DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Current Challenge >> iPhone Hipstamatic app and the challenge rules
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 29, (reverse)
AuthorThread
03/14/2010 06:49:14 AM · #1
The last couple of weeks I have been playing with the Hipstamatic App on the iPhone. A software app that works like a virtual plastic lens camera and produce the pictures according to your choice of lens and film. Important to note is that you don\\\'t alter anything AFTER you take your photo.

The last week I played with my sons LEGO toys and used the Hipstamatic App in the iPhone to take the photograph:
59349 (called Falling Down (imageid=859349 - but I don't seems to be able to post links) which I posted to the challenge Toys III the other day.

Today I received the message that the photo had been disqualified because:

\\\"You must retain your original, unedited file (exactly as recorded by your camera), and provide it to the Site Council along with a list of your
editing steps within 48 hours of any validation request. Files that have been saved or altered with any editing or transfer software are NOT
originals.

Your entry has been reviewed by the Site Council and/or Administrators, who have confirmed that your submission must be disqualified.\\\"

I think this is an interesting question since more and more SW is coming in to cameras these days in order to alter what is actually captured by the physical equipment. One new example is the built in HDR functions that start to appear in cameras.

What do you think about this? Is the rules still working for the technical development like e g Hipstamatic (which is NOT a post-process filter you add on your result - because you never see any result in between) and embedded HDR functions??

Message edited by author 2010-03-14 06:50:07.
03/14/2010 07:31:03 AM · #2
By the way you cannot post a link to a pic that is in a challenge currently being voted on.
03/14/2010 10:35:28 AM · #3
OK, I get that I can't post a link to an image currently being voted on, but this particular image has been disqualified and is not anymore part of the challenge? Or??

Since it is disqualified, can I post a link to a Flickr copy??

And I am not trying to change the decision about my contribution either but is genuinely interested in the principles here. Will all photos taken by SW-defined cameras (emulated cameras) be disqualified from DPChallenge?? Because this is NOT about POST processing...
03/14/2010 01:22:08 PM · #4
Originally posted by brintam:

Since it is disqualified, can I post a link to a Flickr copy??

Yes, you can do that, though we prefer to wait until the voting is concluded (as with outtakes. I think the problem with your image is that the emulation software does not record valid EXIF data as part of the image file. Check it out with software which displays EXIF info, such as IrfanView.
04/09/2011 09:14:01 PM · #5
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?

04/09/2011 09:16:45 PM · #6
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 09:26:25 PM · #7
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:

Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_945482.jpg

Data from Photoshop CS4.

<?xpacket begin="&#65279;" id="W5M0MpCehiHzreSzNTczkc9d"?>
<x:xmpmeta xmlns:x="adobe:ns:meta/" x:xmptk="Adobe XMP Core 4.2.2-c063 53.352624, 2008/07/30-18:05:41 ">
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="//www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
<rdf:Description rdf:about=""
xmlns:xmp="//ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/">
<xmp:CreatorTool>Lucifer VI Lens, BlacKeys SuperGrain Film, No Flash</xmp:CreatorTool>
<xmp:CreateDate>2011-01-18T08:17:17-08:00</xmp:CreateDate>
<xmp:ModifyDate>2011-01-18T08:17:21-08:00</xmp:ModifyDate>
<xmp:MetadataDate>2011-01-18T08:17:21-08:00</xmp:MetadataDate>

</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:about=""
xmlns:tiff="//ns.adobe.com/tiff/1.0/">
<tiff:Orientation>1</tiff:Orientation>
<tiff:YCbCrPositioning>1</tiff:YCbCrPositioning>
<tiff:XResolution>72/1</tiff:XResolution>
<tiff:YResolution>72/1</tiff:YResolution>
<tiff:ResolutionUnit>2</tiff:ResolutionUnit>
<tiff:Make>Hipstamatic</tiff:Make>
<tiff:Model>190</tiff:Model>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:about=""
xmlns:exif="//ns.adobe.com/exif/1.0/">
<exif:ExifVersion>0221</exif:ExifVersion>
<exif:FlashpixVersion>0100</exif:FlashpixVersion>
<exif:ColorSpace>1</exif:ColorSpace>
<exif:ComponentsConfiguration>
<rdf:Seq>
<rdf:li>1</rdf:li>
<rdf:li>2</rdf:li>
<rdf:li>3</rdf:li>
<rdf:li>0</rdf:li>
</rdf:Seq>
</exif:ComponentsConfiguration>
<exif:PixelXDimension>1936</exif:PixelXDimension>
<exif:PixelYDimension>1936</exif:PixelYDimension>
<exif:DateTimeOriginal>2011-01-18T08:17:17-08:00</exif:DateTimeOriginal>
<exif:DateTimeDigitized>2011-01-18T08:17:17-08:00</exif:DateTimeDigitized>

<exif:Flash rdf:parseType="Resource">
<exif:Fired>False</exif:Fired>
<exif:Return>0</exif:Return>
<exif:Mode>0</exif:Mode>
<exif:Function>False</exif:Function>
<exif:RedEyeMode>False</exif:RedEyeMode>
</exif:Flash>
<exif:SceneCaptureType>0</exif:SceneCaptureType>
<exif:GPSLatitude>33,44.61N</exif:GPSLatitude>
<exif:GPSLongitude>117,47.59W</exif:GPSLongitude>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:about=""
xmlns:dc="//purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<dc:format>image/jpeg</dc:format>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:about=""
xmlns:photoshop="//ns.adobe.com/photoshop/1.0/">
<photoshop:ColorMode>3</photoshop:ColorMode>
<photoshop:ICCProfile>sRGB IEC61966-2.1</photoshop:ICCProfile>
<photoshop:History>2011-04-09T18:08:26-07:00 File IMG_0938.JPG opened
</photoshop:History>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
</x:xmpmeta>

Message edited by author 2011-04-09 21:29:50.
04/09/2011 11:23:55 PM · #8
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.
04/10/2011 10:25:37 AM · #9
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.
04/10/2011 10:52:02 AM · #10
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 11:54:37 AM · #11
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 06:06:55 PM · #12
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 06:10:14 PM · #13
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 06:26:00 PM · #14
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 06:39:17 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 06:40:04 PM · #16
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 06:43:15 PM · #17
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 06:45:35 PM · #18
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 10:04:19 PM · #19
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.
01/22/2012 04:38:09 PM · #20
Is hipstamatic or snapseed allowed in advanced editing?
01/22/2012 04:44:33 PM · #21
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 04:46:32 PM · #22
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 05:02:45 PM · #23
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 05:08:11 PM · #24
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 10:14:36 PM · #25
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!! 21.gif kosmikkreeper and 31.gif drjones!!!

Message edited by author 2012-01-22 22:15:14.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 05/23/2019 06:58:34 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2019 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 05/23/2019 06:58:34 PM EDT.