JacquesBalthazar: Am I the only one to think apps such as these are making so called "creative photography" increasingly easy, trivial, gimmicky, lazy, boring, repetitive and ultimately irrelevant?
At least PS and the like require some training and knowledge, and benefit from an understanding of the mechanics of photography. But the new generation of apps are too brilliant for our own good.
Basically, within 6 months from now, nobody will raise an eyebrow for any similar output, and, unless you live on a desert island with no Internet, the only reaction facing a "creative" image will be to yawn and deride the Snapspeed filter that was used. Even if the picture is in fact truly a 19th century wet plate print or a 40s Kodachrome slide retrieved from a sunken ship or the outcome of a complex experiment at sophisticated cross processing.
I might be overly elitist, but the only way forward for meaningful photography might be in going back to the basics.
I agree effect filters can cheapen things to a degree. One thing however that you can't fake however is content.
You need to have the right subject in the right angle in the right lighting with the expression, etc. This is very obvious in movies. All the special effects in the world can't fix a bad script and some films are wonderful without any effects. But, sometimes, effects can serve a script (or picture) and make it come alive. And, if computers can help us knock those effects out so we have more time at the gym, planting flowers, etc. that is good.
In the end, I fall in between. Effects make an image stand out and yes, have become de riguer. But, it still takes an empathetic mind, the desire to find the right angle and motivation to capture a decent picture in the first place. In short, we need to make sure that kids keep getting art classes through college so they aren't bewitched by effects and can make decisions about what is quality and what is sugar frosting.