What is Digg?87 Comments
- cyberdork, on 10/12/2007, -5/+106Serious blog spam.
This is the actual link to the flickr pool:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/25_percent_magic_monkey_solution/pool/ - sokz, on 10/12/2007, -13/+49Best in the world? Please..
- TheWorm, on 10/12/2007, -6/+24You can't argue that these are incredible photos. These people have true talent and an eye for the perfect shot. Not to mention a 2000 dollar camera, but that means nothing if you can't take a good picture.
- knightblade2oo4, on 10/12/2007, -13/+32some of these are mediocre at best.
- martin77, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17the term " best " is very subjective.
- jettloe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17Pretty, but calendar art. At worst, anodyne. Says nothing.
- spotty, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18I love flickr
- deltaandroid, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14Too bad photography is too subjective a art, for you to say "The Best Photographers on Flickr". but the pics are quite good, but they wont be everyones cup of tea...
- mwosh, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Photography is all relative anyway. One person might LOVE a photo while the other uses it for toilet paper. While it's clear these guys have talent, to say these guys are the best is extremely shortsighted, as you can see from the reaction of those folks above me.
- grahamhutch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I have to agree with jettloe - the whole invite-only, must be afriend of a friend blah blah leaves me cold. The most enjoyable part of Flickr is the community vibe. IMHO this is not a community thing.
- Buga, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I think "best photographers" should be replaced with "some great photographers". Some would not agree with these images contributing to the "best" photographer when photography is an art seen through a persons eye and they're the judge of what they like.
- championchap, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7isnt art almost entirely subjective?
i mean, there are pleanty of "amazing" anime artists out there, but to be honest.. nothing bores me more than anime art. Besides maybe those vecors with the blacked our foreground and super trippy-bright backgrounds.
Technically speaking these photographs are very impressive, the bird flying through the broken window i liked especially. - exobyte, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11I rarely say this, but I wish I could double-digg parent. Please digg him.
- DalekoProvidek, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9...and how many of them are photoshopped or otherwise enhanced? I'm not sure National Geographic allows for alterations; I know most journalistic enterprises don't.
- mark1372, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Because it's (a) a useless comment, (b) it's written like spam, and (c) obviously one of this blogger's friends spamming the faux love all over the comments.
- mark1372, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Birds and flowers...more like my grandma's favourite photographers.
- grahamhutch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"I'm not sure National Geographic allows for alterations; I know most journalistic enterprises don't."
I think this is impossible to police. A huge proportion of professional photographers shot digitally. Many will use the RAW format which will need processed before submitting to a newsdesk etc. At the very least some brightening/sharpening/saturation work will go on, maybe the removal of some distraction in the shot, changing the crop - where do you draw the line? - rovertly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3crap
- cubejockey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Just curious if there is a link to how these are selected, and if you can nominate people. It sounds kind of like a contest from what I can tell, just curious, not debating the quality of the pics.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Um, there aren't any portraits in here. How can they be the best if they can't take a decent portrait.
- h198x, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Disappointed.
- rasterbator, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3One of the best photographers on Flickr is ojoblanco. He has been published, but is too humble to tell anyone about it. He is a master of reflection photos. Check out ojoblanco on Flickr. You'll thank me for it.
- CZzyzx41, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3You're right because of course any respectable photographer never does any post-processing. Post-processing = cheating = fake = bad.
[/sarcasm] - techobo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Is it bad that I recognized a few of those photos from my stock photography archive at work? Some of them are over 10 years old. I guess either people are being massive posers, or the original photographers are deciding to share their work.
- fatbeaver, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm glad most of digg users have a sense of art. No digg!
- msjacoby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2There are a LOT better photogs on Flickr. You could go through some individual photographers' streams and get a more consitently great set than these.
- jbhalper, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Some of these are really exceptional shots, but some of them are just well-trodden but well-exposed, and many of them are just alright. Few of them tell much of a story, and there's too much HDR in there for me.
It's also a relatively tricky to get put through to that group, relying on invite from people who are already there (and likely got there because they share opinions about what makes a photograph work).
There are some nice shots, but this is nothing groundbreaking. It looks like the kind of groupwhoring that is in my opinion something of a plague to Flickr. - electricpeak, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Each photo must be invited by another member of this group, And have at least been invited to 4 other invite only groups, and one of those invites must be from the QUALITY group or Bravo group.
Before you can post an image here it has to be invited to at least 4 invited groups, and one of those has to be either the The Best of Bravo, or Quality. AND IT MUST BE INVITED BY ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE GROUP!
Link: http://www.flickr.com/groups/magicdonkey/ - theXenon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Amen! Groupwhoring indeed.
- gloom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Is it me, or are these photographs really cheesy?
- ahawks, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3What about the clown?
- ssundberg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1A professional photographer will tell you that, even without Photoshop, they will always do some manipulation of an image in the dark room. Photoshop just makes it much easier to do what was once a time-consuming process. The Ansel Adams-types, i.e. photographers who can reproduce a negative without any darkroom manipulation, are few and far between.
- DjDimitrious, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2more like a "who can photoshop their mediocre compositions with vibrant colors best" collection.
Okay, yeah, some of them weren't that bad, but highly highly subjective. - Falldog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Over all they are pretty good, but a couple are either shopped too much or lame content (like the bench).
- robdazomba, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I don't think that's a real person. He's part of some "delete me" photo group on the site where all the people are fake accounts. I was doing the flickr thing a year ago and I don't think it's a real person. I think his photos are just taken from other sources and stock photos. That's what that group does, sets up fake personalities and makes them look very real and convincing and then causes troulbe on flickr. Funny at first then got boring . If you check that account is a member of the group.
- tagawa, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Hmm, I personally think it's hard to beat the 'Featured Pictures' on Wikimedia:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Featured_pictures
They are all contributed freely, you don't have to belong to a group, they are from all eras of photography, they include just about every category of shot imaginable, the quality of many of them is astounding.
A feast for the eyes. - patc6, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1TheWorm,
Please, now-a-day's anyone is a good/great photographer. There are only two tools a person needs; 1) Digital Camera and 2) Photoshop to be good/great and that is it. Take a look at the image with the guy with Spokes ears and the Earth in the glasses; PHOTOSHOPPED! And thats the worlds best? Once again...Please. - becknell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Been looking for something like this. Outstanding. Thanks.
- mark1372, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Well, there's a few HDR images in there, which should nullify everything. 2006 was the year that HDR became the new hotness and the most overused hack cliché within mere months.
- ipodwheels, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Dudes,
Have you all forgotten the mantra "It's all in the eye of the beholder"? Photography is an art and people have different tastes. So what one sees as great maybe mediocre for another.
And photoshoppers get my votes too. Really cool pictures though some of 'em. And I guess pretty expensive cameras. hehehe.
I guess one concrete example is the Mona Lisa. Who does not know it right. But one time, a friend's teenage kid goes to me and asks ... "what is so great about that? She isn't even pretty." See what I mean? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+299 percent of those photos have been digitally manipulated in post.
Title should read "Best Photoshoppers on Flickr"
no digg - fboosman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Flickr provides statistics on picture viewing. You don't need to break out the slide show into a separate site to do so. Blog spam it is.
- CZzyzx41, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I agree. If you actually look at the flickr sites for these photographers, the photographs included in this set aren't even the best pictures taken by these photographers.
- blinking8s, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2some wonderful images, no doubt about that. But like the debate rolls throughout on the discussion...I bet this list could change 400 times over with the amount of photographic content on flickr. Def not he best 100 out there in this list.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2not bad, but it doesn't worth a digg
- FortEphemera, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@techobo, could you identify which of the photos are in your stock photography archive at work and provide someway for us to verify that? Insinuating that people stole these photos or even claiming they are ten years old is a pretty bold charge, maybe you should back up your bombastic claims?
- theXenon, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5I agree with jettloe and grahamhutch. Some of those photos were very pretty, but they aren't the best photos on flickr by a long shot.
Interestingness is cool, but it's not perfect. The thing I love most about flickr is the community aspect. I would even rather see a slideshow of Highly Competitive (http://www.flickr.com/groups/best100only/) simply because the flickr users themselves choose which photos are "the best" by a democratic open vote to move photos in and out of the pool instead of the exclusivist clique of "be invited but only if you're also invited to blah, blah, blah, insert witty comment and circle-jerk to this ass-kissing name-dropping and we might let you into our Donkey Nuts Group".
Not sure if you noticed, but a lot of the photos are by the same people, and some of the photos are highly post-processed and photoshopped manipulations. There's nothing wrong with that in general, I guess I just expect great photos to be more about the composition in-camera rather than in-photoshop.
The more I write this mini-rant, the more pissed off I get at the temerity of the author to claim these are the best photos on Flickr.
I generally digg anything promoting Flickr, but this time you're getting dugg down for inaccuracy and for ruining my evening read.
PS: You can view my Flickr stream here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/cultkid - mark1372, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Sounds like how Digg articles are best promoted. It's all whomever you "friend," despite pretending otherwise.
- joebrent, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1http://flickr.com/photos/rimbaudian
Not just a magician with the usual tricks of the trade -- look closer, there's some pretty heavy subtext going on in every one of his shots. - Brahma, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4@zack..Seriously great link. I really enjoyed it. As for people who call this spam or think they are better than others; just ignore them.
-
Show 51 - 86 of 86 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is