Am I the only one who thinks the advertised pictures on the site look awful? Low focal length, high aperture, no artistic look and feel at all. Why would I want such low quality looking pictures?
With such images it seems to be more a device for scientific purposes than for capturing valuable moments of my life I want to frame and hang in my kitchen.
My reaction to the examples was "it seems like they don't actually want me to be able to see what the results look like." The pictures are very badly-taken: weird angles, bizarrely limited depth-of-field so most of it is out of focus, too close to see much of the picture, etc.
Well they're terrible photos. Black and white with sharp contrast and bad angles. Whoever is displaying these likely does not want to you like what you see.
My thoughts exactly on the drab. Photos are full of color and life, and the site doesn't fit that mood. Even the 'you' and 'others' and 'photo album' images shouldn't be just bland icons, show some pictures, it would be much more engaging.
I thought in general the technical execution was quite good, but they tend to be over processed like 90% of all photography on the web.
> 3 - You end-up spending more time on these sites trying to find a decent image than you save money.
This is the real kicker. I found the same with stock icons and vectors. You might get lucky with the free stuff but if you have any needs that aren't completely generic you are better off going to a paid side, spend $20, and save yourself a ton of time.
Pretty much. If these are good photos, they're too good. It looks like stock photography. And this makes the company nondescript without a lot of personality, which seems like the opposite of their aim.
Looking through the testimonials, they all look like stock photos. Probably a lot easier and nicer looking than actual photos of the people, but it doesn't do anything for my "this is a marketing scam" feeling...
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/ 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.
I dunno, to me all photos in article are extremely oversaturated hurting my eyes, can't even see difference. I don't understand motivation of people oversaturating their photos.
Surprisingly frequently, photos of NYC listings are taken at strange angles and are so blurry or small so as to be useless. I thought this site was going to talk about these sorts of listings.
I really don't understand 1) how people take such bad/blurry/small photos or 2) why they choose to use them in listings.
reply