Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Flickr & some photographic oddities  (Read 13308 times)

Chairman Bill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3352
    • flickr page
Flickr & some photographic oddities
« on: July 26, 2015, 06:29:15 am »

If you haven't seem this, then go to Flickr, and look at the 'Explore' page. There you'll find several examples of what I can only term a 'photographic oddity'.

There is a brand of Danish toy, known to most kids in the western world, and no doubt beyond - Lego. And Lego is great, unless you're the unfortunate dad, having to construct 1001 different things for your young children (been there, done that, no T-shirt though). But Lego (and the cheaper imitation brands) creations as a subject of serious photography, and then posted on the internet? This does not compute in my brain.

Then there's dolls, of various sorts. Straightforward shots, modelled lighting, dolls in naturalistic settings, all sorts of dolls. Why? Again, this just does not compute.

Yes, I've seen numerous attempts at making sexy/glamourous nude/semi-nude photographs, which fail abysmally because the photographer/model/both haven't a bloody clue, and their failure to see their failure, is in itself an oddity. But that's just bad photography. The Lego & the dolls are often technically beyond reproach. They're just weird. Odd. Or am I missing something?

spidermike

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 535
Re: Flickr & some photographic oddities
« Reply #1 on: July 27, 2015, 03:15:20 am »

If you haven't seem this, then go to Flickr, and look at the 'Explore' page. There you'll find several examples of what I can only term a 'photographic oddity'.

There is a brand of Danish toy, known to most kids in the western world, and no doubt beyond - Lego. And Lego is great, unless you're the unfortunate dad, having to construct 1001 different things for your young children (been there, done that, no T-shirt though). But Lego (and the cheaper imitation brands) creations as a subject of serious photography, and then posted on the internet? This does not compute in my brain.

Then there's dolls, of various sorts. Straightforward shots, modelled lighting, dolls in naturalistic settings, all sorts of dolls. Why? Again, this just does not compute.

Yes, I've seen numerous attempts at making sexy/glamourous nude/semi-nude photographs, which fail abysmally because the photographer/model/both haven't a bloody clue, and their failure to see their failure, is in itself an oddity. But that's just bad photography. The Lego & the dolls are often technically beyond reproach. They're just weird. Odd. Or am I missing something?

It does sound odd but regards the Lego - is it any different to someone putting a group of books together on a desk as a still life?
Now this guy does it excellently - recreating iconic pictures with lego.

http://www.mikestimpson.com/photography/

 
Logged

Chairman Bill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3352
    • flickr page
Re: Flickr & some photographic oddities
« Reply #2 on: July 27, 2015, 04:31:53 am »

Thanks for that. Those are really quite good

SanderKikkert

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 200
    • flickr
Re: Flickr & some photographic oddities
« Reply #3 on: July 27, 2015, 08:20:22 am »

 :) :) thanks indeed, those mike stimpson images are great.

Bill, About flickr/Explore:

Totally agree on the oddness of some of the images which make it to the Explore page, but then again you do know that all that Explore is, is an algorhythm which chooses images from all the daily uploads based on various criteria (interaction of member with site, favorites, views, etc.etc.).  The look of the image itself is not one of those, they are not "seen" by anyone or anything before they get in there.  

Personally I still find it quite unique that a method has been found that without actually looking at any  images comes up with a reasonably "interesting" batch of 500 or so from a population of (hundred)thousands of images or possibly more.  As I do think there are some really nice images in the Explore daily.

I usually find interesting images through following people and checking out things they like or comment upon (and I hope they do the same to/with my images)  but it's slowly falling apart I feel, it is not unusual nowadays to find an image of a cupcake with 1000+ (!) favorites and at the same time brilliant (imo at least) landscape shots with a measly 20 favorites...

I am 'following' you on Flickr by the way, always interested in stuff from Scotland  ;)

Best Regards, Sander
Logged

Chairman Bill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3352
    • flickr page
Re: Flickr & some photographic oddities
« Reply #4 on: July 27, 2015, 11:51:28 am »

Nice to think I'm worth following  :)

I just find some of the things people choose to spend time photographing, to be a little odd. Now there's nothing wrong with odd, where it's an individual quirk or eccentricity - we should cherish such things. But when something becomes 'a thing', I start wondering why. And then when that thing is a regular in Explore, I start wondering & worrying  :)
Pages: [1]   Go Up