So, make portraits is cancer?

>>2883315
Portraits of photos of celebrities because you want that sweet, sweet likes/favorites is cancer.

There's a clear distinction between that and just doing portraits.

>>2883319
To add on to this, it's extra cancer when it's not even done in an interesting way but rather focuses on either trying to be a human photocopy machine or trying to put in a lot of trendy superficial things, which at the moment is stuff like blurs and filters.

>>2883358
XD i knoe just the person ... its awesome portraits but like running a fucking sketching filter on ps over their photos, and she can feel the sadness at some level but ..Cancer ... i suggested to her to stop that but whom I to dictate what tedious peeps do for their ocd?

>>2883358
>trendy superficial things, which at the moment is stuff like blurs and filters.
What was trendy before them?

>>2887051
Different types of filters, lens flares, dodge and burn. Chromatic aberration was popular recently but I think it's starting to die out a bit. There's always some superficial stuff that is trendy or some subject matter. Just look at all the shitty Frazetta clones that used to be around when he was still working and how they would pick up on his subject matter or the fact he had colorful abstract backgrounds. For digital stuff you also have had a lot of Mullins clones too. Some are actually quite skilled, but many aren't.