THE BORE

General => The Superdeep Borehole => Topic started by: CajoleJuice on April 09, 2012, 01:42:24 PM

Title: Instagram > The New York Times (Borys was right)
Post by: CajoleJuice on April 09, 2012, 01:42:24 PM
Facebook just bought it for ONE BILLION DOLLARS
Title: Re: Instagram > The New York Times
Post by: Cerveza mas fina on April 09, 2012, 01:44:01 PM
Money laundering yo
Title: Re: Instagram > The New York Times (Borys was right)
Post by: Himu on April 09, 2012, 01:52:23 PM
I've never used instagram, but I always see people using old, weathered filters from instagram. Can someone explain what it is?
Title: Re: Instagram > The New York Times (Borys was right)
Post by: Huff on April 09, 2012, 01:53:08 PM
it lets you post pictures. revolutionary, really
Title: Re: Instagram > The New York Times (Borys was right)
Post by: Momo on April 09, 2012, 01:53:47 PM
I've never used instagram, but I always see people using old, weathered filters from instagram. Can someone explain what it is?
Meet Instagram

It’s a fast, beautiful and fun way to share your photos with friends and family.

Snap a picture, choose a filter to transform its look and feel, then post to Instagram. Share to Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr too – it's as easy as pie. It's photo sharing, reinvented.

Oh yeah, did we mention it’s free?
Title: Re: Instagram > The New York Times (Borys was right)
Post by: Himu on April 09, 2012, 01:54:52 PM
Not bad.
Title: Re: Instagram > The New York Times
Post by: Robo on April 09, 2012, 01:55:04 PM
I've never used instagram, but I always see people using old, weathered filters from instagram. Can someone explain what it is?

Simple way to disguise the inherent ugliness of camera phones.  The downside is it makes you look like a twat.
Title: Re: Instagram > The New York Times (Borys was right)
Post by: Himu on April 09, 2012, 01:55:48 PM
I've seen people use the filters for fucking twitter screen caps. TWITTER SCREEN CAPS.
Title: Re: Instagram > The New York Times (Borys was right)
Post by: Phoenix Dark on April 09, 2012, 01:56:38 PM
I should have bought stock after Borys' post  :'(

guess I'll buy stock in Sony instead
Title: Re: Instagram > The New York Times (Borys was right)
Post by: MyNameIsMethodis on April 09, 2012, 02:01:04 PM
Instagram has some awesome focus effects though that make it worth using ify ou're lookign for depth of field on the go.

(http://distilleryimage11.s3.amazonaws.com/1396e9b27db311e19e4a12313813ffc0_7.jpg)

like that
Title: Re: Instagram > The New York Times (Borys was right)
Post by: Cerveza mas fina on April 09, 2012, 02:05:13 PM
Using novelty filters... great.

How about people learn to make photos instead.
Title: Re: Instagram > The New York Times (Borys was right)
Post by: CajoleJuice on April 09, 2012, 02:09:07 PM
Using novelty filters... great.

How about people learn to make photos instead.
people (including me most of the time) rather just use their shitty camera phones
Title: Re: Instagram > The New York Times (Borys was right)
Post by: MrAngryFace on April 09, 2012, 02:09:38 PM
instaSHAM ha ha ha
Title: Re: Instagram > The New York Times (Borys was right)
Post by: Dickie Dee on April 09, 2012, 02:10:40 PM
Instagram has some awesome focus effects though that make it worth using ify ou're lookign for depth of field on the go.

(http://distilleryimage11.s3.amazonaws.com/1396e9b27db311e19e4a12313813ffc0_7.jpg)

like that

Nope.
Title: Re: Instagram > The New York Times (Borys was right)
Post by: Cerveza mas fina on April 09, 2012, 02:19:25 PM
Using novelty filters... great.

How about people learn to make photos instead.
people (including me most of the time) rather just use their shitty camera phones

You can make great pics with your phone camera. Ask BluTsunami to post some...
Title: Re: Instagram > The New York Times (Borys was right)
Post by: Cerveza mas fina on April 09, 2012, 02:22:05 PM
Look you don't need a shitty filter to make a phone picture look ok, these are totally unedited.

(http://i43.tinypic.com/2nlu4j9.jpg)

(http://i41.tinypic.com/2zqfwnt.jpg)

Title: Re: Instagram > The New York Times (Borys was right)
Post by: CajoleJuice on April 09, 2012, 02:23:41 PM
so join instagram and use "no filter"
Title: Re: Instagram > The New York Times (Borys was right)
Post by: Bebpo on April 09, 2012, 02:25:04 PM
Half the people I know on facebook use it for every shot they post.  Not a big surprise the makers made bank.  That thing took off like crazy.
Title: Re: Instagram > The New York Times (Borys was right)
Post by: Joe Molotov on April 09, 2012, 02:44:11 PM
Instgram cock pics :drool
Title: Re: Instagram > The New York Times (Borys was right)
Post by: Great Rumbler on April 09, 2012, 03:10:37 PM
From Instagram HQ:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cVtUnGPl5c
Title: Re: Instagram > The New York Times (Borys was right)
Post by: pilonv1 on April 09, 2012, 07:56:31 PM
Looking forward to them trying to monetize it
Title: Re: Instagram > The New York Times (Borys was right)
Post by: Shaka Khan on April 09, 2012, 08:25:10 PM
Look you don't need a shitty filter to make a phone picture look ok, these are totally unedited.

(http://i43.tinypic.com/2nlu4j9.jpg)

Oh yeah? Well take a look at what my shitty 3GS can do with a couple of clicks:

(http://i.imgur.com/r5fkZ.jpg)

Lager annihilated.

Icon Borys.
Title: Re: Instagram > The New York Times (Borys was right)
Post by: Tasty on April 09, 2012, 08:38:51 PM
Just get a DSLR you hipster plebes.
Title: Re: Instagram > The New York Times (Borys was right)
Post by: whiteACID on April 09, 2012, 08:45:36 PM
A DSLR is a pain in the ass to carry around with you. Camera phones are great for those unexpected moments, when you want to take a great shot. Instagram just makes it look nicer.
You guys will hate on anything
Title: Re: Instagram > The New York Times (Borys was right)
Post by: BlueTsunami on April 09, 2012, 09:39:37 PM
I'm guilty of applying filters to my photos at times but mainly for cameraphone pics here and there. As Cajole stated its good for masking shitty optics and sensors. But with that said applying filters to everything can look a little goofy. I personally like to be more selective about it.

I'm way more sensitive to the processing when I shoot photos that I may actually end up printing which usually comes from a DSLR though. If the camera and lens is good enough for print I generally like to retain the feel of the scene instead of imposing filters on it.

I think the community aspect of instagram is way more interesting than the filters though. Sites like Flickr are not tailored for mobile uploading, viewing, and commenting at all.
Title: Re: Instagram > The New York Times (Borys was right)
Post by: Skidmark on April 09, 2012, 10:05:14 PM
There is a girl on my facebook who uses those instagram effects especially the soft focus and the fake depth of field, I can't wait till the next time I see her to tell her in person how much she sucks.
Title: Re: Instagram > The New York Times (Borys was right)
Post by: Shaka Khan on April 09, 2012, 10:46:59 PM
I think the community aspect of instagram is way more interesting than the filters though. Sites like Flickr are not tailored for mobile uploading, viewing, and commenting at all.

This is very true. I was surprised the other day by how much my family was into the social aspect of it. They appreciated how easy it was to use a dedicated photo app without the clutter of FB and real-timeness of Twitter. Not to mention how it fools them into thinking they're pros. 70% of their photo posting and commenting activities takes place inside the app.
Title: Re: Instagram > The New York Times (Borys was right)
Post by: Flannel Boy on April 09, 2012, 11:44:58 PM
Flickr has Imogen. Imogen doesn't need cheap filters.

Flickr wins.
Title: Re: Instagram > The New York Times (Borys was right)
Post by: MyNameIsMethodis on April 09, 2012, 11:45:33 PM
(http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/269835_2264536616063_1327920035_2682313_5689065_n.jpg)

filters work ok in some situations  :-\
Title: Re: Instagram > The New York Times (Borys was right)
Post by: Shaka Khan on April 09, 2012, 11:55:18 PM
The borders are fukken ghey, though. Everyone should remove them.
Title: Re: Instagram > The New York Times (Borys was right)
Post by: Cerveza mas fina on April 10, 2012, 03:40:45 AM
Shaka werent you replacing ghey with fab?
Title: Re: Instagram > The New York Times (Borys was right)
Post by: Shaka Khan on April 10, 2012, 04:10:30 AM
You're thinking of "fag". Ghey is still pretty much ghey.
Title: Re: Instagram > The New York Times (Borys was right)
Post by: T-Short on April 10, 2012, 04:19:09 AM
Hey, some of the borders are a-ok.
Title: Re: Instagram > The New York Times (Borys was right)
Post by: T-Short on April 10, 2012, 06:10:33 AM
I quite like this border, it's the only one I use though. Do you hate, Shaka?  :-*

(http://i.minus.com/i1TXwHyW2b8Fs.jpg)
Title: Re: Instagram > The New York Times (Borys was right)
Post by: Reb on April 10, 2012, 06:13:50 AM
Fruitiest border ever.
Title: Re: Instagram > The New York Times (Borys was right)
Post by: T-Short on April 10, 2012, 06:15:50 AM
 :elephant
Title: Re: Instagram > The New York Times (Borys was right)
Post by: T-Short on April 10, 2012, 07:23:26 AM
Using novelty filters... great.

How about people learn to make photos instead.

Hehe. Well. Using instagram can be a way to learn how to make photos. The filters aren't really relevant, a good photo is still a photo even if it's taken with an iPhone/point&shoot/DSLR or whatever. The good thing about instagram is of course the "insta" part of it, that you can snap a pic and share it really easily. Of course the "capturing a moment" and "right place at the right time" aspects are only part of what makes good photography, but if you have a good eye it shouldn't matter what the medium or equipment is. Of course you get mongos spamming fucking post-it notes with motivational quotes on them, but it's not hard to build a good feed by looking through your friends' likes and following people with a good eye.
Title: Re: Instagram > The New York Times (Borys was right)
Post by: Shaka Khan on April 10, 2012, 02:28:38 PM
I quite like this border, it's the only one I use though. Do you hate, Shaka?  :-*

Ok, perfectly square and plain borders get a pass. I haven't sampled most of them, but I dislike the curved corners, and hate – just hate – the ones with fake time stamps. So overused and tacky.
Title: Re: Instagram > The New York Times (Borys was right)
Post by: BlueTsunami on April 10, 2012, 02:42:18 PM
Thing about borders (the good non overly flourishing ones) is that its a great way to separate the photograph from the UI so you appreciate it even more. Like looking through a window. I should try using them more often for my landscapes. I also really like Hyoushi's, the style and the off white.