What is Digg?47 Comments
- YvesKlein, on 11/16/2008, -14/+35Pretty stupid yo.
- cawpin, on 11/17/2008, -1/+13No, it made it look like a Polaroid picture. That is the point.
- atomsky, on 11/16/2008, -1/+8Judging by the 'before' and 'after' pics, it ups the contrast a bit, changes the hue of whites a little and adds a bit of shadow around the edges. Saves you time in Photoshop I guess..
- kevin52094, on 11/16/2008, -7/+14what is the point?
- warpsmith, on 11/17/2008, -0/+6I kind of regret the discontinuing of the REAL Polaroid. Any artists here ever experiment with Polaroid transfers?
- anyone4apint, on 11/17/2008, -10/+15Before: http://theappleblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11 ...
After: http://theappleblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11 ...
Result: Pointless - noisician, on 11/17/2008, -0/+4uh yeah... or use poladroid
- specialK16, on 11/17/2008, -2/+5No, Macs are all play and no work.
- AndrewJC, on 11/17/2008, -1/+3Okay, that's an unfair comparison you just made. You took three examples (well, seven if you count all four in the second image -- well, okay, six, because that Spider-Man shot is just weird) of great Polaroid shots and compared them to one really ***** fake Polaroid.
I'm sure there are people out there who (a) know how to properly take photos so as to make them look like Polaroid shots (i.e. with proper aperture and exposure settings), and (b) who are good enough with Photoshop that when they placed it into the Polaroid frame, you wouldn't know whether it was real or not. But no, you give us one horrible example of a ***** Photoshop job and call it gospel. - noisician, on 11/17/2008, -2/+4what, has everyone spent half a grand to get photoshop?
but yeah, the 10 pics at a time thing would get old quick. - teebird, on 11/17/2008, -0/+2Pardon me for being a curmudgeon about language but this is the third time in the past two days that I've seen somebody on Digg use the word "flare," which means a bright light used for signaling when the correct word was "flair," which means a distinct or unusual style.
/grumpy, pedantic ex J-School writing instructor mode - inactive, on 11/17/2008, -5/+7An app for old people? Inconceivable!
- Tezdoll, on 11/17/2008, -0/+2You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
- mattmollysdad, on 11/17/2008, -1/+3why?
- HareBall, on 11/17/2008, -0/+2I don't think this is 1940's technology. More like 1970's. I still have some pictures from when I had one in basic training 1976.
- retawd, on 11/17/2008, -1/+3Does every picture end up with a Jesus fish at the bottom?
- jeriqo, on 11/17/2008, -1/+3How much did you pay for your Photoshop copy?
- TheKingInYellow, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1well, yeh, use polaroid. why didn't i think of that? you're so smart.
- BossKey, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1yeah, it was toxic and it got expensive fast. Not to mention the print sizes were too damn small.
- mrgono3, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1Its Mac only right now
- sexybobo, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaroid_Corporation# ...
Polaroid is not a company it is a name Petters Group Worldwide licenses out. - TheKingInYellow, on 11/17/2008, -3/+4not nearly as fun as doing your own washed out and over saturated effects manually in photoshop. it's easy enough; why bother with a program that is automated. i hate automated photo effects. find a polaroid on google images (high res of course) and mask out the original pic, then use the frame as your own. drop your new pic behind and start doing some bleach bypass, cross process effects. don't forget to add a vignette and maybe a water stain.
- captainbethany, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1Don't worry. Polaroid is already starting to license the film out to other manufacturers who are reproducing it. There's a fairly large market for the film... someone will tap into it.
- etx313, on 11/17/2008, -1/+2I give this app TWO Slow Jerks...
- WiretapStudios, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1I beg to differ:
http://www.polaroid.com/us/index.jsp?co=us&bmLocal ... - johnny81, on 02/17/2009, -0/+0Is it apple :s I mean wtf
http://www.linkbuilderz.com/link_building_services ... - brainflakes, on 11/17/2008, -3/+3And the award for the most pointless app ever goes to...
- Narcowski, on 11/17/2008, -2/+2GIMP can do it for free ;)
- Takuro, on 11/17/2008, -3/+3How long before this gets knocked off the front page? Place your bets.
But I do give props to get guy for finding a way to advertise one of the lamest apps on Earth on Digg. - dekadent30, on 02/01/2009, -0/+0typowanie bukmacherka, zakłady sportowe
http://www.i-bukmacher.pl
totomix, sts, profesjonal typy - frosted, on 11/17/2008, -1/+1Wow, now I can make my photos that I took with a $2000 camera, look like total crap, even without photoshop!
- GawtMilk, on 11/17/2008, -1/+1I ***** *HATE* these fake Polaroid actions / programs.
Compare a real Polaroid:
http://flickr.com/photos/czucz/2079359356/
http://flickr.com/photos/raul/5342923/
http://flickr.com/photos/mytripsmypics/2194118733/
To a fake Polaroid:
http://theappleblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11 ...
I mean, come on. Polaroid film was known for soft gradation between tones, awesome colors and a fuzzy retro feel. This just looks like a crap vignette effect applied to the side of the photo stuck into a scanned Polaroid template. If you want to get the Polaroid effect, buy a camera that shoots Polaroid 669 film, and buy Fuji FP-100C film, which is still in production. I guarantee you'll get more satisfaction pulling apart that first shot than a million frustrating results from this program.
Here are some results, keep in mind the kit required to get these results is all being manufactured today; although it's easier to go the used route for a Polaroid 669-compatible camera [I bought one over summer for $15 USD].
http://flickr.com/photos/ricohmatic/474922293/
http://flickr.com/photos/nelsonfoto/2409542587/
http://flickr.com/photos/sx70lover/2627357142/ - fallingdamage, on 11/17/2008, -1/+1"Not content to just provide a Photoshop (or PhotoBooth) filter, the makers of Poladroid came up with a way to electronically “develop” your photos into Polaroid-like snaps, complete with the ability to shake the film while you wait!"
Actually, im content with Photoshop Filters. I can do the same thing w/o this program and not be wasting my time shaking a virtual picture. In the time it takes for a polaroid to develop, I could apply a PS filter to a whole set of photos. - dragossh, on 11/17/2008, -2/+1Guess TextMate, Word/Pages, Excel/Numbers, PowerPoint/Keynote, Entourage/Mail/Thunderbird or Bento are entertainment apps then.
- sexybobo, on 11/17/2008, -2/+1you do know Polaroid is not a company anymore right?
- sexybobo, on 11/17/2008, -2/+1Polaroid is not doing anything they are no longer a company they went out of business because they thought there was a large market for Polaroid cameras when there wasn't one.
The people that bought Polaroid's name is licensing out the name for next to nothing but i doubt any one will make the film again because people don't want them they wan't highres digital cameras with screens on the back so they get that instate gratification with a good photo to email around or archive or what ever else they want to do with out the photo degenerating after 20 years. - WiretapStudios, on 11/17/2008, -2/+1That's irrelevant...how much did whomever pay for the macbook or mac system to run this on? I'm sure more than my copy of Photoshop.
- WiretapStudios, on 11/17/2008, -4/+2I have both the Photoshop film filters, and over 10 different Polaroid cameras. This is just stupid. Hey Polaroid, how about you just find a way to keep making the film that I and everyone else loves?
P.S. The guys before and after photos could be done in like two seconds with the Photoshop filters. Or you can just do it manually in maybe 15 seconds. This is a pointless app. - TheKingInYellow, on 11/17/2008, -4/+2no, because you'd have to bring the result into photoshop to tweak it further so that it really looks like a polaroid...so what's the point of wasting your time with poladroid?
- inactive, on 11/17/2008, -2/+0Just what I always wanted, software that makes my pictures look like a ***** Polaroid.
- Falldog, on 11/17/2008, -5/+2Considering the outrageous levels of post processing a lot of people do to their photographs, I could see this doing fairly well.
- TTURabble, on 11/17/2008, -4/+1Microsoft?
- PeterFile, on 11/17/2008, -7/+3It'd be easier to just do your photos in photoshop rather than downloading, installing the program and doing 10 pictures at a time.
- junkwheel, on 11/17/2008, -8/+4Sounds like a robotic polar bear.
BURIED. - ImUrStranger, on 11/17/2008, -8/+2Hahaha.
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
