MicrostockGroup

Maybe that is so, or at least from a different generation.  My teenage son doesn't give a flying fxxx if the photo is of high quality as long as it looks cooooool.

It's an "art" thing. There is a cult that that loves the "krappy camera" look. It's been around a long time. There has even been an annual international contest appropriately called the Krappy Camera Contest and Exhibition, somewhat prestigious, for the most "artistic" image taken by a toy, plastic, sub-par, cheap camera (film) that has been run by the Soho Photo Gallery in New York since 1992 (I was a past winner). They state, " We will be searching for extraordinary photographs produced with cameras with lousy lenses." They accept primarily photos taken with a Holga or Diana which are toy plastic cameras with plastic lenses, a Fuji Instax or Ansco, Kodak Brownie or perhaps a pinhole camera. Some digital camera images are allowed if they are modified with a sub-par lens. It's all about the lens. It's a segment of photography that has a lot of followers and today new photographers want the same results quickly without film, which is frankly hard to find and to get processed. Darkrooms are not as accessible these days. Google holga to start and you will get a lot of interesting info. Here are the winners of the last contest - http://www.sohophoto.com/kk13_winners_gallery/index.html

      The point of an image for commercial use is to get someone to look at it. When all the images are uniformly "perfect", with no mystery or abstraction, anything that is "wrong" will stand out. Which means it will accomplish it's purpose. Back in the 90's, the reaction to perfect models in perfect backgrounds was to use regular looking people in tacky settings with flash on camera lighting. The images broke out of the clutter. The same with selective focus instead of front to back sharpness. When i was in school ( long ago! ), the rage was to process ektachrome in c41 chemicals along with dektol. The images were remarkable. They made you look. The good news for microstock is that this will always be a niche, and by the time it becomes mainstream, even the reviewers will think it looks "correct". Just look at all the teenage "executives" with a 3 day growth of beard images around now.

I am with leaf-I must be getting old. OMG -I am old!
Smiling Jack

Even worse!  using the highest-res cams, best optics, etc and then some people here will down-size! mind you thats the noobs and crettins.

Sometimes its nice to have some fun and not have to spend time fiddling with filters in photoshop.  Most people don't own photoshop and a lot probably just take photos and upload them straight from the camera.  They would probably laugh at us spending time recreating the effects they can achieve in camera.

I thought some of those photos were rather interesting just on composition alone regardless of the quality of the lens.