| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/25/2012 07:00:01 PM · #1 |
Originally posted by whiteroom:
lol, looking for metaphors again? it's a basic application processing tool for an iphone, and now i have the answer. |
I enjoy friends with answers, even though it occasionally makes me jealous. |
|
|
|
01/23/2012 06:34:46 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by kosmikkreeper:
Well, well
If you need your original then your best bet is KING CAMERA. It's like a miny PS or LR and always keeps your original with all your edits in one stack. And it's free for web resolution and $0.99 for full res! It's rated as one of the top photo apps in the app store! :)
The best part is that it's created by to DPCers!!  kosmikkreeper and  drjones!!! |
I have it ! Rocks. And now works with the remote as well. I did talk about it here o DPC.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
01/23/2012 03:53:26 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by jjbeguin:
Originally posted by whiteroom:
Is hipstamatic or snapseed allowed in advanced editing? |
This is a very strange phrase;
sorry! I cannot help you, lady. |
lol, looking for metaphors again? it's a basic application processing tool for an iphone, and now i have the answer. |
|
|
|
01/22/2012 10:35:53 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by kosmikkreeper:
Well, well
If you need your original then your best bet is KING CAMERA. It's like a miny PS or LR and always keeps your original with all your edits in one stack. And it's free for web resolution and $0.99 for full res! It's rated as one of the top photo apps in the app store! :)
The best part is that it's created by to DPCers!! kosmikkreeper and drjones!!! |
Nice commercial, but we are talking about Hipstamatic, not other editing tools. |
|
|
|
01/22/2012 10:14:36 PM · #5 |
Well, well
If you need your original then your best bet is KING CAMERA. It's like a miny PS or LR and always keeps your original with all your edits in one stack. And it's free for web resolution and $0.99 for full res! It's rated as one of the top photo apps in the app store! :)
The best part is that it's created by to DPCers!! kosmikkreeper and drjones!!!
Message edited by author 2012-01-22 22:15:14. |
|
|
|
01/22/2012 05:08:11 PM · #6 |
As others have stated, Hipstamatic takes the image, processing it directly using filters (called lenses and films on Hipstamatic). Some of these filters appear global in nature, but others clearly add texture, vignette, and flare etc. Some of these are a clear violation of even the Advanced Rules set. The original unedited image does not exist, only the final product.
I personally love playing with Hipstamatic, but don't think images from it would be possible to validate, except maybe from a date/ time perspective. It would be great if changes to the rules could be made to allow it, but for now I will be only submitting my Hipstamatic images to side challenges...
Message edited by author 2012-01-22 17:11:07. |
|
|
|
01/22/2012 05:02:45 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by whiteroom:
Is hipstamatic or snapseed allowed in advanced editing? |
Doesn't look like it from the discussion. In my camera phone I can take a regular photo with the default camera (save the exif) and then I can edit it within the confines of the programs on the phone too (ie: vignette, retro, fx camera) creating a 2nd image. Can you do that on the I-phone? |
|
|
|
01/22/2012 04:46:32 PM · #8 |
| as discussed above, its not the app thats the issue its the fact that you no longer have a valid original to submit. |
|
|
|
01/22/2012 04:44:33 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by whiteroom:
Is hipstamatic or snapseed allowed in advanced editing? |
This is a very strange phrase;
sorry! I cannot help you, lady. |
|
|
|
01/22/2012 04:38:09 PM · #10 |
| Is hipstamatic or snapseed allowed in advanced editing? |
|
|
|
04/10/2011 10:04:19 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
If I shoot with a DSLR that has a B&W mode...the software in the camera *did* something to that photo and, if it's like most B&W modes there's no color information recorded in another file somewhere...it's impossible to tell what that "app" did to the image. |
Yep, you are correct. Reference my comments regarding camera capability and the future of the rules - at some point, the assumption that all in-camera presets will be simple global color adjustments will go out the window. If it hasn't already.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2011 06:45:35 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Spork99:
The question I have is: How is using Hipstamatic (or a similar app) different that shooting in a a B&W mode or enhanced color mode or whatever? |
I won't pretend to know the answer, but in theory it can do a lot more than in-camera settings, because it has a lot more processing power available. It is *like* an in-camera setting because the file written to the device is the edited file, and no unedited original is available. |
The settings are made "in camera"...you don't take an image and then process it later. |
When you push a preset in Lightroom or Nik or Topaz do you know exactly what's being done to your image?
My contention is that it's the same thing...... (edit to add ..... almost)
Message edited by author 2011-04-10 18:47:54. |
|
|
|
04/10/2011 06:43:15 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
...2. But I still contend that there IS a date captured and embedded in the file. Isn't that specifically what the validation is about? And for advanced editing I would think that their "in camera" app processing isn't much different than any of the other "after the fact" apps (plug-ins).
It's just that this one is called Hipstamatic instead of Nik, etc... |
Validation is about verifying the date, and also for verifying the submitted vs. original file. Because there is no unedited file, it's not possible to determine what the app actually *did* to the photo, and therefore impossible to judge legality. For instance, if the app added a vignette, that would be illegal, but the vignette may have been there and the app did not add it, in which case the editing is legal, but again no way to verify. |
If I shoot with a DSLR that has a B&W mode...the software in the camera *did* something to that photo and, if it's like most B&W modes there's no color information recorded in another file somewhere...it's impossible to tell what that "app" did to the image. |
|
|
|
04/10/2011 06:40:04 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Spork99:
The question I have is: How is using Hipstamatic (or a similar app) different that shooting in a a B&W mode or enhanced color mode or whatever? |
I won't pretend to know the answer, but in theory it can do a lot more than in-camera settings, because it has a lot more processing power available. It is *like* an in-camera setting because the file written to the device is the edited file, and no unedited original is available. |
The settings are made "in camera"...you don't take an image and then process it later.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2011 06:39:17 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by odriew:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Validation is about verifying the date, and also for verifying the submitted vs. original file. Because there is no unedited file, it's not possible to determine what the app actually *did* to the photo, and therefore impossible to judge legality. For instance, if the app added a vignette, that would be illegal, but the vignette may have been there and the app did not add it, in which case the editing is legal, but again no way to verify. |
The resulting image should be considered the "unedited" file. The clause from the editing rules says "use any feature of your camera while photographing your entry." |
Ha!!! So I can use my hipstamatic image as an entry tonight!!!!!!? |
|
|
|
04/10/2011 06:26:00 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Validation is about verifying the date, and also for verifying the submitted vs. original file. Because there is no unedited file, it's not possible to determine what the app actually *did* to the photo, and therefore impossible to judge legality. For instance, if the app added a vignette, that would be illegal, but the vignette may have been there and the app did not add it, in which case the editing is legal, but again no way to verify. |
The resulting image should be considered the "unedited" file. The clause from the editing rules says "use any feature of your camera while photographing your entry." |
|
|
|
04/10/2011 06:10:14 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
...2. But I still contend that there IS a date captured and embedded in the file. Isn't that specifically what the validation is about? And for advanced editing I would think that their "in camera" app processing isn't much different than any of the other "after the fact" apps (plug-ins).
It's just that this one is called Hipstamatic instead of Nik, etc... |
Validation is about verifying the date, and also for verifying the submitted vs. original file. Because there is no unedited file, it's not possible to determine what the app actually *did* to the photo, and therefore impossible to judge legality. For instance, if the app added a vignette, that would be illegal, but the vignette may have been there and the app did not add it, in which case the editing is legal, but again no way to verify. |
|
|
|
04/10/2011 06:06:55 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
The question I have is: How is using Hipstamatic (or a similar app) different that shooting in a a B&W mode or enhanced color mode or whatever? |
I won't pretend to know the answer, but in theory it can do a lot more than in-camera settings, because it has a lot more processing power available. It is *like* an in-camera setting because the file written to the device is the edited file, and no unedited original is available.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2011 11:54:37 AM · #19 |
| The question I have is: How is using Hipstamatic (or a similar app) different that shooting in a a B&W mode or enhanced color mode or whatever? |
|
|
|
04/10/2011 10:52:02 AM · #20 |
1. I guess you're right and it's something to ponder. So what do you think happens to the "original"?
2. But I still contend that there IS a date captured and embedded in the file. Isn't that specifically what the validation is about? And for advanced editing I would think that their "in camera" app processing isn't much different than any of the other "after the fact" apps (plug-ins).
It's just that this one is called Hipstamatic instead of Nik, etc.
3. I agree that this is not a basic editing tool, as I also question whether Topaz and Nik should be legal in basic.
Message edited by author 2011-04-10 10:54:28. |
|
|
|
04/10/2011 10:25:37 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
In CS4 when I open an image that I took with the Histamatic App it clearly has a date and time stamp listed under File Info. I thought the purpose of validation was to determine when you took the photo and then what the steps were for post processing the photo. Those two pieces of information can be had in the same way you retrieve it from any other file.
Now maybe some would say that the processing the app does should not be included under basic processing but certainly for advanced processing I think the Histamatic app should be considered. To me, it's pretty much the same as pushing a button in NIK or Topaz. |
In Basic, I don't think this app would ever be considered legal. It's software post-processing, plain and clear. Doesn't matter that the software is loaded to the same physical device that houses the camera. It's just like if someone figured out how to run Topaz on their DSLR.
In advanced, as long as the software doesn't deep-six the EXIF validity, then it would be legal, as long as the result fell within the rules... but there's a problem. There's no original. Editing has been done, it's *not* the image that the camera captured - and the original has been thrown away. The fact that the phone is a powerful computer with editing software installed blurs the line between in-camera processing and post-processing.
This type of issue will become a more common problem as devices like the personal computers we call smart phones today get even more powerful, with better cameras and more sophisticated OSes, displays, and software. We never envisioned user-configurable editing software installed right in the camera, to perform editing on the fly. For the future, the rules will need to address this, but don't ask me how. |
|
|
|
04/09/2011 11:23:55 PM · #22 |
In CS4 when I open an image that I took with the Histamatic App it clearly has a date and time stamp listed under File Info. I thought the purpose of validation was to determine when you took the photo and then what the steps were for post processing the photo. Those two pieces of information can be had in the same way you retrieve it from any other file.
Now maybe some would say that the processing the app does should not be included under basic processing but certainly for advanced processing I think the Histamatic app should be considered. To me, it's pretty much the same as pushing a button in NIK or Topaz.
|
|
|
|
04/09/2011 09:26:25 PM · #23 |
I have and I was told no (about a month ago, not this image), but I didn't check the EXIF information myself. I don't know that it was actually checked by SC or if was from prior knowledge (reasonable if an update was not known).
Sample:
Data from Photoshop CS4.
xmlns:xmp="//ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/">
Lucifer VI Lens, BlacKeys SuperGrain Film, No Flash
2011-01-18T08:17:17-08:00
2011-01-18T08:17:21-08:00
2011-01-18T08:17:21-08:00
xmlns:tiff="//ns.adobe.com/tiff/1.0/">
1
1
72/1
72/1
2
Hipstamatic
190
xmlns:exif="//ns.adobe.com/exif/1.0/">
0221
0100
1
1
2
3
0
1936
1936
2011-01-18T08:17:17-08:00
2011-01-18T08:17:17-08:00
False
0
0
False
False
0
33,44.61N
117,47.59W
xmlns:dc="//purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
image/jpeg
xmlns:photoshop="//ns.adobe.com/photoshop/1.0/">
3
sRGB IEC61966-2.1
2011-04-09T18:08:26-07:00 File IMG_0938.JPG opened
Message edited by author 2011-04-09 21:29:50. |
|
|
|
04/09/2011 09:16:45 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
So I wonder if Hipstamatic has been updated. According to Lightroom there is EXIF data which includes the original image capture date.
Is this now legal? |
You can probably get a more authoritative answer if you submit a ticket explaining the issue, and attach a sample original image (as if for validation). |
|
|
|
04/09/2011 09:14:01 PM · #25 |
So I wonder if Hipstamatic has been updated. According to Lightroom there is EXIF data which includes the original image capture date.
Is this now legal?
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 10:38:05 PM EDT.
