|
timp posted:Okay I’ll admit, this one doesn’t seem so bad...in fact I kinda like. But to be fair, I’m not a pro photographer. I’m not even an amateur photographer! What’s so bad about this one? Is it just the cranked up HDR? Caveat: subjective opinion follows. It is sepia as all gently caress which makes it hard to determine any of the actual colours in the scene. Compositionally, half of the image is a staircase / alley which adds nothing. Is the subject of the photo the shop? If so why? There is nothing remarkable about it at all. The big black lampost poking into the top right looks stupid. Is that lens flare at the bottom? Dirty lens? Looks crap either way. Contrast slider is aaaaaaaaaaaaall the way up. And it's so. loving. Yellow. Also watermark. I challenge anyone to find an actually good, well composed, exposed and edited image on flickr that has been watermarkerd by the photographer. Content:  The Little Man by valjfal, on FlickrAm I having a stroke? Nigel Tufnel fucked around with this message at 18:20 on May 20, 2020 |
#
?
May 20, 2020 18:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 19:12 |
|
|
One Top Tip To Getting Amazing Bokeh For Free The Pros Don't Want You To Know!!
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2020 18:26
|
|
|
Another way to figure out why a photo is bad is to think about what you could do in the scene to make it better. Like moving to the right a bunch to get the storefront more in view might have worked, there's a clear subject there with lots of detail to shoot so maybe there's a good photo there. Or they could have moved to the left and angled the camera up the street, assuming there's anything interesting up the road. Or an abstract look with the staircase and the corner pillar might be worth a play. But as shot it's a hot mess trying to distract from the flaws with color grading. No clear subject and poo poo distractions everywhere.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2020 18:31
|
|
|
Nigel Tufnel posted:I challenge anyone to find an actually good, well composed, exposed and edited image on flickr that has been watermarkerd by the photographer. (That photographer's main gallery page includes a man's balls but not cock, so whether it's SFW depends on where ones employer draws the line.)
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2020 18:45
|
|
|
Nigel Tufnel posted:
Terrible photo, but I want to go there and take pictures at that location, because one of the reasons I hate this is I think good opportunity is there.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2020 23:40
|
|
|
Unbelievably perfect.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 01:59
|
|
|
someone get cindy a forums account right fuckin now
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 14:18
|
|
|
It's me. I'm Cindy. Hi.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 14:30
|
|
|
Got any more treasures on that old computer Cindy? I love your vision!
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 14:34
|
|
|
Follow me on Flickr to find out!
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 16:24
|
|
|
WOW! wonderful creation, Cindy!!! great colors!! Dry Season DUC #897 by Cindy Mc, on Flickr Almost 2 images uploaded every day for 14 years and this lady has not improved a single goddamn bit. And apparently is having the time of her life doing it.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 17:01
|
|
|
Her About page is something wonderful, it's like a blend of Geocities and Myspace with a huge gear list added to the bottom. The dead image hitcounter links just add to it.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 17:11
|
|
|
Cindy Mc, welcome to the palace of Those Who Own I will brook no insult of this wonderful artist
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 17:38
|
|
|
Ever end up following someone on flickr follows you (along with like 100,000 people whose work then cannot honestly ever actually view cos who could look at 100,000 people's photos) who shoots your style of photography but just not quite as good yet has 5000 views per pic and 400 likes, and because the subject is based on the season it's like here's your well shot highly detailed version of a similar shot with 12 likes and you see theirs with 456 likes and 20 comments like "amazing details" "astonishing" and you want to reply with if you like that have a look a this, but you know that's not how it works. I'm only a little bitter
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 18:06
|
|
|
Well it's social media, even though Flickr is the web 1.0 version of it. Instagram is the same: You have to aggressively whore yourself out to get those views and likes. So if you have any shred of decency and only post and star the poo poo you like you're never gonna get bonkers view counts.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 18:22
|
|
|
The comments on that image are peak Boomer Facebook.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 19:44
|
|
|
Maybe not explicitly bad photography but holy gently caress https://twitter.com/Tyler_Macin17/status/1264717951757737984 
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 19:26
|
|
|
holy poo poo
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 19:28
|
|
|
Click through and look at the replies, it gets """better""" from what I can glean: the owner of the company made a website "exposing the smear campaign against the innocent videography company he hired" with the header image being what I can only imagine is an image of the poor dude that is either edited or just poorly shot to make him look deranged The owner also posted on the official facebook page a post about how on May 20th one of their employees took their own life, when in reality that person either passed away in 2018, has no connection to the company, or just plain doesn't exist The owner also apparently has been arrested for business fraud before. Because it's all internet drama I dunno how much of that is true, but if you hosed up so hard that any of those allegations can be tossed around about your business you should probably just..... stop It's...... impressive.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 19:32
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jessejohnclark/status/1264984824340594688?s=21 Replies are basically ‘yes, it absolutely is you, you utter psycho’.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 20:46
|
|
|
Jesse John Francis Clark, his name is my name too.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 21:23
|
|
|
I fully support businesses torching their brand because it makes for a fun read, but with a history of fraud we all know this guy is just going to shut it down, fire up a new LLC, and go right back to business. So let's fire him into the sun.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 22:38
|
|
|
President Beep posted:Jesse John Francis Clark, his name is my name too.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 23:12
|
|
|
People with two first names are automatically definitely insane but this guy has 4 so
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 04:07
|
|
|
When tepid photographer spam posts into every subreddit he can find, not realizing he included one to mock bad photos. https://www.reddit.com/r/shittyHDR/comments/gspbad/portrait_with_sebastien/ (Didn't pick up on it until I saw the comment).
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 20:53
|
|
|
Bet he was quivering with excitement when he got his post bot set up, convinced the path to building his brand was one or two upvotes at a time. Hope it was a free one.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 21:23
|
|
|
xzzy posted:WOW! wonderful creation, Cindy!!! great colors!! The shareware nonviolent Christian ripoff of Twisted Metal for PS1.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2020 16:09
|
|
|
If you want me to buy your photo retouching tools, maybe don't use a photo that looks like rear end in your marketing for them?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 11:24
|
|
|
Mmmm... The K-Rock chromatic shock...
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 12:36
|
|
|
gently caress yeah gonna toss a bunch of plastic in a river to get the worst waterfall shots ever taken. https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/amp/tutorials/photo-ideas-waterfalls-with-light-trails-shoot-a-landscape-with-a-twist
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2020 10:28
|
|
|
xzzy posted:gently caress yeah gonna toss a bunch of plastic in a river to get the worst waterfall shots ever taken. now i'm angry, nature doesn't need anything added to be more beautiful. I DM'd their Instagram jarlywarly fucked around with this message at 11:25 on Jun 20, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2020 11:11
|
|
|
the photos are awful but they did claim to have taken the glowsticks with them
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2020 13:04
|
|
|
Wafflecopper posted:the photos are awful but they did claim to have taken the glowsticks with them I'd be more concerned about anyone that emulates them not cleaning up. It's a real irresponsible technique to promote.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2020 14:24
|
|
|
xzzy posted:I'd be more concerned about anyone that emulates them not cleaning up. It's a real irresponsible technique to promote. Yeah that's my concern. I just think it's inappropriate, there's no guarantee that you'll be able to catch all the glow sticks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2020 14:51
|
|
|
Looks like they already took that link down? Because it goes to a different article now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2020 09:24
|
|
|
The video they built the article on is still up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdRfI3jPRuI Suspicious amount of hate in the past day for a three year old video! edit - oh lol they set it unlisted though. xzzy fucked around with this message at 14:46 on Jun 21, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2020 14:44
|
|
|
xzzy posted:The video they built the article on is still up: can't get to it now through link either
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2020 12:40
|
|
|
This photo was on the Flickr explore tab for ... reasons??? Good job its watermarked or I would had this printed and hung above my bed. 516 views, 108 faves, 42 comments. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2020 14:57
|
|
|
Explore got a lot better recently (in some ways, it's still broken in others), but disasters like that manage to sneak in sometimes and it's hilarious. Some dude's auto mode snapshot smushed between a couple nice abstract urban scenes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2020 15:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 19:12 |
|
|
Algorithms are always going to be based on traffic and attention not quality. There are some popular accounts that produce some really horrific stuff. The worst of flickr definitely still the guys taking street creep shots though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2020 15:36
|
|