What are your photography pet hates?

[russellsnr]

2nd ten pence worth!
People who ask a question on a forum and get many replies but never come back to say THANK YOU it only takes a few seconds and it's free!!

Sellers who state FREE P&P
for example New camera strap only £12.50 free P&P
Next seller with same strap only £10 + £2.50 P&P
Where would you buy from?

Russ

[Acorn]

I can beat you, Manfred, by about 20 years when I was involved in military photography. A lens was always a lens and never referred to as glass in those days.

[Manfred M]

I can beat you, Manfred, by about 20 years when I was involved in military photography. A lens was always a lens and never referred to as glass in those days.

Might be UK language use. The Canadian ex-military photographer I just finished a course with referred to lenses as "glass". I suspect this may be North American usage. Again, other terms that don't seem to be compatible on both sides of the Atlantic are studio flash. The UK photographers use that term and common North American usage is studio strobes. I suspect the origin of that particular term might be the Honeywell Strobonar flash units that were very popular in North America some 40+ years ago.

http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Strobonar

Language and jargon evolve differently in different places, so I don't get too excited about which one is being the "most correct"; because there is no such thing. What is important is that language is dynamic and can be highly localized, and this goes for things other than photography too. As long as I understand what the person is on about.

Some of the older photographers I know still refer to ISO as "ASA".

[xpatUSA]

Some of the older photographers I know still refer to ISO as "ASA".

Not to mention the peculiar reversal in the ordering, e.g. "100 ASA" vs. "ISO 100", eh?

[William W]

Not to mention the peculiar reversal in the ordering, e.g. "100 ASA" vs. "ISO 100", eh?

21° ( i.e. 21 DIN)

olde schoole

[Manfred M]

21° ( i.e. 21 DIN)

olde schoole

I also vaguely remember Ilford films having BSI film speeds on the label which were also logarithmic like DIN, but with a different numeric value (10 units higher than the DIN equivalent). BSI 31 = DIN 21 = 100 ASA = ISO 100

[rachel]

I agree with many of these, am guilty of a few (and there's an overlap between the two).

My worst fault is wonky horizons, sometimes I think my head mustn't be on straight; it's the reason I first installed editing software and still my most frequent job.

But my pet hate, from yesterday, paragliders. Spoling the scenery with their coloured kites and casting odd looking shadows even when you manage to keep the glider itself out of shot. I'm sure it's an axhilerating feeling but do it somewhere else please!

[Aeros]

One peeve of mine is the iPad owners who stand in front of everyone else holding said device high over their heads, blocking their view and shooting the whole time.

I have no issues with either selective colouring or silky water. Both can (and do) work, but there are too many people around that figure that a mediocre image can be saved by post-processing. There is a lot of mediocre HDR work out there with the "grunge" filter doing the heavy lifting. When you check. many of the images aren't even HDRI, but rather a single tone-mapped image. Almost as bad are the people who dismiss photos that use these techniques, without looking at the artistic merit of having done so.

I'm also peeved by the folks that say they only shoot "existing light". That generally translates into "I don't know how to shoot with flash, so I'll pretend I don't need it to cover up this lack of knowledge". Rule #1 I learned many years ago in the film days was, if the shot is not working for you, "just add light".

However, my biggest peeve is the self-proclaimed anti-photography "police". You know the ones that loudly declare "you can't take a picture of that!" or "do you have the owner's permission?". This sometimes includes, unfortunately, people in authority; police officers, security guards and general passers by who seem to think that anyone taking a picture must be up to something immoral or illegal.

I'm also not a fan of the "purists" who insist that "Straight Out Of the Camera - SOOC) is the only way to shoot and those of us who dare to post-process are somehow cheating and acting immorally.

++++++++++++11111111111111111

[Aeros]

I think I've been able to relate to many of these in the past. I'm kind of at the point that I don't really get bothered by much anymore. Regarding camera snobbery, yeah it's alive and well far too often. I actually teach a lot of photography classes and topics, so I end up working with a lot of different cameras every week. The brand doesn't matter most of the time. Most cameras do just fine.

So my "pet love" (opposite) is more along the lines of working with a student or whomever that has a "lesser" camera (or at least they think that because they've been told that by the snobs), and we do something really fun with it. They get really, really happy when we do things like high-speed capture with a point-and-shoot, or full-on portrait lighting with studio strobes on an entry-level DSLR.

I like this post, it speaks volumes.

[Aeros]

I agree with many of these, am guilty of a few (and there's an overlap between the two).

My worst fault is wonky horizons, sometimes I think my head mustn't be on straight; it's the reason I first installed editing software and still my most frequent job.

But my pet hate, from yesterday, paragliders. Spoling the scenery with their coloured kites and casting odd looking shadows even when you manage to keep the glider itself out of shot. I'm sure it's an axhilerating feeling but do it somewhere else please!

"but do it somewhere else please!" They did but you got in their way

[Aeros]

I have several, so here is a list. Please feel free to add your own.

People who come up when you are taking photo's, and the conversation might go like this?

Do you want me to take a photo of you?
No thank you
Do you know a what's her face (eg)?
NO!
Are you working for a paper
ARRRGH!

Also people who stand in the way after you have set up your tripod in a church etc and try to 'photo bomb' your image.

Show offs with longer lenses who claim Canon and Nikon are the king in camera's and nothing else will do.

Overdone HDR

People asking what you are doing while you are taking photos, or what kit you own or what lens you used or do I know David Bailey etc. I WISH.

Horizons wonky, I stand wonky!

Snobs who are rude just because they own a Hasselblad, or pure gold camera.

Drunks shouting out 'take a picture of me!'

"Also people who stand in the way after you have set up your tripod in a church etc and try to 'photo bomb' your image".

A priest did that to me at a baptismal, I poked him in the butt with my very long lens. Respect cuts two ways.

[Aeros]

Forum posts submitted by well-meaning people who have a good command of the English language, but who can't be bothered to check and/or correct their contributions before posting them. The result can be a reply containing spelling mistakes, typing errors, omitted words, etc., such that sometimes the content serves only to add confusion to the discussion. This sort of carelessness is particularly disrespectful to those for whom English is not their first language.

Cheers.

Philip

+1

[flashback]

My pet peeves;

"Photographers" who think they own a particular piece of real estate - unless you've paid for the privilege (and not an entrance fee) or you're on private property, everyone has as much right to be there (and hold up their eye pads) as you do. Deal with it.
Same with whistling, talking or singing people on a trail, lake, wilderness or anywhere else. They're enjoying the same scenery as you, only differently. Pull out the stick.

"Photographers" who appear to subscribe to the principal; If you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with bullsh*t. Being highly technical only shows you understand the technical concepts, doesn't mean you can put them into practice. (It's very seldom I've run into an architect who can actually build what they drew.)

"Photographers" who every December start to bemoan the fact that come christmas there's going to be a whole lot of new "photographers". EVERYONE started with their first camera, lighten up and pull the stick out, you were once a green newbie too. Maybe you're just too old to remember that.

"Photographers" who spout rules dogmatically and accept no exceptions...unless of course they are the ones making the exception. Photography is a very personal journey, cut people some slack, they may actually be more creative than you are and you simply can't recognize that...yet. Or maybe you do and feel threatened.

There are few things I hate, mostly it's cancer. Been there done that. Likewise I hate injustice, racism, bias and prejudice. I also hate people telling me to believe or think the way they do. I'll accept anyone so long as they are a decent person. Being a photographer doesn't automatically include you in that category.

[Aeros]

I learned a lot from this thread, and promise I will do none of it again!

[FlyingSquirrel]

I don't have the time or energy to get peeved, which explains why I didn't read the thread. Go with the flow, folks.

I was going to comment on the thread and list a bunch of things that tick me off. Then Mr. Buckley makes some intelligent comment (as usual), which gets me to think differently about things. Complaining won't change anything. I'm going to go edit some photos.

[Dave Humphries]

Attributing a quote to the wrong member - it was actually my list!

Ooops, sorry Philip, I have now fixed it

Weird thing is; I recall subconsciously thinking it might not be William's list, so I scrolled back through thread and convinced myself again that it was, and posted - although looking at it now, I have no idea how I drew that conclusion!
I can't even claim it was posted late at night as an excuse

Thanks for the smilies

[KCBrecks]

I have given your question some thought LouiseTopp and as I am a native of the same country as you do understand the term 'pet hate' for what it is, so I can say that I don't have any, but that doesn't mean I don't have strong dislikes. Here goes then -

Close up images of spiders, flies, beetles, caterpillars, snails, slugs and the like as they are one of my phobias.
Images of heavily wrinkled old people, especially as I am now becoming one of them.
Sentimental shots of cute dogs, cats, puppies, kittens and the like, unless they are of our family's Henry and William.
Over saturated HDR images with exaggerated edges and lines.
Fish pictures, as I just don't like the look of them, nor the feel of them, however I do enjoy the taste when they are cooked.

Just like Donald I am not keen on describing the incredible instruments we all use as mere 'glass' when a lens is so much more. (I raise a glass with a measure from Single Cask No 35.108 - A feast of flavours to Donald and his very special B&W images) 'Glass' is so utilitarian to describe such precision equipment, it is like calling a fine car 'wheels'.

At one time I used to decry the use of Image Manipulation tools but now I use them whenever necessary to correct my many mistakes. I still maintain though that their use should stop when their effect is obvious.

I really don't mind people making comments when I am out with a camera, it is usually the opener for some very engaging conversation with some interesting characters.

This is a fine thread LouiseTopp and I have enjoyed reading all of the comments. I would also add that those I have listed above are of course just 'In My Humble Opinion'.

Keith....

[LouiseTopp]

Hi Keith.

Thanks for your reply, I don't mind people chatting to me, I get a bit disheartened when I see people with bigger lenses then me as their shots will be better then mine. Am starting to use monopod.

[James G]

I get a bit disheartened when I see people with bigger lenses then me as their shots will be better then mine.

Louise, ... don't be disheartened...It's true that if, for instance you are into wildlife, a 'bigger' lens may give you more options for what you can realistically capture, but as regards enabling capture of better images because of bigger lenses... That is down to you and your eye, not the kit.

I do not do street photography, probably out of fear, which I disguise with statements like "I just don't' have an eye for it". But I am continually seeing stunning images which are captured using a myriad of different cameras ranging from low cost P&S to hyper expensive Leica types . In every case it's the eye that saw it and clicked the shutter that counts.

Maybe I just need to try doing it a bit more, and with a bit of luck... I'll learn... That's where the fun is.

James

[escoville]

I get a bit disheartened when I see people with bigger lenses then me as their shots will be better then mine.

There's no reason why people with bigger lenses should take better pictures. In the digital age, you can do what the professionals always did -- take vast numbers of pictures and discard the 97% of useless ones. But make sure you do the latter (with care).