Controversial Topic: What irks you about other photographers?

Steve Smith said:
Another irk is photographers who refer to lenses as copies. e.g. "I think I have a bad copy of this lens as it's not very sharp".

They're not copies, they're originals! Example would be a better word.


Steve
Click to expand...

To be very pedantic, an imitation or reproduction is only one of several definitions of the word copy.

Copy can also refer to single specimens of books, engravings, publications, issues, etc. with sample and example noted as appropriate synonyms. One example sentence for this particular definition from Oxford Dictionary even mentions copies of records ('the record has sold more than a million copies'), so I could see an argument for using it for photographic lenses.

That said, I would probably prefer to use the word specimen in such instances.
 
personally i'd say my lens seems to be faulty / soft /whatever... but each to their own
 
skysh4rk said:
One example sentence for this particular definition from Oxford Dictionary even mentions copies of records ('the record has sold more than a million copies'), so I could see an argument for using it for photographic lenses.
Click to expand...

That's a very good point - although records are actually copies of the original master disc, created at the pressing stage.

Another observation I have made is with model engineers who will build a scale model of a locomotive and refer to the original as 'the prototype'.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
Another irk is photographers who refer to lenses as copies. e.g. "I think I have a bad copy of this lens as it's not very sharp".

They're not copies, they're originals! Example would be a better word.


Steve
Click to expand...
What bugs me is when people use this to defend a poor lens. "They're great.... you must just have a bad copy, as MINE'S brilliant". b****x! The lenses are not ground by hand, they're all the same. A very small minority will be FAULTY, yes, but to suggest that there' an infinitely broad range of sharpness available with any given lens is just nonsense. If that were the case, then there'd be no point in actually choosing. Just buy anything, as surely it would be pot luck as to whether you get a "good copy".

Most people will just convince themselves that their gear is either A) Brilliant, or B) a "poor copy" depending on whether they are A) Justifying their purchase, or B) using it to justify buying something else because they feel that good photography needs good gear.

The same people probably refer to lenses as "Glass".... which is a sure sign you're talking to an idiot.

If anyone uses or does the following:

Glass for lens
Tog or Togger for Photographer
obsessed with nebulous b****x like "Bokeh"
Obsessed with resolution when they never actually print
Obsess over sharpness then post up a 1024 pixel image to demonstrate that very sharpness

..walk away... you're talking to an idiot.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
A very small minority will be FAULTY, yes, but to suggest that there' an infinitely broad range of sharpness available with any given lens is just nonsense.
Click to expand...

I agree. There will be some manufacturing tolerances, but every lens I have ever taken apart has factory fitted shims to compensate. Lens manufacturers are not idiots and they know how to make lenses properly.

Pookeyhead said:
Obsessed with resolution when they never actually print.
Click to expand...

That is possibly my biggest 'irk'. There was a thread here a few years ago titled "Who Still Prints?". There were many responses from people who stated that they only ever looked at their pictures on their monitors or uploaded then to websites but a lot of them were people who always had to have the newest, highest resolution cameras.

If you're not printing, 1MP will do!!


Steve.
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith said:
I agree. There will be some manufacturing tolerances, but every lens I have ever taken apart has factory fitted shims to compensate.
Click to expand...

I agree. In order to make it the same as every other lens, yes they may well do just that. Final quality checks assure they won't leave the factory unless they're fit for purpose. What manufacturer would distribute lenses of varying quality? It would be financial suicide. "Bad copy" = b****x and an urban myth perpetuated by amateurs who just won't accept they've bought a crap lens.

Steve Smith said:
That is possibly my biggest 'irk'. There was a thread here a few years ago titled "Who Still Prints?". There were many responses from people who stated that they only ever looked at their pictures on their monitors or uploaded then to websites but a lot of them were people who always had to have the newest, highest resolution cameras.

If you're not printing, 1MP will do!!


Steve.
Click to expand...

Even a 4k screen.. a TRUE 4k screen is only 8MP. The ones you can buy now aren't even proper 4k... they're UHDTV.. 3840 x 2160. Most high end 30" screens are 2560 x 1600.. which is a paltry 4MP. By far the widest used screen res is 1920x1080, and most reading this will have this screen resolution, and that equates to TWO MEGAPIXELS.

If you don't print, you don't need high res gear. Fact. Yes.. before anyone says anything... sometimes you need to crop, but even a 12MP camera will offer you as much cropping as you could possibly need and still have room to spare if you only show your images on screen.

So yeah.... this is high on my "what bugs me list". People who don't print need to spend less on cameras, and more on their damned monitor... but that doesn't make you look like a "pro" does it. :)
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith said:
That is possibly my biggest 'irk'. There was a thread here a few years ago titled "Who Still Prints?". There were many responses from people who stated that they only ever looked at their pictures on their monitors or uploaded then to websites but a lot of them were people who always had to have the newest, highest resolution cameras.

If you're not printing, 1MP will do!!


Steve.
Click to expand...
This.

Most, not all, photos on here never see life outside flickr & most of those at low res, because they're scared their pictures will be stolen :). If that's how your photos are shown stick to a low res camera and save yourself a fortune ;)
 
jakeblu said:
This.

Most, not all, photos on here never see life outside flickr & most of those at low res, because they're scared their pictures will be stolen :). If that's how your photos are shown stick to a low res camera and save yourself a fortune ;)
Click to expand...

There don't seem to be many decent quality low res cameras made these days and there no longer seems to be any correlation between MP and price - Nikon's most expensive DSLR has a resolution only a fraction of some of their consumer DSLR cameras.
 
Pookeyhead said:
I agree. In order to make it the same as every other lens, yes they may well do just that. Final quality checks assure they won't leave the factory unless they're fit for purpose. What manufacturer would distribute lenses of varying quality? It would be financial suicide. "Bad copy" = b****x and an urban myth perpetuated by amateurs who just won't accept they've bought a crap lens.



Even a 4k screen.. a TRUE 4k screen is only 8MP. The ones you can buy now aren't even proper 4k... they're UHDTV.. 3840 x 2160. Most high end 30" screens are 2560 x 1600.. which is a paltry 4MP. By far the widest used screen res is 1920x1080, and most reading this will have this screen resolution, and that equates to TWO MEGAPIXELS.

If you don't print, you don't need high res gear. Fact. Yes.. before anyone says anything... sometimes you need to crop, but even a 12MP camera will offer you as much cropping as you could possibly need and still have room to spare if you only show your images on screen.

So yeah.... this is high on my "what bugs me list". People who don't print need to spend less on cameras, and more on their damned monitor... but that doesn't make you look like a "pro" does it. :)
Click to expand...

Agree with you completely
I do get shots printed mostly to 18 by 12 inches and have quite a few on the walls
I do view most things on a screen tho
I guess what you are saying is that most people dont need cameras like the D800
One question tho is there any point in most people like myself getting a full frame camera if they only veiw on a screen or print to 18 by 12 inches?
I use a 7D and mainly do wildlife 18MP is perfect for me i hope canon dont go for a silly high resolution in the 7D mk 2
 
i dont think high resolution is necessarily the main selling feature of a full frame sensor - to me its the convenience that the lenses from a film slr will work without a crop factor and also much better low light performance - also wide angle primes for full frame are much cheaper than the equivalent on crop
 
boliston said:
i dont think high resolution is necessarily the main selling feature of a full frame sensor - to me its the convenience that the lenses from a film slr will work without a crop factor and also much better low light performance - also wide angle primes for full frame are much cheaper than the equivalent on crop
Click to expand...

in fact there aren't ANY wide angle nikon primes for crop! (apart from the fisheye...)
 
LCPete said:
One question tho is there any point in most people like myself getting a full frame camera if they only veiw on a screen or print to 18 by 12 inches?
Click to expand...

If someone only views on screen or doesn't print bigger than 18x12 then I'd say no, they don't need full frame at all. The only quality of full frame that is independent of print size is really the ability to get shallower apparent depth of field with really fast lenses, but it's not really a big deal.

Rapscallion said:
in fact there aren't ANY wide angle nikon primes for crop! (apart from the fisheye...)
Click to expand...


There are zooms though. The 10-24 springs to mind. Do you really need primes? Again, if you don't really need full frame due to not really printing, then it stands to reason you don't really need primes either. The Nikkor 14mm f2.8ED is a terrible lens anyway.

There's the Sigma 8-16mm. a much better choice.


Anyway.. going off topic now. This thread is about venting your spleen about stupid people. If you want all this, that's what the equipment forum is for :)
 
Last edited:
Mobile phone photographers.
 
PMN said:
Forgive my ignorance but what on Earth is a "platitude"?
Click to expand...

"A remark or statement, especially one with a moral content, that has been used too often to be interesting or thoughtful"

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/platitude

So for example "nice shot" or "number x for me" and prehaps also "it's crap" though that latter one I don't see too often and probably wouldn't qualify as a platitude however for the purpose of this thread I'm referring to pretty much any comment on a photo that doesn't qualify/justify why it's been made...in other words if you like/don't like a photo expand in that and say why, maybe if your comfortable or know how offer ways to improve if needed...
 
PMN said:
I see, I should probably have guessed that from the Facebook comment...
Click to expand...

No worries, though it did feel odd me providing a definition like that as I'm usually the one looking up what a word means :eek: my English teachers at school hated me, though not as much as my French teachers did :p
 
I hate photographers who run presets they bought from the web that turn their pics into that horible muted contrast muted colour look and then claim themselves "vintage" or "alternative"
 
photographers who treat lenses like penis extenstions... the "look at the size of my lens" who look down there nose at your standard kit lens yet still cant a decent shot for toffee. These same people normally have more money than sense and think buying the biggest and best camera and lens is going to make them a better photographer.
 
People who think that picking up a camera - any camera - automatically makes them a photographer. It doesn't.
That's like me changing the wheel / oil / battery on the car and calling myself a mechanic, or doodling quick directions for someone and then calling myself a cartographer.
 
What also bugs me is when people ignore the smileys signalling the intended spirit of your message (WINK SMILEY TO INDICATE WRY, TONGUE IN CHEEK, CHEEKY-CHAPPY JAPERY)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top