10 Photography Pet Peeves

-Chris-

http://www.wired.com/rawfile/2009/08/black-hole/

After scientists created an “acoustic black hole” using Bose-Einstein condensates, our good friends over at Underwire pounded out a list of atrocious albums to throw into the sonic sucker.

As photographers — who rely on light — we’re usually terrified of black holes. But we enjoyed Underwire’s black-hole list so much that we and everybody at Wired.com decided to get in on the action. Gadget Lab tossed annoying gear, Autopia banished bad cars, and Wired Science ousted hideous scientific clichés.

Now it’s our turn. Here are our top photography pet peeves that we would like to throw into the abyss.

Trite Flickr Comments

I think you all know what we’re talking about. You attempt to say something thoughtful about your friend’s photographs, but all that comes out is: Nice capture. Dude. Wow. Awesome. Way to go.

The list goes on and on, but some of the more annoying choices include multiple exclamation points, profanity and the overused misspelling of kuhl and sheot.

Say something constructive that starts a discussion, or don’t say anything at all.

High-Dynamic-Range (HDR) Photos

We get it. We liked the first one we saw, too. Maybe even the 10th. But it’s an overused gimmick that prevents people from making good photos that stand on their own. HDR needs to go the way of the animated gif and blinking HTML text.

Shutter Lag

There’s nothing like the feel of the shutter closing instantly when you take a photo with a DSLR. You get the shot that you want and commune with the mechanics of the camera.

While the sensors of point-and-shoots keep increasing the quality of the photos, their actual shooting experience remains poopy. You press the button, and then a few hundred milliseconds later it snaps the picture. This delay is getting smaller with every new generation of camera, but we won’t be happy until it’s gone completely. It’s the difference between playing Wii baseball and actually hitting a ball with a bat.

Watermarks

Unless you’re sneaking behind Apple’s closed doors to photograph their next supersecret prototype and you’re desperate for the credit, watermarks are just tacky. If you’re concerned about people stealing your photos, don’t post them on the internet.

The photography game today rewards openness and exposure. The watermark is either the sign of a newbie who doesn’t know any better or insecure photographers who simultaneously thinks their photos are better than they are and that everyone is out to steal them.

Yes, it sucks when someone steals your photo when they should have paid you for it. Send them an invoice. Don’t ruin your photos for everyone else who wants to enjoy them.

For photo editors looking for potential photographers, the watermark is usually just a sign of someone who will be difficult to work with. Either because they’ve been burned in the past and they’re paranoid, or they just have an inflated idea of the market value of their work.

Wide-Angle Vertical

Seriously. Nobody and almost nothing looks good photographed with a wide-angle lens turned vertically. If you think your picture looks “cool” because you have turned your camera vertically and warped everything … you are wrong. Stop it.

The Megapixel Discussion

“How many megapixels does that camera have?”

We don’t know, and we really don’t care. The real question is: Can you make a picture with it? We hope so. And we care. We care about pictures.

Oversharing

Like we said above. We love photographs. We don’t even mind looking at a picture of your baby, dog, sister, summer vacation, mom, new shoes or latest haircut. We like it when you share your photographs with us on Flickr, Twitter or Facebook.

But come on, nobody wants to look at 45 photographs of your hangnail. Get an editor. Less is more. Truly.

Rock-Concert Strobage

Your flash won’t reach the stage. It will just light up the dude’s head who is standing in front of you – no matter how many times you look at the photo you just took, scratch your head and then raise up the camera to take another one. For people who know better, this becomes all they can see while their favorite band is shredding on stage.

Turn off the flash and try to keep your hand steady. That’s all you can do.

The Arm’s Length Self-Portrait

Yes, it is nice to have a picture of yourself and Aunt Suzy standing in front of the Golden Gate Bridge, but ask someone to shoot it for you. We are tired, oh so tired, of checking out your nostril hair.

Cameras?

We wanted to throw a whole bunch of cameras down the black hole: cameras we have that drive us nuts, cameras we have tested that fall short of expectations, cameras with long shutter lag, cameras that were too heavy or too light, cameras that were too expensive.

We were gonna throw all kinds of cameras down the hole. But, in the end we decided the thing we most wanted to throw down the hole were photographers who were more interested in cameras than photographs. You know who you are, now get in the black hole, and don’t come back. It’s all about the picture.

What's the boards.ie take on this?

Thirdfox

Most of them are pretty correct. Though can't say I agree about the strobage; rear curtain sync and long shutter speed can give wonderful effects. I daresay they mean the people who are flashing from 500 metres away (I always chuckle when I watch a sports match and see the spectators using tiny flashes up in the stands) and not people who are up close and personal.

Fenster

My own personal peeve are people who post snapshots...and then snotty about it.

pixbyjohn

Fenster wrote: »

My own personal peeve are people who post snapshots...and then snotty about it.

What is a snapshot? Can you define it for me please.

DeVore

People who post a million shots of the same scene, just .5 of a second later. Pick one ffs.

People who water mark their stuff come a close second. You arent that good. Honestly.

DeV.

sheesh

pixbyjohn wrote: »

What is a snapshot? Can you define it for me please.

you know it when you see it.

I don't mind trite flickr comments someone liked my pic, good.

HDR I like them when they are done properly and don't look hdr-ey
but yes they are over done and jesus they take so much time!!!

shutter lag: hate it. I wanted you to click 1 second ago not now.

rock concert strobage actually really is one of my pet peeves it really is its one of those things that has no real effect on me but annoys me every time i see it. I try to explain to people around me why it is pointless and they don't understand :mad:

Danbo!

Have to agree with the HDR thing. While a light touch of HDR (MDR?!) may help pull back an overexposed sky or what not, but the really overdone tone mapped pics are quite annoying at this stage.

Strobage, not the worst thing. The advent of mobile phones with camcorder feature is more annoying at gigs. No-one holds up lighters anymore, its just a sea of 2inch screens blocking the view of the stage. (OT, people phoning friends and holding their phones up for them to listen comes a close second for me)

dazftw

Photographers that have 2 of the same bodies so they dont have to change lenses :mad:

melekalikimaka

SWANS

NORTH1

I'm not good enought to have a pet peeve, just delighted to get the odd shot that makes me and others happy.Ohh just seen what mele posted, thats a pet peeve....;-)

Dodgykeeper

My pet peeve is internet geeks who find something they think is interesting on the net, copy and paste it into a forum, create a poll and sit back and get a warm feeling inside when they get loads of replys!

Dodgykeeper

Fenster wrote: »

My own personal peeve are people who post snapshots...and then snotty about it.

Post Snapshots where?

On boards for C&C?

On Flickr/Pix.ie/Facebook

humberklog

Macros for the masses. (And swans).

Dodgykeeper

dazftw wrote: »

Photographers that have 2 of the same bodies so they dont have to change lenses :mad:

If a photographer is working in any fast moving enviroment Sport, Wedding, Reportage it is a huge advantage to have 2 bodies with different focal lengths, have you ever tried changing lenses in the rain in Dalymount Park when Joey Ndo is bombing down the wing and is about to get so close that the 300mm will be of no use!

You sure your :mad: icon should not have had green eyes?? :mad:

Dodgykeeper

humberklog wrote: »

Macros for the masses. (And swans).

I am very sorry but I dont know how to multi quote, what does macro for the masses mean?

humberklog

Dodgykeeper wrote: »

I am very sorry but I dont know how to multi quote, what does macro for the masses mean?

Why not let peole put up their pet peeves first before jumping all over them? You've loads of questions and the answers might start clogging up the opening pages of the thread.

Dodgykeeper

humberklog wrote: »

Why not let peole put up their pet peeves first before jumping all over them? You've loads of questions and the answers might start clogging up the opening pages of the thread.

I have let them put up their pet peeves and then asked them to answer a question re their post, thats how these forums work, now I asked you what Macro for the masses means and you reply with the above??

Fenster

dazftw wrote: »

Photographers that have 2 of the same bodies so they dont have to change lenses :mad:

Hey now, some of us need that utility!

dazftw

Dodgykeeper wrote: »

If a photographer is working in any fast moving enviroment Sport, Wedding, Reportage it is a huge advantage to have 2 bodies with different focal lengths, have you ever tried changing lenses in the rain in Dalymount Park when Joey Ndo is bombing down the wing and is about to get so close that the 300mm will be of no use!

You sure your :mad: icon should not have had green eyes?? :mad:

Fair enough if you NEED to have it I understand but ive seen alot of average joe photographers(who dont make money) with 2 bodies thinking they look pro.. I just cant see the sense behind it.

Hugh_C

I really really really think HDR is the work of Satan. Anyone who says it looks real, get an eyetest, honestly, it's the most contrived load of ol' w*nk known to mankind.

Use film.

charybdis

I dislike it when people routinely misuse photographic terms and proliferate technical misunderstaindings about photography.

Particularly:

• "HDR"
• "bokeh"
• Focal length as it relates to perspective.
• "Crop factor" and the false economy of "extra reach" associated with it.
• Intellectual property and copyright.

I also find watermarks, tasteless "signatures", and "borders" tacky.

PaulieC

so basically lots of things are peeves, unless you can justify it to yourself, in which case, it's ok ? That's my reading of this thread...

AnCatDubh

Dodgykeeper wrote: »

I am very sorry but I dont know how to multi quote

Hit the multi quote button on everything that you want quoted, then hit the normal quote button .

-Chris-

Dodgykeeper wrote: »

My pet peeve is internet geeks who find something they think is interesting on the net, copy and paste it into a forum, create a poll and sit back and get a warm feeling inside when they get loads of replys!

You mean like when someone who's part of an online community sees something elsewhere and thinks "wow, the lads might be interested in that", and then takes the time to post it in a format where it won't get blocked by firewalls etc.?

Yeah I hate that too, losers...

:rolleyes:

DaireQuinlan

Screw them. Image fascists. Blah blah no wide angle verticals yadda yadda yadda. Obviously every landscape has to be taken horizontally (its called landscape for a reason don't you know !) with everything aligned neatly on thirds. Pffff.

Dodgykeeper

-Chris- wrote: »

You mean like when someone who's part of an online community sees something elsewhere and thinks "wow, the lads might be interested in that", and then takes the time to post it in a format where it won't get blocked by firewalls etc.?

Yeah I hate that too, losers...

:rolleyes:

Well you opened a thread asking for peoples pet peeves, I gave you mine!
I dont really see the need for you to post the above!

-Chris-

I appreciate your peeve, but don't appreciate the tone of your post. Maybe I read it wrong.

Anyway, let's not drag this OT.

bloo

Arms length self portraits have to be one of my pet peeves, particularly the myspace/bebo type, extreme anlge, sulky faced ones.

HDR shots i do like. People have been using bracketing for years to to pick up some detail in blown out areas etc but HDR in the modern photoshopped sense, although when used correctly can help give some great results can look terrible when over used and over processed.

CabanSail

It's fine to have a bit of craic, but if comments keep going the way they are & there is sniping going on, then the thread will be closed & some holidays may be handed out.

Enjoy .... but play nice

Tactical

Pet hates:-

a.) One photographer telling another they cannot shoot at the same gig / venue / event etc... Total lack of professional courtesy.

b.) Security guards telling photographers they cannot shoot from "public property" or the "big" attitude when someone inadvertantly is shooting from private property and has no problem apologising and immediately moving on.

Thirdfox

charybdis wrote: »

I dislike it when people routinely misuse photographic terms and proliferate technical misunderstaindings about photography.

Particularly:
[*] "Crop factor" and the false economy of "extra reach" associated with it.

That's not entirely true - while you can crop a full frame to give the same subject magnification as a APS-C sensor the difference is in pixel density.

Effectively APS-C sensors give you greater reach, but have problems associated with greater pixel density (ISO, perspective changes etc).

saltie

melekalikimaka wrote: »

SWANS

Ha brilliant! Made me laugh on a not so good monday so far

stabo

My pet peevs are GAA and football shots and HDR. Love sport but the shots never do anything for me.

Mycroft H

When its done right, HDR can look cool imo but when its over done its really bad :pac:

Wide angles shots on the verticle??

I love them!

why limit your creativity to the horizontal axis???

charybdis

Thirdfox wrote: »

That's not entirely true - while you can crop a full frame to give the same subject magnification as a APS-C sensor the difference is in pixel density.

Effectively APS-C sensors give you greater reach, but have problems associated with greater pixel density (ISO, perspective changes etc).

Exactly, it's a function of pixel density, not sensor size. It has nothing to do with sensor size, which is what I said. All this talk of APS-C is irrelevant and counterproductive.

kumate_champ07

Thirdfox wrote: »

That's not entirely true - while you can crop a full frame to give the same subject magnification as a APS-C sensor the difference is in pixel density.

Effectively APS-C sensors give you greater reach, but have problems associated with greater pixel density (ISO, perspective changes etc).

full frame sensor cameras have much larger viewfinders, if you want the extra 'reach' put some black tape around the viewfinder borders

Brian

Black and white photography for no reason whatsoever

HDR cartoon effect

Borders beyond a thin black pixel outline

TITLING YOUR PHOTOGRAPH LIKE YOU THINK YOU'RE REALLY PROFOUND

democrates

Here's a challenge - see how many pet peeves can be included in one image, most annoying wins.

eas

my peeve is people who post pictures of their kids. :rolleyes:

Black Dog

People who condescendingly suggest improvements to your photographs - "I think you could have cropped tighter on the left" or some such.

Hasn't happened to me here as I haven't posted any photographs here. Here, I browse and enjoy yours - with gratitude and appreciation. Thank you.

Corkfeen

Black Dog wrote: »

People who condescendingly suggest improvements to your photographs - "I think you could have cropped tighter on the left" or some such.

Hasn't happened to me here as I haven't posted any photographs here. Here, I browse and enjoy yours - with gratitude and appreciation. Thank you.

I'd sort of disagree with that. Love getting comments on photos on negative aspects. It can really help you improve your photos in the future.
I'd sort of admit buying into the hdr craze for about a week but i've returned to my previous style, thankfully.

DaireQuinlan

eas wrote: »

my peeve is people who post pictures of their kids. :rolleyes:

Funnily enough , I -used- to think the same way :-)

Carrigman

My pet peeves:

• People who print/upload directly off the memory card - ALL digital images benefit from an image editor tweak
• People who do not use the viewfinder (where fitted) on compacts and use the LCD screen, held at arms length, to compose the image. This practice has become so common that more and more compacts no longer have a viewfinder.
• People who never print images, preferring instead to leave them on their hard drives. Where do you think they'll be in 50 years time? Or 5 years time?
• Over Photoshopped portraits with models' skin looking more like plastic than flesh. "Portrait Professional" software and it's ilk is often to blame
• Photo magazines devoting pages to camera reviews months after we have read better reviews on sites like DPReview. Forget the reviews guys: concentrate on techniques articles.
• Photos of rock groups looking glum (that would be each and every rock group in the last 20+ years). Lets have some smiling happy faces for heaven's sake!

Black Dog

Corkfeen wrote: »

I'd sort of disagree with that. Love getting comments on photos on negative aspects. It can really help you improve your photos in the future.
I'd sort of admit buying into the hdr craze for about a week but i've returned to my previous style, thankfully.

I couldn't disagree with your comment that criticism leads to improvement but what I was talking about was the unwelcome comment/criticism that some people feel they have to make or seem to feel they are entitled to make even when not requested. The photographs of many renowned photographers frequently break the accepted rules of photography and are accepted as innovative/artistic but such lenience is seldom extended to the novice.

Criticism is essential for improvement but an overdose of criticism can be very annoying.

michellemuncher

I'd have to disagree with 'trite flickr comments' peeve. There are so many photos to look at, what with all your contacts, groups and interestingness that any comment is appreciated when it comes your way. There is rarely time to construct an intelligent original comment. There are groups dedicated to people who want detailed constructive criticism on their photos.

My pet peeve is definitely most HDR photos, not because they are unrealistic but just look awful and are usually a cover for a bad photo.

Morrisseeee

Here's a challenge - see how many pet peeves can be included in one image, most annoying wins.

...great idea for the 'next' challenge, (ie. for whoever wins the current challenge that is !)

My pet peeve is the naming convention used in digital cameras, D200, A200, D300, D3000, 300D, 40D, D40, D5000, 1000D etc etc aghhhhh !

melekalikimaka

Red Lights at gigs


and

SWANS

Fenster

I can't complain too much about swans because living in Galway meant I could not help but have a swan phase.

And HDR? I believe that is bad tone-mapping that should be drawing photographers' ire and not the HDR process itself.

humberklog

The BEBO pout.

Brian

Carrigman wrote: »

My pet peeves:

• People who do not use the viewfinder (where fitted) on compacts and use the LCD screen, held at arms length, to compose the image. This practice has become so common that more and more compacts no longer have a viewfinder.

Thanking post for this alone.

Also, Rh.

achtungbarry

Hmm let me see...........

1. Teenagers who think they are profound and artistic because they crap blurred photos of themselves from weird angles and give titles like 'the angst of existence'. That and crap blurred flowers from weird angles with titles like 'fragile beauty of mother earth'. No it's actually just a crap photo of a flower. I have no problem with this per se but when they then post them somewhere asking 'Am I good at photography' and they receive constructive critical replies and proceed to get snotty because everyone didn't just say 'Wow those are great'........ now that bugs me.

2. Linked to no.1. Crappy overly poetic titles on photos particularly crap ones. If the image is good it will speak for itself. Leave the poetry to the poets.

3. People who dismiss techniques like HDR out of hand. I can understand this because there is a lot of crap overdone HDR out there but when it is done well it can look great.