good morning, LJ

[lizziebelle]

There's an illuminating article about Flickr in the NY Times this weekend. It seems that post-processing is the key to popularity there. Huh. And I thought it was good photography. *g*

It's about more than that (the article, I mean); it's about the democratization of photography due to the internet, and how the acceptance of what is fine art has been monopolized by an elite few in the past. Interesting stuff.

I don't pretend or aspire to make fine art; I just want to make good pictures that I like, and share them with friends who like them too.

*****

This afternoon is Beltane at the Barn, and I'll see a few of you there! Woo hoo, Beltane!

Comments

[lamentables.livejournal.com]

Interesting article.

The more I've looked at the Flickr 'Explore' thing and the photos they deem interesting, the more troubled I've become. Reading someone on my flist who'd had a lot of submission rejected by iStock, I went and browsed their recent images: I'd take it as a compliment to be rejected by the site. I can see that the fact they are looking for stock photos is going to skew what they're interested in, but my reaction to everything I saw there was that it was high-contrast, over-saturated and soulless. I find that the popular things are Flickr have the same tendencies - it might attract attention in a advert but I wouldn't want it on my wall.

We met a guy on holiday a couple of years ago who was a keen amateur photographer, and we introduced him to the concept of Flickr. He started posting, and I loved his photos. He quickly learned how to use the networking aspects to attract attention and now everything he posts gets many, many comments (often over 100). It could be sour grapes, but I feel myself getting bored with what he's uploading these days because I see it all as processed (if not composed) to tick all those boxes that will get it a high level of views and comments and apart from anything else, that's making it predictable.

This is something I've been wanting to rant about...that article might be the jumping off point. Thanks :)

[lizziebelle.livejournal.com]

I agree with you completely. It's not so much interestingness as it is popularity, and what's popular isn't necessarily what's good. Just look at network TV! *g*

[justjanus.livejournal.com]

That's interesting. I started out boosting the contrast on most every photo I took, because I initially thought it looked better; but I quickly came around to thinking that a photo that needs that kind of manipulation just isn't a very good photo to start with. Now, I adjust the exposure level just a little - usually by less than a full stop - and on rare occasions I may adjust the white balance slightly to better match how I perceived the scene at the time; but I'm happiest with my photos when I don't need to manipulate the image at all.

[lizziebelle.livejournal.com]

I do very basic processing, with the software that came with the camera; usually minor cropping and a little contrast. But I agree, the ones I like best are usually the ones I mess with the least.

Of course, if I had a better camera, I'm sure I'd have to mess with them even less. :)

[lamentables.livejournal.com]

Response to that article which may interest you.

[lizziebelle.livejournal.com]

Interesting, thanks!