|
|
Post by zx9 on Apr 24, 2024 8:42:23 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by dreampolice on Apr 24, 2024 8:46:24 GMT
I put blur into my Flickr search. Most of the things it brought up were obvious. This one however! Ouch. I thought it was pretty sharp considering (and blur is not a tagged word). Flickr's algorithm has a different opinion.  OMD by Nigel G, on Flickr |
|
|
|
Post by dreampolice on Apr 24, 2024 8:48:03 GMT
Parklife.  Some may question why this isn't blurred either.  decay slide by Nigel G, on Flickr |
|
|
|
Post by kate on Apr 24, 2024 9:14:46 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by dreampolice on Apr 24, 2024 9:16:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by petrochemist on Apr 24, 2024 10:04:38 GMT
I put blur into my Flickr search. Most of the things it brought up were obvious. This one however! Ouch. I thought it was pretty sharp considering (and blur is not a tagged word). Flickr's algorithm has a different opinion. OMD by Nigel G, on Flickr My guess is flickr saw the smoke lit up by the flood lights as blur. It certainly looks sharp enough to me  |
|
|
|
Post by El Sid on Apr 24, 2024 11:55:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by El Sid on Apr 24, 2024 11:58:30 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by peterob on Apr 24, 2024 12:21:50 GMT
Rather than roll out the usual suspects (again) I asked Flickr to pick me some blur from my photos. According to the description I added I was disappointed at the time that this [terrible] picture was all blurred through using too long an exposure [1/1250 s]. I also observed at the time that the picture was useless. Only kept because I have a paucity of linnet photographs.  BV9R3119.jpg by Pete, on Flickr |
|
|
|
Post by kate on Apr 25, 2024 6:48:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by kate on Apr 25, 2024 6:49:30 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by kate on Apr 25, 2024 6:50:59 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by zx9 on Apr 25, 2024 7:54:11 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by petrochemist on Apr 25, 2024 7:54:40 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by zx9 on Apr 25, 2024 7:55:01 GMT
|
|
Some may question why this isn't blurred either.
