Are there instances where an Overexposed Photo works?

Do you think there are instances where an overexposed photo works, maybe going for a more creative approach? I know some rules are meant to be broken, but are overexposed photos always a big N-O? If possible, can you show me a photo where you think it "works"? Thanks.

Look up some high key portraits

http://img.photobucket​.com …Pam-D_01.jpg?t=1218895248

theres a market for everything. some people love them, some hate them, some people love b&w, some hate it.

teenagers love overprocessed images, overexposed is a plus, and contrast and saturation being overdone is another plus.

everyone has their own opinion on what they like.

i did a picture of an abandoned house that looks like it would be in a scary movie, and did it in b&w, but i overexposed and underexposed it, the sky is blown out from overexposure, the shadows are black from underexposure, and everything else is about mid exposure, my parents love it, i love it, everyone else also loves it.

I use overexposure to hide stuff. If it wasn't for overexposure, you'd see my dirty floor and a cracked beige wall in the back.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Ridebmx wrote in post #6118813
i did a picture of an abandoned house that looks like it would be in a scary movie, and did it in b&w, but i overexposed and underexposed it, the sky is blown out from overexposure, the shadows are black from underexposure, and everything else is about mid exposure, my parents love it, i love it, everyone else also loves it.

Wow that picture sounds great...I'd love to see it if you want to post it.