Observation: film photos on flickr

[Tim Gray]

As one poster said, it's almost as if people are more attracted to the "pretty colors" of photoshopped images than they are images that are striking in more ways.

That helps. Pictures of girls help too. Or anything that makes a 100x100 image stand out from 30 other ones. Some people get a lot of views because they are in a ton of groups too.

My most viewed photo is a street shot of a guy sitting on the curb with his ass crack hanging out. The most frequent search term for that photo, surprise surprise, is 'ass'. I would imagine that the photo doesn't really show what the searchers want it to, but they still click.

I can't be bothered with a bunch of that stuff, so typically my pictures get few views. Even if they were good

 

[Anon Ymous]

... I've also never liked the insane amount of xprocessing and lofi...seems like it is mostly people experimenting, but hey...if they're trying out film, I'm happy!

You're not alone brother! I once tried to find pictures taken with E100G and there was a huge amount of xprocessed stuff (shot with Holgas), but only a few normal shots. All that catchy stuff... But as you say, if they use film, I can't really complain.

 

[mrred]

Which is exactly why I've said, and still maintain, that you cannot get a decent idea of how ANY film stacks up against another when looking at samples from Flickr or any other photo sharing site. Sure there are good examples there, but you don't run across too many of them.

Absolutlely wrong.

A note on flickr: It's not a gallery where all the greats are hung; it's the cafe down the street where evrything is game. Put it in perspective.


A great photogapher will get a great image out of anything - eggwhites, salt and toilet paper! If you want to see what the film can do, look at what the masses are actually doing with it.


I personally post images that I am working on or just some examples for a technique. Rarely finished works. Any image I show here as an example, is hosted there. If you want to judge them as art, your time not mine.....

 

[fschifano]

You are so completely off base with your comment that it is hardly worth a retort. I said nothing about the quality of the work on Flickr. It's not for me to judge, and honestly, I don't really care. All I am saying is that it is impossible, with any degree of certainty, determine which film was used to make a given photograph, nor to judge the relative merits/demerits, of one type of film against another based on Flickr observations. There are far too many variables involved to do that.

 

[removed account4]

huh? why are you talking elvish?

otnay vishelvay,
iglatinpay ...

don't want istermay ooooglegay
to ickpay upay all my igitalday-sakspay ...

 

[B&Wpositive]

otnay vishelvay,
iglatinpay ...

don't want istermay ooooglegay
to ickpay upay all my igitalday-sakspay ...

It's almost St. Patrick's Day. We'll give you a break this time around.

 

[Prest_400]

You're not alone brother! I once tried to find pictures taken with E100G and there was a huge amount of xprocessed stuff (shot with Holgas), but only a few normal shots. All that catchy stuff... But as you say, if they use film, I can't really complain.

Indeed. But well, they are using film. That's money for the manufacturers, while it's not expired, of course.
It is a bit annoying when you want "Normal" examples of a film. I wanted to see Fuji sensia pictures and in 6 pages; I found less than 10 non X-pro and such stuff.

 

[Tim Gray]

For film examples, the best groups I've found are the "I shoot ____ film". There's one for Kodak, Ilford, and Fuji. Probably others too. Sure, you have to look at a bunch of photos to average out the extremes and get a sense of what they might be like, but it seems to work.

Scanner variability has a lot to do with it too.

 

[accozzaglia]

That's money for the manufacturers, while it's not expired, of course.

It's revenue for the manufacturers, regardless — just revenue realized during the past, that's all. Left-overs from the past — in-date, short-date, or expired — are a consequence of over-producing as much as a dependency upon unfocussed, but traditional distribution methodologies.

 

[polyglot]

lofi and cross-processing seems to be a big thing on flickr due to a bunch of people using lomos, but there are plenty of fairly straight shots if you look carefully. Hell, look me up; I have a bunch of Velvia, Provia, Acros, Pan-F, SFX200, etc posted.

At least flickr doesn't auto-adjust your images - if you're ever foolish enough to post an image to facebook, their software will auto-level your photo and destroy it.

 

[El Gringo]

At least flickr doesn't auto-adjust your images - if you're ever foolish enough to post an image to facebook, their software will auto-level your photo and destroy it.

I tried that once, wondered what the hell was going on. Luckily there are applications like Flickr Tab that get around the problem.

In the past I've tried to use Flickr as a way of scouting out some locations that I know are well photographed. I think that the range of standards found from such searches just go to show that technology is both a blessing and a curse.