Controversial Topic: What irks you about other photographers?

so much.


people who think you need the latest and greatest gear to take photos of any merit
like the 5d3 is the only tool in the world for moving action
or the d800e is the only tool in the world for any photos of anything what-so-ever

as if awards have never been won, and tears have never been shed, and magical moments ever captured on anything other than the top 10 sensors and lenses on DXO mark, forgetting that real human beings when selecting images for the album always pick the images based on content- skipping over sharp but passé images, in favor of blurred but powerful


the fact that people buy 2k cameras and 1.5k lenses, but wouldn't spend 200 to learn how to use them...





I like ken rockwell actually, as he reviews things based on what they're like to use, no other reviewer in the world talks about what it's like to hold/use something, that ergonomics are important, and sharpness is overrated

in fact that's another thing who cares about distortion and CA, it's a one click fix in lightroom!
and sharpness can be added in post
a clunky annoying camera/lens is stuck like that forever (i'm looking at you tamron 24-70VC...)
 
mrjames said:
so much.


people who think you need the latest and greatest gear to take photos of any merit
like the 5d3 is the only tool in the world for moving action
or the d800e is the only tool in the world for any photos of anything what-so-ever

as if awards have never been won, and tears have never been shed, and magical moments ever captured on anything other than the top 10 sensors and lenses on DXO mark, forgetting that real human beings when selecting images for the album always pick the images based on content- skipping over sharp but passé images, in favor of blurred but powerful


the fact that people buy 2k cameras and 1.5k lenses, but wouldn't spend 200 to learn how to use them...





I like ken rockwell actually, as he reviews things based on what they're like to use, no other reviewer in the world talks about what it's like to hold/use something, that ergonomics are important, and sharpness is overrated

in fact that's another thing who cares about distortion and CA, it's a one click fix in lightroom!
and sharpness can be added in post
a clunky annoying camera/lens is stuck like that forever (i'm looking at you tamron 24-70VC...)
Click to expand...

Never really bother me what gear people buy or if they can use it,i kind figure out the more people who buy cameras keeps the prices down,allowing me to be able to afford to buy a camera. :)
 
thesilverfox said:
A

I still like it to guide me - as I'm sure others do.
Click to expand...

Won't be of much help with studio shots though. I could take a studio flash shot at 1/30th @ f8, 1/60th @ f8, 1/125th @ f8 and 1/250th @ f8 and they'd all be utterly identical. How would the EXIF help you? Unless you already know what you're doing, EXIF can actually mislead as much as it can lead.


When I was learning... I used books.... and practice.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Won't be of much help with studio shots though. I could take a studio flash shot at 1/30th @ f8, 1/60th @ f8, 1/125th @ f8 and 1/250th @ f8 and they'd all be utterly identical. How would the EXIF help you? Unless you already know what you're doing, EXIF can actually mislead as much as it can lead.


When I was learning... I used books.... and practice.
Click to expand...
...but I'm not interested in studio shots. Easy!
 
People who go on forums and can't use the Queens English like wot I dos.

Dyslexia rules!!! Ko
 
thesilverfox said:
Part of me thinks some do leave it out to hide things
Click to expand...

Absolutely it's to hide things, I don't want my clients questioning why my shutter counts aren't always continuous or why I used the settings I did. Nowt to do with other photographers
 
thesilverfox said:
Seems most people not showing it are professional. I don't have clients but still want to learn.
Click to expand...
2 reasons, 1, pro's have good reasons to want to hide things from customers or for customers.

2, Pros genuinely don't believe you can learn anything from exif data alone. It's not the what that's important, it's the why, and if you want to know the why just ask!

You will learn infinitely more studying light and composition than you will studying settings.

Or to put it bluntly, my cameras have all the same settings that Guy Colliers have, are his pictures so much better than mine because of his use of apertures or shutter speeds? I've said it before on the same subject, the settings are rarely significant facts.
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
2 reasons, 1, pro's have good reasons to want to hide things from customers or for customers.

2, Pros genuinely don't believe you can learn anything from exif data alone. It's not the what that's important, it's the why, and if you want to know the why just ask!

You will learn infinitely more studying light and composition than you will studying settings.

Or to put it bluntly, my cameras have all the same settings that Guy Colliers have, are his pictures so much better than mine because of his use of apertures or shutter speeds? I've said it before on the same subject, the settings are rarely significant facts.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree, settings along will tell someone learning photography very little other than what worked or didn't work on that occasion, that said settings being visible can be very useful when someone is asking for advice/guidance in critique as it can and has helped myself when trying to identify a problem...but on the points of professionals to customer relationship I can completely understand to reasons...

I've recently been active in a long exposure group on Facebook and in just a few days I've seen it posted a couple of times, what settings should I use for a long exposure :( it's quite literally an impossible question to answer, so in this case someone learning will have no use for the data
 
You can usually get a ballpark idea of the kinds of settings used just by looking carefully at the photo anyway. Assuming no comp.

But the settings depend on the available light, anyway, so knowing them doesn't necessarily help you replicate a photo's exposure even at a basic level.
 
MWHCVT said:
I've recently been active in a long exposure group on Facebook and in just a few days I've seen it posted a couple of times, what settings should I use for a long exposure :( it's quite literally an impossible question to answer, so in this case someone learning will have no use for the data
Click to expand...

ANother point is... with long exposures, settings alone will mean nothing if they've used ND filters. You'd also need to know what filter... how many stops ND it is etc. That's not in the metadata.
 
It's not all settings though. It's the lens and body combo too. That's useful to me too.

But I don't want to labour the point of my irrational irk - let alone rationalise my opinion to the point it loses all meaning ;)
 
True... time to move on :)
 
Gaz J said:
Togs who think that their kit glass is better then my L glass. :)
Click to expand...


Photographers who think it matters that much :)


...lenses that is... not "tog". Tog does matter.... Tog sounds ****ing stupid... twee, and a bit camp to be honest. Whoever started that particular trend wants keel hauling, then feeding to the sharks.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
Photographers who think it matters that much :)


...lenses that is... not "tog". Tog does matter.... Tog sounds ****ing stupid... twee, and a bit camp to be honest. Whoever started that particular trend wants keel hauling, then feeding to the sharks.
Click to expand...

Not an irk directly about other photographers but "tog" has to be the single most irritating word ever, gets right on my wick!

The extended 'togger' version is equally irritating.
 
Well, if we're on language...

I'm irked by "tog" and "togger", and by referring to a lens as "glass". If we're going to describe something by what is probably its main material component, how long before someone says "I put glass (a lens) on my plastic (camera) to shoot a water (person)?
 
StephenM said:
Well, if we're on language...

I'm irked by "tog" and "togger", and by referring to a lens as "glass". If we're going to describe something by what is probably its main material component, how long before someone says "I put glass (a lens) on my plastic (camera) to shoot a water (person)?
Click to expand...
Yes, tog and glass are horrid.
Sounds like some middle-aged duffers trying to contrive some sort of hip slang to convince themselves and others that their hobby is cool.
 
Late to this but on the subject of "Phot", it is acksherly, a word.

It is the sound that results from pushing your finger through the foil seal on a jar of coffee.

(Douglas Adams & John Lloyd, The Meaning of Liff).
 
chromatin64 said:
Late to this but on the subject of "Phot", it is acksherly, a word.

It is the sound that results from pushing your finger through the foil seal on a jar of coffee.

(Douglas Adams & John Lloyd, The Meaning of Liff).
Click to expand...

Which is, itself, one of the most enjoyable "trivial" experiences life has to offer! Linking this thread to the "Simple pleasures" thread...
 
to be fair tog is actually a word too - its a measure of thermal isulation , as in duvets, sleeping bags etc etc
 
What irks me is seeing wedding photos that the happy couple have paid lots of money for that are not very good. I've seen portraits of people amputated at the joints, wonky horizons, blown out highlights, really awful 'artistic' shots and (probably controversial this one) ugly features in otherwise good shots that could so easily have been cloned out, e.g. road cones, telephone wires, someone's elbow and litter. And why can't many do properly posed, group shots anymore as well as documentary shots... could it be because they don't know how to pose people?

I'm not claiming to be able to, I would be an awful wedding photographer, but those who do it should do it well.

Do I tell my friends, who know nothing of photography, that their wedding photos are not that great? Probably not.
 
People, who've bought a DSLR + expensive lenses and are 'ok' taking pics that their friends and family think are amazing, but they then set up their own photography business and a Facebook page advertising their business and constantly keep sending me requests to 'LIKE' their page!! Not only that, they then go and 'like'/'share' every single post on their business page so it then shows up on their personal Facebook feed which clutters my news feed.......aaaaaaaaaa.....

Before anyone acuses me of being jealous, I'm not - I know that I can take some decent images (which friends and family think are amazing and ask me to do weddings etc.), but I know my limits and that there are people who have trained to be pro photographers and spend their entire lives improving their skills. Owning an expensive DSLR and a few lenses/kit does not make someone a professional photographer - people may disagree with me, but it's really annoying when those people force you to 'like' their page which means they are basically asking you to endorse their 'work'.
 
simon ess said:
So, err, block 'em - or whatever it is you do on facebook.

Or am I missing something?
Click to expand...

Yes you are.....you can hide people's feeds from your timeline (which I have), but you then miss all feeds from them completely. I can't really 'de-friend' them on Facebook, because, the person in question is a good friend of the wife's and we see her quite often and it will be rather awkward if, when we next meet, she asks why.
 
Agree about 'tog', 'togger' and 'glass'.

The jokey rubbishing of others choice of camera manufacuter. I say 'jokey' because I hope it is intended as a joke; it may have been funny the first time it was used, but not now.

The need some folks have, when posting photos, to warn or apologise for using HDR software. Why do this?
If this particular PP is done well (IMO), then it won't be noticeable, if it is done badly then we can all see it, we don't need to be alerted to it even before we have opened the thread. HDR is just one of a number of PP techniques. No one would think of telling others they had used Lightroom.

Dave
 
Tringa said:
Agree about 'tog', 'togger' and 'glass'.
Click to expand...
Or using the word 'awesome' to describe something mildly exciting (a very American debasement of language).

Tringa said:
The need some folks have, when posting photos, to warn or apologise for using HDR software. Why do this?
Click to expand...
Out of consideration for the delicate feelings of the rest of us.

Tringa said:
No one would think of telling others they had used Lightroom.
Click to expand...
Oh yes they would! They would tell you EXACTLY everything they used ...
 
Back to the OP's question. Before cameras existed there wasn't a problem in this regard. Then some time after Fox Talbot, everybody had a Box Brownie (were they really called that?), and inept snaps were common and forgiveable - they populated family albums up and down the land. Well you know how it went from there on - with increasing affluence in the industrialised countries there was a proliferation of picture-taking that finally exploded with the invention and adoption of digital cameras in compact form and in phones. It's all around us - you can't get away from bloody images!

But, as it's ever been since the mass availablity of photographic apparatus, there are strata of both intent and competence. The happy snapper, through to the aspirational creative or pro, and finally the real achievers in whatever realm. I think that what the OP's query was about, referred mainly to that middle group?

Some of my pet hates have already been expressed by others in this thread. There's the 10-stopper seascape or whatever (excruciatingly fashionable this year!); the use of that sentimental diminutive word, t*g (I just can't bring myself to say it); photos with piers or jetties in (I may've mentioned that already somewhere); any photo that has an aeroplane or car in it however skillfully executed (well you won't be voting green, then, but it's not that, it's more your objectification and seeming worship of the material world - don't get so hooked, it's transient, have you heard of geological time?); photos (perhaps especially of scenery?) that are direct copies of an image the photographer has previously seen (I have a memory of my dad in this connection); the endless rabbitting on about equipment (have you heard of lens rage?); photos of Corfe Castle, Bamburgh Castle (or any bloody castle); oversharpened pictures of stationary ducks .....

We are all learning. It's an open curve. Battle on, but stand back, sometimes, and take stock. Mortality is a gift.
 
droj said:
any photo that has an aeroplane or car in it however skillfully executed (well you won't be voting green, then, but it's not that, it's more your objectification and seeming worship of the material world - don't get so hooked, it's transient, have you heard of geological time?)
Click to expand...

Someone takes a photo of a car or plane and you automatically assume they worship material things?

You really do talk some utter rubbish.
 
droj said:
any photo that has an aeroplane or car in it however skillfully executed (well you won't be voting green, then, but it's not that, it's more your objectification and seeming worship of the material world - don't get so hooked, it's transient, have you heard of geological time?);
Click to expand...

PMN said:
Someone takes a photo of a car or plane and you automatically assume they worship material things?
Click to expand...

Praise be the Morris 1100.:D

morris.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top