Previous news story    Next news story

New Hipstamatic tools inspired by photojournalist Ben Lowy

By dpreview staff on Jul 20, 2012 at 21:58 GMT

Mobile photography app Hipstamatic is embracing its growing popularity among photojournalists by creating a new digital lens and film pack named after photojournalist Ben Lowy. Lowy made headlines when his Hipstamatic images documenting life in Afghanistan were published in the New York Times Magazine last fall.

The lens and film effects were a collaborative effort between Lowy and Hipstamatic, and will be released later this year as a 'GoodPak' - available for purchase (price TBC) within the iPhone app made by Synthetic. Designed with minimal filter effects, the final aesthetic is expected to appear less processed than other Hipstamatic options. Like previous GoodPak offerings aimed at raising funds for charitable organizations, the Lowy GoodPak will benefit the nascent Hipstamatic Foundation for Photojournalism, expected to offer grant funding to photographers, according to a British Journal of Photography article.

An Afghan man launches a kite from a ridge overlooking Kabul. This Hipstamatic photo by Ben Lowy is part of a series that attracted attention last fall when the New York Times Magazine opted to publish Lowy's camera phone images over photographs from his DSLR equipment. (pic: Benjamin Lowy/Reportage, for The New York Times)

For now, Lowy is using the new Hipstamatic filters in Libya, where he is documenting the country’s first democratic elections in 60 years. 

(From the British Journal of Photography)

Comments

Total comments: 71
sfpeter
By sfpeter (Aug 1, 2012)

Actually I like the photo--as an artistic expression It's not good photojournalism as it doesn't really capture what the viewer saw when they were there.

Something to consider--why aren't we using cellphone cameras already? Because everything from compacts to SLR's have more control, optical zoom, and more capability. Cellphones are great for snapshots but not much else--and snapshots is what most people take.

Why are they so popular? Convenient, ready to use, and glitzy apps. So is the future going to be cellphone cameras or regular cameras with an operating system to handle these apps and Wi-Fi or 3G capability?

0 upvotes
Eisenvater
By Eisenvater (Apr 12, 2013)

Sorry I have to disagree strongly!
Think about the content in the book Camera Lucida. I studied documentary photography and the images are in your brain and than you can shoot it with any equipment that you have! Composition, shutter speed, exposure, low key, high key, colored images, blurred images, perspective, grain, focus etc. depends on your imagination and concept!

0 upvotes
Rage Joe
By Rage Joe (Jul 23, 2012)

Agreed. Like Penn & Teller would put it: BULLS**T. Really "a triumph of form over content; not a good development for photojournalism".

2 upvotes
Valter France
By Valter France (Jul 22, 2012)

Eu estudei fotografia em uma escola de Artes Plásticas e talvez por isto aprecio muito as fotos do fotografo Ben Lowy: elas tem composição interessante, cores desafiadoras, retratam com imaginação uma cultura diversa da nossa e assim atiçam a nossa curiosidade sobre um "outro" tão diferente e distante. O filtro de efeito possibilitado pelo app é apenas uma ferramenta de trabalho, e acredito que as fotos sobrevivem bem sem eles. A fotografia está acima da técnica e o olhar do fotografo sobrepuja tudo.
Também entendo o ponto de vista daqueles que defendem a fotografia tradicional: o fantástico Cartier Bresson só usava Leica, filme preto e branco e lente 50mm... Mas a vida é esta constante inquietação que vez por outra nos deixa perplexos e depois se acomoda e se torna uma planície.
O advento da fotografia digital mudou tudo: ficou mais barato pois não há filmes ou cópias em papel mais e os equipamentos facilitaram tecnicamente uma enormidade a vida dos fotógrafos...

0 upvotes
Phil88
By Phil88 (Jul 23, 2012)

I see you are new to the forum today. Welcome. Nevertheless, this is an English language site. If you understood the article sufficiently to want to comment, you should be able to do so in the same language. Please post only in English. Your comments will then be understood by far more people than can understand Portuguese!

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 9 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Deutsch
By Deutsch (Jul 26, 2012)

TRANSLATION:
I studied photography in a school of fine arts and perhaps for that very much appreciate the photos of the photographer Ben Lowy: they have interesting composition, colors, challenging, imaginatively portray a culture different from ours and so arouse our curiosity about "another" as different and distant. The filter effect enabled by the app is just a tool, and I believe the photos survive well without them. The photo above is the technique and look of the photograph outweighs everything.
I also understand the point of view of those who defend traditional photography: the great Cartier Bresson only used Leica, black and white film and 50mm lens ... But life is this constant anxiety that occasionally leaves us perplexed and then settles down and becomes a plain.
The advent of digital photography has changed everything: it was cheaper because there are no films or paper copies of most equipment and technically easier life a multitude of photographers ...

1 upvote
Iusedfilm
By Iusedfilm (Jul 22, 2012)

It is amusing to read some of the comments ripping photojournalists, magazine editors and the general public for capturing and sharing images made with cellphones. Arriving to some sweeping doom and gloom statements about "demise of photography" and such... or, some comment about the lack of content disguised by some APP filter. ??? There, for arguments sake, are those who have limited knowledge of the technical abilities of the iPhone4 for example and they trash it with all their might. Dismissing the fact that it is capable of incredible detail ( from a 5MP) file, it allows focus and exposer control along with very accurate WB. A "raw TIFF" !? The resulting 5x7" file is indistinguishable from an DSLR capture in a newspaper or a Magazine! That is just a technical fact. The content of course is up for interpretation. Instagram bashing with access to a very wide audience is not a matter of demise of photography but the debasing of Free Speach into miss informed opinion. Kate Bevan ???

3 upvotes
mauro paillex
By mauro paillex (Jul 22, 2012)

I use hipstamatic since 2010! Great app. 2 Expositions in the last 12 months, all sold out! If u use brain u don,t need huge and expensives cameras! I own wonderful cameras like 5d mark III but... art doesn't need expensive tools!! Like Mr. Lowy i've done plenty of published works with hipstamatic!! Grea,great app!!

1 upvote
washyshots
By washyshots (Jul 22, 2012)

Agreed. Photography captures light and cameras are but tools to enable this. I own really expensive cameras and lens (Leica, Canon 1DS) combinations but use apps as well. Both have their strengths and weaknesses and both are capable of producing excellent images.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
happypoppeye
By happypoppeye (Jul 22, 2012)

Looks good to me. ...never used hipstamatic and would never buy an app, but I'll bet it'll rake in the bucks. Nothing wrong with having fun with photography.

1 upvote
victorenglund
By victorenglund (Jul 22, 2012)

I also feel this i a triumph of form over content. It's not that the images lack content, because they have plenty of content, it's because the photographer chose to shoot them with Hipstamatic! If a smartphone was his ONLY camera available he could have used an app like hipstamatic but I'm sure a pro like Lowy could have brought any camera he wanted. So why use hipstamatic? Did he do it to prove that you can take amazing pictures with any camera? In that case I feel he kind of disrespects the beauty of the subject by using it to prove a point. Did he do it to more easily get noticed and published? I sure hope not, that would be a dick move! Did he do it simply because he simply likes hipstamatic?

0 upvotes
BitFarmer
By BitFarmer (Jul 23, 2012)

May be not wearing a bag and holding a big camera helps you a lot in getting among the people without being too noticed, perceived as part of the scene, invisible.

3 upvotes
Ted Jerome
By Ted Jerome (Jul 24, 2012)

According to the photo caption, " the New York Times Magazine opted to publish Lowy's camera phone images over photographs from his DSLR equipment." He had the usual equipment; his *editor* decided to post his iPhone shots.

0 upvotes
bwabl
By bwabl (Jul 22, 2012)

Everyone is now a photographer and a photo-manipulator. Too much on gadgets & software but not enough on PHOTOGRAPHY.

0 upvotes
Tom Caldwell
By Tom Caldwell (Jul 21, 2012)

You only need two of: great camera/lens, great photographer and photographic opportunity. We usually struggle to get two of these together and have to make do with the camera and lens.

2 upvotes
inframan
By inframan (Jul 21, 2012)

Personally, this image looks corny & old-fashioned to me, like a yellowed Life magazine image from 50 years ago.

That the NY Times magazine would choose to publish camera phone images with Hipstamatic filtering in a story about a contemporary war zone is not at all surprising. This department of an otherwise venerable newspaper has long been dedicated to promoting what it considers to be the latest trends & styles. One only hopes DPR doesn't follow their example.

5 upvotes
samhain
By samhain (Jul 22, 2012)

I think it's simply a good photo. Who cares what the photographer used. Picking on it because its from a celphone is just a form of camera snobbery. A camera is a camera.
I could form negative opinions about any post processing, wether its from a phone or a 33mp medium format camera.
"black and white?!? Really!?! What is this, 1927? Get with the times."

2 upvotes
samhain
By samhain (Jul 22, 2012)

And looking through the photos in your gallery, I don't think you have much room to talk. Your photos don't hold a candle to Ben's photo.

0 upvotes
maboule123
By maboule123 (Jul 21, 2012)

I didn't know Ben Lowry's fine piece of life works until I read this article. His images are beautiful and plenty of life. He made us visit the other side of the Afghan people: they are not a bunch of stupid, intolerant integrates. They also treasure values and love life. Seeing this beautiful image reminds me of a beautiful Afghan film: The Kite Runner.
http://filmsufi.blogspot.ca/2009/11/kite-runner-marc-forster-2007.html
The man on this image is not only flying a kite. He is sending a message of love.
Photo journalism is not just about beheaded corpses and scattered human remains images waiting for a prize.

1 upvote
Michun
By Michun (Jul 21, 2012)

I saw and admired Lowry's images back in automn 2011. To me he proved again that it's the eye of the photographer and not the camera that makes a good shot. Content clearly dominated form.
But I do not believe that this is any pointer into the future of photojournalism, those Hipstamatic effects become rapidely boring, they're way too strong and recognizable, and form would take over if seen repeatedly.
Imagine seeing the 3rd or 5th NYT story with this type of filters, I can't imagine liking it after the novelty has evaporated. All its worth lay in the extravagance.

2 upvotes
haroldson5
By haroldson5 (Jul 23, 2012)

The filters became so distracting in this set that I got fed up with the pictures after viewing the 4th and blazed through the rest of them. The "hipster"matic and insta"crap" look of everyone's pictures these days is boring beyond cliche. I am not in any way criticizing the content of any of these shots, just the processing done by this and other programs and the popularity of them. It's a fad I cannot wait to see end.

0 upvotes
Tom Goodman
By Tom Goodman (Jul 21, 2012)

I can imagine it now. Velasquez is in his studio, toiling with messy oils and camel hair brushes when an assistant runs in, breathless with excitement.

"Maestro," he exclaims, "throw away your oils and try these magic markers! They will make much better pictures of the Infanta!"

3 upvotes
maboule123
By maboule123 (Jul 21, 2012)

And the Maestro would answer:
Pardiez, mochacho!! traed ese producto y reportad el inventor a la Santa Inquisición!!!

4 upvotes
BitFarmer
By BitFarmer (Jul 23, 2012)

May be he could use both media and not think of markers as a invalid option, just a valid one he didn't have on his times. May be he used different and new mixtures to make its own pigments and he was considered to use "hipamatic" colors, too vivid for his time.

Use what you have around, invent your own tools, and do get good shoots, thats all, and this is a good shoot to me, a great great one.

1 upvote
Jogger
By Jogger (Jul 21, 2012)

the thing with teh NYT photos, is that its all about the content.. how many people are going to go to afghanistan.. pretty much no one. he could have used any camera and the content would still have been interesting.

it would be like taking a photo of sasquatch.. no one is going to care what you took it with.. its a photo of sasquatch

3 upvotes
maboule123
By maboule123 (Jul 21, 2012)

Sasquatch juste called in. He says he hates bad angle pictures of him. That's why he is so elusive.

2 upvotes
samhain
By samhain (Jul 22, 2012)

Disagree. There are thousands of photogaphers who hav been to Afghanistan in the past 5 years, with 10's of thousands of photos.
This photo got picked because it's exceptional & because it's extremely unique.

0 upvotes
angstrom
By angstrom (Jul 21, 2012)

a triumph of form over content; not a good development for photojournalism

1 upvote
RoelHendrickx
By RoelHendrickx (Jul 21, 2012)

I don't know what you are missing, but I see a whole lot of content in the above example.
I don't feel like form is triumphing over content.
I feel like form is enhancing content here.
Just like in... the best Magnum photos, shot by real photographers with real cameras on real film.
The world is evolving. So is photography and its tools and language, as used by all kinds of photographers, including photojournalists.
I prefer to embrace that.

Comment edited 29 seconds after posting
1 upvote
JustFred
By JustFred (Jul 21, 2012)

I am definitely 100% sure that within a few years DSLR's, mirrorless and compact camera's will have become obsolete and the camera market will be dominated by cellphone camera's. There will only be fullframe DSLR type camera's for serious studio and astro photography and some other specialised fields. But photographic stores will disappear as there won't be any demand at all anymore as everything will be cellphone camera orientated. The cellphone camera's will become richer with features and ability as well. That's the way forward. Even professional journalist photographers will do away with their cumbersome dinosaur DSLR's as Ben Lowy's case proves already. More will follow.

1 upvote
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Jul 21, 2012)

I am definitely 100% sure that you are just dreaming :)

Yes - you are right that many will not get a compact digital camera, but use their phone instead.

But - the history shows that multi machines seldom is the way to go.

One example of a successful multi machine is the home computer. But - it still struggles to do home entertainment, home control and other things easily. And the surf pads and gaming consoles and phones are nagging at the home computer's domain.

Same goes for multi tools. You can buy one of those that can do everything. But still, most people still use several screw drivers, several hammers, etc ... This is also true for power tools.

So - no - multi machines do live a dangerous life.

3 upvotes
Martin Datzinger
By Martin Datzinger (Jul 21, 2012)

I guess you're mistaking DSLRs with anything but serious compacts.

0 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Jul 21, 2012)

@Martin - Uh? Me? What in my post hints at that?

Ah - sorry - you are probably talking to Fred.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Dan Ortego
By Dan Ortego (Jul 21, 2012)

Yeah, a lot of people have said the same thing about the fax machine, but I still use mine quite often.

0 upvotes
maboule123
By maboule123 (Jul 21, 2012)

WRONG!!
We all be born with a zillion mpg microchip already implanted on the brains of the fetus. The 3D images will be projected onto a wall sized screen. The effects applied on the images will be the result of what we ate or smoked or ingested the night before.

0 upvotes
sagebrushfire
By sagebrushfire (Jul 21, 2012)

Eh, not very realistic. Because the DSLR market is actually booming more than ever and spilling over into the consumer market big time. Believe me, I've been to Korea, Japan and Germany this year and at all the tourist sites there are DSLRs abound. It's insane, you literally can't go somewhere without seeing one around someone's neck. It's the catchy thing to do and it just comes down to a different type of person preferring the cell approach over the unnecessary-to-have SLR approach.

0 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Jul 21, 2012)

Que Sera, Sera ...

Life on the planet evolves. Things happen. We will see what this will lead to. We will probably all be surprised eventually - no matter what opinion we have.

Just as many here I have a hard time seeing a future where the images in newspapers are filled with Instagrams or Hipstamatic instead of "normal" photos. Maybe in the Sunday editions though? Who knows?

And take a step back. Imagine the above photo taken with a normal camera without any beautifying. Is it going to be different? Not by much I would say. Its still a man flying a kite. The special effects here is that it is square, have a frame and the colors are funky.

1 upvote
BigEnso
By BigEnso (Jul 21, 2012)

I am a fan of what has become known as iPhoneography. I like shooting with my iPhone and playing with the filters in various apps. I consider it a creative outlet. I have a separate part of my portfolio set up just for my iPhone images. That said, I don't consider the filters necessary or appropriate for what I would call "serious photojournalism." I looked at Lowy's NYTs images and, for me at least, the filters rendered most of the images to look like little more than mediocre, but better composed, tourist snapshots. Good photojournalism images don't need filters to make the image. Check out the images of someone like Horst Faas (http://photoblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/10/11644045-horst-faas-legendary-vietnam-combat-photographer-dies?lite) and see the the power in the unfiltered images.

If photojournalism goes the way of Hipstamatic, I think we will be loosing some of the power of the visual image. Did they need a filter to make the flag raising at Iwo Jima an icon?

3 upvotes
Ian M.B.
By Ian M.B. (Jul 21, 2012)

I absolutely agree with BigEnso. . These iPhone filtered shots will appear on some 'feal good' photos every now and then, and look great. . but only every now and then !

I am a professional photographer and won't be selling my DSLRs any time soon.

0 upvotes
Dr Gal
By Dr Gal (Jul 21, 2012)

While the NYT photos have interesting subjects and are very well composed, the technical faults are such that I find myself unable to enjoy watching them.
These are shots taken with a lo-fi camera and filtered with a lo-fi app. The colors are unreal (in a bad sense), dynamic range is non existant, and one can find more details in a Kodak disc camera shots. Sorry for being harsh, but some shots are so bad I would be embressed to have my own name on them (and I don't make a living from this stuff).

3 upvotes
Gerardjan
By Gerardjan (Jul 21, 2012)

I can see, you're a real enthusiast

0 upvotes
marksmann1911
By marksmann1911 (Jul 21, 2012)

You re embarrassed of Lowy's NYT shots ? Well IMHO they re one of the finest I ever seen. The story, that means feeling of the place, of the people who involved in the conflict were coming through strong n vivid by Lowy's craft of composition n choices of light. Lo-fi ? Yes, but in storytelling purpose I ll take lack of latitude n graininess over pristine Ansel Adams anytime. I m a commercial photographer but I admire these combat photographers' work as the conditions they re working in are not only life threatening but also spirit sapping.

0 upvotes
Dr Gal
By Dr Gal (Jul 21, 2012)

The problem is not with the people or situations, it is with the technical faults that make some pictures an eye sore.
I want to hear the story, but not through this pseudo-nostalgic hipster filter. I fail to see how burnt out skies, artificial colors or horrible noise adds to the story.
It is fine to add grit to your pictures for storytelling purpose, but these pictures are just flawed.
And I really tried to like them, really. Then again, that's my personal and unprofessional opinion.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Kelvin L
By Kelvin L (Jul 21, 2012)

I think Hipstamatic is great. I like how you can keep the images offline, unlike Instagram. I think the lack of RAW file / post-capture processing in Hipstamatic is one of its virtues as well - the presets are selected in the same way I might select a type of film.

I also think that it's the iPhone that holds Hipstamatic back, not the software itself - the iOS interface requires too much stuffing around to get the app ready for taking a shot. This is in contrast to something like an old Nokia which has a dedicated shutter button and is ready to shoot at any time.

I admire Lowy's project. His images have a quality that transcend the technical considerations.

1 upvote
Michun
By Michun (Jul 21, 2012)

Agreed. Give a person stepping out of say 1940 a DSLR and he/she will operate the camery within 30 seconds.

Try the same with a smartphone: no way.

0 upvotes
larrytusaz
By larrytusaz (Jul 21, 2012)

I like the Kate Bevan rant a LOT better. Dpreview is free to do as they please, but they seem to be going far beyond just ACKNOWLEDGING the Hipstomatic/Instagram trend and actually shoving it down our throats, when I've come here for years to read about Nikon DSLRs. Mirrorless is fine as well, I realize it's great to have something besides JUST the DSLRs (I have an Olympus E-PL1 myself), but come on now--is this site now iphonecameras.com?

1 upvote
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Jul 21, 2012)

No, it isn't - and you can always filter the news if you wish.

We're evolving as photography is evolving, but nothing has been taken away - we're just covering more stories, and producing more content than we've done in the past.

5 upvotes
David0X
By David0X (Jul 21, 2012)

Hey, if the NYT is publishing these pics, then not to examine/consider the whole deal is plain dumb. I think the fact that NYT chose them is very interesting. I remember when they first came out; I studied the set, thought they were great, and it forced me to consider the whole picture taking process.
But just as buying a leica won't make you HCB, buying this ap won't make you Lowy.

4 upvotes
springstreet
By springstreet (Jul 21, 2012)

The NYT used these photos because they are dying to find any way to be "relevant." This is cool, maybe more people will look at the story. The first time pix like these are in the NYT, they are perhaps interesting. The second and third times they are totally cliche and you bet you won't see something like this again soon. Lowy's work is terrific, but it's not unlike when Hockney did his series of Polaroids. They got a lot of notice, but at least you didn't hear anyone saying this is the wave of the future. A number of others have said similar things, but these apps are great for people who want to make their photos more interesting than they actually are. But very soon they all start to look alike, which to me is the antithesis of good photography and good art.

0 upvotes
samhain
By samhain (Jul 22, 2012)

A camera is a camera, whether you like it or not. Dpreview showcases all digital cameras, and it just do happens more people in the world are taking pics with their phone cameras than any other camera. If you don't like articles about them don't read them. But whining about it is rediculous. You won't see me whining about lame Nikon articles that I care nothing about.

0 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (Jul 20, 2012)

too bad decent camera's dont run on iOs or Android (and no the iPhone is not a decent camera you morons!)

3 upvotes
Boerseuntjie
By Boerseuntjie (Jul 20, 2012)

Wait Samsung will have this app on their "Smart" cameras

0 upvotes
alfpang
By alfpang (Jul 21, 2012)

A decent camera is a well-utilised camera.

1 upvote
happypoppeye
By happypoppeye (Jul 22, 2012)

...ain't too bright are ya

0 upvotes
samhain
By samhain (Jul 22, 2012)

It's decent enough to get photos published in the new York times. How many photos from your 'decent' cameras have you had published in the New York Times?
*crickets

0 upvotes
Boerseuntjie
By Boerseuntjie (Jul 20, 2012)

Can't wait for the Hipstamatic photos of a Mother holding her dead infant in Africa or Muammar Gaddafi getting stabbed in the ass with a exacto knife.
What a Joke...this is not photojournalism, it's just a pretty picture and is it fake or not? that is what comes to mind when I look at it.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
spidermoon
By spidermoon (Jul 21, 2012)

Yes, but only with the new bullet hole, knife cut and bruises filter, that make the most boring dead body likes it was killed by a psychokiller or an angry crowd ;)

0 upvotes
sean000
By sean000 (Jul 20, 2012)

Interesting story to juxtapose with Kate Bevan's anti-Instagram rant. It's a wonderful photograph. But does the art filter make the photograph better or worse? I like the photo and I like the look and mood the filter creates. I would probably like the photo without the filter effect as well. Any time you use effects like these you run the risk of alienating some viewers who find it gimmicky, but you may also wow some viewers who think it is really cool. Either way the photograph needs to be a good one, and this one definitely is in my opinion.

But as Luke Kaven commented, I would think that most journalistic photo editors would reject this shot because of the filter. New York Times Magazine is of course a features publication, so it can get away with obviously manipulated images. For straight news reporting, the audience might wonder if the contents have been altered as well as the colors. Was that kit really there, or did the photographer add it?

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
jquagga
By jquagga (Jul 21, 2012)

And that's one of the things I don't like about Hipstamatic. With IG or any other photo editing app, you start with the "real" photo and change it from there. With Hipstamatic you can't take a real photo and load it and change it. And if you take a photo with it, it becomes instantly processed with those settings. I like the ability to "change my prints".

1 upvote
alfpang
By alfpang (Jul 21, 2012)

hmmm... slapping a glass filter on one's lens might give a similar effect no?

Comment edited 12 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Gerardjan
By Gerardjan (Jul 21, 2012)

one could still use Photoshop ....

0 upvotes
Luke Kaven
By Luke Kaven (Jul 20, 2012)

I'm having a hard time understanding how one can market a set of tools for "photojournalism" that surely renders all of your work unpublishable by journalistic standards.

3 upvotes
sean000
By sean000 (Jul 20, 2012)

Good point. If you manipulate the look of the photo to such a degree, won't people wonder if the content has also been manipulated? Was the kite really there, or did the photographer paste it in with software? Or maybe the man and the kite were actually photographed against a less interesting background.

I suppose you could say that the New York Times Magazine, who has published his photographs, can get away with creatively enhanced images because they publish feature stories that allow for more creative working of both text and images when compared to straight reporting like you find on the NYT front page. I remember in my college journalism classes, the professor would call you out for writing sentences or paragraphs that violated the standard rules of journalistic integrity. He would say, "You can say that on the Editorial page or in the Features section, but that doesn't belong on the front page or anywhere in the A section!"

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
GaryJP
By GaryJP (Jul 21, 2012)

Nope, because it's probably easier for a photo editor to establish the authenticity of a Hipstamatic photo than a RAW processed one.

0 upvotes
Luke Kaven
By Luke Kaven (Jul 21, 2012)

Creative filtering is way outside the standards for photojournalism. Authenticity is gone the moment one of those filters is used. With a RAW photo, at least you have the RAW file.

2 upvotes
alfpang
By alfpang (Jul 21, 2012)

Hipstamatic isn't Photoshop (half the tools of which are digital analogues of traditional darkroom post-processing techniques)

0 upvotes
Luke Kaven
By Luke Kaven (Jul 21, 2012)

But you don't have the unadulterated RAW file, which is almost universally required, and is the only authoritative photographic record. Without the RAW file, how does one know what the original data was?

0 upvotes
dmora
By dmora (Jul 20, 2012)

Where can I download this?

0 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Jul 20, 2012)

It isn't available yet. As we say in the story, the pack will be available in the autumn.

0 upvotes
RyanPDonnelly
By RyanPDonnelly (Jul 22, 2012)

Photography is not in danger in any way. I have heard so many opinions of how this technology is killing that technology, and how this is what defines a true Photographer over another...and it is an endless debate that leads us all no where and for no reason. Fact is, as long as there is interest in something, there will always be someone willing to support it. You can still buy film, and we have had digital cameras for a long time. People still use DSLR's even though we have mirrorless, point and shoots and cell phones. The same goes for technology in other areas, we have phones, E-readers and tablets...yet I am still reading hard cover books. It is like saying that video is going to be the death of photography, but I am sure that I will always see someone out there still shooting stills. As for the debate between cell phones, DSLR's, Mirrorless, point and shoot etc...well they all do the same thing.THEY ALL CAPTURE LIGHT! Rest assured, photography is safe from the "dangerous" APP.

1 upvote
saboto
By saboto (Jul 24, 2012)

I totally agree with you. But this is only my opinion.
more important is to have a look at the 2011 manifesto of the Rencontres d'Arles, probably the most important photography festival.
http://www.rencontres-arles.com/A11/C.aspx?VP3=CMS3&VF=ARL_3_VForm&FRM=Frame:ARL_76&LANGSWI=1&LANG=English#/CMS3&VF=ARL_3_VForm&FRM=Frame:ARL_7&LANGSWI=1&LANG=English

0 upvotes
Total comments: 71