Does anyone use Instagram??

[Sivart444]

It's a great photo-sharing app for the iPhones. I love & use it daily! If anyone on here uses or plans on using it make sure to add me ! thaChron444


Cheers!

Travis

[Soulsofmischief]

It's a great photo-sharing app for the iPhones. I love & use it daily! If anyone on here uses or plans on using it make sure to add me ! thaChron444


Cheers!

Travis

i used to use it quite a bit but have since been hooked on Camera+ its about 17.8 times as good as instagram.. the quality of the pictures are fantastic and the options for editing are way more advanced. its not a free app ( assuming you have an iPhone ) unless you're JB. but well worth the money.

[Sivart444]

Camera+ Was the best $1.99ive ever spent ! I love it, i just use instagram for finding other peoples photos & posting up my own!

[Impressive]

I use both Camera+ & Instagram and they're both amazing.

[terapr0]

iPhones (and all phones for that matter) are rubbish for taking pictures...If that were my only option I'd just as soon not take any photos. and if you can afford an iphone, you should be able to afford a decent camera.

$0.02

[Impressive]

iPhones (and all phones for that matter) are rubbish for taking pictures...If that were my only option I'd just as soon not take any photos. and if you can afford an iphone, you should be able to afford a decent camera.

$0.02

I've learned that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, so I will try to refrain from posting anything negative about your statement out of respect for that principle.

if you look back to the first phone you had...compare the camera on that with the camera on the new iPhone 4s. Even coming from a blackberry bold I must say the camera is quite awesome. I have a 14 megapixel point-and-shoot but I like the iPhones camera options and connectivity.

iPhone 4s's are available at $160 for signing a new 3 year term...whereas even an entry level DSLR (assuming you think more highly of those) without any lenses would naturally cost $400+...not to mention the learning curve involved with a camera of that nature.

[The Wolf]

my GF also has a 14MP Nikon P&S. It's great for lots of things, but at NYE in low light, her iPhone was taking much better pictures. To keep this post on-topic, she uses it, I've used it, and it's pretty cool beans.

also, saying "if you have an iPhone you should be able to have a nice camera" doesn't really make very much sense at all. It's like saying "why drive a Mazda 3 in the snow? If you own one Mazda 3, you should be able to buy another vehicle for the winter."

[angelaTRICIA]

Love instagram

[terapr0]

That $160 iphone costs you MUCH more than a $400 entry-level DSLR, it’s just amortized into payments over 3years which conceal your true cost of ownership. By that same rationale you could go into bestbuy and use one of their credit cards to buy a decent camera for $160 down while dragging out the payments for 3years.

If all you want to do is capture pictures of your friends and take photos of your dog or flowers then yea I guess the iPhone isn’t the worst thing in the world, but I still think its rubbish. There’s no control over exposure, depth of field or other critical elements. The pictures are crude and unrefined – the only character is afforded through the use of cheesy filters and gimmicky effects. Hipstamatic type stuff. If your “14 MP point and shoot” doesn’t take good pictures in low-light its because you weren’t using a tripod and didn’t understand its limitations. Even my $3000 DSLR can trip up if I’m shooting handheld at a low ISO in low light.

I’ll be the first to admit that as a passionate amateur photographer I’m a tad biased, but I still think camera phones suck. They’re slightly better than nothing, but the stuff that comes out of them isn’t really that good. The photos are (by and large) flat and boring. Of course I still believe that a good photo is about 70% user, 20% equipment and 10% luck, but there are certain characteristics which are impossible to replicate with the tiny flaccid lens of a phone. Use the right tool for the job, and when it comes to photography, that really isn’t a cell phone.

$0.02

[terapr0]

a more articulate rendition of my feelings towards instagram can be found here:

http://seldo.com/weblog/2011/08/11/w...hate_instagram

[Pyro]

1) $160 is amortized, but if you need to pay for a cell phone plan anyways and you don't intend to switch carriers, contract isn't such a bad idea (although 3 years is crazy, we're the only country that does it but that's another debate).

2) Nobody said a camera phone is as good as a DSLR. Who wants to carry a DSLR around though? I have an entry level one and I don't use it very often - because it's a PITA to carry around and I haven't really learned much so far. Camera phones are great for snapping a quick shot because something happened in your life. But you sound pretty biased because you seem to think that people are using an iphone to take professional shots - far from the truth. Camera phones are for fun, just like how apps like instagram are. These aren't pics going into a magazine or a gallery, at most maybe the food blog of some hipster who is such a 70s kid (born in 1979 lol)

[Soulsofmischief]

That $160 iphone costs you MUCH more than a $400 entry-level DSLR, it’s just amortized into payments over 3years which conceal your true cost of ownership. By that same rationale you could go into bestbuy and use one of their credit cards to buy a decent camera for $160 down while dragging out the payments for 3years.

If all you want to do is capture pictures of your friends and take photos of your dog or flowers then yea I guess the iPhone isn’t the worst thing in the world, but I still think its rubbish. There’s no control over exposure, depth of field or other critical elements. The pictures are crude and unrefined – the only character is afforded through the use of cheesy filters and gimmicky effects. Hipstamatic type stuff. If your “14 MP point and shoot” doesn’t take good pictures in low-light its because you weren’t using a tripod and didn’t understand its limitations. Even my $3000 DSLR can trip up if I’m shooting handheld at a low ISO in low light.

I’ll be the first to admit that as a passionate amateur photographer I’m a tad biased, but I still think camera phones suck. They’re slightly better than nothing, but the stuff that comes out of them isn’t really that good. The photos are (by and large) flat and boring. Of course I still believe that a good photo is about 70% user, 20% equipment and 10% luck, but there are certain characteristics which are impossible to replicate with the tiny flaccid lens of a phone. Use the right tool for the job, and when it comes to photography, that really isn’t a cell phone.

$0.02

wow. it seems that you have put quite some thought into how to express how you feel about instagram and other such apps that are "slightly better than nothing". I cant help but notice that this was never a thread about Professional photography as opposed to just using your phones camera to take pictures and refine them a bit? I dont have a $3000 dollar camera cause i dont need a $3000 dollar camera, same as i like taking my car on the track , i dont need it to be an F1 ? you dont have to get an expensive camera to just take pictures? And i know you will say that you covered that by stating that in the first paragraph but dude.. that just came accross as anger and hate toward an inatimate intangible application? just sayin.

[zzz3]

will a $400 camera make phone calls, play music, surf the web? that should pretty much sum up my position (and priorities).

its asinine to compare a cell phone camera to dslr or suggest that if we have the former, we should have the latter (and be able to afford it).

[Sivart444]

I'm on both sides, agree with the fact that mobile phone cameras arent nearly as powerful. But as a proof of concept, here's a few shots i took on my phone this summer. I payed $65 for a set of 5 external lenses + my 4MP Camera on the phone with adjustable exposure and focus.

Anyway if anyone is interested in the lens' - they're available online all over. I bought them mainly because my 20D Has a light leak and i lack the funds to fix it, this was enough to tide me over this summer.















Cheers

[IMG][/IMG]

[Soulsofmischief]

and here are a few i took over the last 3 days .. no attachements, no special lenses.. just point and click.. its not $3000 dollar camera quality but its just a way to express my own creativity.

[Soulsofmischief]

I'm on both sides, agree with the fact that mobile phone cameras arent nearly as powerful. But as a proof of concept, here's a few shots i took on my phone this summer. I payed $65 for a set of 5 external lenses + my 4MP Camera on the phone with adjustable exposure and focus.

Anyway if anyone is interested in the lens' - they're available online all over. I bought them mainly because my 20D Has a light leak and i lack the funds to fix it, this was enough to tide me over this summer.















Cheers

[IMG][/IMG]

very nice!!! love the one with the tree.

[terapr0]

theres nothing creative about a bunch of cheesey fake borders, ridiculous faux film grain, artificially induced vignetting and contrast boosted to the stratosphere.
I'm not saying you arent an artist because you dont have an expensive camera, or trying to belittle your attempts at creativity.

I'm saying that faux vintage filters are stupid and dont enhance the creative merit of an otherwise boring picture. You're not fooling anyone into thinking you used a polaroid or old film camera. That type of editing is hokey and will quickly fall out of style. The pictures arent offensive, but they're nothing special and all the editing in the world wont make them great.

a few of savvrts pictures are genuinely good - but thats because they are compositionally interesting and feature unique subject matter. They were well captured and are actually interesting to look at. I really like the snake, the iris and the leaves. I'll concede this to be proof that not all cell phones are shit, and will say that
there are no bad cameras - there are only bad photographers.

[Soulsofmischief]

theres nothing creative about a bunch of cheesey fake borders, ridiculous faux film grain, artificially induced vignetting and contrast boosted to the stratosphere.
I'm not saying you arent an artist because you dont have an expensive camera, or trying to belittle your attempts at creativity.

I'm saying that faux vintage filters are stupid and dont enhance the creative merit of an otherwise boring picture. You're not fooling anyone into thinking you used a polaroid or old film camera. That type of editing is hokey and will quickly fall out of style. The pictures arent offensive, but they're nothing special and all the editing in the world wont make them great.

a few of savvrts pictures are genuinely good - but thats because they are compositionally interesting and feature unique subject matter. They were well captured and are actually interesting to look at. I really like the snake, the iris and the leaves. I'll concede this to be proof that not all cell phones are shit, and will say that
there are no bad cameras - there are only bad photographers.

wow.. im not even what to say to that other than you come accross as egotistical, arrogant, and exactly the opposite of every other person who ive met on here. There is nothing wrong with having an opinion and expressing it but directly saying "theres nothing creative about a bunch of cheesey fake borders, ridiculous faux film grain, artificially induced vignetting and contrast boosted to the stratosphere.
I'm not saying you arent an artist because you dont have an expensive camera, or trying to belittle your attempts at creativity" shows 1. you have a bit of a superiority complex and like to go off on those that you believe to be inferior in this certain area?( again i have no idea why you would do this when the OP was talking about Instagram and who had it ? not who is a good photographer,what camera do you use and lets debate?)
and 2. you make statements and then backtrack to cover your ass .. cause saying that to anyone and then saying " now im not saying what i just said " is basically saying " i dont want to be held accountable for what i said."

im done in this thread because im actually insulted and dont wish to say what i want to say, i respect this forum and I respect people's opinions.

[terapr0]

well dont hold back on my account...you wont hurt my feelings.

that being said, I suppose I derailed the thread from its original topic. No matter...I'm done here anyway. I have my opinion and you obviously have yours. I'm not going to convert anyone, nor do I intend to.

[The Wolf]

Edit: nevermind

[crystal8484]

Hey, didn't Hitler go into politics because he wasn't accepted into art school?

We've got world war 3 on our hands with this thread. LMAO.

[Default User]

Meh - Wars happen when 2 parties refuse to believe they are in the wrong.



But - People should be entitled to voice their own opinion. It's healthier than bottling everything up.

TM3 members don't have to agree or get along with each other. In the real world, it just doesn't happen.

However, there should be a level of respect - if not for each other, but for the fact that your thoughts as a human being posted on the web, will eventually come back to you in the real world.

Just my $0.02


That being said - I've always wanted to use the photo apps. Just never really "trusted" the output until recently. Now it's just a matter of which one LOL

[The Wolf]

On my BB I use Photo Studio/Camera+. Its instant effects aren't as "good" (I'll use that world carefully or else a certain awesome talented photographer might roast me) as Instagram, but it allows more actual control over image parameters.

Pretty sure it's available for iPhone as well.

These are fun apps to mess around with, provided douchey self-righteous photogs don't decide they're feeling a little less-than-good-enough that day and decide to remind of what you you already know: iPhone cameras are toys.

[optiklenz13]

[terapr0]

lol I've been called worse.

So long as you're aware that its nothing more than a toy then that's fine. Like I said, a few of the examples posted were actually kinda neat. I'm still impressed with that iris photo.

The whole thing just reminds me of the superficial holga / lens baby / polaroid hipster scene I've borne witness to these past couple of years. I love photography and I'm ecstatic that technology is allowing more people to get involved in this hobby that's been so rewarding for me. Unfortunately it just seems that a lot of people think taking a boring photo, applying some cheesy filters and posting it online makes them super artsy and creative. most wouldn't know what to do if you handed them a film camera. not that theres anything wrong with that per-se, it just seems very shallow. I'd prefer to see unedited pictures than something which has been tweaked to within an inch of its life. Then again, if these goofy apps are a way of getting people interested in photography then I'm all for it. I just hope that people take the time to learn a bit more about what they're doing.

anyways, I said I was done with this thread before and I dont know why I came back. My intent was not to insult anyone personally and I really didnt mean to come off as arrogant or pretentious, because in real life I think I'm anything but. I just love photography and am entirely self taught from years of practice. its probably my one true passion and it bothers me when I see a bunch of people saunter onto the scene with some toy cameras thinking they're hot shit artists because they're taking retro looking polaroid style photos. anyways, if thats your thing then keep at it. I just hope one day you decide to learn a bit more it. If anyone ever wants to go and take pictures I'm always up for it and have a few spare DSLRs I'm always willing to lend out...I love sharing this rewarding hobby with others.