Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

CAMERA = REASON TO BUY iPhone 4 (AD-ON CAMERA APPS AND PICS)

WHAT'S YOUR FAVORITE CAMERA APP

  • Total voters
    889
Chip NoVaMac said:
Some great images there! :)

Closing in a month here when I first got my iPhone 4 when I got my original iPhone 4 16gb on 8/9/10... bought a reprieve when I realized the error in my ways and saw that the camera on the iPhone 4 really rocked. As I saw the power of Hipstamatic.. I saw the iPhone 4 as truly a camera that I could carry with me each day. I gained in apps and music that I left behind with just an 8gb iPhone 1G :) So wanting to be less limited I took advantage of my 30 day return with Apple and upgraded to the 32gb on the 22nd! :)

In the end it has been a blast to test some of the cheaper and free apps being a guy that loves alternative types of photography. My Olympus m4/3's system won't replace the iPhone 4 camera. But will add to my visions with a camera at my hip.. ready to go...

And many of these apps for the iPhone and iPad will allow us to take our visions even further....

Will hope an update to Hipstamtic might allow us to save an orginal and the altered... even better yet allow for us to take other pics from our Photo app and work their magic on them...
Click to expand...

Fantastic! Can you tell us what lens/flash you used on those pics? Especially the first and second? ;)
 
Habakuk said:
I really love the mood in the last two photographs.

But to be honest: I hate it when the horizon is not straightened. Escpecially when there is water visible—the horizon must be strictly horizontal for aesthetic reasons. Maybe it's nitpicking but for me personally it is as disturbing as cutting off the person's head in portrait pictures.

Apps for iPhones with straighten function (detailled rotate + auto crop): Adobe Photoshop Express (free), Photogene (since August 19th MMX full iPhone 4 support), Cropulator, AppZapp (the latter two not tested yet). Please try that.
Click to expand...

Part of what makes mobile photography so interesting is that we can somehow free ourselves from worrying too much about getting that technically perfect photo. It's the spontaneous results we all enjoy so much.

I agree with what you are saying but I don't think this is the place. People are sharing and having fun. If they think they may have to endure a critique they may be less likely to post.

Kas23, I used camera+ with HDR.
 
Took this with Camera+. No effects, just thought it looked nice.
 

Attachments

  • bar.jpg
    bar.jpg
    608.4 KB · Views: 101
Habakuk said:
But to be honest: I hate it when the horizon is not straightened. Escpecially when there is water visible—the horizon must be strictly horizontal for aesthetic reasons. Maybe it's nitpicking but for me personally it is as disturbing as cutting off the person's head in portrait pictures.
Click to expand...

Oh no, it's so aesthetically displeasing it's as if I cut off someone's head!

(iPhone 3G with Camera+ processing on an iPhone 4: Taken just off St. Kitts in the Bahamas back in April)
 

Attachments

  • 4906748504_b64c032795_z.jpg
    4906748504_b64c032795_z.jpg
    161.3 KB · Views: 90
Hey guys - Photo App alert!

Looks like QuadCam is on sale for .99. (Normally 1.99) Fun app - just downloaded it but I'm at work so will have to play with it later...

Looks like you can either save pictures or output to an animated gif as well. Resolution could be better - but I'm guessing like some other apps - it relies on screen shotting versus using the camera's native shooting - the the final resolution is, I think 800x600. But still a fun app...
 
daboltz said:
Did you go to Nevis?
Click to expand...

No, we just sailed by, unfortunately. Maybe next time.

samcraig said:
Hey guys - Photo App alert!

Looks like QuadCam is on sale for .99. (Normally 1.99) Fun app - just downloaded it but I'm at work so will have to play with it later...

Looks like you can either save pictures or output to an animated gif as well. Resolution could be better - but I'm guessing like some other apps - it relies on screen shotting versus using the camera's native shooting - the the final resolution is, I think 800x600. But still a fun app...
Click to expand...

The 800x600 resolution limit is killer. That makes it not worth the $1, IMO.

Another good app that's on sale is PhotoGene at $0.99 (Reg. $1.99), to promote the latest version that fixed some bugs. Thinking about picking it up myself, since it has some great reviews. It's on sale until Sept 1st (Wednesday).

I just wonder how quickly some of these apps are going to add EXIF support once Apple officially flips the switch that allows them to use/save it.
 
Gimzotoy said:
No, we just sailed by, unfortunately. Maybe next time.



The 800x600 resolution limit is killer. That makes it not worth the $1, IMO.

Another good app that's on sale is PhotoGene at $0.99 (Reg. $1.99), to promote the latest version that fixed some bugs. Thinking about picking it up myself, since it has some great reviews.

I just wonder how quickly some of these apps are going to add EXIF support once Apple officially flips the switch that allows them to use/save it.
Click to expand...

Photogene is a great app - I think the first photo app I bought actually. Definitely worth the pickup...

As for quadcam - it's a novelty app. And fun for facebook or online sharing. I wouldn't use it or recommend it for anything going to print
 
Hemmo said:
pano apps : autostitch vs pano i have both and i think autostitch is better though its quite hard to get allround sharp images (ghosts..)...
Click to expand...

I just got Pano and a friend has autostitch. She says she likes Pano a lot more for whatever reason.

Its tough because when I use Pano and attempt to show the results to people on FB it really doesn't show the effect well. You really have to see the pic in its original resolution to get the "wow" effect. I tried it a few times and showed it to people and again people were just astonished that a phone can do these things. But on FB people could not really see the effect well. I guess it also depends on what you are taking a pano of. I want to take some cool scenic beach pics or things like that. City shots are also gonna be cool using Pano. It does take a little getting use to with the overlap and holding it steady and being at the right distance, etc... Not sure if its worth the $3. Should be only $2 but why am I fretting over a buck...:p

anyone else have any tips on Pano?
 
I can't really get the hang of Pano, even as someone with a high degree a familiarity with what it takes to make good panoramas. No matter what I do, I end up with a noticeable amount of ghosting, even in areas that should have been relatively easy to stitch. To compound the frustration, Pano doesn't save the source images so when the result is bad you can't even run it through a more capable program on the PC/Mac.

The guide is a good idea that improves upon the interface I'm used to on my Canon cameras (same implementation there, with the only difference being the previous frame isn't partially transparent), but it just doesn't seem to work very well once you look at the full resolution images.

The second problem is you really need the ability to lock the exposure setting. Without that, any Pano that includes the sun or bright areas will end up with vertical banding where the images with different exposure settings are stitched together. What would be cool is if you scanned the planned Pano area prior to taking the picture, and it selected the best exposure setting for the entire finished frame. I'd settle for even manual control, though, like You Gotta See This!

At least AutoStitch lets you choose your source images.
 
genshi said:
Anyway, for those of you using Hipstamtic I thought it would be kind of interesting to do a lens comparison to see what effect each lens actually gives, so using the Pistil film, I did this comparison test:

(image removed)

(I may do this for each film type as well if any one is curious, and if I have the time.)
Click to expand...

I, for one, would LOVE to see this done for all the film types!!
 
Just thought I'd share that Photogene is on sale for $.99 and the deal ends today.

Apologies if this was posted already...
 
jluce50 said:
I, for one, would LOVE to see this done for all the film types!!
Click to expand...

It's been posted a couple times in this thread, but the thread's huge now so we might as well post it again:
http://content.photojojo.com/static/hipstamatic/

I have huge JPGs showing all the combinations for the original lenses and Hipstapacks, but they're out of date now with the new additions and the original author doesn't appear to be updating them.

jluce50 said:
Just thought I'd share that Photogene is on sale for $.99 and the deal ends today.

Apologies if this was posted already...
Click to expand...

It was, easily visible only a few posts above your own.
 
Gimzotoy said:
I can't really get the hang of Pano, even as someone with a high degree a familiarity with what it takes to make good panoramas. No matter what I do, I end up with a noticeable amount of ghosting, even in areas that should have been relatively easy to stitch. To compound the frustration, Pano doesn't save the source images so when the result is bad you can't even run it through a more capable program on the PC/Mac.

The guide is a good idea that improves upon the interface I'm used to on my Canon cameras (same implementation there, with the only difference being the previous frame isn't partially transparent), but it just doesn't seem to work very well once you look at the full resolution images.

The second problem is you really need the ability to lock the exposure setting. Without that, any Pano that includes the sun or bright areas will end up with vertical banding where the images with different exposure settings are stitched together. What would be cool is if you scanned the planned Pano area prior to taking the picture, and it selected the best exposure setting for the entire finished frame. I'd settle for even manual control, though, like You Gotta See This!

At least AutoStitch lets you choose your source images.
Click to expand...

Interesting observations about Pano. I must say I have not used AutoStitch yet. My friend just said stick to Pano as its easier. But I haven't really seen the differences in results.

Yes I noticed the exposure difference as I was testing Pano during a sunset. I don't notice the "ghosting effect" though. But then again I'm very particular and it takes me a while before I take the next shot because I want it lined up as exact as possible.

Yes wish there was an original source image...

Any other Pano example shots and advice guys?
 
iMetalG5 said:
Interesting observations about Pano. I must say I have not used AutoStitch yet. My friend just said stick to Pano as its easier. But I haven't really seen the differences in results.

Yes I noticed the exposure difference as I was testing Pano during a sunset. I don't notice the "ghosting effect" though. But then again I'm very particular and it takes me a while before I take the next shot because I want it lined up as exact as possible.

Yes wish there was an original source image...

Any other Pano example shots and advice guys?
Click to expand...

I haven't had any issues with Pano regarding ghosting. I have seen a slight difference in exposure once or twice depending on lighting. It would be nice to have the source image or to have a pan feature where the images are captured in a constant pan with the exposure consistant.
 
I've only really noticed the ghosting when viewing the images at full resolution. Less than that, even "Large" setting on Flickr, masks the defects. You'd expect ghosting on moving objects, but I often see them even on stationary ones.

But, it could just be me.
 
Previously posted in the "Post your Photos Taken with an iPhone 4" thread, all photos taken in a hurry and freehand:

Vienna, backside of the State Opera house. Four portrait photos taken with iPhone 4 one week ago late in the evening hours (difficult lights). Maybe I'll return to that place once again in a.m. hours with better sun. Put together by AutoStitch Panorama. Resized with Mac Preview. Klick on the thumbnail for the large picture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_State_Opera



Next. A not so famous place in Vienna.

Very difficult objects and viewing angles for a stitcher so it's not perfect. The little bend in the crossover passage is real (and not a mistake by stitcher software). AutoStitch did that out of 22 (!) portrait photos taken with iPhone 4 (cropped). Resized with Mac Preview. Untouched other than that.



It's impressive for a phone technically spoken. Okay you'll find some ghosts of moving objects but they would be easily removed with Retouch or something similar. It's remarkable how well AutoStich Panorama handles the different exposure settings of each photo. You can't see any banding.
 
For those of you who have issues with your images for proHDR not lining up, try just taking one photo and exposing for the highlights (or in simpler terms...
make the bright parts look the way you want them to).
Exhibit a:
432711aa.jpg

The shadows will range from pretty dark to super dark depending on the situation, but that's ok... you can still pull information out of the shadows, but when a sky or highlight is washed out, it's gone for good. Anyway, take that photo and lighten it in whatever photo editor you prefer, so the sky/highlight is washed out and you can see the detail in the shadows. Save a copy.
Exhibit b:
b6999b21.jpg

Use the dark photo and light photo in proHDR... Voilà, your images line up perfectly and the result should be just as good if not better.
Exhibit c:
4f89ac6f.jpg


Hope that helps some people, and sorry the images are so huge...
 
That should work OK, but all you're really doing is fixing the the Levels with the proper curve, which you could probably do with far less effort in something like PhotoGene. I would bet that your results would even be better since there is more room for tweaking.

The reason being that when you lighten up a dark area, you expose the noise present in those areas. Then ProHDR has some artifacting as it attempts to stitch the two images together. The nice thing about ProHDR is that you can properly expose the dark areas (reducing noise), while not blowing out the light areas by taking multiple photographs. Using ProHDR using the method you describe does not provide you with the primary benefit of HDR photography. If all you're trying to achieve is the "HDR look" than you should be fine, but you're not seeing the dynamic range HDR photography was created to achieve.

There are tons of resources online for properly leveling images. I would spend some time investigating how to use that tool rather than repurposing an HDR app, though I will say the result was pretty decent, if over-saturated. I can try to help you track down a good one if you need it. But, your initial process is certainly correct. You need to underexpose bright images if you want to avoid blowing out the highlights.
 
I forgot all about curves! I haven't had a computer in over two years (my phone is all I've got) and I wasn't aware that there was an app that could do curves, so I figured my method above would suffice. Good to know I won't have to go through the trouble! But I guess my method will still work for those who can't figure out curves and want to bring out details in the shadows without blowing out their highlights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back