Through My Eye, Not Hipstamatic's.

February 15, 2011 9:19 AM

Through my eye, not Hipstamatic's. (SLNYT)
posted by HumanComplex (34 comments total)

Wow. I like it.
posted by grubi at 9:27 AM on February 15, 2011

We are being naïve if we think aesthetics do not play an important role in the way photojournalists tell a story. We are not walking photocopiers. We are storytellers. We observe, we chose moments, we frame little slices of our world with our viewfinders, we even decide how much or how little light will illuminate our subjects, and — yes — we choose what equipment to use. Through all of these decisions, we shape the way a story is told.

I like this.
posted by Rory Marinich at 9:40 AM on February 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

I agree with Winters that the overly slick app is the target, not the fact that photojournalists "tweak" the image:

Take as an example the image that won first place in feature singles in this year’s Pictures of the Year International competition. It is black and white, shot with an extremely shallow depth of field to focus attention on the intended subject and blur other distractions and to give it a certain feel. It features a very heavy use of vignetting.

Much of the information in the image has been obscured in the interest of aesthetics. We humans do not see in black and white. And we do not see the world at f/1.2. These are aesthetic choices that do not contribute to the accuracy of the image. They are ways that the scene has been enhanced aesthetically.

His photos have a few effects applied, but how far are his photos from (heavily) post-processed images? It looks like they're more saturated than "normal," and there's vignetting. Would it be terrible if he had used a "real" toy camera instead of an iPhone with an app? He could have achieved the same look on real film. Even Ansel Adams used filters to "enhance" his photographs.
posted by filthy light thief at 9:41 AM on February 15, 2011

The negative reaction to Hipstamatic primarily seems motivated by overuse and by a dismissive aesthetic. But I like it. It does what it sets out to do -- recreates what analog cameras used to produce through vagaries in their design. I suppose there is a case to be made that this is somehow noticeably artificial, and isn't created by the camera itself, or by any physical mechanism, but instead by computer algorithms. But he offers an elegant defense. And it can produce some really awesome, evocative images.
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:44 AM on February 15, 2011

I think the negative reaction to Hipstamatic is fueled, at least in part, by it's unfortunate name. I use it (along with a mess of other cameras, digital and film, of varying sorts), and I quite like some of the pictures I've gotten with it. It's pretty much my go-to pocket camera these days; but I always wince a little when I tell people, "Oh, yeah, I took that with Hipstamatic".
posted by steambadger at 9:51 AM on February 15, 2011

I've never understood this carping about artistic materials as anything other than the hobgoblin of small-minded critics. The man is a photographer. He uses a camera. he takes a picture. The result is "a" truth, not "the" truth, because "the truth" is not accessible.
posted by chavenet at 9:54 AM on February 15, 2011 [4 favorites]

The critics just seem incredidumb; I don't think I need to read even a smart response.
posted by grobstein at 10:02 AM on February 15, 2011

I think the negative reaction to Hipstamatic is fueled, at least in part, by its unfortunate name.

I think the name does turn me off a little, as does the seemingly fake backstory that everyone squeed about when the app first came out. As for me, I just tire of how all my friends who use Hipstamatic (and its ilk) end up posting pictures that look exactly the same. This would of course also be true if everyone were using a Holga, but that's just not going to happen due to the time and cost involved.

(Oh, and I hate how Hipstamatic refers to its digital product as a 'print'. I hate that a whole lot.)
posted by statolith at 10:27 AM on February 15, 2011

Much to do about nothing. When I shot film I could "apply a look" by choosing a fine grain color film or a grainy black and white. I could go with the more muted colors of NPH or the vibrancy of Velvia. If I wanted to go way out on a limb I could cross-process agfa print film in E6.

Same as it ever was.
posted by photoslob at 10:34 AM on February 15, 2011

I think there's a class issue here, masquerading as an aesthetics complaint.

Photography has traditionally had a financial barrier to entry. You had to be able to afford the gear. Journalism also has a financial barrier to entry - J-school students have to be able to afford to be unpaid interns and therefore then to be from well-off families. Combine the two into photojournalism and you have the potential for a group of elitist first-world gearheads travelling to parts unknown.

Now take away that barrier to entry. Anyone, anywhere with a cell-phone can now take news-worthy pictures. Of course the status quo is going to be threatened. And if one of their own stows away his ten grand worth of lenses and slums it by using an iPhone to take "serious" photos for publication then of course the criticisms are going to come out.

It's digital or artificial. So is your DSLR. It's not realistic. Neither is a shot from a fish-eye, or a telephoto, or a shot with an extremely shallow depth of field. It's all done by computer algorithms. Do you only shoot in manual mode, on film, without a light meter? The arguments just don't hold up.
posted by thecjm at 10:35 AM on February 15, 2011 [7 favorites]

Combine the two into photojournalism and you have the potential for a group of elitist first-world gearheads travelling to parts unknown

The potential, yes. But most of the photographers I know do not fit this identikit, and most of them would give up on eating food in order to be able to buy camera gear.

I agree with the general point, but I think the barrier that has lowered, financially, is the one for publication, not the one for becoming a "gearhead."
posted by chavenet at 10:50 AM on February 15, 2011

As for me, I just tire of how all my friends who use Hipstamatic (and its ilk) end up posting pictures that look exactly the same. This would of course also be true if everyone were using a Holga, but that's just not going to happen due to the time and cost involved.

Yeah; but a whole lot of vacation snaps taken with Brownies in 1963 look alike, too.

(Oh, and I hate how Hipstamatic refers to its digital product as a 'print'. I hate that a whole lot.)

Here, we are simpatico. I also hate the cutesy names they give to the various "films" and "lenses", and the adorable little stories about each and every one of them. In fact, the only thing I like about Hipstamatic is that lets me take better pictures than any other cell phone camera I've tried.
posted by steambadger at 10:53 AM on February 15, 2011

thecjm, I respectfully disagree. I recently returned to photography as a serious hobby after about twenty years away. What I discovered as I started to ease my way back into that world was this incredibly schizophrenic view that somehow using software tools to anything more than crop or faintly touch up a photograph was "bad"... as if generations of photographers hadn't been doing precisely the same things in darkrooms since 1839 with chemicals and papers, rather than buttons and sliders. Even the notion of digital imaging as a topic of contention is absurd.

What I've concluded now, after about six months, is that it's not aesthetics, nor is it class. It's age. The older, more traditionally minded photographers are less likely to "take" to the idea that software isn't somehow "magic" that's performing some trick the photographer would be otherwise unable to achieve. A generation from now, this won't be a debate anymore, because anyone who grew up thinking film was the only media will have passed on.
posted by OneMonkeysUncle at 10:59 AM on February 15, 2011

Hipstamatic still doesn't save the originals at all, right? That would be a total deal-breaker for me. What next, digital zoom? *shudder*
posted by kmz at 11:14 AM on February 15, 2011

Hipstamatic still doesn't save the originals at all, right? That would be a total deal-breaker for me. What next, digital zoom? *shudder*

Yeah, no. But, unless your pocket camera is really high-end (or you've hacked your firmware to shoot RAW), it doesn't save the originals, either. If my phone was the only camera I had, that would bug me, too.
posted by steambadger at 11:20 AM on February 15, 2011

Very interesting article. How different is this than applying filters in Photoshop? Not very, IMO.
posted by DizzyLeaf at 11:34 AM on February 15, 2011

While we're discussing Hipstamatic, can I bring up Instagram? It's a free iPhone app. The basic idea is you quickly snap a photo, pick from a number of (gorgeous) filters to establish a mood, and then share it. You can follow other users and see the photos they're uploading. It's the first social network I've seen designed specifically for iPhone.

Anybody other Mefites use it? Do people here already follow each other and I'm not aware? (My username is "rinich" — add me!)

I feel like there are two basic approaches to any kind of art, photography included. Either you do an art because you're in love with the art form and you want to appreciate/extend it, in which case you're approaching it technically, or you do art because it allows you to express yourself or a message, in which case you're doing it socially. The two approaches play with one another, and lots of social artists are inspired by the technical, and lots of technical art picks up queues from social creations, and of course there are plenty of artists who aren't strictly one or the other. Most artists actually.

I like this essay because it's a sophisticated take on what was essentially a social photography application intended for people to take fun photos with their friends, but has an interesting style that's being appropriated by people who're using the app for a number of interesting technical reasons.
posted by Rory Marinich at 11:40 AM on February 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

Hipstamatic still doesn't save the originals at all, right?

Really, though, what's an "original" when we're talking about digital photography? I think that's the point. The very transfer of raw picture data from the lens to the memory chip requires running data through algorithms that interpret it, in order to make it look like something you took with a "real" camera.

The first alteration you make to any photograph taken comes from the flash you use. Then the filter. The next comes from the quality of the camera lens, the mirror, the film, and the next from the developing of the film. Let's call this the "photo development process." The only true "original" is what you see with your eye; nothing documented by the camera is really a "real life" photo in terms of reflecting exactly what you see.

Camera apps that alter photos, like Hipstamatic, Camera Bag, 8mm and Instagram, essentially digitally create the lens, filter and flash effects; that is the "photo development process." It's artificial, when compared to how we conventionally think of how cameras work, but really not much more artificial than how conventional cameras work.

There are apps that save the "original" and then let you add the effects afterwards, though, like Camera+.

I think the issue with digitally-altered photography is the timing during which the alteration took place. In the case of Hipstamatic, the photographer chooses the filter, film and flash, and it is instantly applied to photo when it is taken. The photographer never tweaks the photograph, any more than taking the picture using special lenses, filters, and lighting. There is a level of skill in taking the photograph that is elemental to the process, just as with an SLR; it's not like the iphone magically makes crappy photos look good.

With Photoshop and Camera+, you tweak the photo after the fact -- in order to presumably create an editorial slant on the photo as taken. With normal photography, the editorializing is all done before the shutter is released with alterations to equipment and setting; the same can be said with apps like Hipstamatic.

That all said, I'm not exactly in favor of being able to use a camera app like Hipstamatic to win awards in photography, and I'd be okay with a rule that limits its use.
posted by jabberjaw at 11:53 AM on February 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

I think the issue here with other photojournalists is the idea of photo manipulation. This happened just last year at POYi: http://www.petapixel.com/2010/03/03/world-press-photo-disqualifies-winner/ All the photographer did was crop, convert to BW and then add some vignetting. Aside from the cropping that is exactly what hipstamatic does.
posted by WickedPissah at 12:06 PM on February 15, 2011

Unless I'm reading it wrong, the issue with the POYi picture appears to be that the photographer removed an artifact that was visible in the middle of the picture. I think most photojournalists would draw a line between cropping and cloning.
posted by steambadger at 12:17 PM on February 15, 2011

It's a fine line, for sure; but in my experience, even non-professional hobbyist contests (see the Farktography rules for an example- additional disclaimer; I am (in part) somewhat responsible for the current iteration of those rules). Still, you can make enormous modifications within the letter; if not the spirit; of the rules.

Artifact removal is tricky, and almost a classic example of the slippery slope problem: Where does a particular action fall on the continuum that runs from absolutely untouched to removal of sensor bunnies to removal of unsightly trash to "let's get rid of those overhead wires" to "Hey, just add another missile to the shot to make it look cooler"?

Now, I'm not Ansel Adams by a long shot, but I see the value in using Photoshop in place of the darkroom, but the whole point of journalism should be (not *is*, but that's a different argument) that Here is Truth. When we color that truth by filtering it, we are adding editorial bias.
posted by pjern at 1:34 PM on February 15, 2011

pjern, I'm with you on that; with the caveat that we need to acknowledge the editorial bias we add just by pointing the camera at this and not that, and to recognize the difference between photojournalism and art (which is tricky, since they almost always overlap). Personally, I don't guarantee that anything in any picture I take is an accurate representation of anything, and I feel free to process my stuff in any damn way I please -- but there are certain shots upon which I would be much less likely to exercise photoshop-fu. I have no problem creating artificial double exposures, for instance, but would feel creepy cloning out power lines or making a fake reflection in a pond.

Of course, I wouldn't enter an picture altered beyond the rules into a contest. I'm afraid I'll never enter your contest, though, as you don't allow division by zero; I can't do what I do without NaN values, dammit.
posted by steambadger at 1:57 PM on February 15, 2011

Am I the only one finding the full-screen photos keep switching back to non-full screen every 30 seconds? It's driving me insane. Stupid NYT. Stupid Flash.
posted by caution live frogs at 2:00 PM on February 15, 2011

You can argue semantics - about the translation from reality to the image, but along the way are conscious decisions. Hipstamatic lacks the conscious considerations and just applies haphazard filtering across the image.

FWIW most professional photographers DO overide all of the automation provided by the technology in their cameras. They employ depth of field, consider subject brightness range/contrast, choose to limit colour, select a lens magnification, a choice of film, a speed of shutter, composition, et cetera - to craft an image that often tells much about the subject in a given moment. We strive for this.

When I first saw Winter's set of images of soldiers on patrol, the use of the iPhone and Hipstamatic was immediately ironic, to me. He unfortunately undermined this perception by making the argument that the affects applied to any image are more-or-less aesthetically driven (and nothing more), and arguing that there is no difference between the conscious range of choices employed by photographers to capture and portray a story within an image, than the haphazard nature of the gimmickry that is Hipstamatic.

There is no doubt he is a fine photographer, but I think he undermines the fine work of other photographers, who have captured similar intimacy using their honed skills/'clunky' equipment and most importantly, respectfully preserving the images they take using the highest quality means (as opposed to a small and damaged file taken on an iPhone using a destructive app).

There is a place for hipstamatic - but I don't believe it belongs in the arsenal of a skilled photographer (unless of course, they're being ironic).
posted by a non e mouse at 2:35 PM on February 15, 2011

'effects' not 'affects'
posted by a non e mouse at 2:36 PM on February 15, 2011

FWIW most professional photographers DO overide all of the automation provided by the technology in their cameras.

So do I, when I'm using a DSLR.

There is a place for hipstamatic - but I don't believe it belongs in the arsenal of a skilled photographer (unless of course, they're being ironic).

Or unless it works. I think the arsenal of any artist should include anything he needs to make art.
posted by steambadger at 2:43 PM on February 15, 2011

Or unless it works. I think the arsenal of any artist should include anything he needs to make art.

Sure - but this artist (me) prefers to 'control' the output; it's more satisfying to employ these tools to present a close proximation of what I see, so that you can see it also. I am 'me', I am not hipstamatic.
posted by a non e mouse at 2:50 PM on February 15, 2011

Steambadger: Most photojournalists consider themselves reporters or journalists not artists. What they produce is often certainly worthy of being called art but it is supposed to be first and foremost the truth. See the NPPA code of ethics: http://www.nppa.org/professional_development/business_practices/ethics.html

And that other example I gave, yes it was the clone tool, but I looked at the original and had a hard time accepting that as not manipulated, regardless of the cloning work. I know I am not alone in thinking that the post processing work was too heavy handed. There is another recent example of an entrant having an award revoked for over toning but I am having a hard time finding it. It is something that is hotly debated in the PJ community and the hipstamatic award is bringing it all out again. More info here: http://cnotherside.blogspot.com/2008/04/ethics-and-toning.html

Just more reading from the 'Nay' side of things on the hipstamtic award. I am not sure where I stand personally. I understand Damon's point but it still doesn't feel right to me.
posted by WickedPissah at 3:22 PM on February 15, 2011

I think the effectiveness of those pictures is amplified by using an app most commonly associated with pictures of pets and parties posted on Facebook, actually. I agree that the "just a tool" the photographer makes actually undermines his art. It is really good precisely because of the irony of the medium.
posted by sawdustbear at 5:31 PM on February 15, 2011

As the son of an old-school photographer I got to see a lot of dark-room printing work. Photographers have been playing tricks with forever. I've seen two negs used on the same print, I've watched wanding work to adjust brightness and darkness, and I've watched a brush dipped in ink used to improve the quality of a final print.

Dad bought a digital camera only shortly before he died, one of the first cheap ones on the market. I think photoshop skills were a bit beyond him, but if he wouldn't of hesitated to use 'em if he had 'em.
posted by Neale at 6:14 PM on February 15, 2011

Those of us that work/ed in film, tend to use Photoshop to achieve the things that were difficult in the darkroom.

Spotting, for instance. The clone tool is a godsend, at least when transferring from neg/trannies to digital and getting rid of blemishes, dust and prints. Layers to achieve masking, where we'd normally create lith masks or bits of cardboard on wire, etc to bring the contrast of a shot within the realm of the 6 stops on a piece of photographic paper.

High dynamic range, to replace pushing and pulling film to expand or contract contrast - man, that was time-consuming (I actually don't like the majority of images I've seen using HDR - but I can see a more subtle use for it). Moonrise over Hernandez is one of the great examples of using the skills and techniques of 'analogue' photography to render a scene closer to what could be seen by the eye. Sleight of hand it may be, Hipstamatic it is not.
posted by a non e mouse at 6:44 PM on February 15, 2011

Those of us that work/ed in film, tend to use Photoshop to achieve the things that were difficult in the darkroom.

Amen, brethren. I have a Flickr set here where I show my thinking and process to go from this raw shot to this finished B&W shot.
posted by pjern at 11:23 PM on February 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

Pjern - fantastic, what a great example.
posted by a non e mouse at 2:44 AM on February 16, 2011

With a bit of vignetting and some blurry blown out highlights, oh and a bit of out of registration colour aberration, I think you could enter this into Pictures of the Year International.
posted by a non e mouse at 2:48 AM on February 16, 2011