Photos Added to first post
- First and third photo are ok for what they try to be, their problem isn't with the color adjustment, but rather the over sharpening (goddamit, you don't crank sharpness and clarity to 100)
- Second phot, this one is actually ok, Except that the focus plane appears to be in the wrong place. their faces are out of focus, probably a victim of "Hey I got a cool nifty fifty, Let's use it at 1,4 or 1,8 (whatever is the largest aperture the particular model does) cause we absolutely need the extreme values to get good DOF... NO, use 2.8 so you can actually get you target, and the WHOLE object in your focus plane. not their feet.
- Fourth, firth and sixth. THESE however ARE victims of filters. or rather over done post editing as you can accomplish all this in Lr without filters. I can accept amateurs with phones using lomo and 50's,60's,70's camera filters to get a "cool" look to their pictures, I won't respect it, and I'll tell them it's ugly, and that I'm sure their parents wish they had better cameras to take their baby pictures with, and that it's stupid to ruin their family pictures by pretending to live in the past. But for peopel who actually pretend to be amateur+ photographers to do these, that's just idiotic.
if you're going to adjust the photos at least do something creative with color toning to two toning or exposures contrast and such. But don't try to imitate crap old cameras, there's nothing creative about it.
Also judging form the quality on them, I'd say the last three actually appear to be taken with cell phone cameras and adjusted with filter programs on those. though the last two appear to have an overdose of noise removal and clarity -100 in Lightroom, but I'm sure that's part of the effect package in whatever filter app they used.
The one chick who takes photos for the first photography place, recently had her DSLR Nikon camera stolen out of her car. She then wanted to replace it as soon as possible to start taking pictures again, so she sends me a link asking me if "This was a good camera to buy" it was pretty much a point in shoot, non DSLR. I told her... uh... that isn't the same as what you had.
The second person I linked to, I chatted with about a year ago talking about photography. I asked her what camera she uses .....she had to go look ....
Well, you don't need a DSLR to take good pictures, for most people a non DSLR would in fact be a better camera to buy. they can take better pictures, faster and without changing lenses. The popularity for everyone thinking they need DSLR or mirrorless today is just stupid.
Also, it's not the tool, but the guy using it. There was a sport photographer recently, during the olympics I think, who took all the photos with an iPhone.