Anyway, I found it interesting that on almost the same day, Twitter and Flickr both launched new photo filter interfaces to compete with Instagram’s popularity — though for Flickr, it may be nearly three years too late.
Though I’m certainly not the first person to think about this, I decided it might be interesting to see how these three programs stack up.
So I took a picture. This one, to be exact.
It’s a photo of a teaser artifact from my forthcoming book, By the Balls: The Complete Collection. (Aside: It went to press today.) Anyway, I took it just this morning with Camera+ on an iPhone 5 and cropped it to 2159 pixels square (for no reason other than it looked good at that size).
Then I uploaded it to Instagram and ran it through the “Sierra” filter. A lot of Instagram’s filters are a bit too much for me, but for this shot Sierra looked pretty good. How good? Well, about this good.
I opted to link this to my Facebook feed as well, just because I could.
Then I ran the original photo through the Twitter filter “Vignette.” The Twitter filters, powered by Aviary (a great resource in its own right) have mostly functional names, like “Black & White,” “Cool,” and “Gritty.” But Vignette looks like this.
And the final filter in the filter face-off, here comes Flickr. All the Flickr filters are all named after animals (some living, some extinct), which is cute, but not even remotely useful. I tried them all on for size, but “Mammoth” seemed to be the one that gave me the best result.
So there we have it. Three apps, three filters, three results. I’m not sure what it all means, other than I probably won’t be abandoning Instagram anytime soon — even if my Instagram photos no longer display in my Twitter feed.