I shot an image on my way home tonight with HDR in mind just to make a point: http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=439339281&size=o
This photo has a dynamic range that I’m just not able to get otherwise with my digital camera. Most importantly, the effect is intentionally subtle. To my eye, it’s exactly what I saw when I took the photo.

As to the purpose of Flickr, I think sites like Flickr and You Tube etc have large enough user populations to embrace many many subcultural niches within them. But if you sit and watch “Everyone’s Photos” go by for a few minutes, you can see that most people are using it for vacation photos, casual party photos, family photos etc. The “art” photos are a minority and the “fine art” flavored amongst those a minority still. For any of us to expect a steady stream of gallery-ready work to float by seems unrealistic and undervalues the skill, attention and purposefulness required to make a great photo.

Granted, the feedback and encouragement is mostly like from other amateurs, and I’m routinely disappointed by which photos of mine the flickr masses decide to make popular, but to discount the whole site as snapshots just doesn’t sit right with me.

And while most HDR photos are hideous and tacky, I’ve found the dynamic range of digital to be lacking at times, and tasteful use of HDR can come in quite handy. It’s much the same thing Ansel Adams used to do with expansion and contraction while developing negatives, but with digital tools.

People like it because it’s visually pleasing, right? The saturated supernatural colors are so dramatic - it looks like a movie in a still picture in some ways.

Do I want it on my wall? Highly unlikely. But a lot of people love it and it’s an avenue by which they’ve become super excited about photography. I think that’s kind of cool.

I sure didn’t write a post singing Flickr’s praises, and although I could, I imagine that my reasons for thinking it’s great are different than your average Flickr user’s.

Flickr has loads of the macros and sunsets and the like, and some people are way into it. As I said initially, it’s not my thing, and there’s far less of the work you and I are generally interested in to be found there.

My own tastes definitely have their conventions and I think they are probably quite apparent, considering how much new work I show within in a single year.

One of the reasons that I have a panel for Hey, Hot Shot! is because it keeps me from getting stuck in my own rut - panelists often notice work that I might’ve blown right by.

It’s a good thing to have that input, because I’ve found that it broadens my horizons. Conversations like this one do too, so thanks for contributing.

Sometimes it’s hard to recognize our own “tastes” have conventions that slide into cliche just as easily as any other. Consider your link to Eliot’s cliche post the other day.