

Mobile Apps

The cameras built into mobile phones are responsible for a huge amount of the photographs posted every day to social networking and photo-sharing sites like Flickr, Facebook and Google's Picassa. The Apple iPhone (the latest iteration of which is currently the most popular camera on Flickr) was the catalyst for an explosion in inexpensive photo-effects applications, or 'apps' which has powered the current craze in lo-fi photography.

Applications such as Instagram and Hipstamatic (both heavily steeped in the lo-fi aesthetic) allow you to create compelling images that previously would have required both a digital camera and a computer to create and share. Almost all of the most popular photo sharing apps have some kind of 'lo-fi' or toy camera filter available, but for the purposes of this article we have chosen to focus on some of the most representative apps in the 'lo-fi' genre for Apple's iOS. The list of apps covered in this article are as follows:

Instagram (Free) 

Platform: iOS

In this image I chose the 'Hefe' filter to emphasize the green color of the sail cover. I also applied a tilt-shift blur to the bottom of the image to push the eye upwards.

Instagram is a free application currently only available for the Apple iPhone (development for Android is currently underway), which is designed to allow you to quickly apply filter effects to your images and post them to a photostream, where contacts can view and comment upon them. What makes Instagram different to more convent ional image-sharing applications is that it offers a wide range of 'off the peg' grainy, lo-fi filters, intended to be applied before your images are uploaded.

As well as a range of 'nostalgic' filters, Instagram also includes a simulated tilt-shift effect that can be adjusted to add an artificially decrease depth of field to make images look like miniatures or just add emphasis to your subject.

You can edit photos from your library as well as take a new photo with in the Instagram app. One of the key features of instagram is it's photo-sharing network.

Images created with Instagram are saved as 612 by 612 px which are posted online, and saved to your phone. Following a major update Instgram now allows you to save full-sized originals alongside the adjusted versions.

Pixlr-o-matic (Free)  

Platform: Android & iOS 

 For this image I chose the 'Sophia' film to add saturation and vignette which brings focus to the subject. The border however was just chosen at random.

Much like 100 Cameras in 1, Pixlr-o-matic is a simple application that offers a library of filters and borders that can be applied to your images. It's not possible to stack or adjust filters, you just have to take them as they are, fortunately there are quite a few to choose from.

The 26 available filters range from B&W to psychedelic. In addition to 'film' filters the app also offers lighting effects that emulate bokeh, light leaks and streaks that can be superimposed over the image. Overall, it's a very straightforward and easy to use app. And with separate film and lighting filters it offers 806 possible combinations not including border options.  

The film roll menu allows you to pick from the included filters. It is also possible to add borders and lighting effects.

Once you have finished editing your image it can then be saved to your phone's camera library at full resolution or shared on Facebook or on Pixlr's own photo sharing site: imm.io.

Camera+ ($.99)

Platform: iOS

This image has had one of Camera+'s retro filters 'Tailfins' applied, as well as the 'Film' border added. The photo was cropped from portrait to landscape using the Camera+ crop feature as well.

Camera+ is a full featured image capture and editing app and one of the most popular photography apps in Apple's app store (an average of 4/5 stars, over 16,000 ratings). Whether or not you use the app to take photos or just import photos from your phone's library, the 27 effect filters and 9 styled borders provide plenty of room for lo-fi creativity.

The effects have names like 'Lomographic', 'Hipster', and 'Ansel', and for the most part, they produce a look that matches the name. And while there are not a ton of borders, the few lo-fi styled options are well done. In addition to the filters and borders, Camera+ offers 13 image enhancement effects called 'scenes', with options like 'Food', 'Portrait', and 'Cloudy'. 

Of the 27 filters available, there are 9 in the 'Retro'category. However, many in the 'Color' and 'Special' categories also produce 'lo-fi' looks. One nice feature about the filters in Camera+ is that you can use a slider to control the intensity of the effect.

With a little experimentation applying scenes, effects, and borders, it is possible to take what might have started as a rather flat image and producing something that pops. And with slider control as mentioned above, there is an element of flexibility in Camera+ that Instagram and Hipstamatic do not offer. Like many of the apps covered in this article, Camera+ enables the user to share the finished photo directly to Flickr, Facebook, Twitter and text message (SMS) straight from the app.

100 Cameras in 1 ($1.99) 

Platform: iOS

Like most of these filter apps, you just have to try out a few until you find one that seems to suit your image. I choose 'the light between the trees' because it wasn't too heavy-handed with texture overlay wich allowed the natural texture of the wood dock contrast the smooth color of the boats.

Unlike Hipstamatic, 100 Cameras in 1 doesn't attempt to recreate the entire experience of shooting with a toy camera. This app is all about filters. 

The majority of the filters involve some kind of pattern overlay which is not exactly in the vein of lo-fi photography but can still create an interesting image. Not every filter lends itself well to every photo but thankfully each group of filters is divided by usage: 'landscape', 'people', 'all', 'world' and 'the beyond'. Like most of these simple one-click filter apps you will spend most of your time trying out all of the filters before arriving at the one that works best.

You have the option of either taking a new picture from the app or adding filters to a previous image in your catalog.

Filters are divided into somewhat vague categories, but fortunately the app includes a thumbnail next to each. Once you have choosen a filter the intensity can be adjusted. The image can then be saved to your phone or shared.

100 Cameras in 1 supports sharing on: Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, Smugmug and Dropbox. You can also opt to have the image directly exported into Instagram to further edit and share. Images can be saved at a maximum resolution of 1936 x 1936, however processing times are longer when working with higher resolutions.

Comments

Total comments: 131
ndf9
By ndf9 (Mar 31, 2012)

Hi, when i can expect part 2 of Digital lo-fi photography ?

0 upvotes
L1ttleJ0hn
By L1ttleJ0hn (Jan 7, 2012)

I'm curious to know why King Camera isn't mentioned in this list. It's by far one of the top all-in-one camera replacement apps along with ProCamera.

0 upvotes
AndrewG NY
By AndrewG NY (Jan 6, 2012)

There are too many comments here for me to read all of them, so if I say what someone else already did, apologies.

First, in a few places this article seems to have the apps listed in reverse order -- the text refers to the app that FOLLOWS rather than PRECEDES it in a few places. Like 'Unlike Hipstamatic, such-and-such-app...' ...but we haven't read about Hipstamatic yet!

Second, any comments here about 'just shoot film' etc -- shooting film doesn't normally yield a variety of looks like this. If you shoot current film with a decent camera, photos will look much more 'proper' than any of this -- and most of your shots with a given camera+film+process will have a similar look. The digital retro processing embraces unusual color shifts, vignetting, blurring, and other image contamination that we may have seen before on some old photographs but would be hard-pressed to duplicate with any level of control now.

0 upvotes
larrytusaz
By larrytusaz (Dec 21, 2011)

Hopefully I'm more respectful this time. Those that state that "obviously we're not Ansel Adams, it's just for fun" etc, sure. Besides that, sometimes "lo-fi" even by artists has its place. John Mellencamp's latest album "No Better than This" was DELIBERATELY recorded with a 50's-era mono recorder with 1 microphone, & the video for the title track looks sort of like black & white super 8 film or something. The album itself is one of my favorite albums ever.

Still, I listen to it on my MP3 player, not vinyl, & I stand by my belief that once you arrive to a certain level of capability, it's time to put away the snapshooting toys, I think, smartphones included. Why use something inferior just because you can? There's always mirrorless for "discreet" or "always with you" scenarios, the quality is far superior & you can still "lo-fi" it in a smartphone (via Eye-Fi) or at the PC. By the way I look forward to the follow-up on how to "lo-fi" at the PC. I hope my post was respectful.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
jeremiahtrue
By jeremiahtrue (Dec 26, 2011)

Isn't there something to be said for someone who has adequate skill, knowledge and vision to elevate these "snapshooting toys" to a level of artistic excellence.

Polaroids were very basic cameras but almost everyone has used them and some have used them quite creatively. The same can be said for the Diana or Holga or even someone building a pinhole camera out of a tin for oatmeal. In reference to an earlier comment you posted, maybe these photos can't be blown up to 16x20, do they need to be. Sometimes keeping things small creates a better sense of intimacy and inquisitiveness than a large print.

I am the first to jump in with my large camera and try to capture everything, but occasionally my friend, with his point and shoot or cell phone can is quicker to it and less obtrusive, preserving the moment more authentically than I was able to.

0 upvotes
larrytusaz
By larrytusaz (Dec 27, 2011)

Your 1st paragraph--yes, there is something to be said for acknowledging that someone's skill set is as such that they can coax surprising results even out of toy cameras.

However, to me, once you reach a certain level of photography you aspire to be successful at, even at the hobbyist level, you should leave the toys behind & use a REAL camera at that point. Yes smaller cameras are less intrusive, mirrorless cameras would be such a camera. As for "keeping things small," if you're not going to enlarge 16x20 so be it, but why capture such an image that has artistic aspirations at a lower resolution just because you intend to make small prints with it? Captured at a high resolution with a real camera, at least it CAN be enlarged 16x20 if you later decide you want to

I do realize "lo-fi" can be neat sometimes, such as when John Mellencamp used a 1950s era single mike recording device for his 2010 album "No Better Than This" & recorded it in mono.

0 upvotes
3LX
By 3LX (Dec 16, 2011)

A good article here about smartphone photography being used in a photojournalist role;

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/07/25/the_war_in_hipstamatic

2 upvotes
larrytusaz
By larrytusaz (Dec 16, 2011)

I will admit the photos, on a computer screen anyway, look nice and speak of a message & are worthy of conversation. HOWEVER, there's no doubt he would've obtained better results with an SLR or even a mirrorless. Try & make a 16x20 print of this & see what happens.

I read the article, nowhere that I saw does it say WHY Balazs Gardi would PURPOSELY use an iPhone for something like this. That's what irks me--yes, I will admit, he did a better job than I probably would've or plenty of other people even though I would've used an SLR. Still, why use an iPhone when you could get a mirrorless & get far better results? That's what gets me, that someone would PURPOSELY dumb-down their tool just to apparently do nothing more than prove a point or follow the latest fad. If it's connectivity you're after, use an Eye-Fi card setup.

I agree with what Olympus says in their getarealcamera.com campaign--camera phones are to photography what 2 minute noodles are to cooking.

0 upvotes
rbrtphoto
By rbrtphoto (Dec 16, 2011)

NY Times photographer Damon Winter - Pictures of the Year International prize winner, with shots taken in Afghanistan on an iPhone - says:

"I could not have taken these photos using my SLR and that perhaps is the most important point to be made about the camera phone."

"Using the phone is discreet and casual and unintimidating."

"The beauty of a new tool is that it allows you to see and approach your subjects differently."

"The image of the men resting together on a rusted bed frame could never have been made with my regular camera. They would have scattered the moment I raised my 5D with a big 24-70 lens attached. But with the phone, the men were very comfortable."

"People may have the impression that it is easy to make interesting images with a camera app like this, but it is not the case. At the heart of every solid image are the same fundamentals: composition, information, moment, emotion, connection."

(Source: Lens Blog, NY Times)

2 upvotes
Michele Kappa
By Michele Kappa (Dec 15, 2011)

You could also consider "Retro Camera" for Android, contains 6 "camera effects", including pinhole camera, polaroid-like, lomo-like ones. Pretty neat with little customising, but applies nice presets available both in color and B/W.

0 upvotes
rbrtphoto
By rbrtphoto (Dec 14, 2011)

Good to see that dpreview recognizes the dominant role of mobile photography in our current visual culture. Unfortunately, not a lot of attention for the Android platform. But luckily, as an Android shooter, I already found the best app: Vignette.

The aggrieved comments by mobile photography bashers are hilarious. By all means, keep over-analyzing and over-thinking your very serious pictures of your cat and the flowers in your garden. Meanwhile, us mobile shooters will have unpretentious fun, experimenting with our phones and apps.

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
larrytusaz
By larrytusaz (Dec 14, 2011)

It is fine if you wish to have "fun" with photos, although I have SLRs I'm not above silly pics that have no artisitc merit.

However, don't for a minute think that using a smartphone for taking photos is "photography." It's snapshooting, which again is fine, but it's not fine-art photography anymore than Hungry Man TV dinners are fine cuisine, even if they do taste good. In my case even for "snapshooting" I always have at least something like a D40 with me because there have been many times that what looked to be like a "snapshooting" environment turned out to be one where I could get some really nice prints, & I was happy to not have had nothing but a point & shoot or a camera-phone around at the time.

In earlier days my good camera was a Nikon D50 & I'd use something like a Sony Cybershot DSC-W1 for "fun-casual" stuff, but no longer. Some use micro 4/3rds for that "always with you" scenario. Me: I'd NEVER consider a smartphone worthy of that sort of thing.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
rbrtphoto
By rbrtphoto (Dec 14, 2011)

'Don't for a minute think that using a smartphone for taking photos is "photography".'

That's an outdated conception. Every day, I see a lot of great pictures taken with smartphones. And loads of very bad/boring photos taken with dSLRs or other fancy cameras. Whether something is "photography" or not, has nothing to do with gear.

3 upvotes
larrytusaz
By larrytusaz (Dec 14, 2011)

It is true that there are sorry photos taken with good cameras, and good photos taken with sorry cameras. However, the good photos would've been better had a good camera been used, & while you do have the draw the line somewhere (should one have to tote an 8x10 view camera because, after all, it has higher resolution than even a Nikon D3x), nonetheless I think you have to meet a certain minimum if you want to be taken seriously as a photographer. There's a reason people who wish to at least ATTEMPT to have some skill at this use an SLR or a mirrorless. Even a 6mp Nikon D40 will blow away any smartphone.

Anyone worth their beans doesn't DARE use an iPhone for "photography" purposes (vs, say, for showing the guy at the hardware store where your leak is). They use an SLR & maybe a mirrorless for "always with you" purposes. Anyone using an iPhone for "photography" is a fraud, as far as I'm concerned. I wouldn't trust them to photograph a pile of doo-doo in the backyard.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 10 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
rbrtphoto
By rbrtphoto (Dec 14, 2011)

Please. Good pictures are not about pixels. Or sensor sizes. Or fast lenses.

Good pictures are about content. Creativity. Interpretation. Maybe a touch of imperfection, to add some "soul" to the image.

In the past 30 years I have used all kinds of tools, from pro film SLRSs (Nikon F3) to basic 3mp phones. And I can honestly say that I shot some of my favorite photos (I would say even best photos) with a cameraphone. Probably because the technical limitations forced me to be even more creative.

So. Proud to be a "fraud", I guess.

3 upvotes
Michele Kappa
By Michele Kappa (Dec 15, 2011)

Come on then everyone, let's throw away P&S and buy some "serious equipment". You can't be really called a photographer if you don't have one...
Except... wait, I don't want to be a photographer. I may just want to shoot some nice photos. With a pinhole camera. Or a P&S.
There are beautiful P&S and cellphone photos out there. So please use the equipment you have, even if it's 1MP with f12. As long as it's "writing with light", suits you, and moves you and others.

2 upvotes
larrytusaz
By larrytusaz (Dec 15, 2011)

Actually {Michelle Kappa} that sounds fine. Not everyone wants to be a photographer, not everyone can make the connection that f/11 is smaller than f/4, what depth-of-field is, why ISO 1600 allows a faster shutter speed but also more noise etc. They just want photos that, even if they don't match what a pro or enthusiast can do, nonetheless look respectable. It's the same as how I make no pretensions towards being a chef, but I would like DECENT food without having to spend all day in the kitchen or learning advanced techniques.

That's fine. I'm just saying people who DO fancy themselves photographers (whether pro or "hobbyist") and have used SLRs or mirrorless, it's an insult to suggest that a camera-phone is every bit as "legitimate" of a tool for that sort of pursuit. I don't care who won what award for their iPhone or Nexus S photo, I will never believe that a camera-phone is worthy of THAT sort of thing.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
rbrtphoto
By rbrtphoto (Dec 15, 2011)

Magnum photographer Alex Majoli used a stupid 4mp Olympus point and shoot for his award winning war photography (published in magazines like Vanity Fair and Newsweek). Dutch top fashion photographer Carli Hermès shot the album cover of DJ Armin van Buuren with a stupid LG phone. Much praised international photojournalist Zoriah bought a stupid point & shoot for $70 on eBay, to do a documentary series in Africa. Fashion photographer Ben Watts created his own stupid iPhone Hipstamatic app to shoot swimsuit models.

For real photographers, a camera is just a tool. They can get great pictures with any camera.

4 upvotes
Michele Kappa
By Michele Kappa (Dec 15, 2011)

Totally agree with rbrt. partly with larry: the fact is that any tool can be used in a professional way, as long as one knows how to to use it properly.
Take music, for instance: of course recording in a professional studio, with professional instruments can help one have professional sound, but quality is a whole different aspect.
Combine both professional tools and inspiring stories and you may have works of art - or total rubbish. But even using only technique (which encompasses emotion), as well, you may have beauty. That's why the article is called "Digital lo fi photography": that is what it delivers, no more and no less.
In my opinion, intention and intent, and consequent artistic expression, come first and above tools, not vice-versa.

0 upvotes
tresise
By tresise (Jan 8, 2012)

camera phones and low tech digital may have managed to win awards however the are the exception not the rule. What DSLR do bring is a technical overhead with a large number of elements which can be adjusted and are physically imposing which can get in the way of taking the image. Which is why simple low tech camera for some have a place

0 upvotes
Wye Photography
By Wye Photography (Dec 14, 2011)

I would like to see a forum dedicated to crap photography.

At least all my pictures will be there.

3 upvotes
Jay Martin
By Jay Martin (Dec 14, 2011)

I hear ya.

0 upvotes
ennemkay
By ennemkay (Dec 14, 2011)

i would like to see a new forum dedicated to lo-fi photography.

1 upvote
ennemkay
By ennemkay (Dec 14, 2011)

what's the best desktop software for applying "canned" art filters (in post process)?

0 upvotes
Vicari
By Vicari (Dec 13, 2011)

I love it! More people are taking pictures than ever and the most popular camera in the world... the iPhone! As long as people are having fun and being creative while capturing images of their family, friends and pets then I think it's cool.

2 upvotes
MP Burke
By MP Burke (Dec 13, 2011)

Terms such as "retro", "ethereal" and "lo-fi" are used to describe the results from Holgas and defective or disintegrating film photographs. Terms like "rubbish" or "abysmal" are equally applicable.
Film photographers have been able to obtain excellent results for about 150 years and would only have shown results like the ones shown here as an example of what happens when things go wrong.
I have slides taken over 30 years ago and they rarely look as bad as the results on show in the article. Even when they have undergone some colour shift it can be easily be corrected digitally after scanning.
When Ansel Adams or Irving Penn were working I'm sure they had a pretty clear idea of how the end result would turn out. That's what happens when you know what you're doing.

1 upvote
HDaRt
By HDaRt (Dec 14, 2011)

Wow, isn't someone looking down their nose at the an alternate, and artistic, approach to photography. You couldn't be more wrong.
Honestly, very snobbish and narrow minded comment. None the less, enjoy your tact sharp pictures of whatever bland topic matter that motivates you but makes others simply yawn.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
5 upvotes
ennemkay
By ennemkay (Dec 14, 2011)

agreed (with hdart)

Comment edited 22 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Wye Photography
By Wye Photography (Dec 14, 2011)

I agree (with MP Burke).

Although I enjoy using my Holga and Diana once in a while, a lot of drastic plastic holgaesque photos are pretty poor. But, really, the emphasis is on having fun and not taking yourself too serious. Lets have some fun!

0 upvotes
Jay Martin
By Jay Martin (Dec 14, 2011)

Obviously we are not all Ansel Adams. This is a way to have fun, that's all.

3 upvotes
Michele Kappa
By Michele Kappa (Dec 15, 2011)

Well said Jay.

1 upvote
Theoria
By Theoria (Dec 13, 2011)

The unpredictable character of film is a myth. With fresh film and a regular camera (i.e. not a toy camera) you will always know what you'll get. Yes, the contribution of the medium is greater, as each film has its own palette or tonalities, and each BW developer has a specific effect but but that should not be equated with randomness.

What I don't get is why some people choose the copy, when they can have the real thing on the cheap.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
fotografije
By fotografije (Dec 13, 2011)

How about Jam-cam? I played with it for a years. There is also a site where you can see real toy photos.

Comment edited 53 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
ndf9
By ndf9 (Dec 13, 2011)

Hi can you give me some advice how do recreat this looks with a Windows PC?
as PS Plugin, whatever
thanks Nic

0 upvotes
elRicardo
By elRicardo (Dec 13, 2011)

Nic,
Pixlr-o-matic has a pc version and a Chrome app that does the exact same thing. I tried both the Android app and the chrome app and I have to say it has great quality and good choice of filters, effects and framing, so the combinations are really a lot.

1 upvote
Kelcey Smith
By Kelcey Smith (Dec 13, 2011)

One of the following segments of this article will illustrate some of the processes of creating similar effects in Photoshop.

1 upvote
OneGuy
By OneGuy (Dec 13, 2011)

Kelcey, pls remind the readers the old ladies of Photoshop should not use it for their passport photos -- unless they want to be frisked.

0 upvotes
ChrisKramer1
By ChrisKramer1 (Dec 13, 2011)

No chance. PC and Android users are deep in enemy territory here.

0 upvotes
ndf9
By ndf9 (Dec 14, 2011)

OK thanks guys for the answers

0 upvotes
jeff3002
By jeff3002 (Dec 13, 2011)

It's only 'Part 1' ladies and gents....why don't you give these guys a break!

0 upvotes
Little-Stjarna
By Little-Stjarna (Dec 13, 2011)

it is strange there is no apps for Nokia N8. It has the best camera

0 upvotes
ennemkay
By ennemkay (Dec 14, 2011)

nokia doesn't really attract app developers.

1 upvote
tr6me
By tr6me (Dec 13, 2011)

I like the photo app reviews here on dpreview. I agree with some others here that there's too much emphasis on the Iphone apps. To do these reviews right they have to show a fair amount of apps for all Smartphone platforms.
Including Windows Phone (7.5 Mango). I tested the sublime Nokia Lumia 800 (8MP and Carl Zeiss Tessar lens) and kept it!

Photo app TIP For Windows Phone 7: Pictures Lab 4.0 (enhance photo's, filters, lo-fi filters, borders etc).

1 upvote
chimphappyhour
By chimphappyhour (Dec 13, 2011)

Another vote here for Vignette. It works great and the developers are very, very responsive about their app. It is always on all of my devices.

1 upvote
Photorer
By Photorer (Dec 13, 2011)

Any of these available for Blackberry (OK - not a popular camera, but a very popular phone!) or for the Nokia N8 (best camera phone produced?)

0 upvotes
FRANCISCO ARAGAO
By FRANCISCO ARAGAO (Dec 13, 2011)

The best apps are: Vignette and Retro Camera Plus.

0 upvotes
Optimal Prime
By Optimal Prime (Dec 13, 2011)

Great. Any chance of an actual camera or lense review? Remember them back in the days...?

3 upvotes
Peter George
By Peter George (Dec 13, 2011)

So true. I like some of the articles and the variety, but lets get back to some hardware reviews that put DP on the map. Then again, not a lot hardware of the past few. Would like to see reviews started on some of the SLR Video peripherals.

0 upvotes
jppentax
By jppentax (Dec 13, 2011)

Smith is an dpreview writer?

Actually I'm learning a lot from all these new posts, about different softwares, photogs, so on. I hope dpreview can continue on with this while satisfying needs of traditional dpreview visitors.

1 upvote
Roman Korcek
By Roman Korcek (Dec 28, 2011)

Just ignore articles such as this one. Then you will have dpreview exactly as it was back in the days.

0 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (Dec 13, 2011)

IF YOU WANT THIS LOOK, JUST SHOOT FILM! FFS!!

2 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Dec 13, 2011)

Calm, calm... :)

3 upvotes
HDaRt
By HDaRt (Dec 14, 2011)

not getting the whole FFS thing but you needn't clarify. i get that you are dismmissive of other's interest in exploring an artistic aspect of photography.

3 upvotes
nicola
By nicola (Dec 13, 2011)

Almost only iOS? Why Android apps are so deliberately being alienated?
What about Vignette or Camera 360 for Android?
I guess it depends on Apple's paycheque, right?
What a shame!
I hope I am wrong and that some corrections with a more balanced article will be made on Part 2!!!!

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
Scott Everett
By Scott Everett (Dec 13, 2011)

Hey Nicola, Android will be covered in more depth in future articles.

0 upvotes
chimphappyhour
By chimphappyhour (Dec 13, 2011)

Then they should really say that this is an iOS article only and an Android one is coming then. The fact that Android is mentioned in one of the apps and no mention that this is actually an iOS app article leaves one to believe that this is shilling to Apple.

4 upvotes
chewyhooey
By chewyhooey (Dec 13, 2011)

I agree, so many times Android is left behind because people are SO enamored with the iPhone.

0 upvotes
OneGuy
By OneGuy (Dec 13, 2011)

As of yesterday the iPhone and iPad cannot be sold in Germany. Motorola is prevailing in its patent rights fight and Motorola is not the only one. (This contest is not about imaging but about voice transmission technology.)
If it goes against Apple the whole European market would get affected even though the Europe's infringement laws are milder compared to the US. Editorially speaking, its okay to be aggressive but don't get arrogant if you get caught.
I own but one Apple product (the original iPhone) -- and use it daily -- but I know my next phone is 5" Android. The iPhone used to lock up periodically until I started rebooting it after every charge. Okay, maybe a good Android phone's camera would have me retire the iPhone.

0 upvotes
ChrisKramer1
By ChrisKramer1 (Dec 13, 2011)

I still miss my Commodore Amiga. The world became a really dark place when I sold it in 1994.

Comment edited 33 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
makofoto
By makofoto (Dec 13, 2011)

You can't compare the original iPhone with the current iPhone. My gal switched from an iPhone to a seemingly capable HTC Thunderbolt. She can't wait for the new iPhone 5 ... the Thunderbolt ended up being frustrating to use

0 upvotes
ennemkay
By ennemkay (Dec 14, 2011)

don't forget blackberry, palm, nokia, and windows mobile.

0 upvotes
larrytusaz
By larrytusaz (Dec 13, 2011)

I have seen such images prominent, & I'm sure whether I like them or not. You see this a lot in portraits, as an 87 year old pro photographer said to me recently (he's still shooting & highly in demand by the way), he finds the whole thing "faddish and gimmicky," as if a quality portrait isn't good enough anymore. I tend to agree with him somewhat, although I admit I have been applying such "jazz" to people photos I've taken lately.

And yes, more Apple idolatry. Ugh. Further, I DON'T CARE that the iPhone 4S it the most popular "camera" on Flickr, it isn't a real camera, period. McDonald's may be the most popular fast food establishment in the world, but I wouldn't expect a site or magazine devoted to chefs aspiring to fine cuisine to talk about the golden arches & justify it based on their popularity. If the "lo-fi" look is something to experiment with, though, why not an article on how to do this with your d-SLR images at the PC? That would be FAR more appropriate for here.

7 upvotes
Kelcey Smith
By Kelcey Smith (Dec 13, 2011)

This is just the first article of a series. We will be covering Photoshop techniques as well.

0 upvotes
Igor_Sorkin
By Igor_Sorkin (Dec 13, 2011)

How about Lightroom?

0 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (Dec 13, 2011)

No. How about Gimp (it's many plug-ins, and even ufraw, for Raw dev). The Gimp is all over this (Effects, and including several auto, instant, and lomo treatments.) Yet alas, it's not only open, and just better, but it also just happens to be free. Let see how much consideration it gets, shall we?

0 upvotes
Camera Nuts Jim
By Camera Nuts Jim (Dec 13, 2011)

I agree with the total BS around entire the notion of " lo-fi" photography. Including most if not the entire range of camera phones. I currently own a camera phone for the business of doing certain real business. THAT'S IT

0 upvotes
Renard DellaFave
By Renard DellaFave (Dec 13, 2011)

With an EyeFi card and direct transfer mode you can play with any of these apps on photos you just took with a "real camera". Unless you're so pro that your DSLR is CF-only ;)

1 upvote
makofoto
By makofoto (Dec 13, 2011)

The best camera is the one you have with you ... and you always have your cell phone with you, so if you care about photography you'll want the smart phone with the best camera. For me that's the iPhone 4s

1 upvote
HeezDeadJim
By HeezDeadJim (Dec 14, 2011)

The best tripod is the one you have with you: any table/counter.
The best food is the one in your house: Peanut Butter sandwiches.
The best friend is the one next to you:go ahead, talk to some random stranger about your cheating wife.

Let's reverse this, shall we?

The worst camera is the one not on you. The worst food is the one you don't have.
The worst pet is the one that's gone and passed over the rainbow bridge.
The worst mother is the one that kicked you out of the house and forced you to grow up, because she's not with you. Thanks, Mom.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HDaRt
By HDaRt (Dec 14, 2011)

another great mind heard from...My only response is, deal with it because, like HDR, it isn't going away.

By Camera Nuts Jim (Dec 13, 2011 at 02:15:25 GMT)
I agree with the total BS around entire the notion of " lo-fi" photography. Including most if not the entire range of camera phones. I currently own a camera phone for the business of doing certain real business. THAT'S IT

1 upvote
larrytusaz
By larrytusaz (Dec 14, 2011)

"The best camera is the one you have with you?" Yes, I agree, and REAL photographers will ALWAYS have an SLR with them, or if not, something like an Olympus PEN or Sony NEX. Camera phones are for soccer moms & dads and teens showing their drunk college exploits.

0 upvotes
ginsbu
By ginsbu (Dec 12, 2011)

While not specifically a lo-fi photo app, I've been quite impressed with Luminance and use it in preference to Snapseed when I don't need localized adjustments. This article sells it short.

Things to like about Luminance:
--keep a library of your edited photos so you can revisit adjustments later and copy edits from one photo to another;
--edit history!
--filters apply as sets of regular edits, so you can adjust each aspect of the filter effect independently;
--each adjustment in the edit stack can be turned on or off individually.

It's the closest editing experience to Lightroom that I've found for the iPhone.

0 upvotes
NetMage
By NetMage (Dec 12, 2011)

The iPhone 4s is the latest model - was that used for testing (not the iPhone 4 as listed in the article)?

0 upvotes
Simon Joinson
By Simon Joinson (Dec 13, 2011)

we didn't test anything

0 upvotes
Baxter Bad
By Baxter Bad (Dec 12, 2011)

"It's all Apple s*, NOT FAIR! iOS is for TOOLZ. HTC Evo rulez m*f*!!!!"

...and then Jr. kept reading the article and discovered this:

"Almost all of the most popular photo sharing apps have some kind of 'lo-fi' or toy camera filter available, but for the purposes of this article we have chosen to focus on some of the most representative apps in the 'lo-fi' genre for Apple's iOS."

Not to worry, his mother heard him crying, went to his room and pet his head.

0 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (Dec 12, 2011)

I Use Retrocam on Android. Also free. It's got six cams. Great fun.

https://market.android.com/details?id=org.urbian.android.tools.vintagecam

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Greg VdB
By Greg VdB (Dec 12, 2011)

I for one am so tired of all these 'photgraphic tools' that give inexperienced photographers the idea that such gadgets are all they need to take catchy photographs. Instead of finding out for themselves about composition, exposure, dof, color rendition,... they just point-and-shoot, press the button for one filter, and are happy with the results-that-always-look-the-same.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
skytripper
By skytripper (Dec 12, 2011)

You're tired of those tools why? Is someone forcing you to use them? Most of the amateur snapshooters out there have absolutely no interest in learning more about exposure, dof, etc. They just point and shoot. Only now, their iPhones let them apply interesting effects with the push of a button. These folks have no clue what app to use to create such effects on their computers; but now it's so easy that they can't resist. Before digital photography, most of these people were wasting good money on film and processing only to end up with prints that only a mother could love. For them, things have improved greatly. What's the harm? If you don't like it, ignore it.

5 upvotes
Baxter Bad
By Baxter Bad (Dec 13, 2011)

Congrats, Greg, you just described the typical Polaroid user. You may find this hard to accept, but not everyone shares your level of interest in photography - they just want to take pretty pictures without having to get engineering degrees. Try 'live and let live' someday, your blood pressure will be a lot lower.

0 upvotes
larrytusaz
By larrytusaz (Dec 13, 2011)

Well while I understand what (AD in KC) and (Faintandfuzzy) are saying somewhat, I agree somewhat with (greg VdB). I ESPECIALLY find the frequent coverage of such tools in a site like DPreview suspect. Would a chef want McDonald's and Hamburger Helper and microwave Hungry Man Dinners talked about so much in a magazine/site devoted to fine chef cooking? Who cares how much such products sell, they have no place in a fine cuisine site/magazine.

Also, in like manner, it's totally normal that (say) a chef would look at disdain at advertisements for (say) Hamburger Helper or Hungry Man Dinners promising "you don't have to be a chef & go through all of that trouble, just throw this in the zapper for 90 seconds." It's an insult to what (s)he does to hear such nonsense, even though obviously not all of us want to have to be a chef to get a half-decent meal.

As for Polaroids? Puh-leze. They make the most God-awful photographs. They're an affront even to snapshots, much less REAL photography.

1 upvote
Greg VdB
By Greg VdB (Dec 13, 2011)

I admit that you both have a point that photography is not something that everybody is interested in as a hobby, and if people enjoy using these apps, by all means, let them enjoy it. However, I cannot like such apps because they destroy creativity rather than inspire it. In contrast to many of these apps, Polaroids did not make every picture get the same look, they actually made photography available to the masses. These days, the latter is achieved by built-in cameras in mobile phones and a terrific choice of point-and-shoot cameras, not by the apps.

edit: thanks larrytusaz, you expressed it much better than I did

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
king_arthur
By king_arthur (Dec 13, 2011)

Greg, the reasons you can even feel like that is because you are neither good or bad. Too ashamed to admit how bad you are and to o honest to face that you are not good at all.

I took about 500 pics a week on my iphone (most of them burst of course - the nature of photographing children) and upload about 10 of them on facebook so family can see. I used to do them all in photoshop but time made it impossible to keep doing so.

I find these tools priceless and I adore those with sliders for further adjustment rather that take it or leave it presets. Photogene is simply the best and I use instagram and Luminance on daily basis.

Your comment is an insult to a lot of people

1 upvote
jquagga
By jquagga (Dec 13, 2011)

Well, starting with the basics: not all of the filters produce the same output. Limiting discussion to even just one of the apps (instagram), Walden will get you a different look than Inkwell. There are also quite a bit of folks on instagram who don't use the filters to make it "retro". I take DSLR shots, crop them to a square, and post to friends and family. It's a different composition than the original shot and I like the challenge. It's entertaining and enjoyable; I photograph for fun and enjoyment. People having fun with cameras causes photography to be popular. That means photographers get better treatment (hopefully). It's a good thing.

IG is supposed to be coming to Android at which should quell some of the complaints here.

Edit: I actually think DPreview posts stuff like this to get all of the traffic from folks throwing flames on both sides. I'm a cynic though. YMMV.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Greg VdB
By Greg VdB (Dec 13, 2011)

Too ashamed to admit how bad I am and too honest to face that I'm not good at all? Thanks for the psychoanalysis - otherwise would have cost me good money...

0 upvotes
Greg VdB
By Greg VdB (Dec 13, 2011)

@jquagga: that's the main problem of the internet. Put us together in a bar and even though we come from different point-of-views, after only one pint we can come to understand and appreciate what the other person means. On the internet however, opinions are usually polarized and interpreted as 'before' versus 'against'.

In this particular case, what I wanted to say is that I find it a pity that, in my perception (from what I see amongst my friends on facebook), apps like the ones described shift people's perception of what makes a picture good. Style over substance... Of course this is just my personal opinion based on a small sampling pool, and reflecting the perspective of a photography enthusiast. Btw, I am surprized that some people seem to value my opinion enough to feel sincerely offended by it... or is that just another bad side effect of the internet :)

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
larrytusaz
By larrytusaz (Dec 13, 2011)

Well {king_author}, if that is the type of photo-taking you like to do, that is certainly your prerogative & nothing to be ashamed of. But DPreview has always been, to me anyway (& others I'd dare to venture), about REAL photography, and using an iPhone to take kiddy clicks for Facebook is nothing of the sort.

And again, that's nothing to be ashamed of. I cook almost daily for our family, they are meals that I find to taste really good. I use microwave "cook a whole meal in a bag" Stouffer's & the like for that, & make no apology for preferring that to spending half my life in the kitchen making meals from scratch.

BUT, I have no problem admitting that such isn't fine cuisine cooking that a real CHEF does, nor do I call chefs who look at disdain at such things "elitists" or "snobs" as others do, nor do I expect sites or magazines on the subject to feature such "meals in a bag" shortcuts either. The same should apply here.

0 upvotes
king_arthur
By king_arthur (Dec 13, 2011)

I am blantly attacking OP. I understand and respect your point of view.

Let's revisit his post:
- I for one am so tired....
- inexperienced photographers
- such gadgets are all they need to take catchy photographs
- they just point-and-shoot
- press the button for one filter
- happy with the results-that-always-look-the-same.

WTF? Sometimes I earn money doing Photography. No, Not with my iPhone. With my 550D and Tamron 28-75 f2.8. I am sorry if that specs insult you or anyone for not owning a "REAL PHOTOGRAPHERS" equipment, but I always tried to make the best with what I got.

Find any definition of Photography, no where you will find a certain equipment or price range to be qualified to be called photography.

I am blantly attacking OP insult words

1 upvote
larrytusaz
By larrytusaz (Dec 13, 2011)

Well {king_arthur}, you can read it here: using an iPhone to take clicks is NOT photography, not SERIOUS photography anyway. And that's okay, I've in the past been known to use a point & shoot in situations where I figured the shooting environment wasn't going to lend itself to quality prints & didn't want to risk the d-SLR getting lost or left behind in that situation. That's "snapshooting," & that's fine, but it's not photography by MY definition anyway.

0 upvotes
YannickChauvet
By YannickChauvet (Dec 13, 2011)

I don't really agree with that. I'm a head chef; I work in quite a good restaurant. Ok, I'm sad when I see people eating Fast food, but hey! Everybody is different, everybody need something that suits him well, that answer to want they are asking at that exact moment.

Like photography, I started with films 20 years ago, I have a digital one now, but with my camera phone, I shoot with Vignette because I love this old feeling.

And if people like it, that's great.

Not everybody is a pro or a big "connoisseur" ...

Some people should accept that the majority of people want something that work well, that suits their demands, and that are simple to use.

I don't like these kind of guys, who are passionate, who are pros, who are specialist, and who don't see that most of people are different and want something different. We are not all geeks.

:-)))

1 upvote
HeezDeadJim
By HeezDeadJim (Dec 13, 2011)

@king_arthur: You're making assumptions on the OP. He never mentioned anything about what gear constitutes as "real photography". You make money with your 550D. That is a (D)SLR. It may not be a 5DmkII, but it gets the job done and clients will take you seriously. Next time you get a gig, walk in with just your iPhone and see if the client pays you.

You are blatantly taking offense to some fabricated attack the OP didn't make. All photographers have to start somewhere...but an iPhone and it's apps aren't going to bring home much bacon.

0 upvotes
larrytusaz
By larrytusaz (Dec 13, 2011)

{YannickChauvet} I don't disagree with you actually. Other people want fast food, fine. If they say fast food is good enough for them, or that yes what you do is better but they don't have the inclination to go through all that everytime they eat & fast food is acceptable in its place or whatever, that is fine.

However, it would be an insult if they dared suggest that fast food was every bit as good as what you labor to do, as if all you do is for naught. In like manner, it would be ridiculous for a site or magazine that is supposed to be oriented towards chef topics & fine cuisine/cooking to make a big deal about fast food & its uses when it's supposed to be a site/magazine about chef-fine cuisine type of things.

0 upvotes
king_arthur
By king_arthur (Dec 14, 2011)

@HeezDeadJim : Assumption?

Let's revisit his post:
- I for one am so tired....
- inexperienced photographers. WTF???
- such gadgets are all they need to take catchy photographs. WTF???
- they just point-and-shoot. WTF???
- press the button for one filter. WTF???
- happy with the results-that-always-look-the-same. WTF????

THIS is what i am attacking.

1 upvote
HDaRt
By HDaRt (Dec 14, 2011)

yet another humor-laden response! Dude, this brings to mind the naysayers that attacked the arrival of the calculator and its negative implications to understanding of the processes leading to the results.
If these 'photographic tools' can improve photography without the need to know the underpinnings of image capture, then that's a good thing and people can focus on creativity while 'purists' stay slaves to the journey rather than the destination. Enjoy it but don't be threatened like you apparently are.

2 upvotes
YannickChauvet
By YannickChauvet (Dec 14, 2011)

@ larrytusaz

It depends. Fast food is not only Mc Donalds, Burger King, KFC or Kebab.

If a magazine post a full article about street food in Asia (which can be assimilated to Fast Food here), that would be great.

I French magazine (about food), and last month was something about fast food in NY, and it was great to read that because it shows that there are not only burgers in America, but other kind of Fast/Street Food.

They never said it was better than "Normal" food, they just said it existed and it was great for what it was.

-

Like here, these pieces of softwares exist, we have to know that, we can't ignore them. If we don't use them, if we don't care, it's all right but some people might find them useful. I do. For fun. For some projects I have in mind.

Even when I take pictures with my real camera I post work on them with Lightroom depending on my project. I don't want to travel with lots of cameras & films because we have to be true to the spirit of photography.

1 upvote
AD in KC
By AD in KC (Dec 12, 2011)

This is the dumbest thing! Spend thousands on the latest digital camera, computer, programs, etc, etc and then use it all to reproduce the look of film! Why not write a program that makes your phone sound line tin cans and string? Or makes your HD flatscreen TV look like hand-shadows on a cave wall?

2 upvotes
Faintandfuzzy
By Faintandfuzzy (Dec 12, 2011)

Because some people like the look of film, and don't own a film camera. Pretty easy to understand.

4 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (Dec 13, 2011)

Faintandfuzzy, so buy a friggen film camera then? ebay is your friend. May I recommend a Pentax K1000?

1 upvote
Renard DellaFave
By Renard DellaFave (Dec 13, 2011)

How do you put film in an iPhone? <scratch head>

0 upvotes
HeezDeadJim
By HeezDeadJim (Dec 13, 2011)

Actually, most aren't spending thousands. Some of these kids are given a phone (so free). For the ones that do buy the iPhone, that's only $99-$299. They may not even have a computer/laptop of their own (family computer, again free). They may not have CS5 to fake the film look. Just $.99 for the app...that's no where near thousands.

Now that we have digital cinema cameras that can do 60fps, I expect 60fps (or 120fps for proper 3D) for smooth action and motion in movies. So why are they still making movies in the lowly 24fps to mimic that "film" look? Let's go on a tirade about that!

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
HDaRt
By HDaRt (Dec 14, 2011)

it is simply amazing to see the number of people here gettin' their oversized panties in a wad over what some others are interested in that they perceive as assaulting their beloved philosophy of what photography ought to be.
I gotta resurrect my photo blog so I can rant endlessly on the posts I read on these forums. Unbelievable, but thanks for providing some good material and the inspiration to write again...right after some lo-fi shots.

Comment edited 58 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
KodaChrome25
By KodaChrome25 (Dec 24, 2011)

I have AT&T Wireless. My phone does sound like tin cans and a string.

0 upvotes
dtmoody
By dtmoody (Dec 12, 2011)

it was quite kind of them to include an, shhhhh "an android app"...
Title should have said, "Hot Camera Effect Apps for your iTool"

Comment edited 20 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Baxter Bad
By Baxter Bad (Dec 13, 2011)

oh no you di-int.

0 upvotes
cabo
By cabo (Dec 12, 2011)

>>Instagram also includes a simulated tilt-shift effect that can be adjusted to add an artificially increased depth of field

That should reead "artificially decreased depth of field".

2 upvotes
OneGuy
By OneGuy (Dec 12, 2011)

Adobe is for old ladies.

The views and opinions expressed in this reply are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions held by any other person on this planet.

0 upvotes
ChrisKramer1
By ChrisKramer1 (Dec 12, 2011)

Almost all the apps featured on this website are for iOs. Coincidence DPReview?

2 upvotes
Faintandfuzzy
By Faintandfuzzy (Dec 12, 2011)

Considering Android now has more users than the iPhone, I'd like to see more focus on the Android apps.

1 upvote
skytripper
By skytripper (Dec 12, 2011)

No, not a coincidence. DPReview is evidently concentrating on the best and most popular smartphone camera, which is clearly the iPhone, regardless of what some will claim. Android is so second-best that it's third-rate. :-)

0 upvotes
Irakly Shanidze
By Irakly Shanidze (Dec 12, 2011)

It was certainly nice of you to do this round-up of apps. However, the article sends a wrong message. It reads "with a right choice of software anything will look vintage". Not true. First you have to style the shot, make it look vintage from within, and then apply finishing touches.
Using your own examples, just to be material, let's look at the dog picture. No amount of vignetting and "creative" frames will make it look vintage.

3 upvotes
MarTay6
By MarTay6 (Dec 12, 2011)

I have "Retro Camera Plus" ($2.99) on my Galaxy 7 Android tablet... LOVE IT! There's a free version of it as well.... "Retro Camera".
Wes

0 upvotes
AndricD
By AndricD (Dec 12, 2011)

CameraZoom fx on android as well.

0 upvotes
heartburn
By heartburn (Dec 12, 2011)

You forgot to mention FX Photo Studio Pro, which has lot's of LoFi filters that can be masked and superimposed on each other. I use it quite a lot, but there are limitations and a lot of the filters are useless.

1 upvote
jjmiphoto
By jjmiphoto (Dec 12, 2011)

This is too much iOS love, you left out Paper Camera, an awesome Android app that makes lots of awesome looking images.

7 upvotes
Simon Joinson
By Simon Joinson (Dec 12, 2011)

i missed the part where we said this was a complete roundup of the entire market and not an overview...

5 upvotes
Faintandfuzzy
By Faintandfuzzy (Dec 12, 2011)

Would have been nice to se a Blackberry App....they are about 20% of the market.

1 upvote
joesilver
By joesilver (Dec 12, 2011)

I, in turn, missed the part where jjmiphoto implied that this was a complete roundup, rather than simply suggesting that your overview should contain more of a balance between apps for iOS and those for other operating systems.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
JensR
By JensR (Dec 12, 2011)

Hi Simon,
JJ and odoketa pointed out the very strong focus on iOS. JJ merely suggested one Android app.
I think a more specific reply from dpreview could have explained why you looked at 10 iOS apps and 1 Android app - surely you had a good reason for that imbalance. Is it market share? I don't know, I don't have a "smart"phone. Maybe titling this "an overview of lo-fi iPhone apps" would have created fewer false hopes.

4 upvotes
Denis of Whidbey Island
By Denis of Whidbey Island (Dec 12, 2011)

We have to read to the end of the intro to learn that this is for iPhonies. Putting that in the title would have better served readers.

5 upvotes
Marty4650
By Marty4650 (Dec 12, 2011)

Simon.... look on the bright side. Maybe if they start accusing you of "favoring Apple" they will stop accusing you of "favoring Canon and Nikon?"

0 upvotes
Simon Joinson
By Simon Joinson (Dec 12, 2011)

it's the first part of an article looking at the emergence of a fashion for retro-styled lo-fi photography, it's not billed as a roundup of apps, nor is it a buying guide. The person that wrote it uses an iphone, that's all. If he had a galaxy he would've mentioned a lot of android apps. The apps were simply used to illustrate the tools that have sprung up to feed this trend, nothing more. I'll find someone with an android phone to write a companion piece. Then we'll all be happy. Except that Blackberry guy.

0 upvotes
GEAH
By GEAH (Dec 26, 2011)

People do all kinds of stuff with iPhones. Here's a story I saw on the Harley-Davidon Facebook page about a guy shooting a travel story with his iPhone and Camera+. Pretty cool, I think.

http://www.ultimatemotorcycling.com/magazines/january-2012.html

In the Contents menu the story is called Phoning It In On US Route 6. I couldn't find a direct link.

0 upvotes
frosti7
By frosti7 (Dec 12, 2011)

PhotoForge2 is, imho, the most underrated ios photo app

It replaces histogram, Photoshop for iphone, and many other apps,
i believe its the only app that actually has LAYERS! yes, layers with MASKING!!
it has an in-app purchase with lomo filters - which i found to be the best

0 upvotes
wmson2000
By wmson2000 (Dec 13, 2011)

Agreed. Love PhotoForge!

0 upvotes
odoketa
By odoketa (Dec 12, 2011)

That was a whole lot of iOS love! I'm glad there's one Android app!

6 upvotes
ballardio
By ballardio (Dec 12, 2011)

...and I get the impression that it's probably only because that app is available on both formats. Sigh. I also find this comment from a member of the dpreview team somewhat unprofessional in tone;
'i missed the part where we said this was a complete roundup of the entire market and not an overview...' (see above)

for me it could potentially aggravate a disgruntled Android (or other smartphone operating system) reader rather than address some of the above observations.

1 upvote
Xema
By Xema (Dec 13, 2011)

There´s also an amazing app called iMstupid for those anchored in past times. Those interested won´t be desappointed.

1 upvote
HDaRt
By HDaRt (Dec 14, 2011)

and it continues...
By G del Treve (Dec 13, 2011 at 11:50:42 GMT)
"The new dopiness.... Why learn to master art if every nitwit with a smartphone is hailed as an artist."

Looks like we have another person feeling threatened by what they don't know and the reality that the creativity of others cannot be controlled by them.

2 upvotes
HDaRt
By HDaRt (Dec 14, 2011)

Don't know where you got the fear from but that's okay, not all people shrink from action when feeling threatened.
I don't see how an article about lo-fi apps...which incidentally you read, devolves into superficiality. If you feel disappointment because many here have differing opinions than yourself, then the choice is yours to be open minded or share reasons that advance your take.
Lo-fi being recreated with the aid of software is another tool for processing and has nothing to do with people liking or using it being 'nit wits'. Maybe you could post your world class photographic work on here for some scrutiny?

3 upvotes
HDaRt
By HDaRt (Dec 14, 2011)

I am a reformed iPhone 4 (former) owner and proud of it. The latest Droids camera are superior at this point.

0 upvotes
Laurentiu Todie
By Laurentiu Todie (Dec 17, 2011)

You're not mastering art with a professional camera, you may master craft, but even that is not a given.

0 upvotes
saboto
By saboto (Dec 20, 2011)

the hipstamatic with iphone 4S is saving 2448x2448 px files (6mb)

0 upvotes
Total comments: 131