What is it with flickr and over processed work

Messages
4,379
Edit My Images
Yes
<Link Removed>

So is this what photography is about now? , completely blowing out churches , wacking up the saturation and getting lots of comments?. Seen it far too often on flickr , shots that have massive halo's , ghosting , unaligned images and way over saturated but people love it :cuckoo:

Some of them you get " YOU ARE A STAR PHOTOGRAPHER " and you think , WTF are you mad are we looking at the same image?
 
It all depends on taste. If you like overblown HDR church interiors that will float your boat I guess!
 
It's a bit odd you say that because I know you like to make HDR as well.

It's all personal preference, and if anything I'd say this thread is a bit of jealousy, that something you don't like is praised by others!
 
It's a bit odd you say that because I know you like to make HDR as well.

It's all personal preference, and if anything I'd say this thread is a bit of jealousy, that something you don't like is praised by others!

Maybe , i love HDR but natural HDR or HDR that makes an image look good. But i really don't understand images that people wack up the processing to the point of looking like it was processed it on drugs.
 
It does look like the shadow clipping warning has been left on.....

Not keen myself, and not jealous :-p
 
Unfortunately the mass expansion of Flickr has brought in users who treat it as one big popularity contest. They want to have their photo in Explore, or have their group become popular, or just want lots of happy comments on their photos and the most views.

What I find is they start emulating the most popular photographers, so a lot of similar work gets put out there. Nothing particularly wrong with that, but for me the impact of a very good photograph is dulled when you've seen something very similar already.
 
Its all subjective and that part of the fun of photography - just like any art form :)

If we all liked the same stuff how dull would this forum be ;):D
 
Photography would be boring if we all liked the same images processed the same way.

For me I either like OTT processing or subtle processing, it's the inbetween stuff that does nothing for me.
 
Flickr is so large now its got lots of people who will go round praising stuff all over the shop, and as in that case pimping their own group/photos etc. The problem with the internets is that it is just too big. ;)
 
lol if you use flickr or even worse, facebook as a barometer of where photography is today............well we'd all be stuffed!

Ignore it and get on with making images you like.

I'm not a fan of Ricky Gervais but he did say something interesting in a radio interview this week. He said that he writes for himself. If he wrote for other people he would end up diluting his work to incorporate all the things he would think other people would like and it would end up being totally unremarkable.

I think you can apply that to photography and digital art too. Work at the images you want to make and they will be stronger for it.
 
A couple of the groups I subscribe to on Flickr ban HDR outright, which I find quite entertaining...it can look OK if done correctly and in moderation...
But then these same groups also ban photos of Nikon lens-caps on the kitchen-table, Nikon neck-straps, Nikon cameras...etc etc...which I totally agree with...

And yes they are Nikon groups - we own the cameras - we already know what the effin lens-caps look like!!!
 
I actually quite like some HDR shots and have done some myself (including the inside of a local church) with mixed results, but that one is bonkers! Far too garish for me I'm afraid.
 
I have removed the images from this thread. We do not tollerate the 'slagging off' others work, especially when they are not here to defend themselves.
 
Neil I am intrigued by your views expressed in this thread given the content of your signature (unless you are being ironic?)

Signature I take my photography to the next level , albeit a work of art or looking like a computer game. Photo manipulation to the max !


Its an old adage but true: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder :)
 
To be blunt, I don't like the fact that imahes were posted here with the intend of showing how "crap" they were and how they were totally wrong in producing the image.

No one put your arm up your back and forced you to look at them, and I'm sure some people don't like the OP's photography - but that is fine, because we are allowed to like different things.

I just think that posting links to people's images saying "how crap is this" is all wrong and NOT what this forum is about.
 
Maybe , i love HDR but natural HDR or HDR that makes an image look good. But i really don't understand images that people wack up the processing to the point of looking like it was processed it on drugs.

lol i agree and also find it hard to agree at the same time. I like photoshop but as of yet ive never HDR'd a photo.

Might give it a go but I really do agree about how poeple ramp up the effects on images (although i should point out that i do mostly black and white images i take of people )

Is that the same thing?> i dont know
 
Might give it a go but I really do agree about how poeple ramp up the effects on images (although i should point out that i do mostly black and white images i take of people )

Is that the same thing?> i dont know

It's all processing, some of it's good, some of it's bad.

I think the thing with HDR is that even the stuff which isn't "over the top" still generally looks unnatural and there's very little of it which isn't obviously shopped. It's hugely popular but it's not a look I like.
 
<Link Removed>

So is this what photography is about now? , completely blowing out churches , wacking up the saturation and getting lots of comments?. Seen it far too often on flickr , shots that have massive halo's , ghosting , unaligned images and way over saturated but people love it :cuckoo:

Some of them you get " YOU ARE A STAR PHOTOGRAPHER " and you think , WTF are you mad are we looking at the same image?

about 90% of the stuff on the 1st page of your deviantart is HDR - bit of a hypocrite, no?

I happen to really like your stuff, but then again that's my opinion, and as much as i agree with your post as i share the same views - putting it up in a thread of your own makes you look a bit jealous of the attention other people are getting of their work, be it gaudy or not.
 
about 90% of the stuff on the 1st page of your deviantart is HDR - bit of a hypocrite, no?
.

i love HDR but natural HDR or HDR that makes an image look good. But i really don't understand images that people wack up the processing to the point of looking like it was processed it on drugs.

;)

Funny how people talk about jealousy , yet i remember a good number of competitions outside of tp got critiqued for dodgy judging because of the photo's they picked. Now that's hypocrisy
 
you'll have to be more specific - i have no idea what you're refering to.


my mention of hypocrisy was simply down to the fact that you were slating people for overprocessing photos, when it could be argued that HDR in any form is overprocessing.

as i said, i really like your stuff, i'm just trying to see it from the other side of the fence.
 
You don't have a problem with your HDR, but you do with other peoples... now that's hypocrisy

Agreed.


Maybe , i love HDR but natural HDR or HDR that makes an image look good. But i really don't understand images that people wack up the processing to the point of looking like it was processed it on drugs.

But again, this is all just opinion. Personally? I don't like your HDR images that I've seen, as it just looks like a computer rendering, or a video game, to me. As for looking like it was processed on drugs... no comment. That's not to say that there's anything wrong with your work, it's just my opinion of it is all. But I don't go posting threads about how wrong it is that something I don't like is liked by others.
 
worse things than HDR on flickR TBH but if youwant to bitch about HDR photos here are some of mine to have laugh at. These were done as HDR because the origionals were crap lol

1464317873_cbdcd9171b_o.jpg


1465173960_22f7624b58_o.jpg


1842014569_4928623831_o.jpg
 
I have tried HDR and, personally, absolutely detest this form of processing. The strange thing is, I found I was trying it out on mediocre images that looked like they need a helping hand.

Most HDR is just average photography on drugs.

Dave.
 
I'll be honest, I'm very amateur in terms of photography and I take very amateur shots, but now and then I get one that I like. Since I have had my 40D (not even a week yet) I've been shooting in RAW and I love the possibilities it opens up in post-edit. 95% of the time I will edit my shots in PS since that's what I do to achieve something that I like. I tried HDR, but I didn't like the results I had gotten (I couldn't do it), but there are some shots I adore, like the thread starter's portfolio. I believe everything is due to balance, and part of the fact obviously is that I'm not good enough to get a perfect image straight from the camera. That kind of statement can cause a long, overdrawn and controversial debate so please don't dwell on it.

I upload photos to Flickr and add them to groups and like it when I receive views and comments. Wrong? It's just part of the fun of it all. Taking pictures, getting them on the computer in full resolution and seeing what's wrong/right with them and edit accordingly, and then sharing over the internet. It's a nicely staged hobby that takes time and effort that results in feeling very satisfied. I won't take that feeling away from anyone, since that's what it's all about.

Now and then I'll get a shot or two I have really liked and I'll put them in one of the critique threads on this forum. I get handy advice, praise from others I rate very highly, and some just plain just stop'n'drop quickies. For me, it's the same deal on Flickr, except this is less of an anonymous place.

I think the big deal with over-processing, problems with Flickr/internet photo sharing and less abled photographers receiving credit is exactly the latter - less abled photographers receiving credit. Personally, I think it's good to praise work if you like it. If you don't, you're not obliged. If someone receives more attention than you for a photo you don't like and you consider yourself somewhat of a professional, then what should it matter? Until those images you don't like but other people do for what you sense are the wrong reasons start to sell those photos and change your income, then let people be. It's just a hobby for some, not a career, and not everyone is concerned about perfection and technicality. That's the horror and beauty about art.

At lot of this praise for a "non-photographer's" photo is laregly due to the general population not having expertise knowledge in the field of photography. The general population that gives praise to someone's work generally doesn't have expertise knowledge of it, that's why they like it and you don't, right? Take music - most people listen to Radio 1 instead of Classic FM. Take fiction - most people watch TV instead of reading a book. If you really don't like people being praised for something you think isn't worthy of praise, I suggest two things - ignore it and take solace in the fact that you know what deserves credit and what doesn't (i.e. know that you are better then both the creator and the praiser), or, get down off your high horse.

If people enjoy something, let them enjoy it. In the end, I'm sure everyone of us here smiles a little when they see someone else with a camera, regardless of their work. Remember that.
 
I detest unprocessed photographs... Does that mean I should start a thread?
 
I'll be honest, I'm very amateur in terms of photography and I take very amateur shots, but now and then I get one that I like. Since I have had my 40D (not even a week yet) I've been shooting in RAW and I love the possibilities it opens up in post-edit. 95% of the time I will edit my shots in PS since that's what I do to achieve something that I like. I tried HDR, but I didn't like the results I had gotten (I couldn't do it), but there are some shots I adore, like the thread starter's portfolio. I believe everything is due to balance, and part of the fact obviously is that I'm not good enough to get a perfect image straight from the camera. That kind of statement can cause a long, overdrawn and controversial debate so please don't dwell on it.

I upload photos to Flickr and add them to groups and like it when I receive views and comments. Wrong? It's just part of the fun of it all. Taking pictures, getting them on the computer in full resolution and seeing what's wrong/right with them and edit accordingly, and then sharing over the internet. It's a nicely staged hobby that takes time and effort that results in feeling very satisfied. I won't take that feeling away from anyone, since that's what it's all about.

Now and then I'll get a shot or two I have really liked and I'll put them in one of the critique threads on this forum. I get handy advice, praise from others I rate very highly, and some just plain just stop'n'drop quickies. For me, it's the same deal on Flickr, except this is less of an anonymous place.

I think the big deal with over-processing, problems with Flickr/internet photo sharing and less abled photographers receiving credit is exactly the latter - less abled photographers receiving credit. Personally, I think it's good to praise work if you like it. If you don't, you're not obliged. If someone receives more attention than you for a photo you don't like and you consider yourself somewhat of a professional, then what should it matter? Until those images you don't like but other people do for what you sense are the wrong reasons start to sell those photos and change your income, then let people be. It's just a hobby for some, not a career, and not everyone is concerned about perfection and technicality. That's the horror and beauty about art.

At lot of this praise for a "non-photographer's" photo is laregly due to the general population not having expertise knowledge in the field of photography. The general population that gives praise to someone's work generally doesn't have expertise knowledge of it, that's why they like it and you don't, right? Take music - most people listen to Radio 1 instead of Classic FM. Take fiction - most people watch TV instead of reading a book. If you really don't like people being praised for something you think isn't worthy of praise, I suggest two things - ignore it and take solace in the fact that you know what deserves credit and what doesn't (i.e. know that you are better then both the creator and the praiser), or, get down off your high horse.

If people enjoy something, let them enjoy it. In the end, I'm sure everyone of us here smiles a little when they see someone else with a camera, regardless of their work. Remember that.

Hallelujah - what a great post - buckets of common sense there :clap::clap::clap:
 
Back
Top