The bulk update request #2380 is active.

create implication lens_flare_abuse -> lens_flare

Reason: Subset.

EDIT: The bulk update request #2380 (forum #164211) has been approved by @evazion.

I'm not really a fan of this tag. Abuse is a subjective term and I see a lot of cases where people are confusing normal amounts of bokeh with lens flares and calling it lens flare abuse.

evazion said:

I'm not really a fan of this tag. Abuse is a subjective term and I see a lot of cases where people are confusing normal amounts of bokeh with lens flares and calling it lens flare abuse.

There's not many of those (far fewer than it looks like from the thumbnails), and looking through some posts it seems most of those stem from a single user.

And I don't think "abuse" is subjective in this case - it basically refers to lens flare in places or amounts that wouldn't be possible in an actual picture.

I still don't see why lens_flare_abuse gets to remain as a tag while chromatic_aberration_abuse was turned into a pool. Subjective or not, they're both examples of visual effects being turned up past the point of realism. It's the same concept in both cases, so treating one differently from the other makes zero sense.

iridescent_slime said:

I still don't see why lens_flare_abuse gets to remain as a tag while chromatic_aberration_abuse was turned into a pool. Subjective or not, they're both examples of visual effects being turned up past the point of realism. It's the same concept in both cases, so treating one differently from the other makes zero sense.

Because Chromatic Aberration Abuse is, as the description states, about when chromatic aberration is used to the point that it is "straining and painful on the eyes", which is inherently subjective. The equivalent definition to the one I gave for lens_flare_abuse cannot be applied to chromatic aberration abuse as with a sufficiently bad lens you can get levels of chromatic aberration beyond anything on the site - potentially up to the entire contents of the image being totally obscured by the aberration. The location and quantity of lens flare on an image, on the other hand, is dependent on the location of light sources, and thus it's perfectly possible (and not particularly uncommon) for a drawn image to have lens flare that you can categorically state would not happen in a real photo - post #2865546, post #2515452 and post #735796 are some examples.

Thus chromatic aberration abuse is and can only ever be subjective, whereas lens flare abuse can be entirely objective.

(ed: Better explanation already posted. Not sure why I can't delete.)

The bulk update request #2380 (forum #164211) has been approved by @evazion.

It appears a large proportion of the posts which were tagged lens_flare_abuse but not lens_flare were so tagged because they do not in fact contain lens flare.

/post_versions?commit=Search&search%5Bchanged_tags%5D=lens_flare&search%5Bupdater_name%5D=DanbooruBot

For example:

• post #3680490: far too dark to plausibly be lens flare.
• post #3720810: the only lens flare in this picture consists of the three linear circles at center top. The rest are bokeh and diffraction spikes
• post #3716564: there is a visual trope where multiple, overlapping, bright, translucent circles are used to convey a lovey-dovey or dreamy mood, but I'm not sure what it's called. I'm nearly certain that's what is happening here rather than lens flare.
• post #3679792: I think whoever tagged this lens flare abuse mistook some of the droplets for lens flare. The only lens flare in this image appears at the back of her head, and is pentagonal rather than circular.

Browsing through the other images, the trend I'm seeing is if an image contained large amounts of translucent circles, they got tagged as lens_flare_abuse, regardless of whether the circles were lens flare or not.

Arcana55 said:

• post #3716564: there is a visual trope where multiple, overlapping, bright, translucent circles are used to convey a lovey-dovey or dreamy mood, but I'm not sure what it's called. I'm nearly certain that's what is happening here rather than lens flare.
  

I don't think we have any Danbooru tag for it, but in English these are most commonly called either "shoujo bubbles" or (on TVTropes) "love bubbles."

Couldn't find what the Japanese term is.

Some of them are tagged bubble_background, but that also covers other bubble background effects, not just the love ones

Arcana55 said:

It appears a large proportion of the posts which were tagged lens_flare_abuse but not lens_flare were so tagged because they do not in fact contain lens flare.

/post_versions?commit=Search&search%5Bchanged_tags%5D=lens_flare&search%5Bupdater_name%5D=DanbooruBot

For example:

• post #3680490: far too dark to plausibly be lens flare.
• post #3720810: the only lens flare in this picture consists of the three linear circles at center top. The rest are bokeh and diffraction spikes
• post #3716564: there is a visual trope where multiple, overlapping, bright, translucent circles are used to convey a lovey-dovey or dreamy mood, but I'm not sure what it's called. I'm nearly certain that's what is happening here rather than lens flare.
• post #3679792: I think whoever tagged this lens flare abuse mistook some of the droplets for lens flare. The only lens flare in this image appears at the back of her head, and is pentagonal rather than circular.

Browsing through the other images, the trend I'm seeing is if an image contained large amounts of translucent circles, they got tagged as lens_flare_abuse, regardless of whether the circles were lens flare or not.

This is what I was talking about originally and why I'm not a fan of this tag. In many cases the lens flare abuse tag itself has been abused for things that aren't actually lens flares.

If someone wants to clean this up, feel free to do so.