3 ms·
I wouldn't say that a photo like [0] sucks any less than something like [1] at all. In fact the images listed on http://littlevisuals.co/ http://littlevisuals.
by glenda 13y ago
I wouldn't say that a photo like [0] sucks any less than something like [1] at all. In fact the images listed on http://littlevisuals.co/ http://littlevisuals.co/ are just plain bad imho.
The only difference I see is that the images listed in this article come with 'filters' already applied. I think for most use cases this is actually a negative; I would never consider using an image like that for something serious - it comes off as really cheesy, even more-so than the shutterstock photos. At least with those I am in control of the post-processing.
[0] http://designrope.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/stock-photo-hero-1000x600.jpg http://designrope.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/stock-photo...
[1] http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/637321/104276468/stock-photo-winter-landscape-in-the-matterhorn-104276468.jpg http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/637321/1...
- _dark_matter_ 13y agoI would like to point out that you are assuming the person using these photos is able to post-process in such a way as to make them more presentable for their purpose. For many people this is not the case - they don't actually know how to make the images better. I would argue that for them, these kinds of sites are a great benefit and make their lives much easier (and cheaper). Secondly, using one photo from each is hardly representative of the whole. Many of the simple stock photos that are found can be rather cheesy.
- georgemcbay 13y agoActually (and I am being ultra-critical here, but that's sort of the point of this, right?), [0] sucks a lot more than [1]. On [0] the white balance is all fucked up and the composition is lazy, there are also some annoying (yet easily fixable) technical issues due to the resizing (like the banding in the sky color).