TIME Magazine's Recent Cover Shot with iPhone and Hipstamatic

TIME Magazine's Recent Cover Shot with iPhone and Hipstamatic

Okay, so with proper lighting, good make-up, and the right wardrobe, we know we can get great fashion images with the iPhone. But for those of you who thought it could never be used for news, think again. TIME Magazine's recent cover, shot by Ben Lowy, was shot on an iPhone using the popular Hipstamatic app.

Via Hipstamatic's Blog

Below is the full cover:

Log in or register to post comments


It's not the camera that makes the picture. :)

Nic Brindell's picture

Yeah its the app bahah, jk =P

Nick Sakowski Photo's picture

yes its the app...just like photoshop cs6 is an app! an image is an image!

I sorry, But how do I tell my 11 year old that he needs to study the fundamentals of making photographs when this guy is doing the COVER of TIME with his phone and a pile of fake filters? What would the greats be thinking right now. I looked at his blog, and although Im sure he is very talented, the images are barely better than my 11 Year-olds instagram gallery. So, the struggle continues. Yes, he makes beautiful work. Did he really have to do anything to create it? dosent look like it. Is that ok? of course, but it dosent help me with my son and how I hope he will learn all that there is to help him tell his story. I know it is a letdown for him to take photos without all the fake stuff, and that make me sad as I know he loves making photos and has a beautiful eye that always makes me smile

You have to trust that he will see things like you and most other. It's not the gear that makes a photograph.

Personnaly, I realized this when a friend of mine forced me to try a roll of film in my dads 30 years old camera. It forces you to think before triggering and the whole experience is different.

You could try this wth your son (provided he's old enough to be around chemicals without swallowing them! ;) )

Yes it does force you.  I am taking a black and white developing class (like I should have done way back in college) and just shooting "crap" film and having it developed at Walgreens has opened my eyes.  I am looking forward to the next step (wednesday night) and developing my first roll.

I think the point of this photograph and this article is that an amazing image is an amazing image, and that sometimes what you need to focus on IS the fundamentals, and that the equipment used contributes little to the image. 

Mike Kelley's picture

Reminder: the message is more important than the medium

But when a medium is cheap, readily available to anyone, doesn't require any skill (or the most basics ones) we can easily imagine that the message will inherit the same properties (bland, general and meaningless for the most part.) 

Exactly what we have seen happen with camera phones and duckfaced twat over the world...

Same thing happened with web based information media. TONS of crap for a minute amount of sound and quality info.

Todd Clancy's picture

I think there is tons of crap done with DSLR as well.. people are not learning the basics and shooting with expensive DSLR's. Calling themselves professionals. Any camera is readily available. you can get a cheap DSLR for nothing on craigslist. The iPhone isn't the only camera that people use badly. 

it's the photographers vision that makes them great not the tool they use.I think it's amazing that something shot with an iPhone is on the cover of time. Doesn't mean they are gonna quit using shots done with other formats. It's something new and different that's the point. Look at it in a positive light. 

Maybe, and that might be the case for a LOT of photographs taken with camera phones, but the point is that the medium is not important, even if its readily available. In fact, that makes it better, because its easier to catch those "in between" moments and it allows everyone to learn. Just because some people don't put the camera to good use is not a valid basis for discrediting every single photograph taken with one. 

No one in this debate is wrong. Fundamentally we need to remember that every photograph is a frame designed to tell a story (or say something about the world, the artist etc). Therefore, regardless of whether or not a picture is taken with the most pedestrian of devices with little technique - or is staged with mono-lights and a crew of 30+, we should really be looking at the image itself and the story it carries with.
       Brendan, tell your son that he can tell a story with the simplest of images from his phone. Don't deny him of this modern inherent ability. But, at the same time explain to him that understanding the fundamentals of good camera practice and technique (lighting, film stocks, aperture etc) allows him to tell a more diverse range of stories with his images across the board. Like a contractor that works with tools - a person might be able to build a shed with a simple hammer and nails, but in understanding a broader range of tools and how they work, will allow him/her to construct more complex structures or tend more efficiently to the one built only with a hammer.
       If the end result is that a story/emotion was shared through said image, then the means of capturing are irrelevant. Tell your son that he should learn as much as he can, so that he will understand how complex photographs are created, and also respect that sometimes the greatest images in history are thought provokingly simple.

K. G. Brown's picture

But the magazines all aim for the lowest common denominator...

Amateur is cheaper than Pro.

Cel Phone is cheaper than DSLR.

Hipstamatic is cheaper than a Photographer.

Photo Credit is cheaper than Paying.



Even if this was shot on an iPhone with an app, I like this image. It caught part an important time that will go down in history. I don't think the medium in which the image was taken should be reason to discredit the the person who took the image or the image itself. I'd rather look at the image and be thankful I can see something that happened across the nation from myself and affected so many people.

Could have been better. All I see is a photo of a generic storm that could have taken place anywhere and at any other time.

That New York Magazine cover linked by another commenter above, though. Now *that's* an editorial photo!