I want Hipstamatic IN my DSLR…

<p>Hi folks, back at home now after my amazing journey in shooting the last of Kodachrome film, including the very last frames in history...</p>

<p>So I have been shooting Kodachrome pretty much the past two years, very little on digital ( thank GOD! ) which is what I planned for my <a href="http://www.kodachromeproject.com/">book project</a>. Last year, I decided to just leave my D700 at home to collect dust and shoot my iPhone4 for any blog updates, etc. </p>

<p> About 3 months ago, I started playing around with the Hipstamatic app and found that I really loved it because it acted like film in some ways, no raw file to labor over as I go cross eyed in front of a monitor, just snap it, uploaded or print it, done!</p>

<p> As time went on, people started asking me for prints on the blog, I sold a fair bit and even did a magazine piece with them while on the road. In short, I want this app in my D700, not in a plug in on a computer, I want to get the benefit of seeing it right away on the LCD but not having even deal with a computer in order to do that. The reason I am saying this is that I think a lot of people feel the same way, they just want to shoot photos with some style and not have to do it in Photoshop. I would use it strictly for ad campaigns as I am very much a straight shooter when it comes to editorial / journalism and even my fine art work which the latter is all on film at this point. </p>

<p> My dream kit for this use would be a full frame back for my 501 CM that is about 18-25 MPX and has the ability for me to upload third party Hipstamatic plug-ins…one can dream, right?</p>

<p> Either way, I just don't understand why digital camera makers have not at least facilitated the ability for the uploading of plug-ins that emulate Tri-X, Kodachrome or even "Ina's 69" like in the Hipstamatic. I know we can adjust the settings quite a bit, but I just want other creative software folks like Hipstamatic to do it…I just want to shoot. I think the iPhone and camera phones in general are going to really kill off a lot of point and shoots because they are getting much better, are fun and easy to use and in the case of the iPhone4, can easily hold page one New York Times in a 4 column photo at this point.</p>

<p> I have a meeting with one of my primary ad clients on Tuesday and we are all excited about using Hipstamatic for an ad campaign…Canon, Nikon, wake the heck UP! Not all of us want to sit in front of a computer..</p>

<p>Some of my faves from my trip to follow...</p>

<div></div>

<p>The 16 inch guns of the U.S.S. Alabama...</p><div></div>

<p>An abandon bar in Mississippi..</p><div></div>

<p>A storm in Acadia National Park...</p><div></div>

<p>Bourbon Street, NOLA...</p><div></div>

<p>The Hunter...</p><div></div>

<p>And the decoy...</p><div></div>

<p>Diver Ed and "Mini-Diver-Ed"...</p><div></div>

<p>Blizzard in Kansas...</p><div></div>

<p>And last but far from least, my adorable wife, we met last year because of my project and have been married three months..</p><div></div>

<p>I'm kinda of confused. Weren't you the very same kodacrome guy that said digital is just different and we should just shoot kodachrome if we want that analog film look and not emulated with PS or digital? <br /> FWIW, some P&S does it, I think. Oly does film/art filters and my panasonic has a 1:1 / 16:9 / 2:3 /4:3 switch.</p>

<p>Congratulation! wife, project and all BTW</p>

<p>Yes, but Kodachrome is gone and nothing that emulates it will replace it. I just think that digital photography would be a lot more fun for people if we could have a named setting on the camera based on terrific software that is 3rd party derived. The passing of Kodachrome meant the passing of color film in 35mm for me and in the past year or so, I have gained perspective and what I want to do next. </p>

<p>I <em>think</em> Daniel's point is that for 'fun' stuff we shouldn't have to resort to the computer. We can print without a computer so why can't we have fun stuff in our DSLRs? Perhaps the manufacturers of DSLRs will allow Java plug-ins so users can write their own Hipstamatic-like filters.</p>

<p>For serious work I am happy to spend a little time doing CC and highlight recovery with RAW software, but that's about it. I have better things to do with my time than ruin my pictures with PhotoShop fog.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>we are all excited about using Hipstamatic for an ad campaign…Canon, Nikon, wake the heck UP!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The EOS 60D has some very weird "<a href="http://www.andrewsgibson.com/blog/2010/10/eos-60d-creative-filters/"><strong>creative filters</strong></a>" built in...</p>

The camera's operating system is built around it being utterly reliable as a camera, first. It's very locked down, on

purpose. Running what amounts to an app store for the camera could result in support nightmares for the

manufacturers who - unlike Apple - aren't in the business of running a market and taking a piece of the action. They'd

have to charge a pretty big licensing fee to cover the costs of supporting a walled app garden running on their camera

platforms.

I'm sure what Daniel wants is coming, as progressive camera makers like Panasonic are aware of those photo apps.

But it will come in a mirrorless, not a DSLR.

<blockquote>Perhaps the manufacturers of DSLRs will allow Java plug-ins so users can write their own Hipstamatic-like filters.</blockquote>

 

<p>I don't personally care much about filters, but I've been hoping a manufacturer would provide a user API (possibly with a warranty disclaimer - although I doubt you could do much to a camera that a hard reset wouldn't fix) for a while. Canon compacts have a hacked interface; alas, no such luck for my Nikon DSLR. The one thing that would make me replace my D700 in the near future is a camera for which I can hack the interface to work in the way I want, rather than sending lots of requests to Nikon in the vague hope they'll pick up on one of them. I suspect the objections are more historical and philosophical than technical.</p>

<p>I find this sort of question VERY strange - if you want your digital output to look like analogue, then why are you using digital in the first place ?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Either way, I just don't understand why digital camera makers have not at least facilitated the ability for the uploading of plug-ins that emulate Tri-X, Kodachrome</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The premise is flawed. There are <em>lots</em> of add-ons. plug-ins, and the like that emulate specific films (or try to). To be sure, that is in post processing, but what does that matter?</p>

<p>By tweaking things to extremes, you could possibly even get the jpgs out of your camera to look like some films.</p>

<p>I do admit, that none of them, so far, do a very good job of producing the dirt-covered film that comes back from the film processor, but I'm sure somebody is working on it. Am I the only one who remembers the term "<em>spotting</em>"? - a mainstay "post-processing" activity in film days.</p>

<p>Of course, if it has to be <em>in the camera</em> (? ?) then you could shoot at high ISOs and throw some dust on your sensor.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>Either way, I just don't understand why digital camera makers have not at least facilitated the ability for the uploading of plug-ins that emulate Tri-X, Kodachrome or even "Ina's 69" like in the Hipstamatic.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think there's a very good reason for it Daniel. It is and would be another hype. Fun for sure but if you see too much of it it tends to become boring. Still, it is being used widely and effectively so who knows</p>

<p><a href="http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/21/covering-marines-at-war-through-facebook/?scp=1&sq=damon%20winter%20afghanistan%20hipstamatic&st=cse"><strong>Link</strong></a></p>

<p>The Open Source camera perhaps?</p>

<p>http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/09/04/stanford-frankencamera-project-aims-to-create-an-open-source-imaging-platform/</p>

 

<p>I am using digital with analogue emulation if I can pull it off. A lot of the editors and art directors I work with are really liking the trend of going a little retro with a current twist, this is especially true of the ski lifestyle stuff I shoot. We can use film on the smaller shoots and I prefer it if I can, but I no longer shoot it in 35mm because the overall ease and file size of color digital holds up to some pretty big presentation in the form of billboards and POP displays. <br>

So this is actually for professional use, not hobby. In terms of doing it in post, it matters a lot to me, I spent very little if any time on a computer most of last year and just shot like a madman and I was soooo much better off because of it. So I want it in camera, to show the art directors, editors and talent as we work. <br>

It is so not another hype either, heavily stylized imagery in advertising has always had a strong placement to give mood, eliminate distractions and give a feel and emphasis to the overall message of an ad. The fact I am able to get nearly a full page print ad at 300 dpi out of a square hipstamatic iphone 4 file for this client with just a hair of interpolation is making current digital camera makers look asleep at the wheel....especially when one considers the shift to web campaigns.<br>

I am not saying that there is not a need for the technically perfect and high res digital file, I am saying however that a lot of advertising agencies are looking to continually go new directions to compete for that shrinking ad revenue base and are open to a plethora of fresh looks.<br>

I am willing to bet this happens sooner than you think it will. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>It is so not another hype either</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>I am saying however that a lot of advertising agencies are looking to <strong>continually go new directions</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>it's this that makes me think it will be somewhat shortlived Daniel. Call it a hype or anything you like but I really think it will only last so long.<br /> I do agree however that time is much better spent out there than sitting behind a screen.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Tom, to be more clear, it is not so much about Hipstamatic as it is the ability to have really well produced and thought out plug in options in camera. At this point in photographic history, everything is short lived..:-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am not saying that there is not a need for the technically perfect and high res digital file, I am saying however that a lot of advertising agencies are looking to continually go new directions...</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>On the contrary, I don't think we need technically perfect and high res digital files. 99% of the time, it's just waste of space, memory and time. And perfection, if there is such, is all too boring imo. Lastly, yes...I could go on with less ads. I prefer it, I actually think less ads will do our society some good.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>